Ted Turner- Iraq Is "No Better Off" - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-29-2005, 08:51 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Ted Turner- Iraq Is "No Better Off"

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap...y.asp?ID=68274

"Turner said the situation in Iraq is serious but not hopeless. He raised concerns about global overpopulation, poverty and hunger.

..Turner said war is an outdated form of diplomacy that has stopped working.

..."You would think that we would have learned that in Vietnam," he said."

I like this-"Turner also said the authority of superpowers of tomorrow will be derived from education, health care, and science and technology. He encouraged the United States to focus it energies on those areas.

"That's what's going to be on top in the future," he said.

Things are becoming increasingly globalized, he said, and if humanity is going to survive, its members are going to have to work together.

"We are going to survive together, or we are going to perish together," he said." ~ yes indeed
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:58 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:58 PM
An interesting perspective from an ivory tower.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 01:18 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Well I'd have to agree about the ivory tower, but he's still entitled to his opinion

I couldn't agree that they aren't better off w/ out Saddam but w/ the limited reading I have done, what I have seen on the news, I have serious doubts about the way things are going over there-for us and for the Iraqi people.

Ted Turner can be slightly loony and say strange things, but I think what he said about superpowers and about humanity surviving is spot on.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:26 AM   #4
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 03:58 AM
These seem like positive improvements..

—Iraq's gross domestic product rose from $13.6 billion in 2003 to $25.5 billion in 2004, led primarily by the recovery of the oil sector.

—Since April 2003, Iraq has registered more than 30,000 new businesses.

— In January, 8.5 million Iraqis voted for Iraq's first freely elected national government and provincial governments.

—In April, elected leaders of Iraq's national legislature formed a diverse cabinet that represented all groups, despite election results that favored the Shiite and Kurdish communities.

—In the summer and fall, Iraq's elected national legislature, and the Sunni leaders invited to join the process, drafted a constitution.

—By the end of September, about 1 million new voters checked their names on Iraq's voting rolls — the vast majority in Sunni areas. In October, nearly 10 million Iraqis voted in a referendum in which the constitution was ratified.
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 08:08 PM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Not to mention the net saving of human life compared to Iraq under sanctions and Saddam.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-03-2005, 09:48 PM   #6
Refugee
 
wizard2c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,580
Local Time: 03:58 AM
reply

I like the year 1983 myself......A_Wanderer.

__________________
wizard2c is offline  
Old 12-11-2005, 08:59 PM   #7
Babyface
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 27
Local Time: 10:58 PM
Forget what Ted Turner said.

It's what the Government Accounting Office (GAO) said it's 2004 "Report to Congressional Members".


It's what Republican Sen. Ron Paul (MD) admitted before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005;

"How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?"



It's what Iraqi's are saying according to a study done by an Iraq university and reported in the Guardian (10/23/2005 - can't post link because I haven't enough posts).

"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks [against British Troops] and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."



It's what IBC (even with it's conservative methodology) is saying:
"Iraq Body Count, Reuters says, estimates that 38 Iraqis die in violence every day. Over thirty-five years, that would amount to nearly 500,000 dead. In fact, it is estimated that the Baath party killed 300,000 Iraqis, so the current rate seems to be greater than the Baath rate. (The number of civilians killed by the Baath is probably in fact exaggerated. Only a few thousand bodies have been recovered from mass graves so far.)"



It would seem that the ivory tower is inhabited by people who sit in their armchairs preaching to Iraqis and the rest of the world's affected people the benefits of illegal armed intervention, murder, bloodshed and the sacrifice of their families and country. Ivory tower indeed.
__________________
2numb2feel is offline  
Old 12-11-2005, 10:02 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2numb2feel
Forget what Ted Turner said.

It's what the Government Accounting Office (GAO) said it's 2004 "Report to Congressional Members".


It's what Republican Sen. Ron Paul (MD) admitted before the US House of Representatives, April 6, 2005;

"How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave.

Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander?"



It's what Iraqi's are saying according to a study done by an Iraq university and reported in the Guardian (10/23/2005 - can't post link because I haven't enough posts).

"The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks [against British Troops] and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team
• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."



It's what IBC (even with it's conservative methodology) is saying:
"Iraq Body Count, Reuters says, estimates that 38 Iraqis die in violence every day. Over thirty-five years, that would amount to nearly 500,000 dead. In fact, it is estimated that the Baath party killed 300,000 Iraqis, so the current rate seems to be greater than the Baath rate. (The number of civilians killed by the Baath is probably in fact exaggerated. Only a few thousand bodies have been recovered from mass graves so far.)"



