Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 32

A friend sent me this link, and it certainly applies to this topic. While I agree with almost all the sentiments at the bottom of the webpage, I recognize that they are unrealistic.

The point is, look at what good has happened in Iraq.

https://www.thestatenislandboys.com/Saddam%...0Gone/index.htm

NightHawk

Iraq War Post

Thanks for the post Nighthawk. I really enjoyed reading of the accomplishments that have taken place in Iraq as well as the putting of it in perspective by comparing Germany and Japan at the end of WWII.

I hope all involved in this discussion will take the time to read the post. It may not change what you see as the bad we as a country are doing there, but it only seems fair, that you also consider the good.

Edited: tenaheff on 19th Dec, 2003 - 2:12pm

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

I can see you are very much for Bush and his policies, and very proud of yourself as an American. It's difficult to 'argue' with you if you feel so strongly on one view and not able to see the other views.

Anyhow, I feel compelled to answer you. You mentioned Syria, so you may be saying that the reliable info is that Osama is there. Let's see till this day what the US govt has said and done about or against Syria ..... nothing was mentioned about harboring Osama! If there are so sure, just let it slip out (Rumsfeld is good at that ). The whole world, and yes, including most of the Arab world, would put pressure on the Syrian govt to hand him over.

And even if they do not want to declare to the whole world (quite understandably, since the intelligence has lately been very unreliable --- maybe your source is more reliable ?), they can send in their agents to take him out. Send in the Israeli Mossad. After all they have infiltrated almost all of Middle East. And if some innocent lives are lost in the process, call it collateral damage. That few lives are definitely better than the thousand of lives from both sides lost through a full blown conflict, isn't it? Where is the logic of burning down the whole house just to get rid of a rat? That's what happened to Iraq. And you guys are wondering why the Iraqis are not in love with the US.

There are many many different races, creeds, religions, cultures, etc. out there in this beautiful world. Not everything has to be styled after the US. The Romans used to think that way too, that its their way or no way. After all, the US only has a short 200 odd years of history. Let's talk about China - everybody knows they have thousands of years of history and culture. You see ethnic Chinese all over the world but do they talk of maintaining or controlling strategic interests here, there and everywhere? No! And that is the reason why we are seeing the US in every corner of the world, 'introducing' democracy (US version) or meddling in sovereign matters ---- it's their greed, and their lust for control and power!

Wake up people, the US govt has not been providing aid to the poor nations of the world for free. First it was to counter the Soviets during the Cold War. Now it's to ensure that they will remain the one and only superpower, and the rest must bow to it. Again, the Romans tried to do that too.

So, why is the US in Iraq? To get rid of Saddam and the WMD. Then what? Sure the US forces will just quit the very next day. Dream on! They will ensure payback -- control of the whole mid-east oil. Remember oil powers everything. Without a good supply the rest of the world will have to play second fiddle to big brother.

Oh, did you say it was also for the war on terrorism? Yeah right! If that is the case, how come Saddam is not whisked away to guantanamo or the US to face charges for 9/11? Why are they talking of handing him over to the Iraq Governing Council for trial on war crimes? Why? Why? Because the US govt do not and they know they do not have anything to lay against Saddam on terrorism. He was a scapegoat in this so-called war on terrorism. I think you all have to thank Bush for endangering the world because of that. Do you really think the world is safer with Saddam gone? Bush & Rumsfeld has pulled wool over your eyes.

And who is to say that Osama is the only legitimate terrorist? Forget about Saddam. He's not, ok. He's a dictator but not a terrorist a la Osama. The Chechens are considered terrorists because they are doing the same bombing things etc., against the Russian govt. How come they are condemned as strongly by the US govt? Just because they are fighting against a not-so-friendly govt? And everyday there are new terrorists (just like suckers) borned.

How can we EVER win a war against terrorism unless we don't give it a reason to be there in the first place. Put on a friendly face, extend the hand of friendship, spread the warmth of humanity, and show the humility of power instead of the pride of arrogance. Hey, it may do wonders, you know. The next time you go to elect your next president, give that a thought. Don't take the road to Rome.

