An ad campaign from Kurdistan to say... Thank you USA!!
As soon as these air, this is what I am going to hear on the Upper West Side:
"These brainwashed manipulated fools are shilling for the Bush admin because they're going to get oil. What about the pooooor Sunnis, who don't have any oil?" (Really, have you noticed how the antiwar movement is so solicitous of the Sunnis now?)
or:
"This all took place on a sound stage with American actors, scripted and filmed by the CIA." (Or Halliburton, since the left is sympathetic to the CIA now. Something I never thought I would see in my lifetime.)
or:
"The Kurds aren't authentic voices of their region because they are too Westernized. What about the poor Muslims who want a theocracy? We are shoving democracy down their throats!" (This is Mon, Wed, and Fri. On Tues, Thurs, and Sat it's: "Bush totally alienated the Iraqis, so now the place is going to turn into an Islamic theocracy.")
or:
"But Bush didn't invade Iraq to bring democracy, he made up that reason after the WMDs weren't found!" (I actually heard a "social action" type rabbi say this last year, after I made a mild generalized allusion to "current movements to overthrow tyranny," in the context of the Torah we were studying. I mean, I didn't even mention Bush or Iraq and she got all defensive.)
Please leave your favorite example of leftist killjoy sentiments in the comments.
I saw this commercial earlier very very good. Bout the time somebody is finanly getting the idea that if no one covers the media Flank we are going to either loose or have one hell of a time at it. The media front something our enemy understand as a important front is at least 60% of this WOT and my opinion all future 4th gen warefare of the future. I really hope this is not a isolated incedent but the begining of a campain to win the hearts and minds were it counts most HERE the US. We need alot more of this with not just Kurd but other Shia even Sunni moderates talking of thier dreams and goals for Iraq and then thanking US for making it possible and Asking for continued support to finish. Need some showing Who we fight, Why we fight them (above some good reasons), and Why we must win.
Loved the commercial hope it is national and hope just the begining of the US side making a precense on the Media Battle Front.
Bush has something near 95% approval rating in the Kurd regions of Iraq- has for years. I doubt the "thankyou" will get enough play to garner much of a reaction, but your preemptive sourpuss-sourpuss would be my vote for best sourpuss reaction... lame.
I wonder how The Kurds Thank America campaign will play in Turkey.
SAO
ahwwww does the truth hurt I kinda remember when the LLL's were crying "the arab street the heart and minds". Then when that was acheived and even bragged about to the point were they actually spend the money to run adds thanking the US in the US its Sourpuss to bring attention to that. Un freekin beleavable.
I wonder if the people who opposed the Marshall Plan 30yrs later ever appologized. My thoughts are that 30yrs from now just like the "hearts and minds" line when we are again proven correct the crickets will a chirp.
But the 2000 men lost mile stone was soooo important. I wonder about the 3000 milestone we hit on 9-11 or well that dont count old news huh. Or maybe some context like the 12000 men we lost taking one small island from japan Okinawa? or maybe the thousands we lost taking island X in WW2, or thousands lost at battle X fighting the germans (who by the way never attacked the US or here interest).
Kurds aren't Arabs.
I wonder how The Kurds Thank America campaign will play in Turkey.</I.
I'd imagine the Armenian reaction will out-sourpuss even the Turks.
There's a lot of time and effort spent getting outraged at the loony left. Many are likely straw giants, and given the milage probably some are created whole cloth.
Quit wasting your time.
Let's talk about concrete realities.
The GOP is in charge. We have a bungled Iraq occupation costing us lives that didn't have to be wasted but for piss poor planning.
We have torture. Real torture soiling the name of our armed services and our country.
We have massive spending with the grandkids looking at the bill.
The real question for those of us interested in truth, honesty, and winning the war on terror without becoming what we fight is how to get the GOP out of power? How do we bring Bush et al to justice?
