Is it an attempt to change a belief system when you try and force the ruling elite of a society to allow all members of that society to have a say in how things are run? I don't know that I would agree with that. It's an attempt to change the belief system of a small group (there is a ruling elite in every single society), and I think that is possible.
Pretty weak argument. What correlation is there between US society and Iraq under Sadaam?
One was a pseudo-theocracy/oligarchy run by a rich, power-crazed, imperialistic, expansionist loon in control of every level of government and the other... well, Iraq used to be mostly secular I suppose.
Can you imagine what would happen if an occupying nation came to the US to change our constitution and political structure? Do you think we would lay down and give up our way of life?
Pretty weak argument. What correlation is there between US society and Iraq under Sadaam?
start rant...
Actually, they had a very high literacy rate with an excellent school system for both male and female. Now, only boys go to school and most of them are not there either. Now they are training to become terrorists. They had females in office. The women were doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. Now they are home hiding under their burkas. Life for the average Iraqi was much better under Sadam then it is today. Tell them we improved their lives.
I'm not saying some people weren't in hell. But, we have plenty of people living in hell in this country too.
...end rant
I'm not going to get into an argument over this. It is My opinion, based upon facts that can be googled. There are probably many correlations if you choose to look. Any country can claim a repressed minority, our own included. Check the racial prison rate breakdowns.
Uhh yeah. There is oppressed minorities and there is everyone not in the ruling group being oppressed. Having a job does not equate to having political freedom.
Also I believe at least one women isn't hiding under her bed as she's serving in the Iraqi govt.
Can you imagine what would happen if an occupying nation came to the US to change our constitution and political structure? Do you think we would lay down and give up our way of life?
Pretty weak argument. What correlation is there between US society and Iraq under Sadaam?
start rant...
Actually, they had a very high literacy rate with an excellent school system for both male and female. Now, only boys go to school and most of them are not there either. Now they are training to become terrorists. They had females in office. The women were doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. Now they are home hiding under their burkas. Life for the average Iraqi was much better under Sadam then it is today. Tell them we improved their lives.
I'm not saying some people weren't in hell. But, we have plenty of people living in hell in this country too.
...end rant
I'm not going to get into an argument over this. It is My opinion, based upon facts that can be googled. There are probably many correlations if you choose to look. Any country can claim a repressed minority, our own included. Check the racial prison rate breakdowns.
I'm not going to argue over fact that can be googled, as you say. I'm not even going to argue. BUT, from talking to several who were eyewitnesses to what is going on in Iraq, what you say is exactly opposite. One civilian/soldier said one of the most memorable experiences of his first tour in Iraq was watching little boys and girls running (together) to school for the first time. They were excitedly chattering and when they saw the soldiers, they stopped, looked, and said "Thank you," smiled, and then one of the little boys hugged a soldier and they were on their way.
I guess they weren't in the "average" group you were referring to.
I guess mileage varies from soldier to soldier, source to source.
Can you imagine what would happen if an occupying nation came to the US to change our constitution and political structure? Do you think we would lay down and give up our way of life?
Pretty weak argument. What correlation is there between US society and Iraq under Sadaam?
start rant...
Actually, they had a very high literacy rate with an excellent school system for both male and female. Now, only boys go to school and most of them are not there either. Now they are training to become terrorists. They had females in office. The women were doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc. Now they are home hiding under their burkas. Life for the average Iraqi was much better under Sadam then it is today. Tell them we improved their lives.
I'm not saying some people weren't in hell. But, we have plenty of people living in hell in this country too.
...end rant
I'm not going to get into an argument over this. It is My opinion, based upon facts that can be googled. There are probably many correlations if you choose to look. Any country can claim a repressed minority, our own included. Check the racial prison rate breakdowns.
I'm not going to argue over fact that can be googled, as you say. I'm not even going to argue. BUT, from talking to several who were eyewitnesses to what is going on in Iraq, what you say is exactly opposite. One civilian/soldier said one of the most memorable experiences of his first tour in Iraq was watching little boys and girls running (together) to school for the first time. They were excitedly chattering and when they saw the soldiers, they stopped, looked, and said "Thank you," smiled, and then one of the little boys hugged a soldier and they were on their way.
I guess they weren't in the "average" group you were referring to.