It would seem that the ivory tower is inhabited by people who sit in their armchairs preaching to Iraqis and the rest of the world's affected people the benefits of illegal armed intervention, murder, bloodshed and the sacrifice of their families and country. Ivory tower indeed.
How many Iraqi's on December 15 are gonna go into the election booth wishing they could vote for Saddam?

Saddam, a man who invaded and attacked four different countries unprovoked, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreigners as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's. In addition, this man nearly seized over half the planets oil supplies back in 1990/1991, if that event had actually occured the planet would have been plunged into the worst economic depression in history with unpredictable consequences for the future and stability of the whole world.

Its no surprise to see far left media outlets such as the Guardian and "body Count" making such inaccurate claims that Iraqi people as whole as well as the region was better off with Saddam. Yep, the 8 year Iran/Iraq war was one hell of a picnic? The devestation caused by Saddam's invasion and brutal occupation of Kuwait was great? It must have been wonderful living in southern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War with Saddam selling food and supplies to other countries through the Blackmarket instead of giving it to 60% of the countries populations. I'm sure Iraq's neighbors are in mourning over the removal of Saddam.

The fact is in Iraq for nearly 3 years now, most of the violence has been contained to 4 provinces with the 14 other provinces being relatively peaceful. But you won't hear that point brought out from left wing media. The same group of people who said the elections would never happen and that the invasion was going to create 900,000 refugees.

Ramsey Clark may site them in his trial defending Saddam, but the Iraqi people who go to the voting booth on December 15 are the real voice of Iraq and the fact is, the majority of them support the coalition economic and political development process and are actively participating in it.

Even ex-members of Iraq's Republican Guard want coalition troops to remain in the country for several more years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2005, 10:41 PM   #9
Babyface
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 27
Local Time: 10:58 PM
That's nothing more than opinion and it is neither capable of contradicting political and scientific expertise, nor is it the opinion of Iraqis.

1) Republican Ron Paul is very left?

2) The Guardian reported the study. It was "undertaken for the [British] Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph..."

The Ministry of Defense has a clear stake in the success of this war since it is participating. It is decidedly "right".


3) Trash the left all you want. That's just a label. You can't change the fact that Iraq is worse off according to everyone but many "far right-wingers" who a priori support this war. The dichotomous perspective you just wrote out ('illegal mass murder' -ie. Iraq War- or Saddam) contradicts all the evidence. It's Macchiavelian and it serves nothing more than to ignore the deceit and the farce that is this war as it is perceived around the world.

4)"the real voice of Iraq and the fact is, the majority of them support the coalition economic and political development process and are actively participating in it. "

-That's nothing more than an opinion... and wishful thinking. That is not supported by the evidence that I listed above, done for The British Mnistry of Defense. How can the majority be in favour of coalition development processes when, as the study claims,

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."


What the Iraqis are saying contradicts your statements. It would be pretty self-righteous to pronounce yourself correct and ignore the opinion of the people.

Indeed, even 54% of American think this war is a mistake.


Opinion and wishful thinking isn't going to change what this war is, nor are they going to change that Iraqis ARE (and consider themselves) worse off.
__________________
2numb2feel is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 12:43 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2numb2feel
That's nothing more than opinion and it is neither capable of contradicting political and scientific expertise, nor is it the opinion of Iraqis.

1) Republican Ron Paul is very left?

2) The Guardian reported the study. It was "undertaken for the [British] Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph..."

The Ministry of Defense has a clear stake in the success of this war since it is participating. It is decidedly "right".


3) Trash the left all you want. That's just a label. You can't change the fact that Iraq is worse off according to everyone but many "far right-wingers" who a priori support this war. The dichotomous perspective you just wrote out ('illegal mass murder' -ie. Iraq War- or Saddam) contradicts all the evidence. It's Macchiavelian and it serves nothing more than to ignore the deceit and the farce that is this war as it is perceived around the world.

4)"the real voice of Iraq and the fact is, the majority of them support the coalition economic and political development process and are actively participating in it. "

-That's nothing more than an opinion... and wishful thinking. That is not supported by the evidence that I listed above, done for The British Mnistry of Defense. How can the majority be in favour of coalition development processes when, as the study claims,

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;
• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;
• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq."


