Ever try putting yourself in the shoes of one of the people leaving Iraq?
Wonder if they like the “freedom and democracy” that you speak so lightly of??
[quote=“Jaboney”]1. Freedom and democracy were present in Iraq prior to the invasion?
No. Nor was civil war.
That would be news to the Kurds and the WetLands people in the south.
2. Freedom and democracy are bad things?
No. But civil war is.
So? Who says different? Another irrelevant comment.
3. The US is wrong to try to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq?
Yes. And even the architects of this disaster are tuning in to that.
As defined by those who desire to see the Coalition Forces fail to bolster their own egos.
4. The US is not really trying to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq?
Could be trying to bring Santa Claus to Iraq… doesn’t much matter how hard the US tries if he, freedom, democracy, and Rudolph don’t show.
You have nothing of substance to say and are darned proud to say it!
5. Iraqis do not deserve freedom and democracy?
Deserves got nothing to do with it.
Revealing that you do not respond in the affirmative.
6. Iraqis are not capable of freedom and democracy?
They might be capable of landing a man on the moon… but it’s not happening in '07, and the smart money’s not on '08.
Elections in '06. Infrastructure being built at a rapid pace. Get some shades the future looks bright.
7. The US is primarily to blame for the inability to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq?
You pushed this failure through, so yes. And for upsetting the apple cart while trying.
As Democracy and Representative Government is still in its infancy in Iraq, why are you so quick to describe it as a “failure”? The reason is more and more obvious.
8. The US failures are to be celebrated since the US is an evil force that is keeping freedom and democracy from coming to Iraq?
Evil? No. Wrong? Demonstrably. Celebrate? I celebrate the closing of the Project for a New American Century. I’ll celebrate when no more men and women are asked to die for Georgie’s Pride. I’ll be waiting a long, l-o-n-g time for anything to celebrate in Iraq.
Bush is Evil…blah blah blah…
Put into that context, can you see why as usual your remarks are loathsome in their stupidity and mindless in their crowing at US misfortunes?
No.
A: not stupid. Loathsome, maybe. But considering the source, well, anything that sticks in your craw might be more than alright.
B: Mindless, no. The misfortune belongs to more than the US alone–and lays more heavily elsewhere–but you guys bear responsibility for electing–twice! you silly buggers. Er, ok, once… first time wasn’t really your fault–the clowns who created this mess.
Its painfully obvious that you view your personal agenda as more important than allowing the people of Iraq to have their freedom.
[quote]Gee, people want to leave Iraq? Hello, why not? How many did Saddam allow out? 10,000 people lined up to leave? Good for them. I hope they are Drs and high tech people so the US can pick them up.
How many people are lined up to leave Taiwan? [/quote]I’m sure that lots of people wanted to leave Iraq before the war. (In fact, I know that’s so, because I’ve taught a few who managed the trick.) But there’s the “get me out of this repressive hole and give me a shot at the good life” kind of emigration, and then there’s the “if I don’t get out, someone’s going to: put a 9/16 Black ‘n’ Decker drill bit through my hands, feet, and willy; blow up my wife at the market; kidnap my daughter; put a bullet in the back of my son’s head” kind of headlong flight for life. No doubt a double car garage, clean streets, and 4th of July bbqs are enough of a draw to draw off the best and the brightest… if selective immigration were the goal, surely this is overkill. Btw, is this a part of the new mission: bring freedom and democracy to the middle east while pillaging the human resources?
Actually, in the wake of my recent illness, I carry a lot less weight. But there’s no need for me to lean on the scales… not when a surge of 30,000 troops is expected to have no appreciable impact.[/quote]Says who? You? Ascribing failure before there are even boots on the ground?
Wiser heads think otherwise.
Ever try putting yourself in the shoes of one of the people leaving Iraq?[/quote]
Yep. I thought you found the “tears” I was supposedly shedding funny. You? How’s your empathy? Taking it out for regular exercise?
Lightly? 
I’m not the one pretending that freedom and democracy grow out of the barrel of guns… or magically sprout from fields leveled by daisy-cutters. Such are serious things. And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “life” come before “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in your document?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Says who? You? Ascribing failure before there are even boots on the ground?
Wiser heads think otherwise.[/quote]Does this answer?
[quote=“Robert Novak”]Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a “surge” of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What’s more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.
President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. “It’s Alice in Wonderland,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. “I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.”
[/quote]
Ever try putting yourself in the shoes of one of the people leaving Iraq?[/quote]
Yep. I thought you found the “tears” I was supposedly shedding funny. You? How’s your empathy? Taking it out for regular exercise?
[/quote]
Did I say they were funny? I believe I asked how much comfort they gave the Iraqis. My empathy is quite good. How’s your cyncism?
I do not get any sense of “national pride” out of this war Jaboney. I am all for the Iraqi people doing better and improving their lives, economy and government. The freer from the US, the better; but I do hope there is a close relationship between the two countries that remains.
