Just curious…I’ve been reading reports of women throwing themselves at the feet of soldiers weeping with thanks. Soldiers are surrendering saying that Saddam is evil…
So, what if the citizens all turn out to say thanks? Were we still in the wrong according to the antiwar folks? Or in this case, does the end justify the means once approval of those most affected is given?
-Tcat
Well, southern Iraq is populated by Shi’ite muslims who are well known to hate Hussein. The area of the Faw penninula is populated by “marsh arabs” who hate Hussein even more than the average Shi’ite muslim. So the reaction isn’t too surprising.
Nonetheless, the picture on the cover of the NY Times this morning is pretty powerful.
Most “anti-war folks” I’ve talked to don’t seem to understand what the brutality of Saddam and his boys suggest. Some aren’t even aware of the extent of Saddam’s brutality. The Saddam psychology and the actual past deeds of Saddam scream that this man must not be allowed nuclear weapons.
As a consequence, we should allow the Iraqis speak for the Iraqis — rather than all those who think they have a real grasp of what Saddam is presently and what he will be about left to his own devices.
I’m very happy for them to be liberated, I just would have preferred for it to be done by a full UN Force with a second resolution.
That said, I’m happy for them.
But since there was no second resolution, would you prefer that they not be liberated or that they be liberated under current circumstances? That’s the nub of the question.
Sua
Tigers2B1 – Amen.
TwistofFate – I agree. Too bad the UN debating society was unable to get off its collective butt and do so.
There will probably be a deafening silence from the antiwar folks when they see the results. Just like you did not hear very many apologies afterward from the “peace” advocates when the Taliban was driven out of Afghan leadership.
Excuse me folks, minor nitpick…not a second resolution, but the 18th…
-Tcat
**
Pointing at the sky?!? :eek: Just what does it say about “Ameriki” in those leaflets they’ve been dropping?
I think you may have a point there as it is easy to criticize sitting 3000+ miles away without really ever knowing what life is like under a dictator.
I agree. And I’m presently trying to find sites that don’t have a vested interest in communicating to the western world what a great job we’ve done. Perhaps Al Jazeera will have something.
Don’t lick the purple leaflets.
Of course it is still wrong. If we find 50 bunkers filled with nerve gas, anthrax, and nuclear weapons it’s still wrong. If we find Bin Ladin living in Sadam’s palace it’s still wrong. If every Iraqi throws herself/hisself to the ground and thanks us, it’s still wrong.
Can’t you see, EVERYTHING George W. Bush does is wrong. Our only hope is that he will admit that he stole the election and turn power over to the more intelligent, better informed, and more compassionate anti-war faction.
I just hope it isn’t too late…
No, actually it’s not about George W Bush at all. Invading- on likely occupying- a sovereign country that has not attacked you and does not pose a direct threat to you without the lawful support of an International governing body is wrong.
Perhaps you should also look for sites that don’t have a vested interest in claiming that the US is evil? Just a suggestion.
Not that I think it’s likely you’ll find a site or cite that isn’t slanted one way or the other.
thanks Demise…that was my point.
The humanitarian / liberation rationale, sound though it is in the short term (what follows after the war has always been the big issue), was marketed to us fairly late in the game. Really, there have been so many reasons and objectives offered up to us by Bush that it will be possible to point at anything that happens, rummage through the file cards for an objective that matches, and claim to have achieved it.
Now, the Shiites in the south - how different will they be, a year from now, from the Kuwaitis who were initially liberated in 1991, or the Saudis who had their oil fields protected, and now want us out? Won’t they feel much stronger kinship with Shiite Iran (still in the Axis), and become a problem?
This immediate feel-good stuff won’t mean a thing if it isn’t the basis for a long-term reconstruction of our relations in the area. I hope it does, but I have no confidence in Bush’s genuine commitment to that (stated at the very end of the game, as an afterthought), so I don’t expect it to happen.
I disagree. You can’t tell what the people really think from the reaction of some of them. For one thing, the ones who are going to tell the Americans that they are great are the only ones that are going to be demonstrative about there opinions. The other guys are going to be quiet about it. And even the guys that are talking might be just telling the Americans what they want to hear.
Bottom line is that if you have just invaded a country with an overwhelming military force, you are going to get a certain number of people to proclaim how happy they are that you came, regardless of what the actual sentiments of the populace as a whole are.
