Ustwo

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...11739307c.html

Now I'm sure some of you will think this is all republican lies, but just for a minute wonder if you were wrong. Wonder if perhaps this democracy won't fail and wonder what that would mean to an Arab world which has been locked into a 15th century mind set with 20th century weapons.

You can argue that we had no pressing interest in Iraq and that’s fine, I'd argue against you but its a point to argue, but I don't know how anyone with any shred of decency could argue that Iraqi's were better off with Saddam Hussein.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

I hope for the best-case scenario in Iraq....politics should never trump life and death issues. However, even Bush's own intelligence estimates are painting bleaker and bleaker prospects for Iraq. The well-being of the people there is far from assured.

roachboy

it figures that the woman cited througout the article was also a speaker at the rnc.

an interview with al-suwaij:
http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/9/2/16227/78386

a link to the "classically liberal" american islamic congress:
http://www.aicongress.org/

read some of her writings (linked via the who are we?) and you'll get a good sense of where she stands politically.
she is really not representative of much of anything.
but i can see why republicans would like her.

i have no idea who she is talking to in iraq--but i am sure that there are people who feel as she does--just as there are lots who feel otherwise. what i really do not understand is what gives her the ability to puport to speak for the iraqi people.

she seems to be making the rounds in republican circles to participate in a kind of travelling pep rally aimed at propping up spirits flagging after too much reality about the justifications for war have set in.

she works out nicely to prop up the "it doesnt matter if the war was legal or not, we were still justified" line, which i suppose is all the right has left in the wake of this debacle.

seems about par for the course....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cthulu23

Roachboy,

Given the credibility that Ahmed Chalibi was given by our government/media (liberal media? Hah!), this is hardly surprising. Who needs truth when you say the right thing?

powerclown

Its obvious some of you don't like her because she sides with the Republicans and see's the war in a different way then you, but, is she lying?

OpieCunningham

It's not a question of whether she is lying. It's a question, and answer, of whether this individual can be categorized as the "average" Iraqi. The average Iraqi is not touring the U.S., so it would be disingenuous to attribute her perceptions to the perceptions of the average Iraqi. When she makes statements like "most Iraqis are overwhelmingly grateful to the United States for freeing their country from tyranny" - I have to consider that meaningless. In my direct circle of acquaintances, almost none of the are conservatives - does that mean most American's are overwhelmingly displeased with Bush? Hardly.

Now apply the logic of questioning her motives for her statements - she is currently 'jet-setting' around the U.S. instead of dealing with the constant violence, power outages, health issues, etc of the people living in Iraq. It is not difficult to imagine that articulating the right things will attract attention from people who want to put you on display, regardless of the depth of what you are saying.

Is she lying? I don't have any reason to presume that. But I see no reason to take any of this as a "good" sign that Iraq is any closer to a Democracy today than it was yesterday.

irateplatypus

well... you can't discount the possibility that she is an average (or in this case, i think representative is a better word.) iraqi based on the fact that she is traveling abroad. if that were so, then you could only accept that an iraqi was average if all iraqi's were traveling abroad. i get your meaning though.

this woman's experience is in all likelihood not representative of the overall experience in iraq... but i'm willing to bet that there are many who are like her. my guess is that most of iraqis are riding the fence because they still aren't sure if the fundamentalists will take power or if the US will tought it out till the job is done. why take sides and visibly help the US if they might be gone tomorrow leaving you to the dogs?

what gives me hope is this: every roadside bomb and every death is counted back home. the situation is still on a scale where individual tragedies still matter. while reporting every single little thing that goes wrong might discourage some... at least even our failures are counted in small (but no less meaningful) figures.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

We hear about every "little" AMERICAN death. How many Iraqis have died in this invasion so far? I would hazard a guess that most Americans have no clue, and our media isn't interested in reporting that. This might explain why some of my fellow citizens seem mystified why anyone could reject our cultural hegemony over that of Saddam's.

jconnolly

As opposed to the how many that died under the sanctions, the same sanctions that Osama used to stir up hate against the US in his famous kill-all-Americans speech?

How many more would have died under the sanctions had they continued? Would you have dared to lift them?

cthulu23

Actually, I was directly involved in several campaigns with Voices in the Wilderness, a largely Catholic organization that protested the sanctions due to the suffering of the Iraqis. I was insultedby others the same then as I am now for my concern for the Iraqi people. Please don't assume so much....we all know what happens then, right?

matthew330

do you have a big brother cthulu?

jconnolly

Guess I can't argue against that.

How did you feel about the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq? Did you protest the civilian deaths as a result of that too?

Are you completely opposed to American involvement in the world stage?

