What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
02-01-2005, 11:37 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
"Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008."
Could it be that some on the left are starting to realize they have been wrong all along? Is there a light at the end of their dark tunnel?
"Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008."
Could it be that some on the left are starting to realize they have been wrong all along? Is there a light at the end of their dark tunnel?
02-01-2005, 12:51 PM
#2
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Great article, sir
This statement is very well put and what a lot of the anti-Bush mongers seem to be showing recently:
Some posters in Teh Politics have made some undeniably weak statements recently. Some of them even went as far to say the huge turnout of Iraqi voters that cast their ballots did so just so American forces would leave. This very same poster even went as far to say that Americans are far more notorious for their torture tactics than Iraq ever was. Are you kidding me? This can be proven false ten times over and had been in that thread.
Others have been claiming to be “realists” when they’ve been pessimistic and against anything that relates to the Republican party since 2000. They’re the same type of people that just missed the green light at an intersection and slam the steering wheel. They’re the same type of person that gets to an empty pot of coffee at the office and think it only happens to them. They always have that “glass half-empty” negative demeanor and think it’s the way things are for everything and actually apply it in life.
Truth be told I though Clinton was a fairly good President. He stepped on his tail a couple times and was responsible (along with the UN) for a lot of deaths that never got that much play. Maybe this was because he wasn’t coined with the same stereotypes as our current Texan “Get’er done” President. Who knows as that’s an entirely different thread... but at least you heard it from me.
All I’m saying is that nobody is ever willing to give credit when it’s due here. There’s no question that the Iraqi people are in support of Democracy and that it has a sure chance of survival. It’s no longer a shot in the dark whatsoever but some of you will still manage to bring down the party in one way or another regarding the “overwhelming insurgency” or whatever.
For example, a very good friend of mine was put on election security for Iraq. This person is serving with one of the units svxr8dr and myself served with and is attached with Blackwater Security Cons as we speak. He sends me emails that things are quiet where he is and that he’s actually more concerned about running out of Met-Rx protein shakes for lifting and iPod batteries than an attack. He sends me jokes via email once a week too!
We always hear about the occasional car bombing or accident in Iraq, right? What you fail to understand is that’s these are minuscule attacks that are spun by the media to make it seem like Iraq is the size of a small town. Did you not get any sleep -or- have a personal breakdown when Columbine took place? Better yet... did you manage to finish your day and eat lunch during the breaking news on the Oklahoma city bombing and 9/11? You may have been depressed but it certainly didn’t derail your daily life. What makes you think a carbomb that produced 6 Iraqi police fatalities or a downed U.S. helicopter that suffered from malfunctions is greater? Did you walk outside and see the smoke for any of the above instances that took place on U.S. soil? I hardly doubt it. Do you think the horizon is infinitely flat in Iraq to where someone can see a petty car bombing 200miles away from Baghdad? Nope.
This statement is very well put and what a lot of the anti-Bush mongers seem to be showing recently:
Originally Posted by article
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
Others have been claiming to be “realists” when they’ve been pessimistic and against anything that relates to the Republican party since 2000. They’re the same type of people that just missed the green light at an intersection and slam the steering wheel. They’re the same type of person that gets to an empty pot of coffee at the office and think it only happens to them. They always have that “glass half-empty” negative demeanor and think it’s the way things are for everything and actually apply it in life.
Truth be told I though Clinton was a fairly good President. He stepped on his tail a couple times and was responsible (along with the UN) for a lot of deaths that never got that much play. Maybe this was because he wasn’t coined with the same stereotypes as our current Texan “Get’er done” President. Who knows as that’s an entirely different thread... but at least you heard it from me.
All I’m saying is that nobody is ever willing to give credit when it’s due here. There’s no question that the Iraqi people are in support of Democracy and that it has a sure chance of survival. It’s no longer a shot in the dark whatsoever but some of you will still manage to bring down the party in one way or another regarding the “overwhelming insurgency” or whatever.
For example, a very good friend of mine was put on election security for Iraq. This person is serving with one of the units svxr8dr and myself served with and is attached with Blackwater Security Cons as we speak. He sends me emails that things are quiet where he is and that he’s actually more concerned about running out of Met-Rx protein shakes for lifting and iPod batteries than an attack. He sends me jokes via email once a week too!