"We have a bungled Iraq occupation costing us lives that didn't have to be wasted but for piss poor planning. "
You've really got to be filtering your news to think the reconstruction of Iraq was "bungled." So far, it's gone better faster than any other nation-building in the past 60 years. The Iraqi economy is booming, they have had two elections with wide participation, they are engaging in politics like liberal democracies do (lots of horsetrading and compromise), more secular parties are gaining influence, their army and police are getting much better at killing terrorists, more and more people in the middle east are turning against terror tactics (the bombing in Jordan is going to accelerate that).
"Many are likely straw giants, and given the milage probably some are created whole cloth. "
You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. Sourpuss.
Perception is reality. We can blame it the liberals, the MSM, the French.But the fact is the American people no longer either support the war in Iraq or think that the president has been honest. Either we must change the way America thinks about Iraq or get the hell out. Any suggestions on how to go about doing so ? Five years and 2 months later and we still have not brought Osama bin Laden to justice. What kind of marks would we have given Kerry for this performance, if he had won ? Justice delayed is justice denied. As for the ad look forward to seeing it, but will probably miss it: I don't watch much TV.
Booming all right...
"Reconstruction efforts have consistently failed to meet the objectives set by the Administration two years ago. Oil production remains below pre-war levels, electricity production is unreliable and well below the goal of 6,000 megawatts of peak electricity output, and a third of Iraqis still lack access to potable water."
Meanwhile, billions in reconstruction funds are missing, and the people who are supposed to be watching over it have left the country.
What we need is a modern-day Truman Commission, and we need it now.
And by the way, I'll take sourpuss over jingo anyday.
One feature of the sourpuss attitude is avoiding recent information in favor of reiterating the past. Sourpusses hate change.
Booming all right.
Booming all right.
Booming all right.
The Baghdad airport ride is safe.
More secular politics.
See, the Iraqis are making their own money now and taking over their own projects. Which is more relevant and interesting than whether reconstruction efforts match some goal set 2 years ago.
People absconding with billions of dollars isn't good, but says nothing about the state of Iraq right now.
Notice that your examples are about what the Coalition is doing and mine are about what the Iraqis are doing.
Osama is also irrelevant. We've captured or killed 75% of his senior staff and he's been holed up on the Paki border for several years now. He's old news. The fact that Kerry kept harping on Osama shows that he has no idea of strategic goals.
Afghanistan is also making great strides.
"Either we must change the way America thinks about Iraq or get the hell out. Any suggestions on how to go about doing so?"
It's obvious which side of that equation I am on, as is every contributor to this blog. Bush has been lousy at getting the message out, leaving us bloggers to carry his water for him. All us warbloggers complain about it.
How is it justice to leave the Iraqis in the lurch just when they are getting their feet under them? Speaking of justice, Saddam is in the dock and his two sons are dead.
"Osama is also irrelevant....The fact that Kerry kept harping on Osama shows that he has no idea of strategic goals."
And just like that the world is realigned by the dismissing sweep and sneer of the Neocon hand.
This idiocy really doesn't deserve a rebuttal except to say I'm not sure why any reasonable person would engage you, "Yehudit", in a debate on war, Arabs, the middle east, terrorism, or anything remotely related.
It should be self-evident that one cannot reason with a Zealot on these topics.
So citing sources that are less than ten days old qualifies as "avoiding recent information in favor of reiterating the past."
Notice that your examples are about what the Coalition is doing and mine are about what the Iraqis are doing.
Wait a second, did anyone claim the Iraqis have bungled their own reconstruction? No. We're talking about the administration; not the military, not the Iraqis-- Bush & Cheney. The fact is, they could have done a LOT better, and the Iraqis and our soldiers and even us taxpayers deserved better. So I might was well "reiterate" again:
we need a modern-day Truman Commission, and we need it now.
The Baghdad airport ride is safe.
Indeed, that is f***in great news about Route Irish.
Most Iraqi women don't wear burqas. Some of them don't even wear headscarves. And they have 30% guaranteed seats in the parliament. So it's a start. Yes, it's a work in progress, and I don't like the attack on women's rights any more than you do.
