This Iraqi gets it, why can't some Americans?

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by JIHADTHIS, May 27, 2004.

  1. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    Thanks to Kathianne for showing me this link :D


    http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

    Thursday, May 27, 2004

    Knowing the enemy.
    “Those who are not with us are against us”

    Many people accepted these words following 9/11. America, and the west in general, were shocked by those terrorist attacks motivated by utter hatred for civilization and humanity. I was one of those who agreed with this new concept and I don’t recall many objections to that phrase at those times, even from the Arab and Muslim governments.

    As time passed, many people-including some Americans- seemed to have forgot all about those horrible attacks and started to view that concept as somewhat extreme and over reacting.

    I still believe in the truth that lie in that phrase and the reason for this is that I have lived under Saddam. Thus I think I’m more aware of the nature of the enemy as a result of dealing with him day after day for all my life. We were either with Saddam or against him and there was no place in between, simply because the nature of that regime forced us to be either with or against. There was no place for negotiation or dialogue and the proofs for that are millions of dead, more than a million missing, more than 5 million refuge and hundreds of thousands of handicapped and the highest incidence rate of mental and psychological illnesses. Many of those were not against Saddam; they were just not with him.

    The American administration comprehended the magnitude and the nature of the threat. This is nothing like the cold war because the enemy then was different. There was an ideology that disagreed with the west and claim to have noble goals and the communist project stimulate you to think deeply. Communism found itself forced to communicate with the opponent and even cooperate with him in trying to solve many problems in the world that didn’t serve the interests of either part.

    When that enemy recognized that his ideology was on its way to be defeated, he surrendered with honor that makes you really respect him when you put in mind the massive military and political power he had. He gave up all his dreams and didn’t use violence because he didn’t want to destroy himself and the others.

    At those times there were parts of the world that refuse to ally, at least not strongly, to either one of the superpowers. Some countries had the luxury of staying rather away from that conflict, and they had the option of approaching either side according to where their interests lied without risking a lot.

    The policy of managing the crises was somewhat appropriate for those times and was not what can be considered as a bad policy. It was accompanied by many mistakes but it managed to protect the world from much worse expected disasters.

    It seems that many people are still thinking in the same manner that was predominant at the cold war times. The majority of Americans and Iraqis grasp the nature of the threat as a result of their direct contact with the enemy and that needs to be shown to the others.

    The new enemy differs from all the previous ones in that he doesn’t have or even claim to have any constructive ideology. He doesn’t bring us anything other than the seeds of death and destruction “either you surrender to me or I kill you”. As for an alternative ideology, it doesn’t exist. Moreover the willingness to initiate a dialogue was never expressed or shown to be a possibility.

    This enemy don’t want to indulge himself in a productive talk, he never show himself in public except when he’s loaded with explosives and stern desire to kill as many people as possible regardless of their religion, ethnicity and nationality. His main goal is of course destruction of the western civilization, but he wouldn’t care if it involved taking the lives of even “Muslim brothers” during the course, as it's shown in Iraq. He says it frankly, “you’re either with me or against me” it was his choice in the first place not ours. Those who don’t believe in this will pay dearly, not at the hands of the Americans, for sure but at the hands of the terrorists whom they’re appeasing.

    There’s no place in between in this war and that’s because of the nature of the enemy. That’s why I was never intimidated by the American administration’s speech. I see it as the closest thing to reality and I greatly commend the wisdom and courage of the other coalition countries that decide to join the US by benefiting from the experience of the others.

    I think that the majority agrees that the international organizations that were founded after WW2 have proved to be too weak than to be trusted in leading humanity to make the right decisions. This is so obvious from their confusion during crises that only lead to further disturbance and add to the obstacles that face the countries that have the will and the means to solve those crises. The whole world should acknowledge the necessity of reviewing the performance of such organizations.

    Now to the most important point: Is their any retreat in front of the enemy? Is there any regret and tendency to go back to managing crises instead of solving them? Is there really a will to go back and depend on stale organization like the UN to handle such a crucial issue as the future of Iraq?

    I don’t know what exactly is on the mind of the American administration and what exactly their intentions are, but I know that it’s absolutely wrong in this stage and with the existing threats to go back to the old policy, and I know that the coalition has the capabilities and the strength to defeat the enemy.

    This war demands great determination, patience and faith on the parts of the governments and the people. For me, an Iraqi citizen, the American administration has never failed me, not yet. I hope that they keep the course, otherwise the loss will be that of the whole humanity and I doubt if it can ever be overcome.

