The Iraqis have tasted freedom now. They will never lose that taste again

[NNN0LHI]

Not to the US. Not to the UN. Not to NATO. Not to Blackwater. Not to Halliburton. Not to no one. The party is all over for Bush. And unfortunately for our soldiers too if they stay there. This has become clear as a an azure blue sky to me. Put yourself into an Iraqis shoes for a moment and think about what I have just said, and then tell me what do you think?

Don

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. It was over when we invaded.

The Iraqis didn't want us there...this wasn't some WWII reconstruction...it was a oil grab and they know it. It's going to keep getting worse.

[NNN0LHI]

2. I am not sure about that

I think we had a small window of opportunity after we found Saddam to declare victory and leave them in peace. Since Bush chose not to leave then the window is now closed tight.

Don

[bemildred]

4. Right. Might even have got that asshole re-elected it he'd done that.

I think we could have bought some more time by running the place
competently, but heck, they can't run this country competently,
what chance of that was there in Iraq?

[Old and In the Way]

6. I agree....we thought we could sneak in, take care of Hussein and

the Iraqi's would kiss our ass while we offloaded tyhe oil. Apparently, they are not quite as naive as Cheney, Rumsfield, and Bush figured on.

There was no exit plan or post-war Iraq because they assumed that we would be seen as liberators. How dumb is that? DUers knew what the outcome of this fiasco would be 18 months ago. Only a bunch of RW neocons living in their own echo chamber would think we'd be viewed as liberatots. Do they really think the Iraqi's would forget who installed SH? Who supplied the precursors for the chemical weapons? Who did DS1? Who conducted a 12 year embargo?

Only a moron would think we'd be treated with anything but disdain and hatred. Thanks GWB....you and your idiotic neocons and the 40% still deluded to think you're God's gift to this country may not realize it yet, but you've sowed the seeds for this country's demise.

[Blue_Chill]

3. Put myself in an Iraqis shoes? Ok then......

I would be much more worried about people like Sadr who wish to create a Islamic state by creating armies to kill all who disagree then a bubbling giant that is the US. It's common knowledge that the US will lose interest and leave given time, people like Sadr have to be shot to be gotten rid of.

Also I'd be well aware that the UN is the only path to democracy. opening the elections up while people cut their foreheads and march in the street with AK47's is a mistake. Freedom is not born of pure democracy, that only leads to the tyranny of the majority. Freedom is gained through a liberal democracy that begins with rights before granting majority rule.

[NNN0LHI]

5. Sistani could have handled Sadr had we left I believe

Sadr was nothing. Now we have turned him into something he never could have become had we left. Even if we martyr him now it will only make things worse.

Don

[Blue_Chill]

7. I disagree

Fundi Islam is a real pervasive problem in the ME with or without us. People like him will do what they do best, arm small minded idiots and instruct them to kill free thinkers where ever they find them. I opposed this war because of precisely this reason. Iraq is screwed with or without Saddam, and with or without the US .

Their people have a very real and growing problem. Sadly there is no helping them as this is something they will have to deal with themselves over time just like Christians did when the Catholic church went nuts and tortured people to death in order to save them. Suicide bombers are just a new twist used by the fanatics to take the focus of their own problems.

[0007]

16. Where have I heard that before?

[IrateCitizen]

28. How the US screwed up re: Sistani and Sadr

In this past week's episode of NOW with Bill Moyers, Moyers interviewed Columbia Univ. Professor and author Mahmood Mamdani, author of Good Muslim, Bad Muslim. It was quite insightful WRT the current situation in Iraq.

First, Mamdani spoke of the difference between "nationalists" and "fanatics" -- a difference that is pretty damned hard to tell these days. The majority of people fighting in Fallujah are not fanatics -- they are hard-core nationalists who have grown disgusted, impatient, and quite obviously angry at the lack of progress under the US occupation. However, if given the chance to be self-governing, they would immediately jump at that chance -- provided it was true self-governance free from US interference or continued military presence. The fanatics, OTOH, represent a minority that can never be dealt with outside of removing the legitimate grievances that help fuel their demagoguery.