So do you want to have hope for them, or just look for the worst? Do you think there's a chance that as their country becomes more prosperous and Iraqis travel and have access to news, that their customs will adapt? That was one of the main reasons to get rid of Saddam and change Iraq. Feminism and representative government and prosperity seem to go hand in hand. Maybe they'll figure that out. It took us 150 years to give women the vote and 200 years to make it possible for married women to take out credit cards in their own name. So give them a couple of years and support them instead of looking for the worst spin on everything.
Stiggy, you didn't exactly refute me, there. I voted for the guy whose overarching goal wasn't to "get" Osama, but to fundamentally change the political climate in the Middle East so that terrorism would become much less attractive. John Kerry couldn't see the forest for the trees.
"The fact is, they could have done a LOT better, and the Iraqis and our soldiers and even us taxpayers deserved better."
Hindsight is wonderful. This is an enormously complex situation where all information is imperfect and any decision has ramifications no one can forsee. I know there were many wrong decisions. I also know there were many right ones. The successes I mentioned would not be happening if we had done nothing right. This nation-building effort has so far been on a par with others that are successful, and it's not over yet.
Anyway, if you want to give the Iraqis all the credit and the Coalition one, fine. But why not acknowledge their progress and be as optimistic as they are?
"I voted for the guy whose overarching goal wasn't to "get" Osama, but to fundamentally change the political climate in the Middle East so that terrorism would become much less attractive."
That you and others who supported Bush stubbornly refuse to recognize that he has achieved exactly the opposite, because his "forest" wasn't, and isn't, the safety of US citizens but political control of America, is perhaps the main reason why your anachronistic views should be swept aside with a sneer and a wave of the hand...at minimum.
Doubtless two years from now WoC will still be proclaiming that failure is impossible and we have turned the corner. Doubtless there shall be some new school painted and some dreadful terrorist atrocity to be ignored as "episodic". Doubtless, too, that the American people will finally have tired from this exhausting wargasm.
the legal situation of women in the new Iraq is far worse than under Saddam.
Complete fabrication. List the legal rights Iraqi women were entitled to under Saddam.
Well, since its holiday and I don't want you to stress yourself, I'll give you the answer:
None.
It's true no one had any rights under Saddam. Acknowledging that doesn't change the fact that women had it very good compared to other Islamic nations. Their ability to get education and pursue careers was alot better than neighboring countries.
Let's revisit the status of Iraqi women in a few years. Fingers crossed it only gets better. I fear it will get worse.
As for the occupation, it's going very poorly. Step one, the very first and most important, is to secure the public order. The ball was dropped in the first hours post Saddam. Remember that blog from an Infantry officer? The one who wrote about a stand down while chaos spread in the streets? Then never enough troops to hold ground... it's Vietnam all over again where a big push takes a city (hilltop) only to give it back. The borders pretty much open.
Yes, the road to the airport is safer. Largely because no one is allowed to use it but Westerners.
All this would fall under the heading of mistakes... but for the Bush admin's inability to recognize, much less admit mistake.
But for that one very telling Rummy line; we don't yet have a metric to measure how we are doing in the war on terror.
"As for the occupation, it's going very poorly. Step one, the very first and most important, is to secure the public order."
Not easy with jihiadis pouring across the border and renegade Baathist paramilitary death squads. It takes awhile. Why do you say that's the first thing? And I notice you still ignore all the things that are going well.
" Then never enough troops to hold ground... it's Vietnam all over again where a big push takes a city (hilltop) only to give it back. The borders pretty much open."
Right. I must have missed the part where the South Vietnamese held elections and ratified a constitution. As I recall most of them fled or ended up in re-education camps. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi expats have returned home. Over a million Afghanis returned home. Tell them how their countries are another Vietnam.
"Yes, the road to the airport is safer. Largely because no one is allowed to use it but Westerners. "
Any evidence of that? And why would that make it safer? Wouldn't the jihadis want to target Westerners?
Thank you for providing another example of my thesis. frantically trying to spin the situation to look as bad as possible.
OK, PD. They had the right to have their testimony counted as equal. They had the right to initiate divorce, and for return of dowry when divorced by their husbands. They had the right to equal pay for equal work. There was no chador dress code. Women could own property and receive inheritance in their own name. All of these rights are at risk or already lost in the new Iraq (Kurdistan perhaps excepted).