I guess mileage varies from soldier to soldier, source to source.
Actually mileage does vary. LOL. How many years ago was that? Here's a recent update on the school system in Iraq.
I wouldn't even argue that Guardian article. Average Iraqi Joe's running from the bloodshed. Sure, some of those people are teachers so that has an effect on schools just like all the plumbers leaving town has an effect on working toilets.
However, I don't see how that is blame to lay at the feet of the Americans. The Iraqis have been given a choice - Sadaam is now gone, what will you make of your country?
If their choice is to run from the groups of people trying to tear the country apart then their future is grim. If they choose to stand and fight, unite as a people and try to put together a workable future for themselves then they earn my respect.
Plenty of countries have gone through violent revolutions and civil wars. The fighting wasn't just handled by millitaries - the people themselves had to stand up and fight for change. Iraq is no different and the responsibility lies with them.
Blame the Us for stirring up the pot and forcing them into this choice, fine. If anything is was just accelerating the inevitable. Totalitarian states do not last forever and their demise is never pretty.
A lot of people in Russia will tell you they were better off under Stalin.
Two, maybe three. And he has since gone back for other tours, and I believe is still over there.
The article is interesting reading, and I, too, don't think it is "made up," but it says nothing about education under Saddam.
If anything, it doesn't make your argument a whole lot stronger, because from what I could garner, the Islamic militants are causing a lot of it.
I know the next argument (I think), but if we weren't over there, there wouldn't be Islamic militant groups, or they wouldn't be reacting. All the violence going on is because our troops are there trying to change people who don't want to change.
But, I'll just stick my head back in the sand, and to quote another thread, "if the map says one thing and the road says another, I'm going to believe the road."
I did a google search and got a few results. Just thought they were interesting reading, if anyone wanted to check them. Not sure they support anyone's argument, or any argument at all. The others were either blogs or really old.
Two, maybe three. And he has since gone back for other tours, and I believe is still over there.
The article is interesting reading, and I, too, don't think it is "made up," but it says nothing about education under Saddam.
If anything, it doesn't make your argument a whole lot stronger, because from what I could garner, the Islamic militants are causing a lot of it.
I know the next argument (I think), but if we weren't over there, there wouldn't be Islamic militant groups, or they wouldn't be reacting. All the violence going on is because our troops are there trying to change people who don't want to change.
But, I'll just stick my head back in the sand, and to quote another thread, "if the map says one thing and the road says another, I'm going to believe the road."
âIraq used to have one of the finest school systems in the Middle East,â said UNICEF Iraq Representative Roger Wright. âNow we have clear evidence of how far the system has deteriorated. Today millions of children in Iraq are attending schools that lack even basic water or sanitation facilities, have crumbling walls, broken windows and leaking roofs. The system is overwhelmed.â
This is a quote from an article by UNICEF. I think for the most part they are unbiased. Here's a link to the article. BTW - this is from the time frame you are referring to.
Again, I don't doubt unicef's validity, but it primarily speaks to the physical infrastructure of the buildings. In your initial rant you stated that
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Now, only boys go to school and most of them are not there either
From the unicef article
It revealed that of the 4.3 million children registered in Iraqâs primary schools, 2.4 million are boys and 1.9 million are girls, similar to pre-war ratios (bold is mine)
and
Some 4.3 million children are currently enrolled in primary schools, up from 3.6 million in 2000, the most recent year for which data were available prior to this survey.
I have students coming any minute now, so I'm not ignoring you, I promise. I will be back later this afternoon. :)
To those that think an immediate pull out of Iraq is the solution, what do you think will happen after we pull out and do you think the world, and Iraq will be a better place after the pull out?
I have not been to Iraq, I am not an expert on what is going on and I donât pretend to be. I have no real strong opinion on what we should do because frankly, I donât know enough to make a decision that big and important. But, from what Iâve seen and heard I believe if we were to pull out of Iraq today, stop work on rebuilding the infrastructure (yes that we blew up), stop work on new schools and power plants, Iraq would become much worse then it was under Saddam and the people of Iraq would beg us to come back. With another haven for terrorist and people that hate us simply because we believe in freedom, and another country where freedom is not an option, more kids will grow up to be terrorist. More terrorist attacks will happen around the world and the world will become a less safe place then it is today. Am I drinking too much kool aid?
