I am looking for answers from an avergae american perspective to the following questions;
Please play nice, no mudslinging.
Long-term strategy to undermine terrorism and religious fascism in the region.
1) The US hated Saddam. He was a brutal repulsive dictator, and we got fed up with his defiance.
2) There was no link between Saddam and Osama. 9/11 meant that you no longer needed a missle to attack your enemies. The future prospect that a major WMD proliferator would join forces with terrorists (perhaps not UBL) is plausible.
3) The current uprising is predictable. When the US did not immediately pacify the Sunni triangle a year ago, it made today a fate accompli. The uprising is simply an extension of "major combat" a year ago. Iraqi's have no recent history of political process, hence no confidence in it. Nor do they have a realistic view of the time and effort it will take to reorganize thier country. Sadr is a two bit thug with a militia. Iraqi's also have no conception that an "occupation" is simply a bridge 'til freedom.
When you have a broken leg, you put a splint on it. No one likes the splint, it is irritating, sometimes painful, but your leg will not heal straight and true without it. It seems like it will never come off. But killing the doctor who put on the splint because you think that he will never take it off is irrational unless you distrust the doctor. The issue is not the doctor, it is your leg. If the leg becomes infected, you may have to take bitter medicine until you are well. Concentrate on becoming well, not on how you broke the leg....
^ Then you are delusional and suffer from extreme blame displacement. Time to see a shrink to uncover the truth, face reality and accept responsiblity.
Funny, any doctor who is willing to donate his own blood to get you well, and pay you to get well should be given the benefit of the doubt. Never mind that the doctor also subdued and arrested the thug who was beating on you......
The patient is abusive and combative, give him some thorazine until the fever subsides....
1- Americans are blood-thirsty, power hungry barbarians and ruthless killers. Oil and further enhancement of their bully-ism in the world is the sole reason for attacking Iraq.
2- No.
3- I hope the uprisers kill the as many americans as they can before giving up. I know the uprising is not going to last long. But the more America suffers, the more our wounds heal, InshaAllah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Benediction: *
3- I hope the uprisers kill the as many americans as they can before giving up. I know the uprising is not going to last long. But the more America suffers, the more our wounds heal, InshaAllah.
[/QUOTE]
It is that attitude that cements the ummah in the position it is in today.
It is this attitude that will bring America down, slowly but surely. Thing is, thats the only language Americans understand.
Re: Simple Questiosns
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
1. Why do you think US attacked Iraq?
2. Did you find the link between Osama and Saddam plausible?
3. What is your reaction to the current uprising?
[/QUOTE]
Kick Saddam (The bad boy who tried to kill "my daddy"!). Nice bonus to have more control over Iraqi oil and to give a strong message to middle east that US is indeed world's policeman.
Thats a joke. It was a joke. It still is.
Good thing. The world's mightiest military force will now think 100 times before they decide to risk another adventure any where in the world. The mighty ass-whopping they are getting in Iraq is a good lesson that an occupation force is an "Occupation Force" ... you can not hide behind the facade of "Liberators" for a long time.
Re: Simple Questiosns
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
1. Why do you think US attacked Iraq?
2. Did you find the link between Osama and Saddam plausible?
3. What is your reaction to the current uprising?
[/QUOTE]
My feelings are very close to Imdad’s
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
1) The US hated Saddam. He was a brutal repulsive dictator, and we got fed up with his defiance.
[/QUOTE]
That almost makes the whole thing sound like a big tantrum?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
1. In response to 9/11, it was critically important for the US to demonstrate the willingness and resolve to take overwhelming military action to protect its security. It could not allow itself to be viewed as a paper tiger or spineless nation. Saddam’s 15 year record of recalcitrance, obstinacy, aggression, brutality, etc. made him the perfect target for rallying political consensus in the US.
[/QUOTE]
This is the reason I hear most often. The major point it misses is that it is a fools risk: failure would be worse than inaction, and failure is more likely than any obvious success. So, with that in mind, if I may add another question to Kaleem's list, Why did/do so many people (you?) believe the risk was worth taking?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
So, with that in mind, if I may add another question to Kaleem's list, Why did/do so many people (you?) believe the risk was worth taking?
