The Horrors of Iraq
Let the Democrats continue their cowardly message of retreat. The American people won't be buying, especially if more stories like this one come out.
A Tampa lawyer, who had prosecuted war criminals at The Hague, also spent time in Iraq building the case against Hussein. "Compared to Iraq, the former Yugoslavia was child's play," he reported.
So here's a question for the Democrats: If going to Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons was right, why wouldn't having gone to Iraq been the same -- even without the WMD's? Or would you, the party of "compassion", simply looked away as Hussein continued to exterminate his people and threaten the world?
One can only hope that the truths about Hussein's Iraq, which will be aired during the trial, will receive some attention from the MSM in America. I'm not holding my breath . . . because reporting on what happened over there won't only run against the political prejudices cherished by the MSM -- it will also reveal what a shoddy journalistic job it's done up 'til now.
A Tampa lawyer, who had prosecuted war criminals at The Hague, also spent time in Iraq building the case against Hussein. "Compared to Iraq, the former Yugoslavia was child's play," he reported.
So here's a question for the Democrats: If going to Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons was right, why wouldn't having gone to Iraq been the same -- even without the WMD's? Or would you, the party of "compassion", simply looked away as Hussein continued to exterminate his people and threaten the world?
One can only hope that the truths about Hussein's Iraq, which will be aired during the trial, will receive some attention from the MSM in America. I'm not holding my breath . . . because reporting on what happened over there won't only run against the political prejudices cherished by the MSM -- it will also reveal what a shoddy journalistic job it's done up 'til now.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:26 AM
12 Comments:
Well, there could very well have been more support for an invasion for humanitarian reasons if we had a statesman in office who, instead of brow-beating and insulting our (former) allies, made a compelling case to do so. Even Duh-bya's father knew the importance of diplomacy.
But the cowboy had to have it his way, right now, and everyone who didn't like it could go to hell. Statesmanship, Texas-style.
That Saddam has rolled up a big body count is not in doubt. If that’s the criteria for taking action, what about Darfur? Where were the billions of dollars and the willingness to use military action when the government of Sudan was/is supporting the Janjaweed militias? Various estimates place the total death toll between 180,000 and 300,000 by bullets, disease and starvation combined. Maybe it would be different if they had some oil that the multinationals wanted to profit from. What about all those starving oppressed North Koreans? Communist China? As for why Yugoslavia and not Iraq or Korea or China, it’s an assessment of what’s practical and what’s not. You know, that messy world of reality where good intentions are trumped by pragmatism.
You call suggesting extricating ourselves from the swamp we have created as a “cowardly message of retreat”. I’ll put Rep. Murtha’s credibility on this topic as something more than the nothing you possess. There was a time when better outcomes were possible. But that was before Abu Ghraib and the wave of carpetbaggers. (We’ll have Haliburtan et.al. rebuild Iraq for you with your oil money while you remain unemployed. With your gun. Getting shot at for sport by contractors.) But instead we are left with the bad alternatives that result when a very bad idea is implemented very badly.
Carol,
You should be thankful to the MSM. They are doing a wonderful job for those of you who don't wish to broadcast the civilian casualties resulting from our "surgical stike" aerial strategy in Iraq. This is how the U.S. is able to wage a campaign this size with relatively few U.S. troops(by comparison we had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam in 1968). While we bombed civilians like they were cordwood in Vietnam it doesn't hold a candle to what we are doing in Iraq. It is truly the dirty little secret of this war.
I don't think Americans want to send more U.S. troops in Iraq. At the same time however, I don't think they realize that the alternative has been a campaign of over 200 bombings by the U.S. military a day - largely in densely populated civilian areas.
There is very little coverage of the slaughter of civilians that is taking place in order to minimize U.S. troop casualties. Nowhere, have I read any published data on the number of Iraqi civilian casualties.
But going forward we will be depending increasingly on aerial campaigns as troop levels decrease. Bush himself has suggested lower troop levels next year.
This is a very gruesome and bloody war that is being largely sanitized by the press.
Now I know what you are going to say. "The terrorists and suicide bombers and look at what they do, etc. etc." But does that justify our stooping to their level?Because if it does then we've already lost since we've rejected those very values we're supposedly fighting for.
Since you're so gung-ho on this war Carol, you should be nicer to the MSM. They're doing you a big favor by whitewashing it.
I think the sanitizing of this war is just one of a long string of lost chances for this administration to be forthright and honest with the American people. Bush has underestimated Americans to his detriment. Just like the WMD's that weren't there, just like Saddam's link to Al qaeda that never existed. just like the easy victory scenario, just like the Iraqi people supporting their American liberators. It has been 3 years of rosy scenarios - not ONE of which has panned out. Now we're supposed to believe that this motley contingent of Iraqi soldiers is going to be a competent army and all the troops can come home in what 6 months? a year? gimme a break. Bush has NO credibility. If he would have just ONCE leveled with the American people he wouldn't be in this position. The only explanation I can come up with is that he is a pathological lier who is incapable of telling the truth. His arrogance and obstinance will be his legacy.
