vauge said:Tetsuo, I must admit - I expected your post to be a one timer and respect the fact that you did indeed come back and represent your opinion.
Albiet, I disagree with it and my position is very close to WKL815 and IronTongue.
I personally believe that we are attempting to be proactive rather than reactive. This is nothing new. Bush 41 started a scare tactic whey Sadam invaded another country and got a cease fire with a treaty. Clinton defined our position that Sadam will be removed from power. Bush 43 has taken all these different pieces of the pie and has a very valid reason for being in Iraq.
I think you make a valid point. One of the problems with waging war is it isn't pretty. People die. In Iraq they're dying in large numbers. Lastest count is something like 100,000 civilians. There is a right wing based organization that has that number at some where around 15,000. But they're alone in that assessment and I truely believe the number is much closer to the 100,000 mark. I don't think we can realistically except the Iraqi's to be pleased about these deaths. Even if it were closer to the 15,000 number would that matter to you if one of those 15,000 were your mother, grandmother or daughter? I seriously doubt it. It seems to me that even for those Iraqi's who approved of our invasion once these civilian deaths started to mount the tide of public opinion would certainly shift. Many of these deaths are not our doing. The insurgents are killing people (maybe more so then us, really don't know haven't seen any numbers) but the main Iraqi opinion seems to be that it's our fault. This is probably due to the network Aljazeera. The Iraqi kicked them out of the country once but it had little effect since everyone there gets their TV via satellite.(Edit: According to the Aljazeera Web Site they are still not allowed to operate in Iraq, or seven other Arab nations for that matter) So we end up fighting two wars at once. The war on the ground and the war of public opinion. Which is one of the reasons why going into Iraq was such a completely misguided endeavor in the first place.mixedmedia said:Maybe I just have a good imagination, but sometimes I wonder, if I were an Iraqi mother holding my dead child, would I ever be able to say: my child died for a good reason, the Americans just wanted to save us from Saddam Hussein? Somehow, I think not. And I think history is going to judge us harshly for this mistake.
Tetsuo said:It has been documented that Rumsfeld was talking about using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq on 9/12, hardly time to analize facts. Also if Bin Laden was really who the US was after then why did they not simply send in special forces to extract him from the caves that he was in. I realise his men were SAS trained and not your usual run of the mill fighters but this is hardly a reason to send in minimal ground troops and no special forces at all. Look at the amount of people that have been sent in to Iraq to overthrow Saddam compared to those who were sent after Bin Laden. Hardly the actions of a country trying to bring to justice the people were responsible for 9/11 is it?
I don't want to offend anyone but I feel that the only thing that America is being proactive about is trying to safeguard its oil based economy and that 9/11 may have been a tragedy to the American people but it was an opportunity for the American government.
Pacridge said:There is a right wing based organization that has that number at some where around 15,000. But they're alone in that assessment and I truely believe the number is much closer to the 100,000 mark.
WKL815 said:It's very empathetic of you to have heartbreak for those poor Iraqi's who lose loved ones. But, the success of humanity is dependent on more than just one person's experience.
I am so thankful we have a President and at least 60 million+ Americans who understand this.
I hear what you, the anti-war advocates are saying. But it is short sighted. You will never make the world a better place by seeking to safeguard and/or please each individual person. If you believe in God, then you'll have to admit, even God doesn't make that happen. There are horrors and pain in the World I wouldn't wish on anyone.
The best we can do is to create opportunities for good things to happen in great numbers to grow the number of good people in the World. And when we come up against those unspeakable horrors that present such an obstacle to making the World better, then people have to kill and people have to die to end it. And they do so for what is hopefully a good end and not in vain. It is the quintessential struggle of good vs. evil.
Before this election, I was an agnostic. Now, I am less so. But even if you are a die hard atheist or of some other non-deity driven spirituality, I would think you view your place in the world as a part of something that is bigger than just yourself - one person.
I look forward to someone articulating their anti-war position beyond the justification of "because it hurts people" and offer other options for debate.
And just so you know, I also look forward to the day when I too can be against war because other options work. But we just aren't there yet, although I believe when we successfully plant the seeds of empowering the oppressed Middle Eastern citizens - we'll be a great deal closer.
