• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

People Need to Look at the Big Pic. in Iraq

Z.D.

New member
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I am getting sick of hearing the Bush administration keep telling us how well we are doing in Iraq. In my opinion, even if we are helping Iraq and make the country a democracy, it will all be for nothing. Let me explain.

So lets just say for a minute that the Iraqis love us and everything is going smoothly in Iraq. If this happens, which i doubt, it will be for nothing because in the end, it is not what Iraq thinks of us, but what the Middle East thinks of us as a whole. I say this because in the end going to Iraq has created more terrorists even if we are helping the country. Maybe the terrorists are not coming out of Iraq but who really cares what country they are coming out of? Everyone has to admit, most all other M.E. countries hate us even more since going into Iraq, to the point where it could be very very dangerous. Even more dangerous then before the war.

And one more thing. If Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy in the M.E., does anyone think that it will really cause, Iran, Syria, etc. to become democracies? And once we pull out, surely Iraq will crumble even further next to power hungry Iran. Iraq will be in ruins and Iran will take advantage of it and probably put in some radical Islamist puppet. Basically, we have ruined Iraq's future as well as a future with relative peace between the Middle East and the U.S.

Good job Bush.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Z.D. said:
I am getting sick of hearing the Bush administration keep telling us how well we are doing in Iraq. In my opinion, even if we are helping Iraq and make the country a democracy, it will all be for nothing. Let me explain.

So lets just say for a minute that the Iraqis love us and everything is going smoothly in Iraq. If this happens, which i doubt, it will be for nothing because in the end, it is not what Iraq thinks of us, but what the Middle East thinks of us as a whole. I say this because in the end going to Iraq has created more terrorists even if we are helping the country. Maybe the terrorists are not coming out of Iraq but who really cares what country they are coming out of? Everyone has to admit, most all other M.E. countries hate us even more since going into Iraq, to the point where it could be very very dangerous. Even more dangerous then before the war.

And one more thing. If Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy in the M.E., does anyone think that it will really cause, Iran, Syria, etc. to become democracies? And once we pull out, surely Iraq will crumble even further next to power hungry Iran. Iraq will be in ruins and Iran will take advantage of it and probably put in some radical Islamist puppet. Basically, we have ruined Iraq's future as well as a future with relative peace between the Middle East and the U.S.

Good job Bush.
There can be no peace with the middle east until they can become democratic, same with marxist led regimes around the world, dictatorships etc. We need to continue to fight, frustrate any countries, terrorists that threaten our freedoms, and help countries like Iraq with the hope that they can become democratic, and influence their middle east neighbors. Yeah, the middle east might hate us, but hating america is nothing new from pantshi**ng governments, terrorists. It's a double edged sword trying to lead the world and protect freedom. We can't afford to sit idle?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
There can be no peace with the middle east until they can become democratic, same with marxist led regimes around the world, dictatorships etc. We need to continue to fight, frustrate any countries, terrorists that threaten our freedoms, and help countries like Iraq with the hope that they can become democratic, and influence their middle east neighbors. Yeah, the middle east might hate us, but hating america is nothing new from pantshi**ng governments, terrorists. It's a double edged sword trying to lead the world and protect freedom. We can't afford to sit idle?
Democratic my ass. The sooner we do this, the less like a democracy its going to be. Besides, the people over there want a constitution based on the Koran and not our way of democracy so your already screwed if your tryin to get them to think like you.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
FinnMacCool said:
Democratic my ass. The sooner we do this, the less like a democracy its going to be. Besides, the people over there want a constitution based on the Koran and not our way of democracy so your already screwed if your tryin to get them to think like you.
Well with that negative view of human potential to change, then you are correct, let's go home and let a radical Koran government develop a WMD destined for our shores, etc. etc.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well with that negative view of human potential to change, then you are correct, let's go home and let a radical Koran government develop a WMD destined for our shores, etc. etc.
Maybe they don't want to change? There are people who were happy america invaded Iraq but still want a constitution based on the Koran.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's one thing to stipulate that the US made many tactical mistakes vis-a-vis the Iraq War, but it's quite another thing to argue that the big-picture strategical motives are disingenuous and that Iraq's destiny is inviolate and immutable.


