KungFooMasta wrote:In your text you sound as if we should have let Saddam Hussein sit there and run the show. And what happens after he is gone? Wow, the same thing that happened when we took him out, imagine that. You don't provide any solution to this problem you know so much about, you sit back and look at mistakes people have made. Wouldn't that suggest there is no easy or clear solution for the Iraqi people, long term? Are you telling me you would have had no problem living and raising a family in Iraq under Hussein's rule? For you not to agree with democracy is really sad. It shows there are still people in this world that feel that everybody should not have an equal say.
Eh, what?
I don't agree with democracy? What made you think so? The fact that I don't accept the U.S. military going to Iraq to "give" them democracy by force?
To this date I have not heard a single good reason why the Operation Iraqi Freedom was started. I have actually been amazed of the incompetence of the G.W.B. administration to provide those reasons to me. I have listened carefully, but there are no signs of good reasons to this date. Nowadays they are just talking about other things and I guess they want to avoid difficult questions like why the war was started. Of course they want to talk about how the situation has improved, that's nice, but let's not forget that they should be able to tell us why the war was started. I think we can hold them responsible for that.
I think that a political system will succeed by itself if it is good. Trying to bring democracy to a country by using a force such as the U.S. military is in my opinion definitely the wrong way to do it. You know, when someone punches you in the face and tells you "use this system I show to you" what are you going to do? Are you going to say "Oh, thank you! How generous you are! Thank You for punching my face!". I hope you see my point. You are not getting friends if you punch people in the face. You are not getting people to agree with you if you punch their faces. Maybe even kill their family members. How many of the Iraqis whose family members the U.S. military has killed want the thing you call "democracy"? How many of them care about that after all that happened? All they need is stability, peace, water, food, if you take those away then the people are not going to be happy with your system no matter how good it ideologically is in your opinion.
If I were by far the biggest superpower in the World, I would not be coming to the USA to change your political system by force,
even though I can see a lot of things wrong in it. I would tell you that you could improve your system by doing this and that, but after that it would be the responsibility of your own people to take action or not.
No-where have I said that everybody should not have an equal say. Don't jump to conclusions like that, please
I have not supported the dictator Saddam Hussein, never have, never will. I tried to point this out well-enough in my previous post.
One argument for the justification of the war has been that the evil dictator Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. But let's take a look at it. I earlier mentioned the words "stable" and "peaceful". Those words describe Iraq before Operation Iraqi "Freedom". They can not be used to describe Iraq at the moment. Saddam Hussein was peaceful for a long time. Iraq had stopped developing WOMD in the early 1990's, exactly when they were told to do so by the UN. There were no signs that Iraq would have been committing a genocide. Simply, there were no reasons, no matter how evil you think Saddam Hussein was in the past, in the year 2003 there was no single good reason to start the war. That's why a lot of countries told you not to start a war. Still blinded by the rage stemming from the 9/11/2001 events at New York City, you renamed French (Belgian) Fries to Freedom Fries, to insult the French. And what else. The Germans told you as well that don't start the war. That's the two that I remember the most that the Americans were insulting because they were against the war. In my opinion it would serve USA well if your country would present an official apology to all those who were insulted in the lead-up to the war. It would take your country a big step forward with international relations if you could admit that you were wrong, and apologize for that.
One of my favourite sayings is that friends are those who can disagree and still remain friends. I didn't understand why there was such an outrage especially against the French when they opposed the war. They are your friends, why would you insult your friend like that. They had the courage to tell you that "hey buddy, this time you are wrong, don't do it!". Such a good friend advice must be listened to and respected, it's not a reason to insult the friend when they can tell you a straight opinion (which is even backed up with UN inspections of Iraq).
What would have happened if Saddam Hussein was just left alone and let him die naturally? You talk like after that there would be similar chaos and violence in Iraq like there is today. With respect to your view, I disagree. I will tell you why I disagree. The Iraqi military would keep the country under their control, no matter who the top leader would be. Iraq went into anarchy partly because its military was "fired". The Americans did that. By telling the Iraqi military that they are out of a job, what did you create? You created a lot of angry men who want to get a revenge. You created a lot of angry men who have nothing to do, who are unemployed. Someone told a lot of them that "hey you can join us" and told them to start fighting against other factions or against the USA.
Had you kept the original Iraqi military together, there would not have been so much violence and anarchy in Iraq as there has been after the invasion, and still is. Had you told those men that hey we are not your enemy, had you improved their life somehow, you would have gotten a lot more *crucial* friends from Iraq. You chose to do the opposite, you chose to tell them "we don't trust you, go home" and it is in my opinion not a surprise that a lot of those people were recruited to the militias, some, but not all, of them fighting against the U.S. military on a daily basis.
Which country are you going to "liberate" next? To which country are you going to bring democracy next? The list is long, you have a lot of countries to invade. See, it's not practical at all. Other ways have to be used.
China would be one of your targets. It is a totalitarian country. Some argue that Russia is a totalitarian country as well (certainly not democratic like they portray it to us). Why not change their governments to democratic ones while you are at it. OK this is being sarcastic, it's not going to happen
Sorry for the long post, I could say a lot more, this is just my attempt to summarize some of my thoughts about the matter. What I would like to see the USA have in the future is a President who isn't so eager to invade other countries and so eager to be on a crusade to bring democracy to other countries even by military force.
I don't see this McCain-Palin pair do good to your country, so as a friend I tell you, it's not the pair you should vote for. Just my opinion, take it or leave it, but please do understand that I want good for you, that's why I am telling you my opinions. The USA has been in a bad state and I have felt very sorry for the people of the USA for all the damage the G.W.B administration has done to your country. You deserve better. You deserve a
change, does that sound familiar?