Also, just us talking about pulling out tells the terrorists in Iraq that what they are doing is working and that they should continue to do it. IF, as a country we were all in support of this war, I believe we could break their will. They would see that they canât win. Instead we say our government is wrong and the terrorist are right. We want our government to surrender to them. They read our newspapers. This has to inspire them to continue what they are doing. Every road side bomb planted by a terrorist convinces a few more Americans to the pull out theory, and brings the terrorists a step closer to victory. Thus it encourages more roadside bombs and more dead GIs. Then, after their victory in Iraq what will be their next target? Israel? Your home? Thatâs just my theory and again, Iâm no expert and I wonât claim itâs 100% correct.
Feel free to tell me my opinion is wrong, and please post links to articles that tell me my opinion is wrong, but most of all, if you disagree with me please answer my question I started this post with as Iâm interested in opposing viewpoints to that question.
The only true way to fight terrorism, foreign or domestic, is to attack poverty not people. But that is the opposite goal of the ultra right wing agenda. It is to divide this country (US) into two separate classes the haves and the have-nots. From private social security accounts, fighting a minimum wage increase, no child left behind, cutting funding from student aid, deregulation & lack of regulatory enforcement of corporate mistreatment of workers as well as the environment, etc, etc, more and more of their policies are insuring that the old American dream is dead and social status is more dependant on what womb one comes out of than hard work and intelligence. I'm sure Bush and his cronies are thrilled at the ancillary (primary?) benefit of the war in that the national debt will get to the point that any social programs that might help future working class Americans will be so under-funded that they will fold or be completely ineffectual.
Since the Bush administration was elected, the SEC has green-lighted more and more mergers creating a homogenized corporate envioronment and enabling some corporate interests to become as powerful as some nations. The WTO has been the enforcer these interests, all while Michael Powellâs running of the FCC has insured that no one knows about theses abuses since he has allowed 99% of all media to be run by less than 10 multinational corporations who of course protect their own.
To those that think an immediate pull out of Iraq is the solution, what do you think will happen after we pull out and do you think the world, and Iraq will be a better place after the pull out?
I think a lot of the talk is about trying to learn from the mistakes that were made around invading in the first place. Those who refuse to learn from History being doomed to repeat the mistakes and all that. Any discussion about that always seems to immediately turn into a 'well, we can't pull out now, can we!!!!'
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Also, just us talking about pulling out tells the terrorists in Iraq that what they are doing is working and that they should continue to do it. IF, as a country we were all in support of this war, I believe we could break their will.
But a couple of small realities.
1/ You will pull out some time. (unless its going to be a new state of the US)
2/ They'll always care more about it than the US will. (because it is never going to be a new state of the US)
If you can point to a good historical example of this sort of external aggressor removing the current government (popular or not) and it working out well, that would be a good template to follow. Particularly fine would be an example of a larger power actually winning some sort of guerrilla war with the indigent people.
The only one I'm more intimately familiar with would be the British occupation of Northern Ireland. The previous President Bush's words on this sort of invasion of Iraq have always struck a chord with me too.
His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".[12][13]
In explaining to Gulf War veterans why he chose not to pursue the war further, President Bush said, "Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power â America in an Arab land â with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."
On whose watch did Enron, Worldcomm and a number of other large multi-nationals fleece their employees and investors of billions of dollars? Was that the ultra-right-wing administration?
If the only true way to fight terrorism is to attack poverty then that implies that poverty is the motivator of terrorist acts. If that is the case, why aren't the denizens of the ghettos all any number of large cities in America flying planes into buildings and launching car bomb attacks against the local governments?
I probably share more of your opinion than you would assume, certainly about the role of corporations in the world today, but I really can't stand regurgitated hyperbole in the guise of 'convincing argument' that fold under 3 seconds of analysis.
If you can point to a good historical example of this sort of external aggressor removing the current government (popular or not) and it working out well, that would be a good template to follow. Particularly fine would be an example of a larger power actually winning some sort of guerrilla war with the indigent people.
Germany or Japan. Flip a coin.
