What have we done to Iraq??
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
Lil Pino said:
finally! someone actually agreed with me 
. It seems everything I was sayin was goin against the grain.
For future debates, this whole situation in Iraq ain't gonna get any better with either of the two presidential candidates.
. It seems everything I was sayin was goin against the grain. For future debates, this whole situation in Iraq ain't gonna get any better with either of the two presidential candidates.
In the grand scheme of things...no...for the puposes of keeping this board alive and interesting...yes...it's all well and good, but stop degrading yourself, hook up with some links, pick up books, you're doing fine...as for Iraq being free, I get what you're saying in the sense that everyone should be free, and in a perfect world everyone would be...but do you really think the Iraqis are free now? Instead of one dictator in power, now there is a whole army, that roams the streets...and will probably still be there for many years to come...if you go to Iraq ten years from now, I'll bet the people will be looking fondly on the time when Saddam was in power.
Has there really been a conscious effort to see if the Iraqi people really want a society like ours? You see folks who are happy but are they truly happy because of what America has done for them or are they happy because they see Americans all around them with Rifles ready to snipe anyone who moves wrong, and are scared to death?
I agree that Saddam's punishments were harsh for a lot of things, but that wasn't what this was about in the first place. It was about 9/11 and afghanistan first, then it was about Iraq WMD's, then it was Sadamm was involved with 911, then it was liberating Iraq.
I agree that Saddam's punishments were harsh for a lot of things, but that wasn't what this was about in the first place. It was about 9/11 and afghanistan first, then it was about Iraq WMD's, then it was Sadamm was involved with 911, then it was liberating Iraq.
Great thread 2-0,
I always wondered how the stats stacked up.
(Yes I said stats, fucking war is like the olympics. Well at least the way the media portrays it, like a fucking competition of life vs' death)
LOL!
Boy the irony of having an athiest who's more in line with Christ's philosophy than a person who calls himself a Christian.
I always wondered how the stats stacked up.
(Yes I said stats, fucking war is like the olympics. Well at least the way the media portrays it, like a fucking competition of life vs' death)
LOL!
Boy the irony of having an athiest who's more in line with Christ's philosophy than a person who calls himself a Christian.
The Western concept and the Middle Eastern concept of "freedom" is so vastly different, it's very hard to make a direct comparison.
These are a few excerpts from "What went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" by Bernard Lewis.
"At the time of the nineteenth century reforms the effect of modernization was increased and reinforced autocracy, at once more effective and more visible. This focused the attention of the Middle-Eastern seekers on another distinctively European practice, that of constitutional and representative democracy, sometimes called freedom.
These perceptions...brought about changes...in traditional Muslim values....Westerners have become accustomed to think about good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty. In Middle-Eastern usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. It meant one who was not a slave, and unlike the West, Muslims did not use freedom or liberty as political metaphors. For traditional Muslims, the concept of liberty was not tyranny but justice. Justice in this sense means two things, that the ruler was there by right and not by usurpation, and that he governed according to God's law, or at least according to recognizable moral or legal principles."
On Modernity relating to freedom and Western concepts
"It is too early to say what this may portend. The contrast between visual and verbal acceptance in musical rejection is paralell in other areas, and for example, in the widespread cult, without the exercise, of freedom, and almost universal holding of elections, without choice.
It may help to understand these matters if we view them in a broader historical perpsective. In such a perspective, cultural innovation is not and never has been the monopoly of any one region or people; the same is true of resistance to it. There has been much borrowing both ways, and these disciples have not always been faithful to their models. Medieval Europe took its religion from the Middle East, as the Modern Middle East took its politics from Europe. And just as some Europeans managed to create Christianity without compassion, so some Middle Easterners have created democracy without freedom.
In every era of human history, modernity, or some equivalent, has meant the ways, norms, and standards of the dominant and expanding civilization. Every dominant civilization has imposed its own modernity in its time. The Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman Empire, Islam, medieval Christians, as well as the ancient civilization of India and china all impose their norms over a wide area and radiated their influance over a much broader one far beyond their imperial frontiers. Islam was first to make significant progress for what it perceived as its universal mission, the modern Western civiliation is the first to embrace the whole planet. Today, for the time being, as Attaturk recognized and as Indian computer scientists and Japanese high tech companies appreciate, dominant civilization is Western, and Western standards therefore define modernity.
There have been other dominant cicivlizations in the past; there will no doubt be others in the future. Western civilization incorporates many previous modernities- that is to say, it is enriched by contributions and influences of other cultures that preceeded it in leadership. It will itself bequeth a Western cultural legacy to other cultures yet to come."
Thus, the way we interpret or want freedom is markedly different from the Middle Eastern standard. Of larger import than democracy or consultation in government is the ruler's right to rule and adherence to Islam. We may come bringing the Bill of Rights, but what they interpret and accept will be markedly different. In fact, as Zakaria pointed out in Illiberal Democracy, unmitigated, unadvanced Democracy can possibly be the worst option for emerging Middle Eastern political systems.
These are a few excerpts from "What went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response" by Bernard Lewis.
"At the time of the nineteenth century reforms the effect of modernization was increased and reinforced autocracy, at once more effective and more visible. This focused the attention of the Middle-Eastern seekers on another distinctively European practice, that of constitutional and representative democracy, sometimes called freedom.
These perceptions...brought about changes...in traditional Muslim values....Westerners have become accustomed to think about good and bad government in terms of tyranny versus liberty. In Middle-Eastern usage, liberty or freedom was a legal not a political term. It meant one who was not a slave, and unlike the West, Muslims did not use freedom or liberty as political metaphors. For traditional Muslims, the concept of liberty was not tyranny but justice. Justice in this sense means two things, that the ruler was there by right and not by usurpation, and that he governed according to God's law, or at least according to recognizable moral or legal principles."
On Modernity relating to freedom and Western concepts
"It is too early to say what this may portend. The contrast between visual and verbal acceptance in musical rejection is paralell in other areas, and for example, in the widespread cult, without the exercise, of freedom, and almost universal holding of elections, without choice.
It may help to understand these matters if we view them in a broader historical perpsective. In such a perspective, cultural innovation is not and never has been the monopoly of any one region or people; the same is true of resistance to it. There has been much borrowing both ways, and these disciples have not always been faithful to their models. Medieval Europe took its religion from the Middle East, as the Modern Middle East took its politics from Europe. And just as some Europeans managed to create Christianity without compassion, so some Middle Easterners have created democracy without freedom.
In every era of human history, modernity, or some equivalent, has meant the ways, norms, and standards of the dominant and expanding civilization. Every dominant civilization has imposed its own modernity in its time. The Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman Empire, Islam, medieval Christians, as well as the ancient civilization of India and china all impose their norms over a wide area and radiated their influance over a much broader one far beyond their imperial frontiers. Islam was first to make significant progress for what it perceived as its universal mission, the modern Western civiliation is the first to embrace the whole planet. Today, for the time being, as Attaturk recognized and as Indian computer scientists and Japanese high tech companies appreciate, dominant civilization is Western, and Western standards therefore define modernity.
There have been other dominant cicivlizations in the past; there will no doubt be others in the future. Western civilization incorporates many previous modernities- that is to say, it is enriched by contributions and influences of other cultures that preceeded it in leadership. It will itself bequeth a Western cultural legacy to other cultures yet to come."
Thus, the way we interpret or want freedom is markedly different from the Middle Eastern standard. Of larger import than democracy or consultation in government is the ruler's right to rule and adherence to Islam. We may come bringing the Bill of Rights, but what they interpret and accept will be markedly different. In fact, as Zakaria pointed out in Illiberal Democracy, unmitigated, unadvanced Democracy can possibly be the worst option for emerging Middle Eastern political systems.
What was life like for the Iraqi civilian before the 1991 gulf war? Basically if you stay away from any form of government, you might be O.k.? I'm not supporting the war, but was everything peachy before we touched Iraq? Honest opinions.
It's easy for us to look back at our path of destruction, put it on a scale and say, "Oh yeah, much better before we touched down". But what if we never invaded Iraq; Saddam was still running rampant through the streets, and this board was filled with conservatives talking about how we should enter that country. What then would be your arguement?
It's easy for us to look back at our path of destruction, put it on a scale and say, "Oh yeah, much better before we touched down". But what if we never invaded Iraq; Saddam was still running rampant through the streets, and this board was filled with conservatives talking about how we should enter that country. What then would be your arguement?
Prior to 1990, over 90% of Iraqis has access to clean drinking water, whereas it was between 33-50% just prior to the 2003 war (1999 UN Report).
Prior to 1990, over 90% of Iraqis had access to high quality medical care, free of charge, whereas as the majority of Iraqis lack it now (1999 UN Report).
Prior to 1990, over 80% of Iraqis could read and write, whereas now the school attendance is almost 50% (1999 UN report). [Now what do you think it's at? 12%???]