Pacridge said:The insurgents are killing people (maybe more so then us, really don't know haven't seen any numbers) but the main Iraqi opinion seems to be that it's our fault. This is probably due to the network Aljazeera. The Iraqi kicked them out of the country once but it had little effect since everyone there gets their TV via satellite.(Edit: According to the Aljazeera Web Site they are still not allowed to operate in Iraq, or seven other Arab nations for that matter) So we end up fighting two wars at once. The war on the ground and the war of public opinion. Which is one of the reasons why going into Iraq was such a completely misguided endeavor in the first place.
What I can't understand is why we can't seem to get the "spin" going in our direction. It seems to me that "spin" is one of this administrations finer abilities. I mean if Bush, a blue blood elitist, can convince over half a nation that he's really a hard working good ol'boy. How come we can't convince more of the Iraqi people that we're there to help them? Something that may actually be true. In the end I think you're right and history will judge us harshly.
Thank you for being here, Mixedmedia.mixedmedia said:I think its difficult for most Iraqis to accept our spin because they are living in the chaos of war and its aftermath everyday without seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. We have mismanaged the "post-war" occupation so very badly. I can't imagine anyone living in Iraq having a favorable reaction to what is going on there. I know I wouldn't.
I am a little hesitant to blame Al Jazeera outright for the larger perception of America in Iraq. After all, these perceptions existed long before Al Jazeera hit the airwaves just a few years ago. Plus, while I don't have access to their news broadcasts, I have visited their website and they do not seem to be as viciously anti-American as the Bush administration would like us to believe. The coverage I saw there seemed fair; maybe because I don't expect them to have the same perspective as American news and because I know that there is news out there that would reflect badly on us - news that is simply not being covered here in America (hmmm, I wonder why?). In relation they are certainly not any more unfair or unbalanced than FOX. If you haven't seen it, you should check out the documentary, The Control Room, about Al Jazeera. It was made by, an Iraqi ex-pat from Britain (or perhaps she is from another Arab country, I'm not so sure now). It will give you a fresh perspective on Al Jazeera and their news coverage.Pacridge said:Thank you for being here, Mixedmedia.
Well first off when it comes to the spin; we're loosing that battle in part because of Aljazeera. They miss no opportunity to make us look bad. Thankfully, for them, we seem to miss no opportunity to supply them with fresh incidents to exploit. Second, for the most part, here in the US you have people who want to believe we're doing the "right" thing. Over there the attitude is completely different. People want to believe we're evil, by and large many have been told that since they were children. So turning the tide of public opinion's going to be a hugh task. Of course if you watch Fox, they already do love us and the average Iraqi is damn glad we're there.
As far as mismanaging the occupation: What other then over throwing Saddam has gone to plan? I can't think of one thing that this Administration has planned for in regards to Iraq that has worked out the way they planned. On top of that it seems to me they have failed to plans on some very basic issues. Take this recent lack of armor issue. Rumsfeld seemed to think that a lighter quicker army would be needed so no need to bring in additional armored vehicles. While in the process of taking out Saddam this proved to basically true, it stopped being true once we were in an occupation situation. Well we've been in an occupation sitaution for over a year now. Still don't have the needed armor. His answer "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you'd like to have" I could have bought into that answer a year ago, six months ago. But now a year later? It's just another lame excuss. I also liked his answer of "you can have all the armor you want and still get blown up." Yeah, Okay sometimes armor doesn't save you, therefore no need to armor anything. What kind of logic is that? Bet that made the troops feel better.