 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
FinnMacCool said:
Maybe they don't want to change? There are people who were happy america invaded Iraq but still want a constitution based on the Koran.
Hopefuly they can be self-governing without a dictator like saddam and without radical islam, regardless of what constitution. It remains to be seen.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Tashah said:
It's one thing to stipulate that the US made many tactical mistakes vis-a-vis the Iraq War, but it's quite another thing to argue that the big-picture strategical motives are disingenuous and that Iraq's destiny is inviolate and immutable.


True, there are no easy solutions since 911, and no perfect strategy.
 

imprtnrd

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
270
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The real pic in Iraq is that when the US and others leave it will be another Vietnam! The insurgents will take over. They will be back to like they were.
There was no need to even go there in the first place. We were hunting BinLaden and he is still on the run! How do you answer to that????
 

Crispy

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
332
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Z.D. said:
I am getting sick of hearing the Bush administration keep telling us how well we are doing in Iraq. In my opinion, even if we are helping Iraq and make the country a democracy, it will all be for nothing. Let me explain.

So lets just say for a minute that the Iraqis love us and everything is going smoothly in Iraq. If this happens, which i doubt, it will be for nothing because in the end, it is not what Iraq thinks of us, but what the Middle East thinks of us as a whole. I say this because in the end going to Iraq has created more terrorists even if we are helping the country. Maybe the terrorists are not coming out of Iraq but who really cares what country they are coming out of? Everyone has to admit, most all other M.E. countries hate us even more since going into Iraq, to the point where it could be very very dangerous. Even more dangerous then before the war.

And one more thing. If Iraq becomes a beacon of democracy in the M.E., does anyone think that it will really cause, Iran, Syria, etc. to become democracies? And once we pull out, surely Iraq will crumble even further next to power hungry Iran. Iraq will be in ruins and Iran will take advantage of it and probably put in some radical Islamist puppet. Basically, we have ruined Iraq's future as well as a future with relative peace between the Middle East and the U.S.

Good job Bush.
The idea here is to build the democratic, economic, social and Military institutions in Iraq to enable it to govern itself.

You might be right that going into Iraq has "created more terrorists" but, Islamic Fundamentalism and extermism were both there and across the region for decades now, being taught in schools and mosques. The fact that some Fundamentalists have now followed the call to perform terrorists acts in Iraq does not change this fact.

Bush paints a picture of Iraq that he needs to paint. You can believe him or not. Either way, to defeat terrorism countries such as Iraq must rebuild their government and private institutions in order to provide a means by which they can educate, inform, and accomodate their citizens such that terrorism becomes an obsolete method of affecting change in theirs and other countries.

Based on the Milestones that have been met including successful public elections with a great turnout, draft constitution, Iraqi Military and Civilian security forces taking on leadership roles in security operations and other measures, of non-military nature, such as USAID initiatives to introduce modern democratic, economic and social institutions, revive agricultural industries and educate Iraq citizens who are volunteering to take leadership roles in these initiatives, I would say they are indeed making progress towards a successful democratic country.

I'll fault policy makers for not pointing out these things along side the hardships but, it doesn't seem as though anybody cares to look at some sort of progress over the body count.

We really need to stop attacking our government for an un-popular policy decision in going into Iraq and start looking at how nations really do become prosperous, contributing allies in the world community and help Iraq to be that. As such countries emerge from the turmoil of a region that has been plagued by despotic, militant, self serving governments leaving their people to accepting terrorism and other forms of coercion as the only way to affect change, I beleive we will see a decline in terrorism and a renewed sense of hope throughout the Middle east.

I think you don't give the people of the Middle East enough credit where when they are given the opportunity to move forward they will take that opportunity.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
It's one thing to stipulate that the US made many tactical mistakes vis-a-vis the Iraq War, but it's quite another thing to argue that the big-picture strategical motives are disingenuous and that Iraq's destiny is inviolate and immutable.


Yes it quite another thing to suggest that the US has acted disingenuously. And that suggestion would largely be true. The US has not been upfront with
its own citizens or the world with the interests it has gone to Iraq to secure and maintain. Every reason we were given for why we went over there has proven to be false. What is not disingenuous about that? It would be foolish and irresponsible at this point, with so many people in Iraq dying every day, to stick to the worn-out rhetoric this administration has been spoonfeeding America since the run-up to this war. Foolish and irresponsible.