Ok, I am done. Peace!

Page 32 Iraq War Post

I am no more pro Bush than you are anti-American. I specifically mean anit-US government. I have read your posts and attempt to do so with an open mind. I ask the same of you.

As far as their being in Syria, I am using that as an example. I read a newspaper article recently on MSNBC's web site that gave strong evidence that he was in a particular mid-eastern country and had been for quite some time. I believe it was Syria, but it could have been some place else. The article was clear about where, I just can't remember. My point is and was, what do you suggest we do about it if we do have good intelligence regarding his location. Is it o.k. to invade that country too? I think so, but I doubt you do. So, what would you do?

What Rumsfeld let's slip is done for very specific purposes. If it is not considered the appropriate time for this slip it won't come until we are ready to do something about it. The US military is already in over their heads as far as having enough people to spread around. I don't think we will take any large scale action anywhere else in the world while we have such a large force in the Iraqi theater.

First the US doesn't control the Israeli Mossad. Second, I don't think you have a realist view of what would be involved to take out Bin Ladin. We just show up with a few special forces members and all his cronies wipe them out. That is simply not a realistic workable plan.

Message Edited! I believe it may be Pakistan that was reported and not Syria. Makes no difference to me, the question is the same regardless of where he might be.

Edited: tenaheff on 19th Dec, 2003 - 9:53pm

Iraq War Post

I would like to add something here about the use of force.

Fireduck seems to think that the influence of the US in all corners of the world, although we are a young nation and culture, comes through a desire of the US to dominate. Perhaps I misunderstand, and if so, freely apologize.

If the US really wanted to dominate, we would do so. In Afghanistan, we could easily install an absolutely controlled government and impose any type of culture, religion, or government we want. Instead, we encourage, not force, a republican form of government, and are trying to turn over all aspects of that government to the local people. We are doing the same to Iraq.

We aren't interested in dominating. Most of our cultural domination comes from the desire of people in other countries to take advantage of our culture. Nobody has forced China to accept a McDonald's or Moscow to install a Pizza Hut. Nobody has paid Japanese youth to buy Led Zeppelin CDs or French children to watch the Wizard of Oz. I doubt that English women were force to watch Dallas for all those years.

I doubt that there are very many citizens of the US who could care less whether or not Coca Cola sells in Riyadh (other than shareholders, but then Coca Cola is not owned only by Americans). Yet when I was in Jeddah, it was obvious that Coke was very popular there.

If you don't like the American culture in your country, then don't partake of it. Urge your friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc to only participate in local culture. See how far you get.

Back to topic....
The reason that the US military is so tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we are the first nation in all of history to put forth great effort to NOT kill civilians, to NOT destroy the agriculture and economy, and to NOT destroy the infrastructure. We are the first nation in all of history to spend our resources, including manpower and taxes, to rebuild and restore our former enemies, then turn their countries BACK to them, without any violence.

Look at recent history... WWII. We won against Germany and Japan. We held out against North Korea. We retreated from Vietnam and Cambodia. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are thriving. Vietnam and Cambodia are disasters.

You don't want us meddling in your sovereignity? President Bush made it very clear a little over 2 years ago. Don't harbor or support terrorists. Help the civilized world destroy terrorists. Root out terrorism in all its forms. And no, my terrorist is NOT someone else's "freedom fighter." Freedom fighters don't target buildings full of innocent civilians. Freedom fighters don't blow up malls full of women and children. Freedom fighters don't use snipers to shoot babies in the head, while being held by their mothers. Terrorists do.

NightHawk

Post War Iraq

There are no WMDs. It was a scam by the Iraqi scientists. There are none. Therefore, no reason does the US have to go in. If there was a reason United Nations would have taken care of it.

Post War Iraq - Page 32

If there were no WMDs, why did Saddam Hussein use them on his own people? Why did he show them to the world in the 80s, shuffle them around in the 90s, and kick the inspectors out when they got close? Why did he refuse to let inspectors in (UN inspectors, not US), then when he finally did, why did he give them the runaround?

