Let's Be Honest About Iraq, Our Place In The World And What Must Be Done

[NATO AIR]

As I'm watching evil triumph in places like Burma, Iran, China, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea and most prominently of all, Darfur (in Sudan), I have something to say about what's happened in Iraq the past 15 years or so, especially the last 2.
Many of us seem to forget that there is still an unacceptable number of people in the world (around maybe 1.5 billion, maybe a bit more) who live in oppression. Many of these people live in a state of fear and terror almost no one in America (save our immigrants, military personnel and the occasional politician or diplomat) can even begin to imagine. Afghanistan and Iraq were part of this tragic population statistic until recently. It should not be ignored that in places like Burma and Sudan, people leave notes on US consultate gates with messages like "please invade us" or "please speak out for us with no voice". Our liberations of Iraq and Afghanistan, however flawed in the past or now, are inspirations to opressed people around the world.
We are the world's most powerful country, most influential culture and most awed and envied. I used to say before Kosovo that we should start acting like it. Kosovo was flawed, but we stood up to the Serbs finally. The war on AIDS, second only to the War on Terrorism, is being fought in a flawed manner as well, and so we must fix this and press on twice as hard. Our words of comfort and hope, our promises of assistance, they've been heard, and believe me, people are taking them to heart and are inspired by them. We cannot fail them. And most of all, our war on terror, despite its often flawed moments, is still a strong message to those around the world who live in fear and under tyranny.
So for those who say they opposed the war in Iraq, I realize many of you had honorable intentions and reasons, but I must say strongly that you were wrong. Every moment we allow another regime like Saddam Hussein's to stay in power, we dillute the importance of our power and potential, we blacken our name and we endanger our future. Its not just terrorism, its instability, its mass murder, its mass destruction, its plain right and wrong. We must send the message out loud and clear, today and for a near eternity afterwards, that we can not allow tyranny to stand anymore, not just in the Middle East, but anywhere its allowed to continue its death grip on nations and peoples.
I hope Pres. Bush and future leaders will remember this point: because no longer can we create temporary alliances with some of these very regimes we should be opposing (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan). This is aiding and abbetting the enemy, no matter how you slice it and dice it. How can we be liberating Afghans when we coddle the oppressors of the peoples in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan? We can do better than this, and we must. We simply can't tolerate any of these regimes anymore.
As such, we can no longer be contained by the old laws of war. Preemptive war and diplomatic endgames (free your people or prepare for the diplomatic isolation/targeted sanctions/strategic bombing/invasion) are the new law of the land. We cannot wait years or decades for a dictator or oppressive group of individuals to hold power and eventually give it up. The call to freedom is here and now, and it must echo until its been heard everywhere.

Our allies of the past may not be our allies of the future, though they do not have to be our enemies. They have never conceded to our entire agenda, why should we concede to theirs? We know who is motivated by greed, by insecurity, by jealousy, by fear of being punished themselves for tyranny and oppression, by collusion with the guilty. We also know who has a geniune interest in spreading freedom around the world, and we must work harder to educate and convince those who mean well but who are unsure or misinformed or misled.

And so we also must not always think it is military force or nothing at all. We have to vastly improve our diplomatic and economic agencies in how they operate in this fight for freedom. We have to create targeted sanctions, that harm only oppressors and their supporters, rather than the nation and its people. We have to speak out EVERYDAY in as many forums as possible, airing these regimes' dirty laundry, past and present transgressions and ruthless oppression as much as possible. We have to signal everyday, somehow, someway, to the oppressed that we support them and will help them now and in the future to gain freedom.

There will never be peace on earth, but there can be a better, brighter and more free world, and now, more than ever, America must find the strength and will to dedicate its resources to this effort. I know Pres. Bush and his administration have made some damning mistakes so far (hasn't everyone?), I know Afghanistan is in deep trouble, Iraq is precarious and terrorism seems to be spiking, rather than decreasing. However, not all of this is the admin's fault, the Democrats fault, the Euro's fault, anyone's fault. It is sometimes events out of our control. This just means we have to learn from the mistakes that are ours twice as quickly and apply those lessons rapidly and seriously. Now is not the time to give up and change direction. Now is not the time to downplay expectations or concede defeat. Now is not the time to go back to the past, it is gone and will never return. Now is not the time to stay in place and wallow. Now is the time to toughen up, look around and learn and march on.