Edit to add: I'm not familiar with guerilla warfare post-occupation in Japan, but it certainly ran on for a while in Germany. The peace loving French would conduct mass reprisals against the people in towns where guerillas were attacking troops in their sector.
edit the edit to add: And the big difference in both those cases was that the violence leading up to the occupation was widespread and on a scale far greater than that used in Iraq. And that, as I have said elsewhere, is the number one problem with how this war was (and continues to be) executed. Peace and diplomacy work a lot better when the people involved can compare it to the bloody alternative they've already witnessed once.
Again, I don't doubt unicef's validity, but it primarily speaks to the physical infrastructure of the buildings. In your initial rant you stated that
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Now, only boys go to school and most of them are not there either
From the unicef article
It revealed that of the 4.3 million children registered in Iraqâs primary schools, 2.4 million are boys and 1.9 million are girls, similar to pre-war ratios (bold is mine)
and
Some 4.3 million children are currently enrolled in primary schools, up from 3.6 million in 2000, the most recent year for which data were available prior to this survey.
I have students coming any minute now, so I'm not ignoring you, I promise. I will be back later this afternoon. :)
The UNICEF article was several years old. I just used it for the purpose of showing the state of their education before this war since that was what you were questioning. And, like everything else about this war, we could pull articles off the web ad nauseum, it won't change anyone's viewpoint. For what it's worth, I was generalizing about no girls going to school. There are some, but I think much less than what people realize. Here is a more recent article with this quote...
Incidents of rape and abduction by organized gangs has increased fear of sexual violence in Baghdad, deterring women from returning to work or seeking employment and families from permitting their daughters to go to school.link to that article
The bold is mine. Depending on how long this war goes on, many women's lives and education will be set back by many, many years. How many deprived of even a grammar school education are going to become lawyers, teachers, chemist, etc.? How many great minds are going to waste?
There are also many articles on the web that show W was set to go to war with Iraq upon taking office. To me this points to revenge and oil. I read both sides, and like you make up my own mind. like such...
Lastly, this link is to a woman's blog from Iraq. Baghdad Burning It's interesting to read the viewpoint of an actual Iraqi woman.
Lastly, this link is to a woman's blog from Iraq. It's interesting to read the viewpoint of an actual Iraqi woman.
Things are so bad yet apparently not bad enough that they can't get on the net and maintain a blog, eh?
What else can you do when you're stuck in the house? Really, would you prefer we just blasted them back into the stone age completely? Many Iraqi's had computers before the war, along with TV's, DVD players, VCR's, etc. Most even had nice cars, nice homes, running water and electricity. Imagine that.
I think a lot of the talk is about trying to learn from the mistakes that were made around invading in the first place. Those who refuse to learn from History being doomed to repeat the mistakes and all that. Any discussion about that always seems to immediately turn into a 'well, we can't pull out now, can we!!!!'
The topic of Wâs speech and thus this thread is what do we do now?
âShould we haveâ has been beaten to death and is currently irrelevant because âwe didâ. We can learn from our mistake next year, lets clean up the mess first. Anyone saying we should pull out now just because we shouldnât have gone in the first place is foolish (Iâm not saying this is your stance). We need to weight our options and make the decision that offers the best chance to make our goal, which I assume is making the world a better place. Iâd like to hear the justification from the people that believe âpull outâ is the best path to take right now to achieve a goal.
Example: On a road trip where itâs important to be on schedule, your spouse makes a wrong turn and you find out 50 miles later that you are off course. Do you:
A. Blindly go back to the place where the wrong turn was made, lose 2 hours of drive time and continue on your path, thus leaning from your mistake.
B. Check the map and see if there is a better route to take to your destination given your current unexpected position and make the best of the situation.
C. Complain incessantly that had you been driving you would never have made the wrong turn and refuse to offer any advice on what to do now other then âlet me drive and everything will be betterâ
D. Keep driving down the current road and hope things magically get better.
Sadly, I think we are doing C and D in Iraq and a lot of people want to do A!
I was generalizing about no girls going to school.
I'm done.
You were generalizing about a lot, and alot of it can't be substantiated. yes, the unicef article was old. BUT, you were the one that presented it as an argument for "your side" so I was simply pointing out that it also contradicted your earlier sentiments.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm nitpicking, but if what you say is true, then, yes, I want to know it. However, if you are generalizing for the sake of an argument, no thanks, I can tune into mainstream media and get that. I simply want some documentation that life before was better under Hussein than it is now.