What the Iraqis are saying contradicts your statements. It would be pretty self-righteous to pronounce yourself correct and ignore the opinion of the people.

Indeed, even 54% of American think this war is a mistake.


Opinion and wishful thinking isn't going to change what this war is, nor are they going to change that Iraqis ARE (and consider themselves) worse off.
What you site is "evidence" is not necessarily fact. I have seen tons of polls over the past 3 years that would contradict much of what you claim to be "scientific fact".

Its a fact that Saddam launched unprovoked invasions and attacks on four different countries while he was in power. Its a fact that hundreds of thousands of Non-Iraqi citizens died from these actions. Its a fact that the planet currently depends on Persian Gulf Oil for its immediate economic survival and that Saddam's attempts to sieze and sabatoge that supply endangered the entire planet.

I stated the Guardian and "Body Count" being in the far left. While the ministry of defense has a clear stake in success of the mission, I'm sure this is far from being the only study they have ever done, but such a report by the Guardian is only going to site a study that supports its biased views on the topic.

Well, if Iraqi's in the British zone of occupation are so opposed and are so supportive of attacks on British troops, then why are 85% of the attacks in Iraq occuring in only four of Iraq's 18 provinces, none of them with British troops?

Using a single poll done back in August which may or may not be accurate, as being representitive of the entire Iraqi population is absurd.

If you really want to know how people in Iraq feel about the occupation, look at their actions rather than basing everything on a single poll out of many that have been done. Where are most IED's and attacks on coalition troops taking place? Where do coalition forces have the most difficulty in terms of patrolling and helping in the development process.

One poll from the British Ministry of Defense in August is not going to change the progress that has already been made and will continue to be made in 2006.

What my friends have experienced on multiple tours in Iraq is not wishful thinking or uninformed opinion. They have lived and worked in both the south and the north of the country and have seen for themselves the massive amount of progress that has been made in such a short time, and they have made a huge contribution to the success of the mission there.

Iraq in 5 days will be electing a permanent government for the next four years. Go look back and see how long it took post war Germany and Japan to develop their governments to that level. The Iraqi military is a 100 times the size it was back in July of 2004. While the Iraqi military is not ready to take over from coalition forces it is rapidly growing in capability.

Body Counts numbers are anything but scientific. Simply following media reports to estimate casualty numbers is a poor and simply inaccurate. Thats how you get estimates that 7,000 Palestinians were massacred at Jenin in 2002 by the IDF. Forensic experts from the UN later went in and found that only 48 civilians had died in Jenin during the clash, all of them from accidents. The IDF had not murdered anyone.


The Iraqi's have a whole host of opportunities now that Saddam has been removed. Regardless of what this single poll claims, I dare you to find a poll which shows that Iraqi's in the south were happier during the 8 year Iran/Iraq were when there was constant shelling, some of the largest use of Chemical weapons in history, and whole towns were flattened to the ground in a matter of hours from the fighting. Find a poll in the South of Iraq showing that Iraqi's perfered living under Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War when there were mass executions and murders of large numbers of Shia civilians all over the south.

The fact is, the south of Iraq has never been more stable and prosperous than it is now since 1979. The South of Iraq was the chief and constant battle front of the 8 year Iran/Iraq war. Soon after that war ended, it became an area where Saddam killed thousands of people following the 1991 Gulf War who rose up against his rule. He then spent the next 12 years depriving the region as need be for his purposes of humanitarian supplies. A major interstate war and the deprivation from Saddam that existed in the 1990s are all gone. The fact is, whether it be aid from the coalition forces, other humanitarian groups, Iran or a paramilitary orgazations from Iran, they have all collectively brought a stability and standard of living to the south, that it did not experience while Saddam was in power. The Shia in the South through their actions have supported the coalition political and development process and attacks on coalition forces have been relatively few compared to the number of attacks in the Sunni Triangle. But if you choose to dismiss all that and hang on to a single poll back done back in August, so be it.

The Kurds continue to enjoy the status, supplies and other benefits they first received when the Kurdish zone was established back in the early 1990s. The Kurds like the Shia have supported the economic and political development process and will be present in large numbers on election day. How many Kurdish attacks on coalition forces do you hear about?