Iraq's destiny may not yet be written in stone, yes I believe that most Iraqis want to live in a democratic country, but let's be realistic - the composition of "we the people" in Iraq is vastly different than most Americans were expecting to get out of this excursion into the middle east. Come to think of it, the destiny of the middle east is extremely mutable. There is no way of knowing what is going to come of it. That I don't think anyone expected. And why?

I am a liberal. I am anti-war. I do not like the Bush administration. But before all of that, I am a realist and I see what is happening in Iraq with an open mind. I don't sit around blaming Bush and co. for all that is wrong with the world. Although, I will admit, I used to. Now that the fervor from the election has died down and I watch what is going on in Iraq, I think the simple truth is we are just in way over our heads. Just like with Katrina, we assumed that there was nothing we couldn't handle - that as long as America was on the scene, everything could be brought under control. Assumptions like that are just begging to be swept aside like a house of cards by nature - whether that of the meteorological sort or of the nature of mankind.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
imprtnrd said:
The real pic in Iraq is that when the US and others leave it will be another Vietnam! The insurgents will take over. They will be back to like they were.
There was no need to even go there in the first place. We were hunting BinLaden and he is still on the run! How do you answer to that????
I don't think it will be like Vietnam, I don't think the insurgents have the backing like the communists in Vietnam, and most of the people in Iraq want a peaceful country after experiencing saddam's regime. As to if we needed to go there in the first place? well I think we needed to do something after 911, assuming wmds were there. Planes crashing into buildings was devastating, but nothing compared to a wmd.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
mixedmedia said:
Yes it quite another thing to suggest that the US has acted disingenuously. And that suggestion would largely be true. The US has not been upfront with
its own citizens or the world with the interests it has gone to Iraq to secure and maintain. Every reason we were given for why we went over there has proven to be false. What is not disingenuous about that? It would be foolish and irresponsible at this point, with so many people in Iraq dying every day, to stick to the worn-out rhetoric this administration has been spoonfeeding America since the run-up to this war. Foolish and irresponsible.

Iraq's destiny may not yet be written in stone, yes I believe that most Iraqis want to live in a democratic country, but let's be realistic - the composition of "we the people" in Iraq is vastly different than most Americans were expecting to get out of this excursion into the middle east. Come to think of it, the destiny of the middle east is extremely mutable. There is no way of knowing what is going to come of it. That I don't think anyone expected. And why?

I am a liberal. I am anti-war. I do not like the Bush administration. But before all of that, I am a realist and I see what is happening in Iraq with an open mind. I don't sit around blaming Bush and co. for all that is wrong with the world. Although, I will admit, I used to. Now that the fervor from the election has died down and I watch what is going on in Iraq, I think the simple truth is we are just in way over our heads. Just like with Katrina, we assumed that there was nothing we couldn't handle - that as long as America was on the scene, everything could be brought under control. Assumptions like that are just begging to be swept aside like a house of cards by nature - whether that of the meteorological sort or of the nature of mankind.
I don't believe our government is assuming that they have all of the answers and can handle everything, however I think they are sincerely making an effort to fight terrorism just like 60+ years ago when we fought and defeated fascism. To say that we are in over our heads, fine maybe we are. I think we were in every conflict but we found a way to succeed.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I wish people would stop comparing the Iraq war with World War II. World War II had a clear enemy but this war is very different. The enemy is not so easy to place. It's not only the masked guy with the machine gun but also the kid down the street that you threw candy at. This war is completely different from WWII

And politically it is even more different especially with the fact that everyone was fully behind the president and his decesion to go to war with Japan while, quite obviously, this isn't the case here. In fact, the country is now more divided then I think it has ever been.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,835
Reaction score
8,130
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Seemed like a good place to put this:
"One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. "
Indidentally, Khaleej Times has taken to running some Kissinger pieces. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing.
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
realist said:
There can be no peace with the middle east until they can become democratic
cut the crap will ya ... when saddam was in power Iraq was peaceful
Actually Iraq was paradise compared to now ... no bombings , no invaders , no Abu Gharib and no upcoming civil war .... maybe they didn't had the write to vote but at least everyone was happy at the end of the day ... The bottom line is that U.S , under the illusions of protecting itself from nonexistant mass destruction weapons wreaked havok and maybe even made the people responsible for 9\11 even stronger ( Assuming Al Qaeda is responsible for 9\11 )