It would be nice to think that because Saddam ran a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, that it was some sort of free fire zone where there was no concept whatsoever of law, and life was a sequence of completely random horrors. Unfortunately, that isn't a true description of any society, not even such more efficient dictatorships as Stalin's and Hitler's. They had inheritance codes, just like the more civilized countries.
You seem to have missed this quote I gave upthread, so I'll repeat it with added emphasis: This is from an Iraqi woman dissident. This is from the Iraqi woman dissident whom the Administration sat next to Laura Bush at the State of the Union address. Now whose word should I take on the situation of Iraqi women over the past thirty years, PD? Yours or hers? Ignorance is bliss."It's true no one had any rights under Saddam. Acknowledging that doesn't change the fact that women had it very good compared to other Islamic nations. Their ability to get education and pursue careers was alot better than neighboring countries."
Women in Saddam's Iraq technically had more equal rights than in other Arab countries. However, saying "no one had rights under Saddam" is a bit of an understatement. Everyone in Iraq had at least one relative who had been murdered, tortured, imprisoned, or all three. Women were systematically raped in front of their husbands. Children were killed in front of their parents. Women were tortured as well as men. That was the reality.
I don't expect all Iraqi women to have the same opinion on their conditions, any more than I would expect all women to anywhere else. When I read what Iraqis say, I find that many Sunnis who had privileges under Saddam regret that he is gone, and most everyone else is really glad he's gone, even though some things are worse now.
Iraqi women are guaranteed 30% of seats in the new parliament, and more moderate parties are gaining some traction. I'm not sure who will win, but the people who are trying to impose their will by violence are becoming less popular, in Iraq and elsewhere. Jordanians demonstrated against terrorists after the bombings in Amman, some are saying Bush was right (via a TV newscast, wish I had something in print to link to).
"That's why the WMD fraud had to be perpetrated on the American people and the world."
If you're still pushing that discredited meme, you lose a lot of credibility.
"What could have been a better deterrent to terrorism than taking the Number One Terrorist and watching him swing from a gibbet?"
You really believe that all the terrorists would be frightened into being productive citizens just because Osama was executed? Really? And if killing the "Number One Terrorist" would have that effect, how much more so killing as many as we can? And in fact, some are being scared straight, and more importantly, the moderate majority is increasingly finding them repulsive.
"while leaving Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists were born and financed, alone."
Saddam also financed and harbored terrorists. So what should we do about SA? Invade? Would simply hanging Saddam also scare them into changing their culture?
"Tactically, the program is a complete failure as well. Do you think the Australian terrorist incident was averted by something that happened in Iraq, or by that much-derided global police work that John Kerry would have pursued?"
No one has derided police work. We have been doing police work, integrated with those of other countries, since day one. But police work by itself is not enough.
Another reason Kerry has no credibility is that most of his suggestions the Bush admin is already doing, but Kerry wants it to sound like no one thought of it till he arrived on the scene. He's such a demogogue....
Go back to Colin Powell's Power Point presentation to the UN. Give us a scorecard on how many of the specific claims he made were true and how many were false.
Next thing I'll be told is that Saddam's Iraq enjoyed human rights because it says so right there in the treaties and conventions he affirmed. It means nothing to me what a piece of paper says if it can be scrapped at the whim of the sovereign. Saddam's power didn't flow from the Constitution; the Constitution's power flowed from, and was dependent upon, Saddam.
The term "rights" refers to an individual's power of free action which exists regardless and despite the opposition of the State. What is being professed here is not women's legal rights, but what some might call women's social rights and I would call social equality.
Saddam's Iraq was a "Rosie the Riveter" state: a society drained by decades of war. Because the men were in the army and many had died or been severely injured, the only way Saddam's economy and military machine could continue to run is if women could be educated to do the jobs men used to do, could be free to go to and from work without male escort, etc. From this, women in Iraq enjoyed a certain amount of social equality that did not exist elsewhere in the Middle East. It was not a right. Saddam could have changed it all backwards with a moment's order. If he died, it would be Uday's prerogatives that carried the day. The 30 years of struggles was built on a foundation of sand.
