Poll: Was Bush right not to articulate the Real Reason for the Iraqi War?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
Yes
0%
0 0%
No
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Justification for the Iraq war
#21
I supported the war in Iraq, it was the only way to help us get rid of Saddam, things may have not been as we expected but we are also to undertand the US has to save face from the Iraqis for what the US put the Iraqis through for their support to Saddam, and the sanction against the Iraqis for 1 years after the first Gulf war. These are major crisis the Iraqs went through and are not easily forgotten nor forgiven.
Let the Iraqis vent for a while, eventualy they will calm down and come to their senses. After all, they have been in too many wars for a very long time, they will be ready for peace soon as long as the boarders are tight and the promotion of the US foreign policy is on and focused on building Iraq and transitioning it to a democratic country, I can see the potential happening.
The trouble that is on in Iraq right now is part of the democracy process the nation has to go through as long as we set the limits to certain limits. What Muqtada al Sadir is doing is not the kind of tolorable behavior and should come to an end NOW!
Check out my web site for more:
www.freeiraqiwomen.com
Thanks,
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#22
Umhasan, I am very interested in your perspective here. Particularly:
umhasan Wrote:... may have not been as we expected but we are also to undertand the US has to save face from the Iraqis for what the US put the Iraqis through for their support to Saddam, and the sanction against the Iraqis for 1 years after the first Gulf war. These are major crisis the Iraqs went through and are not easily forgotten nor forgiven.

Could you expand on what the expectations were and what it would take to earn the forgiveness and trust of the Iraqi people?
Reply
#23
I just realized I missed one digit in my posting, I meant to say 13 years of sanctions,not 1
We all know the US supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war, also supported Saddam after the first Gulf war to stay and take control over Iraq again, I was one who was very disappointed for Saddam's stay in power after the Gulf war, but I was out of the country and I heard he only got worse or things only got worse after.
There is a mistrust between the Iraqis and the US, unless the US proves to the Iraqis by actions not words their intention/s of liberation and democracy in a mutual understandig context for both (we have to consider the cultural clashes here), the Iraqis will not change their view of the US as ocupiers.
The US is to be the one authority in charge in Iraq now, the absence of law and order can not be maintained by any other group/s but the US and the Iraqis want that, I am referring to the majority of the Iraqis here.
The US is to proote it's policy through the media and support to the NGOs not just in Iraq but in the rest of the Arab world.
Iraqis and Arabs are torn between the traditions and "globalization"
they want to belong but don't know how.
We are to capture this momentom and use it to our advantage.
Does that answer your inquiry?
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#24
umhasan,

First of all, welcome aboard! Your presense is sure to make this place more interesting!

Quote:Does that answer your inquiry?

It may answer his, but I brings up mine!

You said above that the past support for Saddam makes US suspect in many Iraqi's eyes. I have no doubt that this is the case, but what can the US do to earn trust? What are we doing wrong?

Sometimes I think that one big error we may be making is elevating older established people (with their own militias) and that IGC should have included as many young professionals, peope open to trying something new, as possible. Does this make sense?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#25
Umhasan, welcome!

Even the first President Bush (George H. Bush) has admitted he made a mistake in not sending the tanks north to Baghdad after driving Saddam's forces out of Kuwait during the Gulf War. Some of us knew he was making a mistake at the time, by not showing enough courage of moral conviction. President Bush II (George W. Bush) seems to be trying to make up for his father's mistakes.

You also mentioned our support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. That resulted mainly from our animosity toward Iran. Just prior to that, Iran had violated our embassy in Teheran and kidnapped our diplomatic staff, holding them hostage for 444 days. Violating embassy grounds is an act of war by International law. Unfortunately we had a weak president at that time, Jimmy Carter.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president, the administration policy was to aid Iraq. This was primarily because we Americans still (even to this day) feel like we owe Iran payback for what they did to our embassy staff; and also because we did not want to see the kind of radical religious "theocracy" controlling Iran to be spread to Iraq, and become a serious threat to take over the entire region. We Americans do not like to see organized religion join forces with the national government, because in the past history of western civilization, this has always led to tyranny and the persecution of minorities. For this reason the first sentence in the first amendment to our constitution states that "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion." We feel this is the only way to guarantee that all people can have freedom of conscience to worship as they believe without being persecuted by an intolerant majority.

It looks like the Bush administration is trying to set up a system in Iraq that will provide for a pluralistic government inwhich the majority cannot persecute the minority, and everyone is free to worship as they wish. It will be a challenge to balance the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds in a way that will be acceptable to everyone.

Many of us in America wonder whether it will be possible in Iraq for the ideals of pluralism and toleration to be accepted. We remember how when the communist dictatorship of Marshall Tito finally fell in Yugoslavia, the various factions in that country that had been held in check by the strong dictatorship fell apart and began fighting each other in a four-sided war, that eventually required military intervention by NATO to stop.
Even now the country is no longer unified. What we are afraid of now is that something like that might happen in Iraq, if we cannot get democracy, pluralism, and toleration to work.