I don’t believe the majority of the Iraqi population are happy that the Americans are invading. Hopefully, if things work out, they eventually will be.
A large number of this “Anti-War folks” faction you paint with this wide brush Tigers2B1 are happy to see Saddam go. The part that is bothersome is Dubya’s inept handling of the whole affair. It will be taught in Diplomacy 101 classes on how exactly NOT to do things.
To be disgusted with an inept president’s handling of something as serious as war is NOT the same as being on the side of a despot. To dismiss the many agruments for Diplomacy and inspection to run at least a short course before going banging the drums of war as pro-Saddam is ignorant.
I’ll be happy to see Saddam gone. I would have been happier if it would have happened in a capable manner. If you have not forgotten, terrorists have taken aim at the United States. Terrorists that are now angry at us for attacking Iraq, but have never been more than teniously linked to Iraq. We’ve managed to piss off half the planet at a time when we could use their help. An opportunity to wipe out terrorism has been pissed away in a boner for war.
The whole matter has been bungled, but I’ll be glad to see Saddam go. I just hope the Unites States is able to continue have the cooperation needed to track down those responsible for 9/11.
]"Most “anti-war folks” I’ve talked to don’t seem to understand what the brutality of Saddam and his boys suggest. Some aren’t even aware of the extent of Saddam’s brutality.
"
Really? Then you must be talking to some fairly clueless “anti-war folks.” Since you are obviously pro-war I wonder where you meet the folks you know (do you crash anti-war pot lucks just to get a gist for the chatter there?).
You’ll have to pardon me if I’m a little skeptical towards this kind of anecdotal information. One sometimes gets the sense from posts such as yours that pro-war posters expect others to believe that they spend their time conducting in-depth interviews with anti-war protesters. Articles in The Nation, a mainstream liberal publication, have been very clear in pointing to the potential humanitarian benefit of regime change (of the right kind) for Iraqis of various stripes. The editorial page of Times, a centrist newspaper that has, by and large, supported the potential use of force, while regretting the Bush administration’s diplomatic blunders and unnecessary foreclosure of strategic alliances, has also discussed this potential. So I think it’s safe to conclude that your selective knowledge of “anti-war folks” is misleading. Rest assured, we know all about Saddam’s brutality–and more.
As to the OP: Iraqi “thanks” would be very nice but 1) the appearance of such thanks can be easily manufactured and 2) such thanks will be short-lived if meaningful improvements to Iraqi quality of life do not follow.
IMO it was not necessary to rush prematurely into war; Iraqi lives would have been improved more effectively–and with less damage to the credibility of the US, and with less exacerbation of terrorist threats to the US–had Bush been less focused on an immediate war, and more focused on building alliances and raising world support for the cause of disarmament and eventual regime change.
There are brutal dictatorships in many parts of the world. The US is complict in propping some of them up. Its record in support human rights is spotty. US hypocrisy on this issue is, therefore, transparent to most people throughout the world. Average Iraqis that I’ve heard interviewed in the press and on the radio seem fairly skeptical about what is to come. It will be a while before we know whether the US’s supposed determination to stabilize Iraq in a way that improves Iraq quality of life will pan out; or whether the alleged commitment to nation-building will be superficial and inadequate–possibly even disastrous. Crucial to any nation-building effort will be rebuilding the bridges with European allies that were so unncessarily damaged by the war itself.
No, not necessarily. Iraqi and Iranian Shi’ites have been rivals for a while, and most Iraqi Shi’ites would prefer their own state independent from, and equal to, the Iranian state. Moreover, Iraqi Shi’ites are mostly Arabs while Iranian Shi’ites are rival Persians - another source of cultural competition. It would be like saying that since the Syrians and the Turks are both mostly Sunni Muslims, the Syrians feel a strong kinship with the Turks. We both know that isn’t the case.
That leaves out the fact that most Iraqis are fairly secular compared to many other Middle Eastern countries and would probably not feel very comfortable under the hold of a theocracy.
Don’t believe everything you hear in the press, specially during war time, anybody saw the movie “Wag the Dog”??
I’m not saying that these reports are false, I just don’t believe in them blindly or that they are the whole picture, it is unlikely that the press will report instances where US troops where not well met.
After god knows how many years of indoctrination the Iraqi people have had, I’m not too sure US marines will be so well met once they get near Baghdad.