hey realist , I have a suggestion for ya ... Why dont u apply for the job of the official spokesman of the white house , I heared it's vacant :cool:
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
realist said:
I don't believe our government is assuming that they have all of the answers and can handle everything, however I think they are sincerely making an effort to fight terrorism just like 60+ years ago when we fought and defeated fascism. To say that we are in over our heads, fine maybe we are. I think we were in every conflict but we found a way to succeed.
You may sincerely think we are fighting terrorism, but you would be sincerely wrong. Fighting terrorism is an excuse to carry out a plan in the middle east that has been cooking for 40 some odd years now. What the Bush administration (but I don't reserve these comments for them exclusively) has banked on and largely been able to collect on is that Americans don't know what our interests actually are in the world. They can tell us whatever they want about why we go to war, but they will never reveal the real reasons to the American public. Americans don't want to think that we ever go to war to secure our own interests. But the truth is it almost always about money. Even our own civil war was essentially about money. But how are you going to get citizens to go fight, to convince parents to give away the lives of their children, for a cause as ignoble as the pursuit of economic or strategical dominance over less powerful nations? Thus we get these myths that we swallow up gratefully so we can avoid awareness of the truth, find comfort in our moral superiority on this earth and still feel comfortable filling our lives with meaningless crap. The plan depends on this level of comfort.

I know the term neo-conservative gets bandied around alot these days, but many Americans don't know what the term actually means. Many mistake them for the religious right. They are two quite different groups actually. Here's a good primer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
mustafa said:
cut the crap will ya ... when saddam was in power Iraq was peaceful
Actually Iraq was paradise compared to now ... no bombings , no invaders , no Abu Gharib and no upcoming civil war .... maybe they didn't had the write to vote but at least everyone was happy at the end of the day ... The bottom line is that U.S , under the illusions of protecting itself from nonexistant mass destruction weapons wreaked havok and maybe even made the people responsible for 9\11 even stronger ( Assuming Al Qaeda is responsible for 9\11 )

Now we know is my view, better to know that there were no wmd's, than to sit and wait. Better to fight the Japenese expansion 60+ years ago, than to let them rape and murder in Malaysia right?
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
mixedmedia said:
You may sincerely think we are fighting terrorism, but you would be sincerely wrong. Fighting terrorism is an excuse to carry out a plan in the middle east that has been cooking for 40 some odd years now. What the Bush administration (but I don't reserve these comments for them exclusively) has banked on and largely been able to collect on is that Americans don't know what our interests actually are in the world. They can tell us whatever they want about why we go to war, but they will never reveal the real reasons to the American public. Americans don't want to think that we ever go to war to secure our own interests. But the truth is it almost always about money. Even our own civil war was essentially about money. But how are you going to get citizens to go fight, to convince parents to give away the lives of their children, for a cause as ignoble as the pursuit of economic or strategical dominance over less powerful nations? Thus we get these myths that we swallow up gratefully so we can avoid awareness of the truth, find comfort in our moral superiority on this earth and still feel comfortable filling our lives with meaningless crap. The plan depends on this level of comfort.

I know the term neo-conservative gets bandied around alot these days, but many Americans don't know what the term actually means. Many mistake them for the religious right. They are two quite different groups actually. Here's a good primer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
I think securing our own interests is vital to our survival, and our traditions are morally superior not to dominate but to build up like we have done to Japan and Germany after world war two, and all the billions in foreign aid. However if you are anti-american, nothing this country does will ever be good enough. If we act, we are wrong, if we sit idle, we are wrong, because we are america we are wrong etc. etc.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
mixedmedia said:
You may sincerely think we are fighting terrorism, but you would be sincerely wrong.
I think you have misinterpreted the thrust of my post. The true and explicit reasoning for the Iraq War is largely unknown at this time, and will remain so until the George W. Bush historical archives are unsealed and available to the public.

What I was attempting to suggest is that a great proportion of our time is squandered in trying to decipher these motives which are currently, and will remain for an indeterminate period, opaque to critical inspection and interpretation.

In essence, it is of no immediate profit for us argue the past... that will be left to historians and memoirs. No matter how it came to pass, we are now in Iraq up to our necks. The pertinent question is then, where do we go from here?