What do you think? Is it possible that a government that includes everyone yet guarantees the freedom of minorities will be accepted? Will the Mullahs continue to insist on establishing a theocracy? Will it become necessary ultimately for Iraq to be partitioned into a Shiite-controlled portion, a Sunni-controlled portion, and a Kurdish-controlled portion? We in America can only guess, and hope that what worked for us will work for the people of Iraq. The only alternative we can see is for us to pull all our forces out and let the three factions fight it out among themselves, with the Shiite majority--in alliance with the Shiite government of Iran, probably winning eventually, assuming neighboring nations with Sunni majorities are not drawn into the conflict. The poor Kurds won't have a chance.

Maybe it would be better if I put it this way. How do you think Iraq should be governed? How would you set it up, if you had the say how it should be? What do you believe would work?
Reply
#26
To answer your question of what we are doing wrong:
We are to act as authority, Iraqis still don't know what is the definition of democracy like the way we do in the US, this is a process, it's every day life experiences. It has to be spoon fed to them. This process takes time and effort, as an educater, my approach is education, we ought to look at the text books and the methodology of teaching followed in schools, it's still the good old days, that's if I want to call them the good old days.
We teach receptive education (reading and listening), and hardly any productive education (speaking and writing), there is a huge difference between the products of the two, the first one produces followers in the society, while the second produces leaders. That was something never paid attention to since the war, I wonder why?
As a women, I think empowering women should be another focus, we are the majority now, and we have the authority inside our homes on the male figures of our social circle (husbands, sons,..)
This is different but never tried, I can see it happening. I think women are waiting for support and leadership.
Trust me, I lived with an Iraqi man for 14 years, Iraqi men are stubborn and very rigid, there are very few of them receptive to change and open minded to new ideas, sorry, have to be honest here! :lol:
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#27
In the west, we don't have a problem with divorce and moving on with our lives. That is the total opposite in the Middle East, look at what is happening between the Arabs and the Israelis, they've fighting for decades and when they decide to have a truce, they bring up the past again and start from square one. When will we ever think NOW and NOW only?
Didn't we have enough? Isn't it time for us to say Palestine is no longer to the Arabs and Arabs only, accept that responsibility and recognize israel as an entity to be able to put an end to the bood shed for both sides?
Like it or not, Israel is a country now, Palestenians can't ask for deals were given to them in 1967 any longer, it's too late, the 1967 deal was good then but not any more. A change of leadership is a must for both sides and a sincere leadership to accomplish peace for both sides is another requierment.
Now Iraq, I knew all along the US didn't do this war for nothing but figured "hey, if it's oil, they might as well share the wealth and feed us" when we were a British colony, we were better off than national leadership, our currency was better, our education system was better, our economy, and most of all we had stability but what happened under nationalisim? only history can tell.
Iraqis are to be reminded of all this so they can put their act together and think logical for a change.
I think it's not what are we doing wrong here? it's a question how long can endure this venting process and how can we act as moderaters.
Educating our selves on the culture of the diverse Iraqi people is one solution and understanding their psychology is another. Also who is getting involved in all this? Ahmad Chalabi is a disgrace and I still can't understand why the US support him?
The Shiettes and the Sunnis are geting too much power, they are abusing this privilage. I am a Shiette by the way and never supported the Islamic revolution nor do I support Muqtada al Sadir or any other like him. These religious phonitics are to be put back in place, reformers of Islam should be supported, we need new Islam, not the Islam of 1400 years ago.
people are not going to like the change, that's natural, but someone has to start reform and make way for others to follow. It's hard but doable.
It took me years of thinking, rebeling and finally coming to peace with my self that Islam needs a reform and now is the best time to do it.
I'll share this story with you:
My mother is a retiered pharmacist and told me on the phone last week that her interpretation of the trouble that is going on in Iraq is "signs of the day of judgement" my reply was "how about change?"
I said "May we failed at this point to make Islam work and it's time to take a look at it and make some changes"
She was quiet, but sympethetich. She had no answer for me. But this tells you also how much is religion integrated in our thinking even for those educated ones.
the challange is BIG, but the mission is to be accomplished.
I am not looking at your posting now as I am writing this message and wonder if I drifted away from the topic, let me know what you think.
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#28
Quote:Trust me, I lived with an Iraqi man for 14 years, Iraqi men are stubborn and very rigid, there are very few of them receptive to change and open minded to new ideas, sorry, have to be honest here!-may

Aren't we all. May, I started to come out with something funny, but I will wait until you get the handle of me first, before I throw a curve ball at you. (Go to the Bear Pit and read some of my satire there to get a good impression. I am waiting for the right moment to introduce "parallel universes" and then step back to observe the explosion. :lol:

That being said, let me ..........................Oh, what the hell, why not. Let me suggest something that all women should have the world over . These are 1, a sharp knife, 2, a good pair of scissors, and 3. a nice, heavy cast iron skillet. The skillet would be my weapon of choice here. If the man gets to be too much trouble, arise early in the morning and prepare a nice breakfast. When it is finished, empty the hot skillet, take the skillet into the bedroom. Bring it down upon his face full force, and announce "breakfast is served". While he is lying there bleeding, broken nose and shattered face, enjoy your's AND his breakfast at the same time.