I can understand where al Suhail is coming from. She wants to lock in some level of previous social equality with Constitutional rights. And she does so with all the passion of an interest group partisan in a democratic society. Which means she should also be listened to with a grain of salt. Unlike the U.S., the Iraqi Constitution guarantees equal rights for women, as well as dedicates a certain percentage of legislative seats to women. I find the latter to be immense. She wants more, I hope she gets it. And if she is unsuccesful, it will no doubt be because a majority of the women in Iraq are more traditional than she.
But the idea emanating from the Left, that only authoritarian rule can bring enlightenment to the masses is untrue and distasteful.
"It's true no one had any rights under Saddam. Acknowledging that doesn't change the fact that women had it very good compared to other Islamic nations. Their ability to get education and pursue careers was alot better than neighboring countries."
According to who, exactly?
Bear in mind major news organizations have admitted to censoring and editting the news from Saddam era Iraq, in order to avoid losing their access to Iraq. There are no untainted sources of information from that time. All reports, including all statistics quoted about how much water was available, when and to whom, are worthless. Think about it- the same people who claimed that the misery of Iraq under sanctions was killing 42,000 children a year now claim the situation is worse today- but for some reason can't find the dying children anymore. I don't buy it.
But both sides lie, right?
You get around that by looking at the indirect things- the little bits of reality that leak through because propagandists forget to hide them.
So here is a real indicator of progress- remember the news reports we got back in 2004? When was the last time the insurgents took over a police station? (No, not that one, I'm talking about Iraq, not France!) Been a while, hasn't it? They were falling like flies once. What happened? The media can't tell us Iraqi police stations are being taken over anymore, like they could in the good old days, so they do the next best thing- they forget to tell us the stations AREN'T being taken over anymore.
And what towns and cities does the enemy still hold- not threaten, hold. Threatening is easy. The US military can threaten every city on the globe without getting out of bed. Bombing is easy- but the winner is the guy who rebuilds AFTER the bomb. But the fascists in Iraq, what do they actually Hold now? What do they build? With such a record, why doesn't the Left tell the OTHER side that they are making no progress, their cause is lost, they might as well pack up and go home, yada yada yada? Yeah, I know. I'll see that when I see the "human shields" return to Iraq to deter Jehadi bombing attacks against the Iraqis.
You want the freakin reality of electricity in Iraq? Here it is. Follow the money. Even the Arab nations understand Iraq's GDP has gone up. Arab businessmen (no, we don't say "businessPEOPLE", it's the middle east, you know) see the economy go up, and they are investing. No economy in the world has EVER increased without a corresponding growth in energy usage.
Claiming the Iraqi energy condition has gotten worse flies in the face of economic performance the world over- if in fact it's true, and the Iraqis squeezed out over 80% growth 2004-2005 with a decline in energy consumption, they must be energy conservation geniuses over there, and no doubt their amazing skills will be in demand across the globe.
And speaking of the Iraqi economy- quiz time. In 2004, two investors buy foreign currency with US dollars. One buys Euros, the other, with an equal dollar investment, buys Dinars. Which has done better by November 2006?
Only Westerners use the Bagdad airport road? What BS. I shouldn't even waste my time, you can debunk that line of crud by checking out the departure schedules for the airports in the Gulf States. I counted 8 from Sharjah to Bagdad on November 10. Flights from Damascus also arrive in Bagdad. Those flights from Damascus to Bagdad must be very popular with Westerners, right?
Things are tough in Iraq. It's a war, and the other side has been very nasty. But the Irony is the same people complaining about the chaos in Iraq and promoting that as an excuse to bail out on the Iraqis are the very ones who helped create the chaos, by offering hope and moral support to Michael Moore's Minutemen. It would be like giving your neighbor's keys to a thief and then blaming the theft on your neighbor's poor security planning. More so than most others, this is a war of mind, and the position of the Left has been to the benefit of the other side. You have Freedom of Speech i the USA, but please take responsibility for your words. When a young Jehadi signs up to kill, he beleives his cause will eventually prevail- because you keep telling him it will.