[/QUOTE]
Because who would have thought the removal of Saddam would have been such an affront to anybody? It would serve U.S. interest in planting seeds for another "friendly" state in the region. A beleaguered people would be free from a brutal dictator. Well what many of us didn't count on, stupidly I might add, is that reason and intent are casualties in this conflict. In a conflict involving Muslims and U.S., nothing matters except the Muslim perception of a larger war on Islam. So Iraq can still be one huge s••thole of a place to live so long as Muslims are large and in charge-that's what we were too stupid to get. Corrupt dictators, rape rooms, gassing towns, slaughtering Shias and Kurds by the many thousands. We thought there would be a compelling interest in getting rid of that and turning power over to a more representative govt. Our long-term interest served as well as theirs.
But we're not Muslims by and large and we are the U.S. Two gigantic deal-breakers in the region's consciousness.
Who f-ing knew? We should have.
Storch, my man.. some friendly advice, chill in one of the other forums for a while (Music, S&T, whatever), WA is burning you out! :) Sure, kiddies scream the 'war on Islam' bit left and right, but try to work around it for now.. it's not that serious a charge anyhow, just kneejerk for most.
Anyway... you're still missing the point: people don't see this as being about Saddam. I don't mean that conspiracies are the main rationale, they just fill the void. Y'see, without Saddam--if he was never born, never became dictator--people here and there would still have disagreements. Because of the history which supplied the Iraqis with fighting as one of the main means of expression, it was to be expected for there to be trouble after Saddam. It's not that Iraqis aren't grateful, they are.. they just want to get on with their lives and this is it. This is the world without Saddam. It's not this way because America is the Big Bad Wolf and lacky of the zionists or any other kookiness, not pure antiAmericanism or antiSemitism.. it's this way because the people of Iraq want something and a large portion of those people believe they have to fight for it.
It might not have to be this way, though. People can be influenced to change.. but that's a long hard slog and requires a bit of skill and patience.. common sense mostly. Oh well.
Someone conveniently forgets to mention he is Amerikkkas brutal dictator when it suited them for past several decades!
Don`t it just stink the hypocrisy of these amerikkkans who try to portray themselves as whiter than white as the world Globocops!
Re: Simple Questiosns
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
I am looking for answers from an avergae american perspective to the following questions;
[/QUOTE]
1. Why do you think US attacked Iraq?
Unfinished business compounded by fear and anger generated by 9/11.
2. Did you find the link between Osama and Saddam plausible?
No.
However, possible that if Saddam was not deposed the success of Osama's 9/11 attack may have enticed similar actions in the future by Saddam's Regime.
Might have. Not would have. And why IMHO the aggression against Iraq not defendable.
3. What is your reaction to the current uprising?
Utmost sorrow for the innocents caught in the middle.
Guilt because WMD's not found.
Frustrated that leadership didn't seem to contemplate the present chaos.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
That almost makes the whole thing sound like a big tantrum?
This is the reason I hear most often. The major point it misses is that it is a fools risk: failure would be worse than inaction, and failure is more likely than any obvious success. So, with that in mind, if I may add another question to Kaleem's list, Why did/do so many people (you?) believe the risk was worth taking?
[/QUOTE]
I think you are missing something. "Failure" is not an option. In this case, inaction and failure both lead to the same result. "Success" and/or "failure" in Iraq is not measured by the passage of months. It may not even be measured within the passage of a couple of years.
It would have been real peachy if the "success" had occured quickly. Rosy assessments that might have predicted this were clearly wrong and there have been some very obvious setbacks in Iraq which make the timeline to success longer.
IMO, the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in the near term leaving the future of Iraq to those inciting the violence today and letting civil war sort things out would be failure. It is painful for all Americans to see our young men and women still dieing in Iraq and it is something I don't think we were very well prepared for. It's pretty clear to me that a lot more of our young men and women will die over there in the pursuit of our objectives. If a lot more die and we still end up in a couple years leaving the future of Iraq to those inciting violence and civil war still occurs, then again, I think we would call the action a failure.
Americans have, on occasion, demonstrated a great deal of perseverance through adversity and successfully completed difficult tasks. We need to see this through.
MV, failure may not be an option but it is a possibility.