This will work wonders with the unruley husband. He will always respect you as long as he lives, because all you have to do again is ask him politely, " would you like some more of the same?" Or better yet, if he has been unfaithful, wake him up in the middle of the night. Holding his "you know what", open the scissors, and close them just enough to prick the skin and bring blood up. Sweetly inform him that "this is a test. The next infidility will bring forth the real thing". If this does not get his humble attention, it is time to set up for the funeral, because he has died of a heart attack. Wink1
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#29
Quote:let me know what you think

I'm mostly being fascinated (and impressed) with what you are saying: very, very interesting and new.

The most important question is: How typical is your thinking? Would any of your friends agree with what you said? Or you are just a very tiny thinking minority?

--

As for Chalabi, it is really very simple:

He is the only known secular Shi'ite politician that exists. This alone makes him the obvious candidate. An additional bonus is his connections in Iran which contributed to decreased interference from Iran for now. (Now, I'm not saying that he is any good; and he seems to have too many relatives greedy for power, which makes him a possible Saddam-2, but what other choice was there?)

If may also ask: can you explain your spelling? Why "Shiette" and not "Shi'ite", for example? Are you simply quickly translating when posting, or there is a mistake we westerners are making?
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#30
Dear John,let's not get into the battle of the sexes here, but all I can say I was a lawful wife for 14 years, treated my ex as equal but that was never the case from his side.
Well, too bad, it's his loss and my gain.
The spelling ofthe Shiets is my invention, you can blame that on my and not any one else.
I do exchange my vews with the mainstream and my ideas are respected and received well, at least so far because they are simply confrontations off realities that we tend to hide or supress (that's also cultural). But being a mixed product of the Middle East and the West, I can shift gears and wait not be quiet for the right time to counter attack when confronted or answered. I gained my respect based on what I did going through life crisis, I remained strong and still do, I think it's one of the best things happened to me in life besides being a mother of three.
Chalabi is a potential Saddam, you said it right and this alone disqualifys him espacially he has a whole tribe behind him, how different is that from Saddam?
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#31
Quote:Dear John,let's not get into the battle of the sexes here,May

Sorry, I just couldn't resist a little tongue in cheek humour. But all seriousness aside, women have to unite and let their positions be heard. I think one of my unmentioned but implied points is that women in the Middle East can exert tremendous power, if they only unite and stick up for each other. That way if some mistreated wife was to resort to the skillet test, all the other wives could show solidarity and help change the way things work over there.

Now, I wonder how many husbands would admit that the black eye, or broken nose was the result of his wife beating the hell out of him? Would this enhance his perceived manhood? Shock
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#32
Umhasan Wrote:We teach receptive education (reading and listening), and hardly any productive education (speaking and writing), there is a huge difference between the products of the two, the first one produces followers in the society, while the second produces leaders.
Sorry for unrelated comment, but I think you are overrating the wonders of education here. There is no direct, linear, and causal relationship.
Reply
#33
Can you please explicit on your comment? but yes, education works wonders, that's the ultimate goal isn't it?
thank you
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#34
Sorry, Umhasan, I've noticed your request only now.
Specifically I think it is a false dichotomy to attach such personality characteristic like an ability to lead to a specific teaching style (reading, writing, etc.) the person in question had been subjected in childhood.
And yes, real education is the only tool to overcome madrassas over few generations. It is sad, but there are no other tools available.
Reply
#35
this is where all the trouble starts, shouldn't we capture the snake from its head rathar than it's tail?
It's the idea of the use of soft power,l ess lives to sucrefised and getting to the core of issues. I beleive in it and I can see it happening, this is the best time to do too.
Umhasan, a free Iraqi woman
Reply
#36
Yeah, the Bush administration should have definitely told the American people the real reasons for the war.
Reply
#37
Reasons change, actions change. Lets look at how Roosevelts reasoning changed. Kennedy's when he ordered more troops (not to mention the assassination of Castro), Johnsons, Nixons. Is there a president that hasn't changed their primary reasoning in a conflict. Truman went from defeating Nazism to rebuilding Europe to fighting communists.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
-Homer
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)