The one area where some of your claims may have some merrit, is in the Sunni triangle. This is the one area that benefitted from Saddam's rule at the expense of the rest of the country. So naturally conditions of people here are worse than they were under Saddam. It is also where the heart of the insurgency is against the coalition. 85% of attacks against coalition forces happen in the four Sunni majority provinces. Where you have people launching attacks and not participating in the political and development process in large numbers is in these four provinces. But things there are changing. Thousands of Sunni troops who served in Saddam's military have recently been recruited. They are confident they can help restore order to the Sunni provinces and want American help in building the new Iraqi military over the next couple of years. They don't want the coalition suddenly leave.

Its true that a recent poll of Americans stated that around 54% of them consider the war to be a mistake, but that number has gone up and down over the past three years.

Did the British poll actually ask the people it polled if they wanted coalition forces to leave the country immediately?



The opinions of newspapers like the Gaurdian, websites like Body Count, or a single poll, will not change the fact that Saddam and his regime have been removed and are never coming back. It does not change the fact that massive accomplishments have been made by coalition forces over the past 3 years and will continue to be made it the future. It will not change the fact that nearly all of these left wing organizations were wrong about what would happen during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. It will not change the fact that they were wrong when they claimed that the elections would not be possible and would be a disaster. It also does not change the fact that Persian Gulf Oil supply has never been safer and more secure now that Saddam's regime has been removed.

All the opinion and wishful thinking will not change the above facts. Iraqi's today actually have an opportunity at a decent future now that Saddam has been removed. But if you think the future would be brighter for them if Saddam's regime were still in power(in light of what he did over the past 25 years), I'll be interested to see your opinion on that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 04:12 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:58 PM
STING: how are the American people safer from another 9-11 terrorist attack as a result of the occupation of Iraq?

indeed, Iraq may very well lead to another 9/11, as our distracted, bullied policy makers have neglected even the most basic and urgent of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's recommendations, such as increased inspections of cargo containers, better intelligence gathering on possible sleeper cells and terrorist plots, etc.

the confusion over our recent subway scare in New York should give everyone pause, as Bloomberg implied that the Feds' dismissal of the intelligence was complacent at best, and incompetent at worst.

living in DC, a sure-bet for another attack, it's these kinds of things that i'm concerned about, not the fact that only 4 of Iraq's provinces are in a low-level civil war -- and, imagine, if only 12 of America's 50 states were engaged in a low-level Civil War ... how would that make you feel? would you dismiss the lives of a bare minimum 30,000 dead Americans as you do the 30,000 (by the president's own admission) dead Iraqis?

after all, aren't all the young lives lost and billions of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq supposed to be an insurance policy against another 9/11-style attack?

my friends lived through the horror of that day. i know people who ran out of the towers and i know people who were crushed and burned to death -- the images of fire and smoke and falling bodies are seared forever into my memory, and there's always a twinge of fear every time i step on the DC Metro.

i'd like some war hawk to tell me unequivocally that our involvement in Iraq will spare our country another terrifying day like that one.

this was why we were told we went to war in Iraq. not for any of the reasons you mentioned above. those reasons might be compelling for NATO, or the UN, or some other international peacekeeping force with professional soldiers, but they are not good enough reasons for a 42 year old National Guard member with 3 kids or an idealistic 19 year old who's never been outside of Missoula, MT to have their limbs blown off (or worse) in the sands of Iraq, unsupported by the international community and, worse, unsupported by our own government that won't give them the armor they needed, a deserving post-war battle plan, and enough troops from the beginning to implement some level of basic personal security.

until then, I mourn the losses in Iraq and pray for smarter, more competent ideas on national security to emerge.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 06:54 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:58 PM
From the BBC
Quote:
Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad.

When asked whether their lives would improve in the coming year, 64% said things would be better and 12% said they expected things to be worse.

However, Iraqis appear to have a more negative view of the overall situation in their country, with 53% answering that the situation is bad, and 44% saying it is good.

But they were more hopeful for the future - 69% expect Iraq to improve, while 11% say it will worsen.
Quote:
The BBC News website’s World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the survey shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos.