Everything I have read indicates that it is not real good now, but it wasn't really good before, either. In some areas is better, some areas (not geographically speaking, though that may be true as well) it is not.
I think a lot of the talk is about trying to learn from the mistakes that were made around invading in the first place. Those who refuse to learn from History being doomed to repeat the mistakes and all that. Any discussion about that always seems to immediately turn into a 'well, we can't pull out now, can we!!!!'
The topic of Wâs speech and thus this thread is what do we do now?
âShould we haveâ has been beaten to death and is currently irrelevant because âwe didâ. We can learn from our mistake next year, lets clean up the mess first. Anyone saying we should pull out now just because we shouldnât have gone in the first place is foolish (Iâm not saying this is your stance). We need to weight our options and make the decision that offers the best chance to make our goal, which I assume is making the world a better place. Iâd like to hear the justification from the people that believe âpull outâ is the best path to take right now to achieve a goal.
Example: On a road trip where itâs important to be on schedule, your spouse makes a wrong turn and you find out 50 miles later that you are off course. Do you:
A. Blindly go back to the place where the wrong turn was made, lose 2 hours of drive time and continue on your path, thus leaning from your mistake.
B. Check the map and see if there is a better route to take to your destination given your current unexpected position and make the best of the situation.
C. Complain incessantly that had you been driving you would never have made the wrong turn and refuse to offer any advice on what to do now other then âlet me drive and everything will be betterâ
D. Keep driving down the current road and hope things magically get better.
Sadly, I think we are doing C and D in Iraq and a lot of people want to do A!
Actually, I normally do A. Any other option usually leads to more mistakes.
Pulling out of Iraq IMHO would be no different than pulling out of Vietnam. We cannot "win" anything there. If we could, we would have done it. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable and causing more death and destruction. Do I have facts to back this up? No. I'm not a fortune teller and can't prove the future. It's just my opinion. I think the country is already in civil war (thanks to us) and they need to work it out amoungst themselves. Our way is not for them. I don't work in the White House though. And who cares what I think?
We cannot "win" anything [in Iraq]. If we could, we would have done it. All we are doing is prolonging the inevitable and causing more death and destruction.
1. Is this even a winnable situation?
2. If it is, what will the cost be in money and lives?
The first question seems to be a questionable one. Bush obviously thinks he can win. What I want to see him address is at what point we declare this unwinnable. A surge of 21K troops to win this, OK. What if it doesn't work, do we send another 21K or another 50K? What is the amount of lost human life before we decide to stop.
Bush said that Americas presence is not open ended, but he did not outline a plan to explain how. If anything he demonstrated the exact opposite. He said mistakes were made and our new course is more troops. That sounds open ended to me.
We pulled out of Vietnam because it was unwinnable. We lost 60K troops. Is it going to take 60K troops to make Bush realize that we probably can't win. What if we pulled out of Vietnam after 10K KIA?
Pulling out would probably leave the region in ruins, but I don't think we can win, I don't think 21K more troops will help, so I think our soldiers lives are worth more than leaving them in ruins. I would like to see our troops come home and deal w/ the consequences.
I was generalizing about no girls going to school.
I'm done.
You were generalizing about a lot, and alot of it can't be substantiated. yes, the unicef article was old. BUT, you were the one that presented it as an argument for "your side" so I was simply pointing out that it also contradicted your earlier sentiments.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm nitpicking, but if what you say is true, then, yes, I want to know it. However, if you are generalizing for the sake of an argument, no thanks, I can tune into mainstream media and get that. I simply want some documentation that life before was better under Hussein than it is now.
Everything I have read indicates that it is not real good now, but it wasn't really good before, either. In some areas is better, some areas (not geographically speaking, though that may be true as well) it is not.
I'm done as well. :)
Actually, I'm probably not, but I should be.
You want proof, read that woman's blog that I posted above. Start at the beginning when she seemed to have some hope, and when you get to the part where she is crushed and broken let me know if you don't cry. She used to be a normal person, in her latest posts, she seems filled with hate and anguish. She isn't a news story, she's not a statistic. That is her life. She used to be a computer programmer.
