That's about the nicest thing I can say about the US invasion of Iraq. Yes, invasion, imperialist invasion.
When President Bush's father invaded Iraq 16 years ago, the US headed an enormous international coalition and didn't suffer too many casualties. It was a peculiar war. The Americans bombed Iraq, and the Iraqis bombed Israel, which wasn't even among the countries providing troops.
Now there's a very different war. It's an invasion. The United States announced that it wanted to "get Sadaam Husain" and make Iraq a democratic country. Well, the US and allies killed a couple of thousand innocent Iraqis to finally find Sadaam Husain and put him on trial. If those thousands of Iraqis could be killed without "due process of law," why didn't they just kill Sadaam Husain?
OK, that's done with, but food for thought.
How is the quest to make Iraq a democratic country going? Well, with the death toll rising, it doesn't look very good.
Iraqi Death Toll Exceeded 34,000 in '06, U.N. Says
My question is,
How can you make a country democratic?
How can you make a country democratic
when it's people and culture don't understand the concept?
It's not a simple matter at all, and bombing the hell out of a country and sending in foreign troops and executing former leaders certainly won't do it.
So it just looks like more of the same until, like with the Vietnam War, the American public will make it clear to the politicians..
"If you want to get elected, get out!"
4 comments:
As long as the MSM carries the water for the Left in this country, the people will rarely hear the truth of what is going on in Iraq. Thus the constant wailing of "quagmire", "Vietnam", and assorted other hippie-inspired chants from the 60s and 70s.
Building a Democracy - not true Democracy, which is one of the most dangerous systems of government on earth - does indeed take an educated, committed populace. Iraqis have not been that in generations. So the effort may well fail. But I do believe it's worth the attempt. Can the USA defeat the suicidal Cult of Islamofacism there? We won't know until it's over. But I do support the effort.
Iran has the educated populace, but may not have the internal fortitude to overthrow thier own fanatic Mullahocracy. Can they change of their own accord? Dunno. But if not, then we must look into ways to change Iran's regime. Not for American power but for reasons of safety. Imagine an Iran that treats Israel as a neighboring nation rather than a hjated enemy. The Iranian brand of Islam didn't take on its present terror-exporting cast until the West abandoned the Shah. And that was a response to the seeming power exhibited by the Left when the Vietnam War was abandoned. Was the Shah a despot? Of course! But he wasn't a fraction of the zealous fanatic that now hold power there.
If the civilized people of the world don't fight Islamofacism, in whatever guise, wherever it rears its head, the world will suffer even more than it does now.
For me, Iraq is the first beach-head in the war against the Islamist enemy.
Just my two shekels! ;)
The justification is
"it worked in Japan after WWII"
but that was a different ballgame. They had been defeated in a war that they had started; they were a-bombed, and they wanted a new way of life.
True. The Japanese gave little trouble following their defeat; the Germans more so. Both cultures were able to adapt to the highly changed circumstances.
Can Muslims do the same? We don't know. But I think we must try. Otherwise we're looking at Total War between civilization and islamic barbarism. It may come to that anyway. But I'd rather we fought these killers in Iraq than in Detroit or Tel Aviv. Let them die on their homeground.
No offense, but it's totally ludicrous to think that Moslem or even Christian Arabs are anything like the highly disciplined and highly repressed Germans and Japanese.
Also, those countries had attacked and were defeated, while the Iraq venture was a preventative measure against a confident country.
Post a Comment