"...we part with tender relations stretching far behind us, that never can be exactly renewed..."
I read Dillon's article, but I cannot agree, I'm sorry to say. For one, he claims that Iraqis were "screaming" for our help, but frankly, I have seen or heard of no evidence of plees from Iraqis.
For another, he is trying to justify forcing an American way of life on another country of people. While I will not deny that the principles we as Americans hold dear are extremelly important, if not essential to us, it is quite ethnocentric to assume that they would be desireable to another people, or moreso that we are necessary to provide them to those people. That's the equivalent of China claiming that Communism works wonderfully for them, and many Americans suffer daily, so they assume we need a Communist regime to end all American suffering because afterall, it's working for them.
I could go on and on but I don't have much time, plus I doubt I will change your mind. I do respect Mr. Dillon's opinion, I cannot agree with his reasoning however.
For Kate: Nevertheless, I think we may safely assume that people everywhere will not enjoy being being tortured and executed without trial for crimes they did not commit, gassed in their thousands merely for being of the wrong ethnic group, reduced to poverty and starvation because their rulers have ripped off all aid programs. And the majority in Iraq seem to be responding to the idea of democracy quite positively, turning out to vote in the face of intimidation from fanatics, signing up for recruitment into the security forces in spite of being targeted by cowardly murderers as a result, and working towards a constitution of fairness for all racial and religious groups.
Face it, Kate: your opinion on what is happening in Iraq is driven entirely by a determination to disagree with your President at every turn and a condescension towards the people of Iraq that is quite staggering.
Sorry, Scott; her comment caught me in a moment of weakness...
Kate, would you prefer to live in America, or Iraq before America liberated the country?
What color of burka do you like?
That's all.
But if Iraq stands up to all it's enemies,
Radical Islamist's,
Radical American's with nothing better to do than pretend to know international affairs.
Radical leftists of the world that want Iraq and any country that dares to want freedom to fail.
If they stand up and take this opportunity, they will become the first predominately Muslim nation with freedom for most if not all of it's citizens.
Merle Haggard sang a really good song,some 30 years ago... Intitled....Walking on the fighting side of me,....Go listen to it.
In response to your comment, Kate, I think E. B. White perhaps says it best: "Freedom is a household word now, but it's only once in a while, that you see a man who is actively, almost belligerently free. It struck me as we worked our way homeward up the rough bay with our catch of lobsters and a fresh breeze in our teeth that this was what the fight was all about. This was it. Either we would continue to have it or we wouldn't, this right to speak our own minds, haul our own traps, mind our own business, and wallow in the wide, wide sea."
Thank you visiting and responding. . .
Thanks to Gone Away and Web Loafer for jumping in.
Scot
Good grief...a mother loses her son and suddenly she thinks she has the right to question our glorious leader's intentions in his sacred war. Why can't she be brave like Bush? You don't see him carrying on about the sacrifices his daughters have made.
I am sick of the political divisiveness on this issue. Shame on our politicians for making this about getting elected, and for once more getting on the soapbox by getting behind Sheehan. With the latest declassified documents that indicate that the Clinton administration knew about Bin Laden and the 9/11 perps five years before the attacks should make them feel ashamed of themselves. It's time to quit all this nonsense, stop hating Bush, stop all this "empire building" nonsense, and start recognizing that naive idealism isn't worth a damn in the face of the very real threat, the promise, of terrorism.
Scott: Good point. Idealism in the face of a threat, as you say, is perhaps naivete at its very worse.
It may be a bit late to comment on this, but I do have a question for kate. If you or those close to you were being tortured by Saddam or some other maniac, would you hope for diplomat or plead for a gunboat to come to your aid?
Good post. What is freedom of speech to Americans is a sign of weakness to enemies. It's as simple as that. In times of peace, the anti-Bush rhetoric is harmless enough. In times of war its harmful. Americans should tone it down. Even those who don't agree need to let it go. I agree, Foreign Policy retraced the reasons for war and the Administration gave as many as 19. The anti-war camp cling to the WMD because it suits them. It's crazy how the nation divides itself. As for Iraqi's, there is no doubt many privately wished to be saved. Think about it. It took a foreign power to take the unpopular step of initiating it and Iraqi's are all the better for it.
RE: the commentator
Thanks for responding. You make an interesting point by saying, "It took a foreign power to take the unpopular step of initiating it . . ."
You ignore the facts that Iraq was the friend of America, the barrier against Iran, until such time as it suited them to end that relationship. Everything Saddam did was done with US assistance, approval or inaction - which is an unspoken approval in itself.
You also ignore the facts that it's the US taxpayers who are paying for the war. It's the taxpayers' money that is going to those American companies commissioned to rebuild Iraq, including the oil supply. These companies are receiving money from the government to go in and rebuild Iraq. These companies are then free to make a profit from their efforts, not just in the financial return of what they are building, but in the profits gained from government contracts. There is little cost to these companies, but massive financial gain. And who is paying for it? The taxpayers.
It just might be about the oil, considering that the profits are far outwheighing any costs, especially since the US taxpayers are footing the bill. Are they getting any return on the money they're spending? Hell no. All they're getting is more financial burden as their money is reduced by rising costs due to the war they're funding. Money is being made as a result of this, and it's going to the friends of the Bush administration, which will, in return, come back to them when they're out of politics. The good of the country has less value to them than the good of their pockets once they're no longer in political leadership.
War in Iraq has never been about high ideals or noble values. That's the spin they're telling you. If they truly believed in high ideals and noble values, and in acting upon them, they would have stepped in a long time ago, when Saddam was committing atrocities against Iraqis in the 80's and 90's.
Your comments only help with the Bush administration's 'spin', but it doesn't reflect on historical precedent - which is that no action was taken until such action was financially profitable to certain people and companies. It's all about profit, not ideals.
Your words are pretty, but they ignore reality in a big way. Lofty ideals don't measure up to the facts of what could have happened and didn't, and what is happening that shouldn't.
Taking 'historical precedent' back to WWII is not relevent to the situation today. There were no 'friends of the President' setting up companies within Axis nations during the war, to rebuild those countries and take advantage of profits at the expense of innocent deaths. There WAS a higher ideal at play, and the people and companies were all on one side.
There is no unity today because people can see the truth, no matter what the Bush administration, the media or those people like yourself who are aligned with them, says. Noble values are spoken, but not carried out. Actions are speaking far louder than words, and the actions of those within the Bush administration and its supporters, within the US and in other c
(sorry, seems to have run out of space in that comment. Here's the continuation of what I wrote.)
Actions are speaking far louder than words, and the actions of those within the Bush administration and its supporters, within the US and in other countries, show they're more interested in personal and corporate profit than they are in liberating innocent people from oppression. There's nothing you can say that will prove otherwise, as the expression of noble values has no significance in the face of cold, hard reality.
Thank you, Alan
I didn't realize I was oppressed. Curious, though, but when you choose to counterargue with somebody, do you always point your finger?
Seems rude to me.
Anyway, I'm satisfied with knowing that my writing provoked such a passioned response. I look forward to you weighing in on a regular basis.
Commenting by HaloScan