Lightly? I’m not the one pretending that freedom and democracy grow out of the barrel of guns… or magically sprout from fields leveled by daisy-cutters. Such are serious things. And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t “life” come before “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in your document? [/quote][/quote]
How DID democracy and freedom come to the United States, jaboney? Was it freely given by Britain? Or was it taken back forcebly in a very bloody war?
How DID democracy and freedom come to the United States, jaboney? Was it freely given by Britain? Or was it taken back forcebly in a very bloody war?[/quote] Not to be too much of a pain in the ass, jdsmith, but you keep making these historical analogies that just don’t work. Who fought that war? Americans. For whom? Americans. Sure, you got lots of help from the French and mercenaries, but they did NOT invade. The imposition of a democratic regime, by force, and a democratic (or republican) revolution are Very Different things.
How DID democracy and freedom come to the United States, jaboney? Was it freely given by Britain? Or was it taken back forcebly in a very bloody war?[/quote] Not to be too much of a pain in the ass, jdsmith, but you keep making these historical analogies that just don’t work. Who fought that war? Americans. For whom? Americans. Sure, you got lots of help from the French and mercenaries, but they did NOT invade. The imposition of a democratic regime, by force, and a democratic (or republican) revolution are Very Different things.[/quote]
Maybe we are just looking at different parts of the equation.
How did the US get its freedom?
How did Iraq get its freedom?
Means to and End.
What strikes me as odd is that these things are being held together in equal contempt:
The imposition of a Democratic regime, by force.
The imposition of a Communist regime, by force.
The imposition of a Fascist regime, by force.
The imposition of a Socialist regime, by force.
More progress in Iraq:
[quote=“Statistics From Health Ministry Official Show Tripling of Civilian, Police Deaths”]BAGHDAD, Jan. 7 – More than 17,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently in the latter half of 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry statistics, a sharp increase that coincided with rising sectarian strife since the February bombing of a landmark Shiite shrine.
In the first six months of last year, 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police officers were killed, but that number more than tripled to 17,310 in the latter half of the year, according to data provided by a Health Ministry official with direct knowledge of the statistics. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information, said those numbers remained incomplete, suggesting the final tally of violent deaths could be higher.[/quote]
Revisiting a question neglected:
[quote=“jdsmith”]How did the US get its freedom?
How did Iraq get its freedom?
Means to and End.
What strikes me as odd is that these things are being held together in equal contempt:
The imposition of a Democratic regime, by force.
The imposition of a Communist regime, by force.
The imposition of a Fascist regime, by force.
The imposition of a Socialist regime, by force.[/quote]
The US fought for its freedom, the Iraqis are fighting one another.
A Communist, or Fascist regime can be (nearly must be) instituted and maintained by force. A Socialist regime, well, socialism’s a broad field. A Democratic regime might be instituted, but cannot be maintained by force. A communist or fascist regime is contemptible; the idea that force is sufficient to institute and maintain a democratic regime is mistaken, possibly foolish, and in practice, dangerous.
Actually it was rhetorical. 
You cannot impose a democracy on a people who are not ready for it. The right wing wackos will point to the numbers that voted in the election and the left wing wackos will counter that the result of the election doesn’t appear to be a very stable democracy does it? The Shiites are in control now and while they might not all not hate all the Sunnis they don’t all not hate all of them enough to share power or the revenues from oil sales with any of them. This will not change. Sunnis made a mistake when they were deposed a few years back and did not participate in the new government. The Shiites will milk this mistake for as long as possible. Iraqs Sunni neighbours will continue to support the Sunnis inside Iraq in the hope that they too can get a share of the oil revenues and perhaps 79 heavenly virgins. Who can blame them? People will sell a lot of guns. Buildings, roads and bridges will be blown up and require rebuilding. The US will or will not spend another three billion dollars a week on one last push. It makes no difference. After bush pushes his last the people of the region will continue fighting. This will very likely come to involve Iraqs neighbours in a more serious fashion and the violence will escalate as per “the secret Republican agenda”. This is a battle of civilizations and will continue for a long time as the Republicans sometimes tell us with a wry smile. Within a few years all the Sunnis in Iraq will be dead and /or the idea of instituting a democracy will be abandoned and Exxon and BP will install a dictatorial system of government. This will not be the end because in reality there are no beginings and no endings. There is just a really long section in between.
Worked before; big business wags the economy.
Worked before; big business wags the economy.[/quote]
IG Farben.
BroonAuschwitz
Worked before; big business wags the economy.[/quote]IG Farben.
BroonAuschwitz[/quote]
SABMiller… 
Worked before; big business wags the economy.[/quote]IG Farben.
BroonAuschwitz[/quote]
SABMiller… [/quote]
You crack me up special ops intel cook.
BroonAle
Yes, on the right path indeed.