Glad your world is so clear and simple and lily white, Orphan. But we don't want to baffle you. Tell you what,you just go back to your Nintendo and we'll wake you up for the victory parade.
Orphan in Bama wrote, "Are any of you willing to give up part of you have to assure freedom for someone else? Or, are you determined to give up nothing to aid someone seeking freedom? I would posit it is the latter rather than the former."
Gosh, Orphan, how noble of you to be willing to sacrifice the blood and treasure of the United States to bring freedom to others. I wish we could all measure up to your noble standard.
You know, I have heard that China has a fairly bad human rights rights record. So Orphan, are you in favor of invading China? We could assure the freedom of over a billion people by doing so--what's not to like? Heck, why not conscript every able bodied male under the age of thirty and free all of the oppressed peoples in the world? Or are the Iraqi people intrinsically more worthy of freedom than the Somalis, North Koreans, Iranians, Chinese, etc.?
C'mon Orphan, let's saddle up that moral high-horse of yours and ride.
Carol cracks me up by writing, "So here's a question for the Democrats: If going to Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons was right, why wouldn't having gone to Iraq been the same -- even without the WMD's? "
Carol, who exactly were the foremost opponents to our going into Yugoslavia? That's right, the wingnuts. And in 2000, they were lead in this opposition by one George W. Bush.
Let's look at the words of Republican nominee George W. Bush in the second Presidential debate with Al Gore. They were specifically talking about nation building and the appropriate use of the military when the candidate said,
"Well, if it's in our vital national interests. And that means whether or not our territory -- our territory is threatened, our people could be harmed, whether or not our alliances -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force."
Carol just argued that overthrowing Saddam was reason enough for war. Human rights abuses in Iraq, as bad as they might be, didn't threaten our country, our allies, our alliances or our friends. All of the self-defense claims (e.g., al Qaeda ties and WMD) have fallen by the wayside and were known by the administration to be false prior to the invasion.
"Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear, whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be."
The Bush administration's understanding was so clear that three months into a three year war, the President played dress up in a flight suit and stood on an aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
"Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win, whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped."
Unlike Donald Rumsfeld and Rudy Guiliani, I won't trash the troops. As far as "well-equipped" goes, we still have parents holding bake sales to raise money for body armor for their children serving in Iraq.
"And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy."
Only the most Kool-Aid addicted wingnuts argue that "staying the course" is an exit strategy.
That's exactly what I was thinking about today, about when he was asked if he thought nation-building was a job for the U.S. military. He even kept a straight face when he said 'no.'
Well said, Twister.
Gee, do I misunderstand, or is "anonymous", our lefty in poor disquise, implying that Slick Willy was/is (depending on your definition of 'is') a statesman? THAT is a big laugh! What do you think Paula, Kathleen, Juanita, or Monica would say about that?
Of course, the great slickster didn't get the almighty blessing of UN approval either. Did he insult our allies? Nobody worried then...
"If going to Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons was right, why wouldn't having gone to Iraq been the same "
Did someone answer this question? If so, I must have missed it...
Brian Busse said...
"... I’ll put Rep. Murtha’s credibility on this topic as something more than the nothing you possess. ..."
So you agree with Murtha that we cannot win in Iraq and that our Army has been broken, worn out and may not be able to meet furture military threats?
"... Getting shot at for sport by contractors. ..."
What?!?!?
Draino said...
"...While we bombed civilians like they were cordwood in Vietnam it doesn't hold a candle to what we are doing in Iraq. ...
...It is truly the dirty little secret of this war.
I don't think Americans want to send more U.S. troops in Iraq. At the same time however, I don't think they realize that the alternative has been a campaign of over 200 bombings by the U.S. military a day - largely in densely populated civilian areas.
..."
Are you serious?!?
Do you guys really think the policy of the U.S. is to have contractors shooting Iraqi civilians for sport and carpet-bombing Iraqi cities?
You guys really ARE nuts! It truly takes a hatred for America to believe these ridiculous insults to everything America stands for.
One needs only a pair of functioning eyeballs to see that the motive for our invasion of Iraq had little (if anything) to do with humanitarianism. That is merely the retro-rationale, one of the many that are being desperately grasped at in lieu of admitting the real motives: money and revenge. Money for Dick's and Dubya's military-industrial buddies and revenge against the man who Dubya's daddy let get away.
And to the earlier poster who seems to equate statesmanship and fidelity to one's wife...the two have nothing to do with each other. Your assertion is tantamount to saying that a man with good eyesight must be a great father.
Post a Comment
<< Home