News from Iraq, and of course....my opinion on it.
From AP,
"I think 40 to 50 percent of Sunnis will vote. That would be very good, with all the threats, with all the measures taken by the insurgents and the terrorism," said Adel Abdul Mahdi, when asked how many Sunnis needed to vote to validate the polls. Mr. Mahdi is the Iraqi Finance Minister.
Read the article for the measures that will be taken to secure the polling sites.
Still, all the liberals residing in the western world believe that the Sunnis won't vote, but every Iraqi official, blog and person I know says they will...not in the numbers that the Shia or Kurds do, but still a significant amount. In contrast only 32% of eligible people voted in our 2002 Congressional elections, I wonder if the Liberals will call 40-50% turn out a success or a failure?
I find it amazing how within four years of the war starting (from our standpoint that is...from the terrorists it's been on since 1998) that we have liberated two large nations from tyranny. I also find it amazing that regardless of all the good that has come from this some people still think we are forcing our will on other people. How is removing a dictatorship where people are butchered, oppressed and stifled to let them choose their own leaders seen as forcing our will on someone? Can someone answer that for me.
I also find it amazing that we haven't had any terrorist attacks during that time. I know a lot of people say that may or may not be because of our policies but lets look at some facts.
Between the time Bin Ladin's declaration of war on the United States in 1998 and 9/11, our embassies in Africa were bombed, the USS Cole attacked and then, of course, came the 9/11 attack itself. So in three years, there were three attacks. How many attacks have there been on the United States since 9/11? None.
Though during this time we've heard of many plots that have been stopped (using our 'evil' interrogation methods). Most of which were to take place in Europe....the same people complaining about how we're doing business.
And still we continue the struggle.
posted by BryanP @ 6:40 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Well thought out response, Kevin. Thanks for commenting.
I'll try to address it point by point starting with your reasoning on why we went to war in the first place.
According to our intelligence, along with Brittish, French, German, Russian Intel and what people in Iraq were telling us...we believed that Saddam still had WMDs. A lot of people talk about the 'pressure' that Cheney put on the CIA to get them to say that but they always ignore the fact that all those nations came to the same conclusion we did...did Cheney somehow pressure French intelligence as well?
Al Qaeda ties were there, it has been documented many times. Most recently in the 9/11 commission's report. Al Qaeda and Saddam's government met nurmerous times. They didn't work together...yet. 'Yet' being the key word there.
So, we're fighting a war on terror and we see the possibility of one nation who we believed had WMDs in contact with a group which declared war on us and just killed over 3000 people on our soil.
There are two options. You wait and see if they finally get together and Al Qaeda hits NYC with nerve gas or you take care of it before it becomes a problem. It's as simple as that. Since it is the United States government...they are going to attemt to stop a nerve gas attack against the United States. Strange why you'd think that would be wrong of them.
Now lets say that we went to war with Iraq because we wanted to open a Disney Land there. In the process we free the Iraqi people, give them back their country and there is now a real Arab Democracy in the Middle East. Is that a bad thing? Do you support Saddam or something?
Next is an arguement often used by people who don't understand the limits of power. 'If we invaded Iraq to free them from a dictatorship, why don't we do it for all the other people in the world living under a dictatorship?'
The answer to that is actually pretty simple. We don't have the power, nor the political will to do it. Because of that we have to pick and choose our battles and methods.
For instance, North Korea. NK, because it has Nuclear Weapons isn't ripe for invasion. They could kill over Ten million Koreans in almost an instant. So, instead of invading them, we place economic pressure on them as well as take part in multinational talks which include other powers in the region like Russia and China.
Or Syria, Saudi and Iran. Part of dealing with those nations is the invasion of Iraq. Having a democracy on their borders puts tremendous pressure on those governments to put in place democratic reforms or perhaps their people may get fed up and revolt after seeing the Iraqis live with such freedom.
Or, our 'friendly' dictatorships like China and some in the western hemisphere. There we use economic and trade pressures on them.
What you are advocating Kevin, is that if we remove one dictatorship we should remove them all. What opinion would you have of the United States then?
Your thinking is also flawed in regards to our troop presence in the Gulf after the Gulf War. We weren't violating anyone's sovereignty...the Saudi government invited us to stay and we left once we were no longer needed there. Is having a very small amount of troops at the request of the nations government violating its sovereignty? I think not.
Last but not least...it isn't a 'defensive jihad' that these terrorists are fighting in Iraq. If you've ever been there you'd realize that the majority of those bombing mostly civilians are not even Iraqi. 75% of the prisoners I dealt with while there were from outside of Iraq.
How defensive is it when a group goes into another country in order to stop a democracy from forming there because it would weaken their cause? The Iraqi people want a democracy...how is trying to stop that from taking place by blowing up cars in the middle of a wedding celebration, a 'defensive' struggle?
It isn't, not in the least.
Hey Bryan,
Like I said at Iraq the Model, scholars they aren’t! You have a nice information site just ignore the trolls, I do. It does you no good to argue with these people, they are only good at pushing buttons. Your views are all that matters and the support of the more informed people will hold true. Soon the raving morons will bore and go away. :) Keep on blogging!
I don't mind, Dcat. As long as they are half way intelligent like Kevin here, I'll debate them.
Wahooo...way to address those who simply hate Mr Bush, and no very little about the "realities" of international relations. Nice response!
Voice of dissention are fine, only when they include facts and a true understanding of the issue.
I know three guys based out of Ft.Hood...one is a chaplain, the other two are in Iraq now, but due home soon.
Great blog, look forward to hearing more from you. See you in the blogsphere.
BTW - If DCat thinks trolls in the blogsphere are bad, some that read my blog and disagree with me send me nasty emails. These are the kind of men that think insulting me makes them feel all macho and tough.
(shakes head) Honestly....some peoples children!!
Post a Comment
<< Home