The findings are more in line with the kind of arguments currently being deployed by US President George W Bush, he says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4514414.stm
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 07:42 PM   #13
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
STING: how are the American people safer from another 9-11 terrorist attack as a result of the occupation of Iraq?

indeed, Iraq may very well lead to another 9/11, as our distracted, bullied policy makers have neglected even the most basic and urgent of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission's recommendations, such as increased inspections of cargo containers, better intelligence gathering on possible sleeper cells and terrorist plots, etc.

the confusion over our recent subway scare in New York should give everyone pause, as Bloomberg implied that the Feds' dismissal of the intelligence was complacent at best, and incompetent at worst.

living in DC, a sure-bet for another attack, it's these kinds of things that i'm concerned about, not the fact that only 4 of Iraq's provinces are in a low-level civil war -- and, imagine, if only 12 of America's 50 states were engaged in a low-level Civil War ... how would that make you feel? would you dismiss the lives of a bare minimum 30,000 dead Americans as you do the 30,000 (by the president's own admission) dead Iraqis?

after all, aren't all the young lives lost and billions of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq supposed to be an insurance policy against another 9/11-style attack?

my friends lived through the horror of that day. i know people who ran out of the towers and i know people who were crushed and burned to death -- the images of fire and smoke and falling bodies are seared forever into my memory, and there's always a twinge of fear every time i step on the DC Metro.

i'd like some war hawk to tell me unequivocally that our involvement in Iraq will spare our country another terrifying day like that one.

this was why we were told we went to war in Iraq. not for any of the reasons you mentioned above. those reasons might be compelling for NATO, or the UN, or some other international peacekeeping force with professional soldiers, but they are not good enough reasons for a 42 year old National Guard member with 3 kids or an idealistic 19 year old who's never been outside of Missoula, MT to have their limbs blown off (or worse) in the sands of Iraq, unsupported by the international community and, worse, unsupported by our own government that won't give them the armor they needed, a deserving post-war battle plan, and enough troops from the beginning to implement some level of basic personal security.

until then, I mourn the losses in Iraq and pray for smarter, more competent ideas on national security to emerge.
The United States is not in Iraq because of 9/11. But insuring that it does not become a failed state will go a long way in helping prevent another 9/11. The need to remove Saddam because of the threat he posed to the region and the planet was independent of the events of 9/11.

The Bush administration did mention the events of 9/11 in many of this speeches in considering the use of force in Iraq to re-inforce how vital it was that Saddam be verifiably disarmed. But the central case for war in Iraq has always been and will always be Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD in addition to several other violations of UN Security Council Resolutions vital to the security of the region and the planet. The serious problems and issues with Saddam did not start on September 11, 2001. It has been an issue since the United States fought one of its largest wars ever in terms of numbers of deployed troops to the region back in 1990/1991 Gulf War as well as the discoveries and conflicts inspectors had over the next 7 years until they were essentially kicked out. The United States in many ways was already at war with Iraq long before 9/11.

Mistakes have been made in the years since the initial invasion that indeed have made things much more difficult than they had to be in Iraq. But that does not change the fact that Saddam's removal had become a necessity for the planets security and that in his place, a new government and would have to be shaped and developed as well as a new military. Find a war where mistakes were never made. But the majority of the military continues to support the President on Iraq. As measured by the "Army Times" poll of over 4,000 soldiers, a much higher sample than most national polls conducted for a country of 300 million people, showed that over 80% of the military voted for Bush in the November 2004 election. Support for the President was slightly higher among those who had actually served on the ground in Iraq.

I don't dismiss the thousands of Iraqi's who have died primarily from terrorist and insurgent activity over the past 3 years just as I do not dismiss the 1.7 million people who died as a result of Saddam's actions both inside and outside of Iraq. If you want to talk about statistics involving death, there is no better place to start than with Saddam's in his actions over the past 24 years. Imagine if over 20 million Americans had been killed in unprovoked wars and executions over the past 20 years. That what it was like under Saddam.

To many people blindly make overblown claims about how terrible the sitution in Iraq is and miss the point that the majority of Iraq's provinces are relatively calm and several are actually dramatically improving in terms of standard of living as anyone who has been to Irbil Iraq can attest to. Its important to point these facts out because they rarely get mentioned by the media.


Now, Iraq is at an historic point, one it would not be at if Saddam had not been removed from power nearly 3 years ago. While considering all the problems and difficulties over the past 3 years, it would be wise if those who opposed the US invasion of Iraq as well as the current occupation would consider what the consequences for the Iraqi people, the regions security and global security, if Saddam were still in power today. We know what the prior 24 years of Saddams rule meant for Iraqi's, the region and the world.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 07:45 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:58 PM
Quote:
When asked what would be the worse thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 8.9% chose "occupation not leaving Iraq."

When asked what would be the best thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 5.7% chose American forces leaving Iraq.

One thing is sure, American media fails to reflect the reality reflected in this poll.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/19244.html
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-12-2005, 09:43 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:58 PM


















link
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com