Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[markedel]

The idea that terror attack America because it steps on toes seems shallow. If one dislikes specific (or even broad) national policies there are ways to do so. However I see all terror attacks as essentially acts of war against the state-an attack in ideals, founding principles and instituitons. The 9/11 terrorists saw American liberal democracy as threatening their percieved cultural integrity, so they "invaded" the U.S. If the U.S bent over backwards to ensure popularity among terrorists it's called appeasement.

This really is a war to make the world safe for democracy, in the sense that it eliminates a regime that will actively support attempts to stop its spread and destory its base-a shoddily run one, but that is still the purpose. Those who disagree with it, IMO moslty oppose U.S methods of doing so, but there are always some (a vocal minority) who just don't like liberal-capitalist democracy and do not wish to see active campaigns to preserve it. Note that International ANSWER and its sister organizations are backed not by human rights groups (a very liberal concept), but by Stalinists, who by definition, oppose liberalism and all its variants.

[Lief Erikson]

I've heard people on the news and in other places saying they're not in support of Saddam or Bush's war. People here on Entmoot tend to say the same thing, I think, that they're not in favor of Saddam Hussein but they think this war is wrong.

I think that they're very incorrect that this war is wrong and that the evidence is overwhelming which supports Prime Minister Blair's and President Bush's statements and reasons. However, I think that whether or not the war originally was wrong is less relevant now than it was.

We're in the war now; it's well underway. So backing out of continuing the war will have different effects then not starting the war would have had. Our troops backing out of Iraq would cause all the people who spoke out against Saddam Hussein to be under threat again- there'd be thousands of death for certain. Not only that, but we'd be leaving the oppressed people of Iraq (They are oppressed) under the sway of an utterly brutal regime. We've betrayed the people of Iraq before at least twice by not helping them. There were thousands upon thousands of deaths in Iraq after the Gulf War, when Saddam took out his revenge upon those that had stood up against him. They had thought that the present President Bush would protect and assist them, but he didn't and so they were massacred. I'm not removing all blame from America in this, though there were good reasons why we couldn't go forward and help them. It's a terrible tragedy that we didn't go forward then, and the horrors that have come afterward come directly from that. The only good thing about the Gulf War was that Kuwait was liberated. The thousands of troops of Iraq that were slaughtered were primarily drafted, and the aftermath was tragic.

If Iraqi oil was what American forces were after, then we're brain dead. The costs of this war in terms of money would inevitably be far greater than whatever oil profits we might procur for ourselves. The costs in terms of world opinion and public opinion would be devastating to the Bush Administration as well; does anyone honestly think that these facts weren't taken into account? That our country suddenly went both greedy and stupid?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I've heard people on the news and in other places saying they're not in support of Saddam or Bush's war. People here on Entmoot tend to say the same thing, I think, that they're not in favor of Saddam Hussein but they think this war is wrong.

Thank you, Lief. That is exactly my stance. Furthermore, I feel that the US going in and attempting to set up a democracy probably won't work. Why? Because there are too many factions in Iraq and the middle east that are against the so-called US liberation. What happens if you set up a democracy and something equivalent to the taleban is set up? What kind of steps would the US take to prevent this sort of situation happening? And would it still be a democracy if the US was watch-dogging who got in? I'm far too cynical to believe even for a moment that democracy would work in that region for this moment in time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the change has to come from within. And I don't see the Bush administration (or its successors) setting up a democracy when it's entirely likely that it'll turn around and bite it in the butt. Far safer, methinks, for them to set up another dictator (easier to control a dictator, than risk a democracy running in the direction they don't want.) And remember: I have history on my side here - Saddam, Suharto, Pol Pot, Pinochet...

And of course: the US is standing to make a great deal out of this war - why is it that only US building contractors are securing contracts to rebuild Iraq? This lets the US administration effectively decide what exactly gets rebuilt in Iraq! How is this democracy?! Where exactly do the people of Iraq decide where the money is going and what is getting repaired?!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Thank you, Lief. That is exactly my stance. Furthermore, I feel that the US going in and attempting to set up a democracy probably won't work. Why? Because there are too many factions in Iraq and the middle east that are against the so-called US liberation. What happens if you set up a democracy and something equivalent to the taleban is set up? What kind of steps would the US take to prevent this sort of situation happening? And would it still be a democracy if the US was watch-dogging who got in? I'm far too cynical to believe even for a moment that democracy would work in that region for this moment in time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the change has to come from within.

And how do you suppose that happens while Hussein, his sons and regime are still alive? Do you honestly think that the Iraqis can rise up against them? That is such a simplistic view. It's just like what was in the paper today from this professor on Middle Eastern studies.