You're right, it the road has been secured by tactics that have made it secure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302600.html?nav=rss_world
But you and Yehudit are missing the point; things could have been done way better.
Now, everyone makes mistakes. You can excuse those who say yes I did and here's how I'm changing.
Bush et al won't admit error, even when it is staring them in the face.
I am just a little baffled by the refusal to acknowledge that (1) the de jure situation of women under Saddam was probably better than the de jure situation the will enjoy in the Islamic Republic of Iraq (Kurdistan, again, perhaps excepted) and that (2) even de facto women in Saddam's Iraq enjoyed a level of education, civil, and legal equality that was unusual in the Arab world and which appears to be regressing to the mean.
I guess some minds are too small to admit of any such complication. So you insist this is all made-up nonsense in the teeth of a statement of an Iraqi woman opposed to Saddam.
PD, you are wrong again: if you follow the link I already gave you, you will see that the legal situation of women in Iraq actually deteriorated during the Rosie the Riveter era of the 1990s as Saddam attempted to bolster his popularity with partial Islamicization. In this day of Google, I just don't understand why you pick explanations out of your ass without testing them against reality. Oh wait, you are a Bush supporter.
I have to admit I stopped reading your link when I got to the part where it said "[b]y 1980, women could vote and run for elections" without explaining whether that meant anything.
But if you think Iraq began to militarize in the 1990s, then you may want to google a little history on a country called Iran.
Think out of the box for a second. The current existence of WMDs did not inspire this war. The potential WMDs that Saddam could create inspired this war. Potentially, he could have created a lot. A peace activist convinced me to support the war in Iraq when she said "sanctions can work. They worked against North Korea"
WMDs weren't the only reason for this war. It was also based on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter's doctorine, which says:
“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
...based on Jimmy's doctrine, Dick Cheney said in 2002:
“Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten per cent of the world’s oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies, directly threaten America’s friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”
When Cheney says "America's friends, he means the Saudis. Remember, he said that after 9/11, after we knew that Saudi Wahhabis paid for the slaughter of thousands of Americans. If you ask most Democrats or Republicans if the Saudis are our friends, they'll agree that they are. Reason 1 why we're so screwed.
Despite the fact that Carthaging Riyadh and allowing the Jordanian Hashemites to retake control of Mecca and Medina would have been the best response to 9/11, there's no way our government (Democrats or Republicans) would ever do that. See Carter's Headless Chicken strategy for more information. We use the Islamists to scare the eeevvvilll commies, especially the really scary ones in China. We're still following Carter's advice and were still fighting the Cold War. That's reason 2 why we're so screwed.
What could have been a better deterrent to terrorism than taking the Number One Terrorist and watching him swing from a gibbet?
Islamists around the world aren't inspired by their loyalty to Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Their goal is Islamic expansionism and Sharia law. See Donald Sensing's post about this.
We're not currently fighting a war against terrorism. If we were fighting terrorism, we wouldn't be allied with the primary supporters of terrorism in the KSA and we would have taken the Iranians out years ago. We're using the Islamists for their oil, and as a weapon against the commies. All of this is based on the philosophy of rabbit-phobe Jimmy Carter, and all of this is supported by every single branch and bureau of our government, Republicans and Democrats.
All branches of our government have relied on this strategy for decades; they have absolutely no ability to think of new ideas, they're incapable of thinking out of the box and they have no plan b. No state cares about women's rights in Iraq and no state will care about terrorism until it directly threatens their own power. You can elect anyone you want and this policy won't change. Reason 3 why people around the world are so screwed.
So, what are we arguing about?
To be honest, I'm a tad disappointed because a quick read of the thread distills to "Bush is Bad!"
Hell, a second read doesn't distill to anything better.
idol,
I begin to wonder if you have any experience in the real world.
I made plenty of mistakes as an NCO planning support missions for allied forces doing anything from law enforcement to hospital construction. I can't say that any setback to my plans were due to a failure of my commanders, even though I detested the moral failures of the Commander in Chief at the time.