What I'm getting out of this is that you believe the Iraqi citizens would be happier with Saddam in power. Am I correct or did I read that wrong?My opposition to the war is not because it "hurts people" but because it kills people. Innocent people. People who would be living their lives quite happily (despite living under a repressive regime) People talk about the atrocities that Saddam committed and no one can refute those but when we look and see that the number of Kurds killed in his infamous gas attacks aided by Chemical Ali was 5,000 and that even the most conservative estimate of the innocent war dead from the coalition invading is 15,000 then I would choose the lesser of two evils
Vauge couldn't agree with you more brother. However does my pink tutu count as the feminisation of America. I'd hate to give that up but if its causing the country to go to shit I will.Meanwhile, our country is going to shit because of the ACLU, the feminisation of America, and the removal of Christianity in our society
I understand, but that doesn't mean my empathetic feelings are shallow. It means I cannot sit by and watch empathetically anymore. Yes I am restricted as far as what I can do to help. I have three children of my own and am not well off by any stretch. In fact, I have experienced personally more than one of the thoughts you surmised as deep worries in your paragraph above. But I do have a voice and, thanks to Mr. Bush and the frightening implications of his presidency, the motivation to make sure it is heard. I, for one, don't intend to sit by and watch as the fabric of my country is re-woven and we establish ourselves as the arrogant bullies of democracy in the world. I have kids and it worries me a great deal. What's more I know I am far from alone - I share these concerns with many other Americans. Let's not forget that very close to half the country said no to George Bush and his policies.WKL815 said:Defining "Shallow Worries"
To me, a worry is shallow, if at morning's light, you're not acting in a way to address it - either because you want to or because you have to.
People who lay their heads down thinking, "I hope my child is warm enough. Its cold outside the tent," or "I hope we get through the night without gunfire," or "Where am I going to get my grocery money?" and get up in the morning and have to make a blanket and find means of keeping their shelter, or be on the look out for gang members, or find a job or head down to the social services department - these people have deep worries.
I, myself, wouldn't say that my "empathetic feelings" (which I do have) are of the same caliber of worry as those with the real problem. I acknowledge that I rarely have deep worries. I do have heavy thoughts, but I think them and then I have the luxury of moving on.
That's all I meant.
I think a lot of what you're saying here is accurate. I have no doubt there are Iraqi's who are happy we're doing what we're doing. But just the same there are those over there who are not happy about it. I spent Saturday with a group of guys who just got back. They're from all over Oregon and the northwest but are here for a funeral for a member of their unit, Army Sgt. David A. Mitts. Services will be tomorrow. I'll be going. In speaking with this group I was told they we're "tried of trying to help people who basically just shit on us." Their words not mine. They also spoke about the problems of not having equipment. Many said their families had sent them bullet proof vests, binoculars and two-way radios. So yes, there are those who support our efforts but many do not. And the ones that don't are out planting roadside bombs. And I don't understand, at all, why a year and half into this we can't get our guys the basic equipment they need to complete their mission.CSA_TX said:Tetsuo
What I'm getting out of this is that you believe the Iraqi citizens would be happier with Saddam in power. Am I correct or did I read that wrong?
If I am correct then I have no idea were your coming from. I saw with my own eyes the Iraqis tearing down the statues of Saddam.
I love how all of us that are not there or have not been there like to discuss how the Iraqis feel about the situation. Well I have not been there however my Brother-in-Law has been on 2 tours not as a soldier but as a contractor setting up phone networks for the Iraqis paid for with US Tax dollars. He went summer 2003 as well as summer 2004. He spent time in the Baghdad green zone as well as in some small towns throughout Iraq. When he was out of the green zone he did not have US military escorts and He talked with and hired quite a few average Iraqi citizens and he said of the people he talked with that they were all very greatful for the USA. He said most of them were pissed that they had to endure another 10 years after the first gulf war. That they had been waiting for us to rescue them from the bastard since the gulf war. So I prefer to take my perceptions of how the average Iraqi feels about my great country from someone who has actualy been to their country and talked to them face to face.
Vauge couldn't agree with you more brother. However does my pink tutu count as the feminisation of America. I'd hate to give that up but if its causing the country to go to shit I will.
Pacridge I couldn't agree with you more. That is one thing I do not understand. However I don't believe it would be any better with a different comander in cheif. Unfortinatly since the end of the cold war the government has figgured that cutting the military is in the best intrest now that we are the only "super power". And sadley has effected our troops and the equiptment they are being deployed with. However I have to wonder if all of a sudden DOD signed a no bid contract with the manufacturer of armour to get what was needed ASAP. Would that be tied to Dicks fortune also. Instead of doing what is needed unfortinatly politics come first in DC.. Also unfortinate is that most voters do not pay attention to the vote records of there representitives or hold them accountable.And I don't understand, at all, why a year and half into this we can't get our guys the basic equipment they need to complete their mission
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?