Edit: Also, if you believe you are the only one concerned over the deaths of Iraqis, you're flat out wrong.

cthulu23

Sigh...no, and I don't get the joke. Why?

cthulu23

Of course not. I just have a problem with the "destroy a village to save it" mentality. the sanctions seemed to do little other than torture the Iraqi people and our invasion has also had dubious benefits. As I said before, I hope for the best regardless of politics, but it seems like our country is playing into the same mistakes that have shaped western policy towards the Middle East for the last century...namely the misconception that they would rather be ruled by a "civilized" western force rather than a tyrant of their own. When you invade a country, you can't expect too much good will.

Edit: and let's not forget the shifting justifications for this war. the plight of the Iraqi people only came after all the other reasons evaporated.

matthew330

i just remember you from awhile ago and thought you sounded like two different people.

cthulu23

I haven't posted in a while, but I thought my voice was consistent. Do I sound more or less rationale

jconnolly

I don't think that's the case at all. Possibly, but doubtful.

It's the habit of people such as yourself to say that we are attempting to impose our rule on them for their own good, screeching about white man's burden.

It's my theory, however, that this is also a self-defense maneuver - the only rational counter to terrorism is to make the countries that harbour them crack down. And, no, Iraq didn't have terrorists within its borders. But Iraq was an easy target, and once consolidated will provide projected power in the Middle East

Or we could just let them ferment and build up until they attack again.

cthulu23

Self-defense? From a country that had been torn apart by sanctions? Our own and the UN's analysts didn't see Iraq as a threat, so where is it? Where is the "self-defense?" You admit that this is a pure realpolitik war, so can't you see how the neocon's wrong headed thinking has only weakened our position in the Middle East? We are more hated globally than when this thing started. Wolfowitz, Perl and the rest really did believe that this would solidify our position in the regoin, but boy were they wrong. Of course, it was "screeching" people such as myself that warned of just this eventuality, but we're crazy, right? Who cares if Bush has been wrong about everything so far? How can rationality compare to empty arguments and emoticons?

smooth

Have you considered that "they" don't need to attack again because their goals have been achieved?

If their goal is to impose a government similar to the one they want in their own land (a conservative, religious political order), and if our current political landscape is shaping up that way, what motivation would anyone have for attacking again?


I would think that the claim that they will attack again shortly stems from the belief that terrorists are irrational killers. I already stated in other threads that I believe them to kill for concrete objectives--they have reasons.

Put that aside for a moment, along with your notions of what I politically support, and entertain these notions for a sec:

1. The current political order is altering to become more conservative and more christian based than it has been in the past 50 years (I'm not going back further than that for this analysis).

2. This is due to a number of things: the machinations of a vocal minority that was able to wrestle the reigns of its party (but maybe not this election cycle, the extent of their power actually remains to be seen) from corporate and individualistic planks; the desire of people to hunker down and repudiate risky endeavors in the face of external threats (they would rather do what is known to work rather than risk something that might have better results but, if it fails, possibly create greater harm.

3. An attack would reverse this trend, after demonstrating that the current admin didn't achieve what it claimed to--safety.


Basically, our current government, currently increasingly controlled by radical christians, is sliding toward the same values of intolerance as the Muslim radicals.

Why would they want to unravel that?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

irateplatypus

to be perfectly honest... i'm really not as concerned about iraqi death counts. this is to to the reality that you can never have a realistic picture of what those figures mean. what constitutes an innocent civilian casualty? from the perspective of the soldier on the ground... they're all civilians. no uniforms, no badges, concealed weapons, shady or nonexistent chain of command.

if you're talking about innocent people caught in the cross-fire... i mourn their deaths as much as a US soldier. if you're talking about someone who straps bombs to children or picks of their fellow iraqis waiting in a bread line... i say stack'em high and stack'em deep. the more we kill of them the better.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

cthulu23

Bombs have no way of discriminating between civilian and military. I'm not blaming our soldiers for anything, so let's get that out of the way.

You admittedly don't know how many civilians versus insurgents have died. How many civilians does it take before you become concerned? Aren't we supposed to be the civilized ones?