Sadr is one of those demagogues. I hold no illusions as to what his vision for Iraq truly is -- Islamic Theocracy and Sharia Law. However, what is fueling him right now is the myriad of legitimate grievances that many Iraqis have. So long as those grievances remain -- or even multiply -- under US occupation, the resistance will continue and the more radical elements will gain in power.

Sistani, OTOH, represents an interesting case. He did not at any point argue for a theocracy in Iraq. Rather, he is a believer that government should function free of religious interference -- and be democratic in nature. Sistani's views could be seen as the closest to what is promoted as "mainstream Islam" as is currently out there. But, when he pointed out continually the hypocrisy of the US occupying authority and led the people in demanding real democracy, the US did not know how to deal with him. He wasn't a demagogue, so military force was out of the question. But he also was on the side of what was right, so to allow him to keep a pulpit would only feed the dissatisfaction with the Americans.

Essentially, by inflaming al-Sadr by shutting down his newspaper and such, we shifted the pulpit away from a moderate with whom we could not figure out how to deal, to an extremist with whom it was much easier to deal. Brute military force was perfectly acceptable in dealing with such radicals. The problem is, like many other "solutions" of the neoconservatives, that it is completely lacking in any kind of long-term planning, and will only unleash the worst elements of Iraqi society and human nature while marginalizing the very elements that we should be seeking to cultivate, assuming that we truly are interested in bringing democratic reform to Iraq.

[Aidoneus]

17. he was and is *not* "nothing"

it's a cushion of nonsense like this that allowed him to build up what he has. The weight on his shoulders is incredible, really.

[Old and In the Way]

9. True, but there is a certain irony here.

Iraq had the most progressive and secular society in the 80s in the ME. True, SH was a ruthless bastard politically, but it was a reasonably well off society until Saddam decided that he'd take control of his oil. SA and Kuwait got very nervous about Saddam's independence and it sure looks to me like George Bush took care of the problem for his friends.

[kera]

12. You seem to contradict yourself

or may be you have no clue

You pontificate about freedom and liberal democracy while inciting Killing Killing Killing a guy who is fighting to liberate his country from an invader. That is exactly the neocon "philosophie" . You ar no different from Perle

democracy , freedom cannot be achieved through war crimes.

[Blue_Chill]

22. Maybe I have no clue, who knows, but I stand by what I wrote.

As for your post...

- Sadr is making a power grab, he isn't fighting to free anyone. He is one of many that seek to create a Islamic state and I'm sure he sees himself in a leadership role. That 'liberator' will make sure women are treated like trash for decades and that people live in fear the rest of their lives. You are seem to contradict yourself by claiming such a man is capable of liberating ANYTHING being that his stated goal is otherwise.

- Freedom cannot be achieved by allowing men such as Sadr to be mistaken for freedom fighters.

That's my opinion.

[Dark]

8. I disagree.

I think that they are going to lose their freedom if the UN does not get involved. The Americans won't be able to defend it for long against the militant insurgency. Soon, a new, probably theocratic dictator will assume power. Maybe that Sadr guy.

[yelladawg]

10. Iraqi Freedom Fighters

Freedom is never easy. You often must kill for it. We did it 229 years ago.

[Blue_Chill]

23. Who are the Iraqi freedom fighters?

I hope you don't mean to say those seeking to construct a theocracy are fighting for FREEDOM. That would stupid so I'm sure you meant something else. Who in Iraq is fighting for FREEDOM for the people?

[Old and In the Way]

11. Just what many on the board here predicted 18 months ago.

But we can thank Saudi Arabia for creating radical fundementalism in the ME. The same people that now own a sizable chunk of this country, the same people where 15/19 hijackers came from, the same people who we know contributed $ to these terrorists.

What's the answer? I have no clue, but many here knew that taking out the only secular leader in the ME and the Ba'athist infrastructure opened up the way for the radical fundies to take over.

[BeFree]

20. Old Way, ya made me think about this:

Given that the monarchs of Saudi Arabia hated that Iraqi secular society on their border, and the fact that, militarily, it would be impossible for them to succeed, they hired the US to fight for them?