What you miss in your basic premise is that things are done as well as humanly possible!Try this with the next leftist faggot you meet :
L : "Bush lied about WMDs"
You : "So is that why you oppose the war?"
L : "Yes. Bush is Hitler."
You : "So, if we had found them, would you support it?"
If L says "yes", then,
You : "So Iran and North Korea openly say they have WMDs and are threatening to use them. By your logic, attacking them is justified, right?"
If L says "no", then,
You : "Then why state that as the reason if you would oppose it either way? What is the real reason?"
Leftist System Crash Error..
Andrew, what exactly is your point anyway? Are you saying that women had a better deal under Saddam than they have now? A better deal than they they will have in the future in a democracy? If this is so, what do you suggest, releasing him from prison and giving him his old job back? Are you saying that would be a good thing?
Your selective attention to details is matched only by your ability to ignore major trends. How about these facts:
Saddam was responsible for the deaths of an average of 100,000 people for every year he was in power. How many women do you suppose died and suffered as a result of this? BTW, can you calculate how many lives we've saved by our intervention?
No women were in Saddam's cabinet.
Domestic abuse, i.e. wife beating, was legal in Saddam's time.
My guess is that your only conviction is that if Bush did it, it's wrong. What a brilliant idea!
Hey KG, that reminds me of a conversation I had a few too many times:
LL (Leftist Lunatic): Bush destroyed the economy. There's no jobs, we have a mountain of debt, we're in a terrible depression, there's no hope for the future. We'll have to migrate to Mexico to get work sweeping the streets in a couple of years.
TomPaine: What about Social Security?
LL: Don't worry, it's solvent for at least 150 years.
"Try this with the next leftist faggot you meet :"
Whoa. Some supporters of the war are gay and lesbian. And that comment is homophobic any way you look at it. Friends like these I don't need.
I disagree with Mary that we're all screwed. I too have fantasies of invading Saudi Arabia and Iran and setting those people free to figure out what kind of government they really want.
But Saddam was so bad and such a threat in his own region that even though the Arab world put out a lot of rhetoric about our invasion, they were glad we got rid of him. They aren't happy we are encouraging the populace to act above their station, but they are relieved Saddam is no longer around. They would not have the same reaction to us occupying SA, and then we would have WWIV on our hands. As for Iran, I think we will have something to do with deposing the mullahs within a year or two. No idea what it will look like.
One of the reasons for using Iraq as a leverage point is that the Iraqis are fairly modern and educated and there is a tradition of secularism, so establishing a participatory government in the wake of Saddam would be easier than some other places. So once Iraqi democracy is up and running, that will influence the rest of the Arab world. Which is happening to some extent and no reason it can't keep happening. Then maybe we don't need to invade SA.
And ultimately the best way to deprive the Saudis of their power is to develop those oil sands and - my favorite hobby horse - thermal depolymerization.
We're screwed right now, but things will change - especially when the world finally accepts the fact that the Saudis are running out of oil..
I'd guess that things will eventually improve, but it's going to take a lot, lot, lot longer than it would have taken if we'd done the right thing in the first place.
I just wish our government would take its cues from Winston Churchill - or FDR. Not Jimmy Carter.
TomPaine, assuming (probably wrongly) that you want a real answer to your questions, here they are.
First, my point is that for any number of Western-oriented Iraqi women, what they're going to get is worse than they had under Saddam in his last years. (That average statistic is crap and you know it, because the deaths are front-loaded.) Consider it an unintended consequence. Deal with it.
Second, I was 100 percent behind the invasion of Afghanistan. Your hypothetical about WMD in Iraq doesn't really register with me because the UN Inspections in early 2003—and the Administration's obvious opposition to them—led me to believe that the WMD threat, especially as to nuclear weapons, was bogus, and that Bush did not want to find out if any of it was true. It seemed clear to me that the Administration wanted war for reasons of its own—as does Yehudit. (And you too, I imagine.)
Lazarus, please learn to read before you waste any more of my time. Where did I make a comment about WMDs?
And your answers to my questions did not even come close to answering my questions. And you assumed wrongly that I wasn't interested in your answers. No. I was interested. Not any more. You are not worth taking seriously.