Edit: if the latest justification for the war is the well-being of the Iraqi people, shouldn't we be a little concerned about how many of them die? Why else are we sacrificing our own for them? Why save someone if you aren't concerned about whether they live or die?

powerclown

Just for the record, yes they did.
His name was ABU ABBAS.
Carry on...

cthulu23

Iraq may have had a smattering of terrorists within their borders, but they were not enthusiastic supporters of Islamic fundamentalism. As secular leaders, the Iraqi tyrants had nothing to gain from Al Qaeda. Our own 9-11 commision has substantiated that point.

irateplatypus

actually, our bombs do a pretty damn good job of discriminating... we can put one through a window. i'd trust our air force with a precision guided munition from miles away and 20,000 ft in the air more than i would trust iraqi mortar rounds to mitigate civilian causualties. and we're not really dropping many of them now. most of the high value military targets that were accessible by air delivery have long since been destroyed or converted into something else. most of the life and death decisions are made these days are being made by soldiers on the ground.

i said i wasn't concerned about civilian casualty figures because it is impossible to have figures that reflect the reality of the circumstances each death. and we are being the civilized ones. WE are wearing uniforms. WE aren't planting roadside bombs. WE aren't opening fire on unarmed iraqis waiting to sign up for governmental employment. the moral miasma is frustrating.

if you'll read my post earlier you'll see that i consider every innocent iraqi's death to be just as tragic as the death of a US soldier. however, deaths of those who are terrorizing their fellow civilians and our soldiers are indistinguishable from those of the innocent. that is why figures of total deaths hold little value for me.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

hannukah harry

i'm not sure, maybe you should check her fonts?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

DJ Happy

If Iraq is so great right now, what's she doing in California?

ARTelevision

Thanks for the good item, Ustwo - and for the positive thread.

__________________
create evolution

cthulu23

We should all be concerned with the total body count because the insurgents are definitely concerned about it. As it grows, it only strengthens their cause. Unlike Mr Rumsfeld, I don't think that the Iraqis will get sick of dying any time soon (that's his latest brilliant strategy....kill 'em 'til they stop coming....worked great in Vietnam, right?).

There have been some definite abuses by the US military in Iraq. For instance, a few weeks ago a Bradley was disabled in fighting. The crew fled without destroying it, so an Apache rained down fire on it to finish it off. Unfortunately, it was surrounded by Iraqi civilians. I saw US estimates of 60 killed....who are we supposed to be saving here? I'm not trying to morally equivocate between our soliders and the insurgents, but let's not pretend that our hands are completely clean here. War is filthy business, particularly war with guerilla combatants.

gcbrowni

Indeed it is a dirty business, but in the minds of many this war was justified and the right thing to do. If you accept that then you also have to expect that some civilians will die. No one is happy about it, but a large portion of people are willing to accept that as the price that must be paid. As the saying goes: Freedom isn't free.

It's also important to note the context in which the action takes place. You could draw comparisons between the prisons of old Iraq and the new US prisons, but they would be superficial. Torturing and rape as santioned policy and what happened in Abu Ghraib recently is quite a bit different.

__________________
From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.

cthulu23

Well, there have been allegations of rape at Abu Ghraib, so maybe the differences aren't all that clear, but that isn't a point I was trying to make.

As for the American feelings of justification for this war, almost 50% of Americans still believe that there were Iraqis involved in 9-11, down from around 70% around the time of the build up to war. Perhaps this little bit of misinformation helps explain those feelings. Makes me want to weep with frustration.

roachboy

anecdote:

there was a cnn online poll yesterday that asked whether the invasion of iraq was a mistake or not, given what is now known about the adminsitrations "case" for war: when i checked it last night, the results were: 2/3 of respondents think it was a mistake, 1/3 that it was not.

i do not think the right's information circle-jerk is holding in the wider world.

maybe that is why ustwo compulsively posts fragments of it for collective delectation here.
maybe he understands these fragments as the "truth of the matter" buried within the "liberal media"

i see it as a the workings of a kind of boundary maintenance, indices of the mechanisms used to seperate how the right sees things from how everyone else sees things.

you can see the same gap exposed, in a bizarre manner, if you juxtapose the bush speech before the un yesterday with what kofi annan said just before bush did his thing. annan argued for the rule of law--bush the voluntarist line that is his specialty these days--when all else fails, you argue in the register of will.

[[you also get a fair index of the sycophantic relation of the american press to whomever is in power in the relative nonreporting of annan's speech--if you see the two side by side, it is as if bush is from a strange alternate universe.]]

information limitation, distortion--the accumulation of "sources" who are already in the pocket of the right--wild, unfounded claims to representativeness made on behalf of these sources--in a context in which it can be assumed that no-one in agrreement with the desires expressed will make any effort to research the matter--some of the keys to conservative media culture....

and you can see in threads like this the function of the rights revisionist line on vietnam:

no war carried out by the american state could possibly not be legitimate.
critique can be replaced with therapeutic narratives which are reinforced/given content by crap like the article that began the thread.

the only way such acts of intellectual self-immolation are possible is within a context that provides not only no recognition of the act, but every reason to misrecognize it as support for the (necessarily legitimate, a priori legitimate) actions by the american state.

dont worry, be happy.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Charlatan

No one would dispute that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussain... What most are disputing is the method in which he was removed and the fallout from those actions.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke