Freedom to Iraq
- Thread starter DruMAX
- Start date
I don't think it's a problem to make Iraq free. Just...
http://www.barabanow.com/iraqfree.html?P=115
;-)
http://www.barabanow.com/iraqfree.html?P=115
;-)
Kelven said:
Not really. The insurgency in Iraq is not nearly as bad as most people think it is. When a country is brimming with uncontrolled arms and high explosives, a small minority is generally free to cause a lot of hell. If the minority was significant, I'm afraid there would be no way in hell such a small number of American/coalition soldiers would be able to keep control of the country without resorting to extremely brutal tactics harkening back to colonial days.
Warfare is a nasty business, but I think most people today have really lost track of how nasty it really is and generally blow things out of proportion. It's sad that people die early, but that's just a fact of life. People are dying all over the world for all kinds of stupid ass reasons. I think it's terrible when our soldiers die, but at least they died trying to do something worthwhile and that's a lot better than most people.
The majority of people in Iraq were oppressed by Saddam and the Sunni minority. Those people will be happy to have power, and eventually, they will need to pony up the backbone to defend their own country and government. But coming from decades of oppression, it's going to take some time, and some American blood spilled before it happens. And when it's all done, the first Arab democracy will be in place - and that can only be a good thing.
TonyElTigre
Veteran XX
Democracy is freedom, there is no freedom without choice so by definition we are giving them freedom. Military isnt a political system, our invasion (or liberation) of iraq wasnt a democivasion but the system we are giving them is democratic
|VM| what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction?? Something capable of inflicting mass casualties? hundreds of thousands, maybe millions? Because i think we dug one of those out of a hole
|VM| what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction?? Something capable of inflicting mass casualties? hundreds of thousands, maybe millions? Because i think we dug one of those out of a hole
Kizzak said:
But if you take it one step further, what do we do if WE are a destabilizing force?
If America withdrew from Iraq, leaving a US-friendly Shia government in place, and provided them with our tech and weapons to fight the "insurgents" wouldn't that save American lives and fulfil our responsiblity?
Excel said:
I never said that...If they want freedom, more power to them...there are plenty of black people who could have used our help in africa as we sat by and did nothing at all. I simply dont think its our concern what is going over there...saddam was not directly effecting us any more than any of the many other despots we do nothing about.
Its funny you would compare saddam to WMD since there is a regime in Sudan that has killed roughly a million of its own citizens for the last 10 years and I can assure you that we wont be invading them any time soon.
Like I said, I completely sick of the rationalizations as to why we did it...I have heard them all, if they havent been proven incorrect, they are concept like freedom and helping the poor people that we dont go out of our way to bring to any other country. Go ask rwanda if america believes in helping poor people being slaughtered by their government...they would say that while they were being slaughtered, we sat there and watched and in the end did nothing and that has been repeated many times.
The justifications suck, the whining by the other side sucks, Iraq all day and night on the news and in my paper sucks...America just get the fuck out.
If you want to discuss our record of fucking up other countries in the name of freedom and democracy (and interest of america) I invite you to read this book: Inside Cia's Private World: Declassified Articles from the Agency's Internal Journal, 1955-1992 good read...