I have my issues with his administration, but because of what I've said above, I'm PROUD TO SAY BUSH IN 2004. Please God give this man and his team strength to carry on, intelligence to see through deception and realize danger, insight into what they've done wrong so they can make it right, and courage to do what's right, even when it seems unpopular or wrong.

 

[CSM]

Unfortunately, it takes more than an administration, more than the Congress and even more than the entire government (regardless of which party is in situ). It takes national will. The comitment of blood and treasure on such a scale is an overwhelming thought. The citizens of this country would have to be whole heartedly focused and comitted to the task. In my opinion, such unity among the citizens of this nation, while a worthy goal, will not occur for some time to come.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by CSM
Unfortunately, it takes more than an administration, more than the Congress and even more than the entire government (regardless of which party is in situ). It takes national will. The comitment of blood and treasure on such a scale is an overwhelming thought. The citizens of this country would have to be whole heartedly focused and comitted to the task. In my opinion, such unity among the citizens of this nation, while a worthy goal, will not occur for some time to come.

I would agree and unfortunately, not until another "911".

 

[NATO AIR]

i'm just sick of people bashing the iraq war, questioning our motives, saying it was wrong. they don't understand what we have to do to survive as a nation, to prevent the 21st century from being bloodier than the 20th.

i don't foresee us having to invade (at least like iraq or afghanistan) any more countries for a long time, but i do see, i do hope for, a reformed state and defense dept. appartus that realizes there is opportunity every day of the year to help people be free. we could topple burma's generals in less than a year if we could utilize targeted sanctions and daily embarassment, and help isoltate THEM from the international community. places like Sudan, we should be actively supporting the student movement there, same thing with Iran and other nations.

we HAVE to reclaim our leadership of the international community and stop letting these common thugs in Cuba, Burma, Iran, Syria, etc etc push us around and make a mockery of what we stand for.

reagan's example is the one to follow, constant, concentrated efforts to repel oppression and tyranny (in his case, communism, in our case, tyranny in all of its forms) on a widespread basis from all parts of the US gov't, again, especially the state and defense depts.


but you are right about the national unity thing and the level of sacrifice americans are willing to tolerate now.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

War only breeds more war. Fighting the first world war eventually led to the rise of the nazis. In defeating the nazis, the soviets became the new enemy, and after the fall of communism, terrorists have risen. What will be next?

When president Bush orders a country invaded, when there are at least 3 others(Iran, NK, Sudan) with much more urgent threats and genocide, and in the process of invading 10,000 innocent Iraqis and Americans die, than I have a real problem with the policy. Not to mention that certain areas of the case being made were exaggerated.

I do think that at a certain point Iraq needed to be dealt with, but that point was years away. Condi and Powell both said in July of 2001 that Iraq was effectively contained, which I also believed.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
War only breeds more war. Fighting the first world war eventually led to the rise of the nazis. In defeating the nazis, the soviets became the new enemy, and after the fall of communism, terrorists have risen. What will be next?

Your logic doesn't really follow. Was WWI the cause of WWII? For Nazi Germany, yes, you can draw a direct corelation, but not with Japan. But the Cold War between democracy and communism would have occurred in one form or another regardless of whether WWII had happen. And terrorism is not an offshoot of Communism - it is the result of extreme religious fervor in a declining civilizaton.

When president Bush orders a country invaded, when there are at least 3 others(Iran, NK, Sudan) with much more urgent threats and genocide, and in the process of invading 10,000 innocent Iraqis and Americans die, than I have a real problem with the policy. Not to mention that certain areas of the case being made were exaggerated.

I do think that at a certain point Iraq needed to be dealt with, but that point was years away. Condi and Powell both said in July of 2001 that Iraq was effectively contained, which I also believed.