Q. Right now, democracy in the Middle East woudn't bring us governments friendly to the United States. Do we install a friendly government in Iraq, or a possibly unfriendly but democratic one?

A. How do you affect change? From within, or do you force it? Obviously, this administration has decided to enforce change. But far from empowering liberal voices, this particular war plays into reactionary elements who stand to gain the most. Liberals are screaming: What have you done? You are radicalizing Muslim politics and giving ammunition to jihadi forces.

Why do you have to destroy a country to bring democracy to it? No external power can bring or impose democracy. Iraqis themselves must transform the country. The United States can assist the Iraqi people byt aiding them, by investing in civil society, by making commitments to human rights and rule of law.

I really really really want to know how this is possible while Hussien and his regime is still in power? Does this so called professor really think that Hussein will just say - "Yeah you're right, our torture is really bad, I think we'll just stop killing our people."

This person is looking at it through rose colored glasses - as if just by the US supporting change in Iraq - that Hussein will miraculously just come around and see the evil of his ways.

Also -the US did FORCE democracy in the past on countries - with successful results - Japan being one of them. But I guess since he's a Middle Eastern professor - his education doesn't go that far east. Or maybe he didn't want to mention that because Japan doesn't support his argument that you can not bring democracy to a country from the outside.

And I don't see the Bush administration (or its successors) setting up a democracy when it's entirely likely that it'll turn around and bite it in the butt. Far safer, methinks, for them to set up another dictator (easier to control a dictator, than risk a democracy running in the direction they don't want.) And remember: I have history on my side here - Saddam, Suharto, Pol Pot, Pinochet...

Oh - yeah I can just hear the complaints from you later if we did that one. Install a dictator under the power of the US??? The Middle East would just LOVE that one.

And of course: the US is standing to make a great deal out of this war - why is it that only US building contractors are securing contracts to rebuild Iraq? This lets the US administration effectively decide what exactly gets rebuilt in Iraq! How is this democracy?! Where exactly do the people of Iraq decide where the money is going and what is getting repaired?!

Let's see - whose supporting us miltarily in Iraq???? Who is leading the coalition? You think we'll invite french agencies or German companies to come in?

[Lief Erikson]

I haven't heard much about the other factions in Iraq, but I know that the Kurds are in support of the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, and they say that they'll submit to a democracy in Iraq, if they have fair representation.

There are a few reasons that a lot of Iraqis are against the U.S. invasion. For one, we encouraged them to rise up against Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and they did. Hundreds of thousands died, because we didn't back up or support those people. This is a strong reason for them to dislike or distrust us. Secondly, they've been consistently had lies spread to them by their government. I'm sure you've heard what their government has said, BeardofPants. They've been denying that our invasion has gotten anywhere, they've claimed that we've murdered thousands of their civilians and that we are targeting civilians. Al'Jazeera's spreading Saddam's account is certainly not helping their opinion of the invasion. It'll become much more easy to see where everyone stands after the fight is over and more of the truth is known. About the WMDs as well; there's still more that will be learned on that score.

The U.S. is leading the coalition to change the controlling regime in Iraq, so it's only logical that they'd have a strong say in the reconstruction. I do agree that what comes after the war with Iraq is just as important as the way the war is conducted, though. An important reason why the Middle East population is against the war is the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. They see the U.S. as supporting Sharon's policy no matter what he chooses, and they see the Palestinians as wronged. Our actions there are causing them to think that there's little chance of our doing something just and good with Iraq.

President Bush has stated that we need to follow through with the plan that already has been endorsed by the U.N. immediately after the war with Iraq is complete. They thought things through a lot beforehand, and they know that they'll have to deal with a very tough situation. The situation with Israel has to be resolved, and we can't for any longer just continue supporting Sharon's policy, no matter what he does, in the way we are.

[Troll]

this thread is deadly boring.

and even more useless.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Geee, with a name like troll...I wonder what he plans to do here...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Geee, with a name like troll...I wonder what he plans to do here...

I was just going to ignore the a$$hole - but I was thinking the same thing. It's also funny how that was his first post.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Lizra
As an American, I'm am tired of hearing about "evil America" when Saddam's decades of torment and torture speak louder than words. (To me)

Couldn't have said it any better Lizra!

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Thank you, Lief. That is exactly my stance. Furthermore, I feel that the US going in and attempting to set up a democracy probably won't work. Why? Because there are too many factions in Iraq and the middle east that are against the so-called US liberation. What happens if you set up a democracy and something equivalent to the taleban is set up? What kind of steps would the US take to prevent this sort of situation happening? And would it still be a democracy if the US was watch-dogging who got in? I'm far too cynical to believe even for a moment that democracy would work in that region for this moment in time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the change has to come from within. And I don't see the Bush administration (or its successors) setting up a democracy when it's entirely likely that it'll turn around and bite it in the butt. Far safer, methinks, for them to set up another dictator (easier to control a dictator, than risk a democracy running in the direction they don't want.) And remember: I have history on my side here - Saddam, Suharto, Pol Pot, Pinochet...