I know, folks, it is a terrible thing to contemplate; the US is a mercenary in the Middle East. Given that oil -- good as gold -- is why we are there; Mercenaries. Not the individual troopers, nope, they are but pawns; it is our leaders who are the mercenaries. They learned their trade in Israel and have now spread. Just great.

[Tatiana]

13. This was an unwinnable war.

Period. Of course, there was a way to do this (the "Clark doctrine," if you will) that would have had us out of Iraq and with a lot less bloodshed, but there was no way we could EVER have been declared victorious in that land.

The people see Bush for what he truly is: a lying thief. The sad part is that because Bush, as our pResident, is the highest international representative of America... a good portion of that nation associates Americans with that lying thief. They aren't distinguishing between soldiers and civilians. We've desecrated their holy lands. We're trying to steal their oil and force a twisted concept of "democracy" on them that they don't want.

Of course they will fight. Of course they will massacre soldiers and contractors. They will never give up. There was no way we could win this. We're fighting for the selfish and unjust ideals of a few powerful men. They are fighting to free their country from American "evildoers."

[ex_jew]

14. So you're saying Operation Iraqi Liberation worked ?

though not in the way its architects imagined. That is a rich enough irony to be worthy of history. I hope you're right.

[0007]

15. Maybe, but what brought this on? Just a gut feeling?

I do think the Iraqis have the momentum going for 'em. And other than the U.S. spin, that has given hope to a losing situation I don't see a logical way out without losing face. But some how I feel something is gonna backfire on their country.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Not really a gut feeling. More like common sense

I am not very well book learned, though I have been around the block once or twice. I can just imagine living under a dictatorship all my life and then wake up some morning and that is no longer the case. I could never revert back to that kind of life again. It would be impossible. I think I would rather die first.

Don

[Cannikin]

19. Iraqi freedom has a bad aftertaste.....

[Vladimir]

21. They do?

what kind of freedom is this then, the freedom to 'die by the random shot' (to quote 2Pac)? The freedom to not have a job? The Iraqis are fighting for their freedoms as we speak, as they were fighting under Saddam, even if we didn't hear about it then.

V

[NNN0LHI]

25. THEY DO what? Your post confuses me

Are you suggesting I said they had their freedom? Because if you are reread my original post you will see that I never said the Iraqis are now free. I said they have tasted freedom. Big difference between tasting freedom and being free.

Don

[Vladimir]

26. Sorry

should have said 'they have?'... I meant 'they do?' as in:

They have a taste of freedom... they do?

I wouldn't say they have tasted freedom of any kind, but maybe I'm being overly negative.

V

[denverbill]

24. Yes. Just like the Weimar Republic after WWI.

The Germans had never known 'freedom and democracy' either. And they never looked back either.

Well, except for that brief 12 year period from 1933 to 1945 when the elected Hitler. But that was only because the country had devolved into a nightmare of economic and social chaos. The people of Germany longed for a strong leader who would end the street fighting and restore order, and they got one.

[Bandit]

27. That is why they are willing to follow islamic law, right???

They do not want freedom. They want Iraqis to control them and not infidels. Make no mistake though they want to be controlled.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Are you suggesting our laws are not based on Christian-Judeo principles?

And if you agree that our laws actually are based on Christian-Judeo principles does that mean we really don't want freedom either? Or that Americans have a desire to be controlled as well? Fine line here.

Don

[fishnfla]

30. This weeks TNR explores this issue

2 points (not mine)
1. "The Sunni Baathists and Islamists in Fallujah and the Taliban-esque army (of al Sadr) all advocate deeply undemocratic, even totalitarian, visions for Iraq...newspaper reports, and even some American intelligence officials, suggest the insurgents enjoy considerable popular support"

2. ackerman's story on the failure of iraqification
"According to an ABC News poll released last month... a breakaway plurality of 47 percent(of Iraqis) said that, over the next year, Iraq needed a 'single strong leader" to govern it. By contrast, only 28 percent said Iraq needed democracy"

My opinion has been from the beginning that western style democracy is not suited for middle east culture, and if bychance it is, it certainly cannot be enforced by the barrel of a gun. It has to come from within, not from without.