We always hear about the occasional car bombing or accident in Iraq, right? What you fail to understand is that’s these are minuscule attacks that are spun by the media to make it seem like Iraq is the size of a small town. Did you not get any sleep -or- have a personal breakdown when Columbine took place? Better yet... did you manage to finish your day and eat lunch during the breaking news on the Oklahoma city bombing and 9/11? You may have been depressed but it certainly didn’t derail your daily life. What makes you think a carbomb that produced 6 Iraqi police fatalities or a downed U.S. helicopter that suffered from malfunctions is greater? Did you walk outside and see the smoke for any of the above instances that took place on U.S. soil? I hardly doubt it. Do you think the horizon is infinitely flat in Iraq to where someone can see a petty car bombing 200miles away from Baghdad? Nope.
Last edited by Salty; 02-01-2005 at 02:02 PM.
02-01-2005, 02:38 PM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Great article NOT!
Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.
First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.
Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.
First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.
Last edited by Unregistered; 02-01-2005 at 02:50 PM.
02-01-2005, 02:40 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
Originally Posted by Salty
I hardly doubt it. Do you think the horizon is infinitely flat in Iraq to where someone can see a petty car bombing 200miles away from Baghdad? Nope.
02-01-2005, 03:07 PM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by Unregistered
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Great article NOT!
Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.
First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.
Where to begin. So many ways to tear this apart so little time. Sigh.
First off we went in there the wrong way and without a exist strategy. Second just because the elections where a success does NOT mean the issues are ended. My republican friend where talking about this and you know what he said? He said and I qoute, "Well see how long that poor bastard is kept alive before someone offs him." I could keep going how this article trys to spin the war as a great sucess that was planned by Jr to be like this from the start. But of course they fail to say how there were no WMD or terrorist connections. How we have no real support from outside countries. How our generals have constantly asked for more troops. How we have lost so many troops and so many Iraqies. Want me to keep going? Please, articles like this are straight propaganda and Salty you should know better.
haha, nice mention of WMD and terrorism though. Do you honestly think that worldwide terrorism is not going to be discredited at least to a degree if Iraq develops further along these lines? And do you think the Iraqis will care about the WMD fiasco if they get a democratic state?
02-01-2005, 03:12 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Couve in Washington State
Posts: 559
Car Info: 02 BRP 2.5RS-T
I guess we should be nice to the people like Unregistered, considering that more than likely History will place their opinions only as a footnote and will consider everything that their ilk stood for as wrong and misguided. It's got to be really demoralizing.
02-01-2005, 03:15 PM
#7
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Funny concidering a bombing happened in the GREEN ZONE of Baghdad a day or two ago.
We all know about that attack, yes? But other than some grief, sorrow and a surprised "no ****" type statement from the other 100k+ troops on the ground, how exactly does that effect the bigger picture regarding the mission and conducting oneself?
Do you think the Iraqi voters thought about the unfortunate greenzone bombing as their ballot left the tips of their fingers?
02-01-2005, 03:17 PM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Sure looks like desperation to me, this trying to rally 20 percent of the population against the other 80.
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Do you honestly think that worldwide terrorism is not going to be discredited at least to a degree if Iraq develops further along these lines?
I agree that we did a good thing for the Iraqi people and for our monitary and energy needs. But considering we gave Iraqi's help without their asking for it, and that war shouldn't be fought for money and oil in the modern world, the war in general is still a complete and total disaster. If we want to spread democracy, why haven't we launched this campaign in every country with a cruel dictator around the world? Because that's all that the election in Iraq has proven...that we can set up a democracy in a state that we are involved with for our own selfish purposes. You can't claim we are doing this just for the furtherment of democracy and for the Iraqi people...that's BS and everyone here knows it.
02-01-2005, 03:18 PM
#10
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
The title of this thread should be:
What if Bush was wrong about Iraq all along, but now that we set up a democracy over there and our oil prices will fall, noone cares that he was wrong and lied to America and the world.
What if Bush was wrong about Iraq all along, but now that we set up a democracy over there and our oil prices will fall, noone cares that he was wrong and lied to America and the world.
02-01-2005, 03:24 PM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by MVWRX
They've been 'rallying' the 20% vs the 80% for hundreds of years...it's not just since the election or even since the beginning of the war or of Saddam...