If there were no WMDs, what were in all the trucks that several countries' intelligence agencies report crossed the Syrian border just before the US forces entered Baghdad? What were the chemicals (precursors to various nerve agents) doing in the Euphrates River?

Finally, why the worry about WMDs? President Bush did NOT claim that we were entering Iraq because of WMDs. In his State of the Union address last year, he mentioned them, but said that Hussein had to step down, had to dismantle his reign of terror. It was the Democrats who made it all about WMDs.

NightHawk

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 32

Wow, I wrote quite a piece there. And it was late at night here. My second last paragraph should read :

" The Chechens are considered terrorists because they are doing the same bombing things etc., against the Russian govt. How come they are NOT condemned as strongly by the US govt? Just because they are fighting against a not-so-friendly govt? "

And you are bringing out good points, but I think my frustration is not from being anti-American or anti-US govt, or anti-this anti-that. Did you read my last paragraph? My frustration is from the fact that the Bush Administration doesn't seem to even think that there are alternatives, more peaceful long-lasting alternatives. Tit-for-tat, cheek-for-cheek, and eye-for-eye actions will only lead us all to disaster. You and I may not see the end of this downward spiral to violence and more violence, but I sure pray and hope that my newborn son has a chance to see the world vibrant with its natural beauty, diversity of cultures, thoughts and beliefs. And there should be such hope for him and everyone else .... even if we happen to live not in continental America but halfway across the world.

I would venture to say, that our modern world has become more insecure when compared to my father's generation. Of course, our world is smaller now, with the mode of transportation and communication being what it is today. And so conflicts are also more far-reaching until it is able to touch every corners of the world. No longer is it confined to be a local conflict. But it still remains a fact that NOT everybody thinks the same way. There are bound to be differences of opinions, just like you and I are having right now. (Friendly one, I hope ).

Even within families, there are siblings' differences with regards to political or social convictions. The world is such. If not, then it is one big boring place! Remember, because of differences of opinions is why we have elections! It's why we get to choose our own govt, the way we want. Sometimes though, the US govt can't believe that that is the guy we want to lead the country just because he is not so friendly or more critical of the US policies. Comes back to Bush's statement: "If you are not with us, you are against us". That statement smacks of Saddam-style leadership. Only difference is that Bush's audience is the world, Saddam his own people. Can you imagine if Bush said that to the American electorate? Does he expect everyone to be his yes-man?

Ans don't get me wrong. We are not for terrorism or Osama! But there are other ways not exploited yet. Don't push away other views, thoughts or methods so nonchalantly. Personally, I think (and I may be naive here) that Osama should not have been linked to any state governments. He should be mentioned and treated as such for what he is -- a criminal, a murderer. Instead, the US has not given other govts a chance by lumping them together with Osama, just because he or his men had transit through, or had resided in that country. That does not mean that country condoned and sponsored his terrorist acts. If a someone commits murder or serial killings, does that mean his family members are guilty by default? Does that mean his landlord or his school teachers are his sponsors in the killings?

Recognise the criminal Osama for what he is, don't glorify him further by raising the ante. He has nothing to lose but would be happy to play along, and he is more than happy to see his 'cause' attract more of those pathetic followers who willingly die for his selfish criminal philosophies. As I said in the last paragraph of my last post, don't give terrorism a reason to be there in the first place.

"Put on a friendly face, extend the hand of friendship, spread the warmth of humanity, and show the humility of power instead of the pride of arrogance."

I love McDonald's, used to love Coke, now more Sprite. I love the great outdoors of America, its national parks, and its dynamic people. But because I had the privilege of imbibing some of its 'values', I am now able to see the pluses along with the minuses. Some of it you all value so positively, but from outside perspectives, we think it's more of a negative. Personal freedom is one example. You all take it to the extreme --- at the expense of society at large. Is that good? We don't think so here, It's up to you to think otherwise. It's okay. We don't condone, but we don't push our set of values onto you either. The world is like that. When a big brother start imposing, that's when problems evolve.

Peace be with us all, since Christmas is round the corner. Warm wishes for the Holiday season!

(sorry, using Opera with no java support, so cannot seem to click on those emoticons to express myself ......)