    -By Mohammed.
     
  2. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    It wil take another terrorist act in the U.S. i'm afraid before people finally wake up and realize that there is no negotiation, no winning of hearts and minds and no changes of philosophy on the part of the enemy in this war. They understand 3 things, force, power and death. I'm not exactly sure why that is so hard for the appeasers and anti-militarists out there to understand. If the circle doesn't fit into the square hole why do they keep trying to get it to fit?

    Also I must say this and its been on my mind for a while now. We should not hand over power on June 30, its still way too unstable. If we do that and start a slow withdrawal within days, not months, the country will be fully involved in bloody civil war and guess who is going to come out on top? Thats right, religious extremists.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Perhaps you are right but I see the June 30th handover as vital to Bush' credibility which is something that is his strongpoint. Right or wrong and no matter how many times the exceptions have been highlighted, Bush has done what he has promised he will do. The Iraqis will begin to have control and therefore will share some responsibilty for problems and more importantly get credit for positive results. We have pride in our country because of what we have done to make it this way. I think that Iraqis would much rather follow Iraqis' than Americans. We have to show that we trust them as soon as possible or they will be seen as an American puppet. Our troops will still be there if needed. We need to respect the pride of Iraq and trust them. Nothing comes without a risk.
     
  4. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    I used to think that it would only take one major attack on our country to motivate everyone. I was wrong. Consequently, I no longer believe it will take one more major attack to motivate everyone else. It would take multiple attacks over a sustained period of time. As a result, we will be fighting both the terrorists and the liberals every step of the way, and once we are done, they will say there was never any threat.


    We can turn over sovereignty on June 30th. That's fine. It doesn't mean one single soldier is going home. It doesn't even mean we won't send more if needed.

    If a civil war topples the provisional government, then we are in charge again.

    A result that won't be tolerated under this administration is a civil war that leads to a theocracy.
     
  5. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    I have to agree with you both!
     
  6. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Man I hope you guys are right, I personally believe though that the Iraqis aren't ready to govern themselves yet. Also I thought that after June 30 we were going to begin to draw down our troop levels in Iraq? Is that right or wrong? I don't know I think its a situation, at least for the moment where if we give the whackos a crack they will pour right through and eventually take over. Hard to jump right back in after releasing authority, wouldn't ya agree?

    As for the libs, you might be right knowing libs. :D
     
  7. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    In several respects the Iraqis are already governing themselves and have been for awhile. 12 Iraqi Ministries, according to Mr. Senor, are already operating autonomously, in that they don't answer to us, they don't ask us anything.

    Also, according to the President's speech the other day, we currently have about 20,000 more troops in Iraq than top brass says we need. Also, as the Iraqis begin to take full control of their own security there will be less need for our troops there. This will happen quicker in the north and the south I'm sure, and then finally in the center. We are likely to keep a close observation of the borders with Iran and Syria, but yes we will be drawing down of forces, at a speed, and in the locations, that top brass thinks its wise.

    If the 'whackos' pour in, then we pour back in. Is it harder to jump right back in, or to jump in without precedence in the first place?
     
  8. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    Well Zhukov I think we agree in principle pretty much on Iraq and us being there i'm just a little apprehensive about June 30 I guess. Well i'm apprehensive about this whole summer actually including the Olympics. I think this will be one explosive summer on the international scene, tensions worldwide are at unprecedented highs not seen since the cold war. In most respects at least the Soviets were predictable in what they would do, these terrorists are so skittish and wild hard to tell what they are cooking up.
     
  9. JIHADTHIS
    Offline

    JIHADTHIS Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,055
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Mowing a grassy knoll....
    Ratings:
    +22
    OCA,

    I also think the time is right for the hand off. There is only so much time before we have totally worn out our welcome and your average Joe (or maybe Ali?:D ) turns on us. Troop numbers will probably stay at the same level in the near future, but they probably won't be as visible.

    If the country goes into total chaos on or after the 30th, who knows what's gonna happen.
     
  10. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,153
    See the problem is, even if the US is attacked again, i think that will just continue to reinforce The extreme wackos on the left. I mean its going to convince more of the moderates, but the extreme wackos are going to just say "See! See what Bush's war mongering policies have gotten us!" They are going to use the attack to reinforce their beliefs.

    I think a majority of Americans do get it. That is why im not worried about the reelection. Bush will win in a landslide.
     

Share This Page