02-01-2005, 03:26 PM
#12
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
But that 20% was extremely favored by Saddam, was given many special privelgdges because of this and had the upper hand over the 80% you speak of. Why on earth do you think the Sunni population is so upset?
I know. I was just pointing out that the insurgents turn from Anti-America to Anti-Shiite is not a sign of desperation, it's just how the Sunnis are.
02-01-2005, 03:26 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by MVWRX
They've been 'rallying' the 20% vs the 80% for hundreds of years...it's not just since the election or even since the beginning of the war or of Saddam...
Nope, not in the slightest. Iraq never was a big terrorist producing state. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc...are still the same as before...terrorism won't be affected in the least by anything that's happened in Iraq.
I agree that we did a good thing for the Iraqi people and for our monitary and energy needs. But considering we gave Iraqi's help without their asking for it, and that war shouldn't be fought for money and oil in the modern world, the war in general is still a complete and total disaster. If we want to spread democracy, why haven't we launched this campaign in every country with a cruel dictator around the world? Because that's all that the election in Iraq has proven...that we can set up a democracy in a state that we are involved with for our own selfish purposes. You can't claim we are doing this just for the furtherment of democracy and for the Iraqi people...that's BS and everyone here knows it.
Nope, not in the slightest. Iraq never was a big terrorist producing state. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc...are still the same as before...terrorism won't be affected in the least by anything that's happened in Iraq.
I agree that we did a good thing for the Iraqi people and for our monitary and energy needs. But considering we gave Iraqi's help without their asking for it, and that war shouldn't be fought for money and oil in the modern world, the war in general is still a complete and total disaster. If we want to spread democracy, why haven't we launched this campaign in every country with a cruel dictator around the world? Because that's all that the election in Iraq has proven...that we can set up a democracy in a state that we are involved with for our own selfish purposes. You can't claim we are doing this just for the furtherment of democracy and for the Iraqi people...that's BS and everyone here knows it.
On the division: No, they have not. Scan the reports from before the election and last year. Zarqawi and others portrayed their movement as a pan-Iraqi movement, unified in trying to get the Americans out. Michael Moore said the same thing. Now, they're issuing press releases talking about stopping Baghdad from becoming a haven for Shiites. That's a change in the message alright, and it exposes Zarqawi's consciousness of the fact that the vast majority of Iraq doesn't want him there.
On terrorism: You're kidding right? Saddam has always been a major sponsor of terrorism. He gave scholarships to suicide bombers in Israel, tried to build nuclear weapons before the Israelis bombed his reactor, and had close ties to Syria, another terror state.
You didn't consider the main issue, which is, worldwide terrorists have been saying that the US is only out to harm muslims, destroy and rape Iraq, etc. Iraq has become a focal point for jihadists all over the world. Now how stupid are they going to look, if the Iraqis end up with a stable democratic government, and a quality of life MUCH higher than in any place where the terror-networks have a lot of power?
02-01-2005, 03:30 PM
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
It will make many people in countries other than Iraq realize that we only help when we get something out of it (oil). Which, in my reasoning, will leave many more people unhappy with the US because we claim to be helping other countries when we really only help other countries when it suits us. That will lead to just as many terrorist, if not more than before the war.
And the link between Saddam and terrorsim is tennuous at best...we've been over this before...no terrorism, no WMDs remember...
And the link between Saddam and terrorsim is tennuous at best...we've been over this before...no terrorism, no WMDs remember...
02-01-2005, 03:37 PM
#15
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Ok, about the pan-Iraq movenment this is true. But what did you think the Sunnis would do if they did pull the impossible and got the US out? They'd kill all the Shiites next. Sunnis don't like Shiites and the other way around. The Sunnis are also more nationalistic than the Shiites, so they are more opposed to outside influence.
Sunnis hated Shiites before we got there. Then the Sunnis had a bigger problem...US. Now that we beat the Sunnis pretty much (or at least forced them to be an 'insurgency' in their own country), they're turning back to their favorite pasttime-killing Shiites.
Sunnis hated Shiites before we got there. Then the Sunnis had a bigger problem...US. Now that we beat the Sunnis pretty much (or at least forced them to be an 'insurgency' in their own country), they're turning back to their favorite pasttime-killing Shiites.