In 1989, Unemployment rate: less than 5%
Prior to the fall of the former government, Iraq was essentially a massive welfare state. The state employed over a million people and provided food coupons for over 80% of Iraq's 25 million people. The fall of the government meant the effective end of this welfare state. In addition, the U.S. administration's firing of hundreds of thousands of paid state employees has made the situation even worse. The government employees, who were barely living above the starvation level, are now unemployed and income-less.
Prior to 1990, essentially all Iraqi's were free from hunger.
Prior to 1990, over 90% of Iraqis had access to high quality medical care, free of charge, whereas as the majority of Iraqis lack it now (1999 UN Report).
Prior to 1990, over 80% of Iraqis could read and write, whereas now the school attendance is almost 50% (1999 UN report). [Now what do you think it's at? 12%???]
In 1989, Unemployment rate: less than 5%
Prior to the fall of the former government, Iraq was essentially a massive welfare state. The state employed over a million people and provided food coupons for over 80% of Iraq's 25 million people. The fall of the government meant the effective end of this welfare state. In addition, the U.S. administration's firing of hundreds of thousands of paid state employees has made the situation even worse. The government employees, who were barely living above the starvation level, are now unemployed and income-less.
Prior to 1990, essentially all Iraqi's were free from hunger.
But we did invade, and that cannot be overlooked...how many have we killed compared to Saddam? You can count the Kurds, but the US essentially orchestrated their slaughter...not to mention the fact, that 2-0-Sixx has beaten in to our heads, that before 90, Iraq had an infrastructure, which is nonexistent today.
Comrade, Iraq is going to be FUCKED for years and years to come. Probably another 20-50 years. You think I'm joking? Civil war, followed by puppet ragimes = pissed Iraqi's.
Are you serious? Hmm, how about NO WAR WITH IRAQ! Real fucking simple idea. Oh, and REALISTIC too. There was absolutely no reason why we had to invade Iraq in the first place. And yes, I'm talking about the first gulf war as well as the second.
Are you serious? Hmm, how about NO WAR WITH IRAQ! Real fucking simple idea. Oh, and REALISTIC too. There was absolutely no reason why we had to invade Iraq in the first place. And yes, I'm talking about the first gulf war as well as the second.
If there is violence, we are winning because it shows they are desperate. If there is no violence, we are winning because we have brought peace. If the violence is a large attack, it shows they are so weak that they need to focus their manpower and resources on spectacular attacks in order to exaggerate their importance and it shows we are winning. If the violence is a series of small attacks, it shows we are winning because they have been reduced to fighting small battles. If parts of the country aren't under our control, it shows we are winning because they have consolidated into pockets of resistance because they know they have lost most of the war. If the violence is spread out across the country, it shows we are winning because the attacks are spread out instead of having any sort of organizational focus that could take the country out of our hands. If foreign fighters are involved, it shows we are winning because the Iraqis support us and only outside troublemakers are keeping things going. If domestic fighters are involved, it shows we are winning because the old regime is fighting for its last gasps because it knows it can't win open and free elections. If we can't hold open and free elections in every community, it is because we are winning and those obstacles are a last ditch attempt to block democracy. If other regimes are opening up, it shows that taking a hard line on Iraq was essential to forcing reform. If other regimes are closing themselves to the world, it shows that a hardline on Iraq was right because these regimes can't be trusted and are revealing their true colours. If the person on the street opposes America, it is because we are winning and evil regimes only prop themselves up through misinformation and bogeymen. If the person on the street supports America, it is because we are winning over their hearts and minds. If we can't find weapons of mass destruction, it shows we are winning because we prevented an evil man from acquiring them. If we find weapons of mass destruction, then we were right all along and thank god we are winning the war against them. If terrorists strike our allies, it shows we are winning that they are hurting enough to have to try and scare them out of a winning coalition. If the terrorists don't strike our allies, it is because we are winning and new security measures have been working and being part of the coalition is paying off.
If something is wrong, it shows that we are right.
If something is wrong, it shows that we are right.
The adjustment that we have made is, as Sixx pointed out, the installation of a puppet regime...this is not good...if we ever leave, it will be revolution, after coup in Iraq, there will be no stability...not to mention that the balance of power in the mid-east has been thrown out of wack...Iran will thrive...the breeding grounds for newer and stronger terror cells has been set...I must say, that this view on "freeing" Iraq is very myopic to say the least...a pandoras box has been opened in the mid-east, and we will be reaping the rotten fruits of our actions for many years to come...if you think we are safer now, or that Iraq is better, or "free", look again.