Determination is great, but there are limits to our rationally being involved. We may be determined to "see it through" but if we trip too many times between now and the end-state we may never reach that goal. Or it may become overly burdensome to continue pursuing that goal at some point (consider the possibility of events still happening outside of Iraq, competing for political and financial attention). Ways to minimize the possibility of this kind of failure would include having a clearly defined plan for reaching the goal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
Storch, my man.. some friendly advice, chill in one of the other forums for a while (Music, S&T, whatever), WA is burning you out! :) Sure, kiddies scream the 'war on Islam' bit left and right, but try to work around it for now.. it's not that serious a charge anyhow, just kneejerk for most.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your concern, but really I'm fine. And I would disagree about the "War on Islam" bit. It is a serious charge, and though it's being leveled by the kiddies, the adults are not providing enough supervision or discipline. So the kids are making the rules in the house. That's a problem, no?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
MV, failure may not be an option but it is a possibility.
Determination is great, but there are limits to our rationally being involved. We may be determined to "see it through" but if we trip too many times between now and the end-state we may never reach that goal. Or it may become overly burdensome to continue pursuing that goal at some point (consider the possibility of events still happening outside of Iraq, competing for political and financial attention). Ways to minimize the possibility of this kind of failure would include having a clearly defined plan for reaching the goal.
[/QUOTE]
Spoon: Failure is always a possibility when one endeavors to do something. That's true of people, companies, nations, and what have you. In private life, my observation is that people who do not attempt to do something because there is a risk of failure almost always are what I consider failures. I am old enough now that I can look back and see many failures behind me. I can also point to some successes that I am pretty darn proud of. Taken together, I am a better person and better off today for my lifetime of failures and successes.
Of course, one must balance taking a particular risk by looking at the downside from failure and comparing it with the upside of success. Once the risk/reward ratio is determined, you still do not end the analysis. You must also weigh in what you consider the probable positives and/or negatives from doing nothing and maintaining your status quo. Sometimes the risk you take may be high but is justified because you determine that not taking it will lead to a probable outcome that is not acceptable to you. In some cases, the probable result of a high risk failure is not significantly worse than the probable result from not taking the risk at all.
The analysis, even in personal affairs, sometimes becomes very complicated and the best course of action is not always absolutely clear. Once you make your choice though, you've got to believe in your decision 100% and give 100% of your efforts to obtain your objective.
I think that is the kind of analysis our government made in deciding to go after Saddam. There is no doubt that certain segments of the world believed that America had gone soft. They believed that neither the government nor the people had the stomach for committing to a sustained, difficult, long-term military commitment of force. They believed that a small number of dead bodies and pictures of our citizenry mutilated and dragged through the streets was all it took to cow us as a nation and make us subservient to their agenda. They believed that the videotaped beheading of Daniel Pearl would somehow make us accede to their will.
I believe that another part of the assessment was that the people I refer to above were considered to be a fanatical but oh so violent minority of Muslim extremists. Our assessment was that their will would not be challenged or confronted by the majority of the Arab and/or Muslim masses or even the Arab or Muslim governments in the world. After all, if these fanatics were powerful enough to cow down even the US government with all its military might, why should the average guy or isolated dictator or royal family try. I believe that our assessment was that the Arab and Muslim masses and goevernments did not love and cherish the fanatics but gave them a wide path out of a healthy dose of respect for their willingness to commit any atrocity and any bestial act to accomplish their objective. I believe our assessment was and is that the Arab and Muslim masses and governments needed to be convinced that these fanatics and thugs could and would be defeated and that the US would take any measures necessary to squash each and every one of them no matter how costly the effort and no matter how long the commitment. I believe our assessment was that eventually, the Arab and Muslim masses would realize that the fanatical extremists were "dead-enders" and that their time in the sun would be short. I believe our assessment was that eventually the Arab and Muslim masses and governments would be willing to confront and assist in routing out these fanatics from their midst because they were sure and certain of receiving whatever aid and support we had to do so and that their defeat was a certain outcome. Thus, we, by our actions and resolve, would reduce the risks associated with them deciding to take action against these fanatics.
I think these assessments are still right. I think the fanatical extremists also believe these assessments are true. They are fighting now in Iraq for their very existence and acceptance in the world. And the Arab and Muslim masses and governments are closely watching what our response will be to the tough fight. We simply can not cut and run in Iraq. If we did, we might as well close all our military bases around the world, bring our soldiers home, fence off our borders, stop immigration, and withdraw like a turtle in a shell and hope the fanatics just leave us alone.
[BTW: I enjoy the civil discussion. Thanks.]