US policy regarding Iraq was that the US should do what it could to effect a regime change. This was a Clinton policy that Bush actually did something about. So if you are looking for a fall guy for the policy, look to Clinton.
And am I really hearing you right in that you would support the invasion of Iran, or the Sudan, or Norht Korea?

 

[Shazbot]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
War only breeds more war. Fighting the first world war eventually led to the rise of the nazis. In defeating the nazis, the soviets became the new enemy, and after the fall of communism, terrorists have risen. What will be next?

I will agree that going to war for power will breed war. However, I do dispute the fact that WWII was the result of WWI. I see it as more on an extension. Either way, what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much power is sloppy cleanup on the part of some European countries. If France and Britain hadn't basically made Germany responsible for every bad thing in the world and turned their economy into a crap-hole, there wouldn't have been much reason for such a radical change in their Government. And don't get me started on appeasement!

I don't agree that terrorists are a result of the fall of Communism, though many of them would not be armed or supplied had the Soviet Union not collapsed...

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Shazbot
I don't agree that terrorists are a result of the fall of Communism, though many of them would not be armed or supplied had the Soviet Union not collapsed...

Yes and no. The Soviets wer HUGE supporters of terrorists during the Cold War so either way, they would have received their weapons and training.

 

[freeandfun1]

NATO has no clue about the situation on the Korean peninsula. North Korea is a threat, but China and Japan are helping to reign them in. It is a much more delicate situation considering the fact that the Clinton admin allowed them to develop their WMD's under our noses.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
As I'm watching evil triumph in places like....

Good post, but with respect to:

I hope Pres. Bush and future leaders will remember this point: because no longer can we create temporary alliances with some of these very regimes we should be opposing (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan).

Remember, we aided the Soviets in their fight against the Nazi's, and justifiably so. The Nazi's were worse.

We can't be everywhere at once. We must pick the places where we can be reasonably sure of success (it does no good to lose), and it is only sensible to seek the aid of anyone who can help us to that end.

 

[Avatar4321]

First, WW1 wasnt the cause of the rise of the nazis and WW2. It was the surrender conditions after the war that created the environment for WW2.

Second, There are times when we have to ally ourselves with questionable men. As Zhukov stated, we allied ourselves with Stalin to defeat Hitler. It was a necessary evil. Which is better that we support a small evil and stop a larger one or we do not support the small evil and watch the greater evil overwhelm. There were many examples of this in the Cold War.

Our Ally in S Vietnam wasnt the greatest regime there was. But in order to fight the greater evil of the spread of communism we should have backed them with even greater force than we did. We deffinately shouldnt have tried to Assasinate the South Vietnamese leader during the war like President Johnson tried to do. Eventually because of the libs we failed to support our ally and the Communists swept southeast asia and millions died because we didnt support our allies as we should.

The same with the Shah of Iran. sure he wasnt a great guy. but Carters refusing to assist our ally gave us an even more evil regime.

Sometimes tough choices half to be made between a bad choice and an even worse choice. We need a leader who will be willing to make those choices.

 

[PatriotEagle]

Eventually because of the libs we failed to support our ally and the Communists swept southeast asia and millions died because we didnt support our allies as we should.

The libs, and not supporting S Vietnam, had nothing to do with our loss. We lost Vietnam because we fought it like a ground war, not like a guerrilla war. The closest we came to winning it was thanks to the US Marines and their knowledge of how to fight off jungle insurgencies. But the Army didn't listen. Tanks and the draft can't occupy a country and hope to win over a population - but smart soldiering, like that done by the Marines, could have.

 

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I would agree and unfortunately, not until another "911".

Yes, we as Americans are always gung ho in the beginning, and loose our fortitude when there is sacrifice involved. And that is a shame. In many ways I feel like Bush's hands are tied in certain areas re Iraq by the politcally correct in this country and others. As a blessed and prosperous nation we have a duty to use that to ensure freedom for all those who cannot do it for themselves, before Bush came into office our policy for about 8 years was one of isolationism, resulting in 9/11, a downgraded military/CIA capability. Additonally we got a lot nice showy paper sighnings and photo ops from the Rose Garden which meant didily squat. I hope future presidents have the guts to break free of this kind of mentality as Bush is trying very hard to do and being fought tooth and nail at every turn.................

