More Iraq Commentary
In the comments to this post, recent newcomer (to commenting, at least) chickenhawk leaves some pretty good observations that merit a more public answer than the comments section. chickenhawk, if you're reading this, please keep in mind that this is as much a discussion of the entire picture as it is an answer to your comments; if it seems as if I'm getting irritated, it's not at you!
The impression I got from the article, combined with my source, was that there were Saddam-era components. I can't say for sure.
I can understand that people have responded negatively, and I'll readily agree that the situation is rough, but people have short memories. They whine and complain about two or three thousand American service personnel killed, or thirty or forty thousand Iraqis killed; they ignore casualty figures from conflicts like the Civil War and World War II, during which three thousand casualties for one battle would have been an improvement. I did a post about this subject last October.
Also, most Americans don't take the time to actually research the situation. When you answer calls of "There were no WMDs!" (a statement that has been demonstrated to be untrue), and you answer "So what!? Saddam Hussein was an open and unapologetic state sponsor of terrorism, and he violated seventeen UN resolutions!", and the best your opponent can come up with is "Bush lied, people died!", it's a pretty good indication that the naysayers don't care about facts, they only care about their vitriol hatred of President Bush and their overwhelming desire to look out for their own interests.
Think, for a moment, about just how bad the situation was after the Persian Gulf War. The Oil-for-Food program lined the pockets of Saddam Hussein and a number of international crooks, while conditions got progressively worse for the Iraqis; now aid money is getting directly to the Iraqi people, and the sanctions are no longer taking lives. Hussein was killing tens of thousands of people for no apparent reason, often simply to put fear into the minds of his subjects so that they wouldn't revolt. Kurds and Shi'is were constantly afraid for their lives from the agents of their own government. The situation is rough, but people have been eager to forget how bad it was before.
I believe that there are good Congressmen, but I agree that many are nothing more than political opportunists with no clue as to the right path for America and for the international community, specifically Iraq. Senator Clinton, for example, has been quick to call for Donald Rumsfeld's ouster and place blame, even though she has no credentials to be a senator in the first place, let alone a full member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I'm not sure about your statement about the size of government; if you think it should be smaller, I absolutely agree.
That's a tough question. The British, for example, have had some difficulties in recent months with their efforts in Basra, which were covered by the media. In many cases, particularly in the case of nations like Japan (where their commitment of troops was largely political), foreign contingents are assigned non-combat duties, or put in safer districts of the country. As for media coverage of coalition deaths from nations other than ours, I'd merely note that the media's choice of coverage revolves around two things: what they think people are interested in, and what their own agenda dictates.
As I said before, I believe we are making progress in Iraq, I believe we are moving in the right direction, and I believe in staying the course. We've lost around 2600 American service personnel so far, and I refuse to believe that their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of the wounded, and their families, has been for nothing. The progress is slow, but if you know to look, it's discernible and visible.
Can we say "so much for that whole 'Saddam wasnt developing chemical weapons' theory" just yet though? I read your links, and it does not seem like we can quite yet.
The impression I got from the article, combined with my source, was that there were Saddam-era components. I can't say for sure.
I appreciate and admire your optimism though. Its not a negative thing, thats for sure. But with so many people dying over there everyday and much disorder in certain areas, can you not see why people have responded negatively?
I can understand that people have responded negatively, and I'll readily agree that the situation is rough, but people have short memories. They whine and complain about two or three thousand American service personnel killed, or thirty or forty thousand Iraqis killed; they ignore casualty figures from conflicts like the Civil War and World War II, during which three thousand casualties for one battle would have been an improvement. I did a post about this subject last October.
Also, most Americans don't take the time to actually research the situation. When you answer calls of "There were no WMDs!" (a statement that has been demonstrated to be untrue), and you answer "So what!? Saddam Hussein was an open and unapologetic state sponsor of terrorism, and he violated seventeen UN resolutions!", and the best your opponent can come up with is "Bush lied, people died!", it's a pretty good indication that the naysayers don't care about facts, they only care about their vitriol hatred of President Bush and their overwhelming desire to look out for their own interests.
Think, for a moment, about just how bad the situation was after the Persian Gulf War. The Oil-for-Food program lined the pockets of Saddam Hussein and a number of international crooks, while conditions got progressively worse for the Iraqis; now aid money is getting directly to the Iraqi people, and the sanctions are no longer taking lives. Hussein was killing tens of thousands of people for no apparent reason, often simply to put fear into the minds of his subjects so that they wouldn't revolt. Kurds and Shi'is were constantly afraid for their lives from the agents of their own government. The situation is rough, but people have been eager to forget how bad it was before.
I seriously lack faith in our government and the size of it as well. Our congress are a bunch of opportunists and I dont think any of them have a clue of what is best for Iraq, or even our own country. But to leave Iraq would be inhumane right now.
I believe that there are good Congressmen, but I agree that many are nothing more than political opportunists with no clue as to the right path for America and for the international community, specifically Iraq. Senator Clinton, for example, has been quick to call for Donald Rumsfeld's ouster and place blame, even though she has no credentials to be a senator in the first place, let alone a full member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I'm not sure about your statement about the size of government; if you think it should be smaller, I absolutely agree.
Question: we constantly hear about American casualties and injuries. How come we do not hear the same for the troops from other countries- Britain, Poland, Australia? Are they located in areas of the country where there is less violence?
That's a tough question. The British, for example, have had some difficulties in recent months with their efforts in Basra, which were covered by the media. In many cases, particularly in the case of nations like Japan (where their commitment of troops was largely political), foreign contingents are assigned non-combat duties, or put in safer districts of the country. As for media coverage of coalition deaths from nations other than ours, I'd merely note that the media's choice of coverage revolves around two things: what they think people are interested in, and what their own agenda dictates.
As I said before, I believe we are making progress in Iraq, I believe we are moving in the right direction, and I believe in staying the course. We've lost around 2600 American service personnel so far, and I refuse to believe that their sacrifice, and the sacrifices of the wounded, and their families, has been for nothing. The progress is slow, but if you know to look, it's discernible and visible.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home