Well here is the thing BoP, the US State Department has been and is working with a group of Iraqi exiles called, The Iraqi National Congress. They will be the one's spawning the democracy in working with the coalition. In fact many of them have been on TV here being interviewed answering that exact question. They will be the one's forming the government and with their ties to the Iraqi people. They are all from Iraqi, staunchly against Saddam, for this war, and all want a working democracy in Iraq as well. You can learn more about them on their site:

http://www.inc.org.uk/

[Dúnedain]

Man being sick made me miss a lot of good stuff, by the way, I love you JD (in a non-sexual platonic kinda way)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Man being sick made me miss a lot of good stuff,

Sorry you were sick. Dont' tell me you actually stayed in bed the whole time.

by the way, I love you JD (in a non-sexual platonic kinda way)

Awww - you're just saying that.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry you were sick. Dont' tell me you actually stayed in bed the whole time.

Actually I am still sick, past 3 days I feel like crap! Horrible headache, sneezing my nose off, my head feels like it weighs 100 pounds, and I sound like I swallowed 4 frogs that are stuck in my throat. Didn't stay in bed the whole time, but I just didn't come to the board during that time

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Awww - you're just saying that.

Yeah, I guess you're right, lol

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants

And of course: the US is standing to make a great deal out of this war - why is it that only US building contractors are securing contracts to rebuild Iraq? This lets the US administration effectively decide what exactly gets rebuilt in Iraq! How is this democracy?! Where exactly do the people of Iraq decide where the money is going and what is getting repaired?!

It's interesting that the British are currently recruiting Iraqis to run the port at Umm Qasr, against the wishes of the Americans, who wanted to use American civilians. As we know, the Turks are poised to counter any Kurdish ambitions in the north. The first of many splits in the alliance?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
It's interesting that the British are currently recruiting Iraqis to run the port at Umm Qasr, against the wishes of the Americans, who wanted to use American civilians.

No- we always planned on using Iraqi civilians to run the oil wells and stuff. They need jobs. It's the rebuilding of Iraq that was being discussed for American companies- the bridges, roads, the oil wells which were set on fire. Iraq doesn't really have the infastructure to do that.

However - we were telling the Iraqis that the water was FREE and the British troops were telling them they had to pay.

As we know, the Turks are poised to counter any Kurdish ambitions in the north. The first of many splits in the alliance?

The Turkish were never really part of the alliance and they've stated from the beginning they are concerned about Kurdish uprisings in southern Turkey. The US has warned Turkey to stay out of northern Iraq and so far they have not caused any problems. So - I really don't know what yoyu mean by "The first of many splits in the alliance" since for one - Turkey isn't really part of the alliance. And two - Turkey's attitude toward the Kurds has been an issue before the war even started.

By the way Dúnedain - I hope you feel better. Seems pretty aweful.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way Dúnedain - I hope you feel better. Seems pretty aweful.

Yeah I think the worst is past me now, but the sneezing is getting annoying I want to cut my nose off!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Awww - you're just saying that.

Which, the platonic part?

I want to cut my nose off!

To spite your face...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

If Iraqi oil was what American forces were after, then we're brain dead. The costs of this war in terms of money would inevitably be far greater than whatever oil profits we might procur for ourselves. The costs in terms of world opinion and public opinion would be devastating to the Bush Administration as well; does anyone honestly think that these facts weren't taken into account? That our country suddenly went both greedy and stupid?

Well its not the country that wants the oil its certain cronies of the Bush (actually Cheney) administration that would stand to benefit while the rest of the country would have to pay for the war for years and years after. And those folks arent concerned about world opinion or public opinion or how much the tax payers will have to pay for this war. NO this war ISNT just about oil but YES theres some scummy people who are close to Cheney who WILL benefit.

[Tanoliel]

(It is now confirmed, 12 Americans and 4 Britains are the first casualties in the war)
Question: What about all those Iraqis we were talking about a few posts earlier? Aren't those casualties, too?

I would also like to comment on the ageism--not flaming. Just that because a few kids make comments out of annoyance and / or ignorance, many adults think that all kids are uninformed and everything. This is not true. I am perfectly able to form my own opinions...I am also nearly voting age, and you can bet I WILL be voting come next election!

Tano
GBA

[Elf Girl]

I very much support that, Tano. (Says the twelve-year-old.)