[quote]The United Nations’ refugee body has appealed for $60m (£30.8m, 45m euros) in emergency aid for those fleeing violence in Iraq.
One in eight of Iraqis have now left their homes, with up to 50,000 people leaving each month, the UNHCR said. [/quote]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6243335.stm
And
[quote][b]“There were six heads in our street this morning.”
So said one of my Iraqi colleagues as he arrived in the office recently.
[/b]
Almost anywhere else, it would have been shocking news - a story in its own right.
But here the shock was short-lived. Each atrocity in Baghdad is now quickly superseded by another.
Nearly four years on from the US and British invasion and its mishandled aftermath, Iraq is a place where such violence has become mundane.
The elected government - held up by George W Bush and Tony Blair as evidence the invasion was worth it - is seen by many Iraqis as part of the problem, with some of its own forces actively involved in the sectarian bloodshed now tearing the country apart. [/quote]
Well, according to our president:
Then again, says the following Timesonline article, we’re not doing so great in those areas:
[quote]Since the invasion not a single Iraqi hospital has been built, according to Amar al-Saffar, in charge of construction at the Health Ministry.
In fact, no hospital had been built since the Qaddumiya hospital opened in 1986 in Baghdad, he said. When the war started it had 20 intensive care unit beds. Now it has half that, with many patients forced to buy their own oxygen supplies on the black market…
Another senior Health Ministry official was surprised that Mr Bush had latched on to healthcare as proof of progress in Iraq. “It is the worst situation that the Ministry of Health has been in in its entire history,” he said. Healthcare had become so dire that half of those who died of injuries from terrorist attacks might have been saved, according to Bassim al-Sheibani, of the Diwaniyah College of Medicine, writing in the British Medical Journal.[/quote]
The article also describes progress in terms of schools as sadly insubstantial.
Then again, at least we aren’t hiding missile guidance systems in hospitals and schools like Saddam had done! That’s undeniably an improvement.
I agree with Bush that we should stick this out, and if sending more troops on a temporary basis is needed so be it. I trust his judgment. Despite all the gloom and doom and gnashing of teeth, I am confident that in the long run, we will be successful. These insurgencies usually require nine years to run their course on average. I think this is a civil war. This obviously is not what any of us hoped for or intended, but we will have to take the consequences. I see no reason why this is a failed effort yet so I am committed to staying for three years, 10 years or 20 years. Whatever it takes.
:roflmao: On what basis??? That alone is reason enough to question your judgment.
[quote=“fred smith”]I see no reason why this is a failed effort yet so I am committed to staying for three years, 10 years or 20 years. Whatever it takes.[/quote]Unimpressive. It’s too easy to commit others to suffer.
Off you go then, Frot. Don’t forget to bring TC with you so he can whip up a nice sorbet for you as the sun sets. You should take jdsmith with you too, as he is loaded down with dinars so you might be able to get a nice bottle of Zinfandel at a roadside bomb…er…cafe. You know, help the local economy, you know, you know.
BroonArmyRecruiter
Yes, Jaboney, we know how people like you “care.” I am sure that the millions who died in the aftermath of the Vietnam debacle would sign up for the very effort (pullout) that you suggest. Anyway, I do not see that this is a failed effort and in light of Broon Ale’s appropos comment, I will revise my statement to I am committed to seeing the US government and military remain committed to the effort in Iraq and I am thrilled that we have a president who has leadership and is not buffeted by the winds of public opinion to the detriment of strategy. This is NOT good. Iraq IS a mess but is it an unwinnable mess? I do not see that.
I see the following success factors:
- Removal of Saddam.
- Marginalization of the al Qaeda in Iraq.
- Marginalization of the Sunni Insurgency as an effective and credible political and military threat.
Now, we are facing a Shia Sunni civil war. Too early to tell if our successes will be replicated, but let’s see what happens.
In the meantime, I have a sneaking suspicion that those voices calling for our removal are less concerned about Iraq, less understanding of the factors involved and less interested in the well-being of the Iraqis then they are in being proved right in their opposition to Bushitler. Boring. Self-indulgent. Narcissistic. Mindless. Amoral. Immoral. Faux intelligentsia cynicism. Enough. Who listens to you people any more (at least in the corridors where these decisions are really made?) Cindy Sheehan, however, could use a few good sidekicks for media capers. Why not join her group of outraged muppets? Think of the “me” wall that you could make with all the coverage. Think of it. Think.
- Removal of no longer threatening Saddam. Unless, that is, you consider bad, anti-Semitic plays a military threat. Oh yes, then botch the hanging and turn him into a martyr.
- Marginalization of what was the non-existent threat posed by al Qaeda in Iraq.
- Marginalization of what was a non-existent insurgency.
Create a problem, botch the solution, declare victory, leave the mess for others to clean up. God help us all if these successes continue to be replicated.