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by PatriotEagle
The libs, and not supporting S Vietnam, had nothing to do with our loss. We lost Vietnam because we fought it like a ground war, not like a guerrilla war. The closest we came to winning it was thanks to the US Marines and their knowledge of how to fight off jungle insurgencies. But the Army didn't listen. Tanks and the draft can't occupy a country and hope to win over a population - but smart soldiering, like that done by the Marines, could have.

Very unfair. You cannot blame the Army (soldiers) but you can blame the politicians.

There are many notable Army units that did a fine job in Vietnam - when they were allowed to by the politicians.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I don't agree that terrorists are a result of the fall of Communism, though many of them would not be armed or supplied had the Soviet Union not collapsed...

The terrorists would have to be fighting the soviets right now for independence right now if we hadn't ened the ussr. Plus, during the time we were fighting the russians, we armed, trained, and gave money to the terrorists. Then, because we were channeling these weapons and funds mostly through the pakistanis, the fanatical muslims believed they themselves, without America's help, had defeated the USSR in the Middle East.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

First, WW1 wasnt the cause of the rise of the nazis and WW2. It was the surrender conditions after the war that created the environment for WW2.

WWI was the cause of WWII. The environment created in Germany because of WWI directly led to the rise of Hitler. Without the poverty and hopelessness the Germans had, Hitler would never have gained power.

gop_jeff, there were ties between what Japan did to us and WWI:

"To understand why Japan lashed out, we must go back to World War I. Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25637

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
WWI was the cause of WWII. The environment created in Germany because of WWI directly led to the rise of Hitler.

It was, as Avatar said, more the surrender conditions after the war that caused to economic collapse of Germany.

Most of the Germans didn't feel they had even lost (They after all were in France shelling the enemy's capital, and not vice versa). The stipulations of the Versailles Treaty demanded the Germans pay 6.6 billion pounds in reparations. This destroyed the German economy and led to the conditions Hitler took advantage of to gain power.


"We shall have to fight another war again in 25 years time."

Lloyd George, talking about the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Remember, we aided the Soviets in their fight against the Nazi's, and justifiably so. The Nazi's were worse.

I wonder if liberals who talk about how horrible the US was for helping Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war also talk about how horrible the US was for helping the Soviets?

 

[NATO AIR]

Like I clarified earlier, I am not asking for the US to invade all these countries... I also don't believe the US will be invading anybody for quite a while


But what I am calling for is a true dedication to eradicating oppression and tyranny off the planet... that means ceasing giving up the high moral ground to countries like Burma and North Korea, that means revitilizing the state dept. and making it much more an advocate for freedom and prosperity than it is now, even with the war on terrorism, it still seems to be "business as usual" over there.

that means having ambassadors who are brave in these oppressive countries, who push the rulers to their limits by publicly and privately assiting freedom groups and persons, and use the international media as much as possible to publicize the plight of these oppressed people. these oppressed people are living in the dark, from burma to sudan to iran, its time to shine the light on what's happening in these places. it means lionizing in the american and international media freedom leaders who have been ignored in the past because their story wasn't "news-worthy" enough.

my perfect realtime example is that doctor in china the chinese are holding... he's become too popular, too respected, not only in the chinese media, but in the world media, for the communists to risk executing him or holding him for very much longer.

 

[PatriotEagle]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Very unfair. You cannot blame the Army (soldiers) but you can blame the politicians.

There are many notable Army units that did a fine job in Vietnam - when they were allowed to by the politicians.

You certainly can blame the soldiers. Who do you blame for Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld or the soldiers and their commanders who actually abused the prisoners?

But, in Vietnam, you blame the leaders of the Army, the generals, who ran the war improperly. Of course you don't blame the soldiers that were dying for a nonexistent cause; you blame their superiors.