I am stymied by the contradictions. We cannot cut and run, but the casualty rate is becoming obscene. We are trying to bestow democracy on a culture, but that culture is perhaps anathema to democracy. The administration imagines Irag as a platform of Middle East change, yet the supposed dominoes of Syria, KSA, and Iran remain as entrenched and intractable as ever. Instead of the strong central government that the US envisioned, Iraq is becoming Balkanized. The European nations whom we liberated from fascism and communism... now abandon their benificent benefactor to slowly twist in the wind. The US is the economic engine of the world, and yet the US Treasury must borrow money daily from nations such as Japan, S. Korea, China, and the UK to finance our foray into Iraq. We desperately need more forces in Iraq to sustain our agendas, yet no more forces are available. The list of contradictions goes on and on.

Whatever led us down the path of invading Iraq is essential now only from an intellectual and political point of view. The crucial sailant question remains... where do we go from here and how exactly do we get there?


 

Bleeding Heart

New member
Joined
Sep 18, 2005
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
You can't really expect true democracy to flourish in a place where the people haven't been included in their own post-war reconstruction. Iraqi businesses and Iraqi labor should be allowed to do much more to put their country back together. Instead, it's all being run by American contractors, who are protected by our military. Right now, unemployment over there is over 50%. We haven't given them a gift of freedom and security, we've saddled them with an occupation and stolen from them.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
realist said:
I think securing our own interests is vital to our survival, and our traditions are morally superior not to dominate but to build up like we have done to Japan and Germany after world war two, and all the billions in foreign aid. However if you are anti-american, nothing this country does will ever be good enough. If we act, we are wrong, if we sit idle, we are wrong, because we are america we are wrong etc. etc.
You can't really think that America's interests are directly proportional to our survival? There's survival and then there is domination. America can survive just fine without dominating. Morally superior? Are you aware of how many Japanese and German civilians we killed during WWII? And this was "the good war"? Yes we helped to rebuild those countries, but let's not forget that we are the ones who destroyed them in the first place. Let's not forget that America benefited economically and strategically from these rebuilding projects. That is not evident of moral superiority. Perhaps some other kind of superiority, but not moral. Our direct firebombing attacks on Tokyo that killed as many as 100,000 citizens in three days led Curtis LeMay, a General in the US Air Force who helped to coordinate these attacks, to speculate that if we had not won WWII, he and others would have been charged with war crimes. Does that make him un-American? No it doesn't. Even though I find his acts reprehensible, it makes him realistic. At least he wasn't kidding himself.

It's not that I blame anyone for holding onto these illusions. We are far from the first nation to implant these sorts of ideas into the minds of its citizenry to justify its aggression. The technique is as old as war itself. It's just that I have never been comfortable with these ideas myself. Perhaps because when I think of war, I think of families huddled in rooms clutching each other while their neighborhoods are bombed. It is inconceivable to me to think that inflicting that kind of terror on people can be done with moral intent. It is simply preposterous. Outlandish. If it weren't so tragically reprehensible, it would be a delicious oxymoron. I don't understand how anyone can fool themselves that way. And for anyone who wants to call me un-American, I suggest you take your family into a war zone and reflect on the nature of morality while you pray that your children are spared. I am not un-American.

I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be. - Thomas Jefferson
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Simon W. Moon said:
Seemed like a good place to put this:
"One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III. "
Indidentally, Khaleej Times has taken to running some Kissinger pieces. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing.
And thanks for this link. Always looking for new int'l news sites. Put it in my favorites.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Tashah said:
Whatever led us down the path of invading Iraq is essential now only from an intellectual and political point of view. The crucial sailant question remains... where do we go from here and how exactly do we get there?
[/FONT]
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your initial post, but truthfully, I still don't see where you were implying what you have said here. That said, though, I agree with you, what is important now is bringing stability to Iraq, BUT I think the truth is essential to knowing where to go from here. The truth and humility - to admit that we should have been less arrogant, less myopic and more attentive to the wisdom of our friends around the world.

Everyone must take their lumps for their mistakes. Its what we teach our children - it's a good lesson. And after all, being just 200 hundred something years old, America essentially is still a child in the scope of world history.
 
Top Bottom