question about iraqi "Liberation"

[booley]

A few questions that I don't see being answered by those who thought we did the right thing in preemptivly attacking iraq.

Anybody else notice that we killed thousands of the very people we were supposed to be liberating?

Anybody else notice that the attacks by Iraqi's on american troops don't seem to have abated or even slowed down when saddam was captured or his sons killed? (which might lead one to beleive that Saddam isn't relevant to why the iraqi's are attacking American troops)

Why do so many feel it was justifiable to go to war to oust an oppressive regime...but then those same advocates don't seem too interested in putting real pressure on countries with oppressive and genocidal leaders that we have strong ties with and thus some influence over (Like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, China) to stop similar human rights abuses? Surely if such abuses are worth going to war over, they are worth trying a non-violent solution as well, right?

and why did the admin feel the need to frame Saddam, when he already had proved himself an evil guy? I mean, so much of what Shrub said about Saddam weas untrue but it's hardly like you couldn't find a long list of horrible things he did. isn't this a bit suspiciouse? Sorta like making up rumors about Hitler being a cannibal..as if that whole holocaust thing wasn't bad enough.

And if the reasons for the war are false, how can anyone be sure that the plans by Shrub to being democracy to Iraq is true?

And finally, if this was all about helping the Iraqis..how do the iraqis feel about all of this? last I heard they were more then happy to get rid of Saddam but weren't too happy about all thier dead relatives and ruined country. much less that American and British troops were sticking around.
Has this changed at all?
Don't the Iraqis have any say in if they were helped at all by the invasion?

And finally, not to seem to selfish or nationlistic...but since we know that there are people out to get us and can get us if they plan well enough...what good does it do US to get rid of a man whose downfall won't hurt our real enemies whatsoever..but will create a power vacuum they can exploit and grow in?

I know these things have been brought up from time to time before but I just thought I woul dround them up into one neat little package.

[Devlzown]

1. I've seen some of the arguments of these Bush apologists.

It amazes me how many Americans all of a sudden have this burning desire to liberate the Iraqi people. I don't remember anybody mentioning our love for the Iraqis during the '80's or '90's. When did this love affair with the Iraqis begin? Why don't we love the North Koreans or the Congolese as much as the Iraqis? Maybe we should, because this courtship isn't going too well at all.

[Columbia]

2. One thing is...

we let them down after the Shia uprising in '91. Memories long persist after that transgression, which is why the expected armed uprising against the Ba'athists did not occur the second time around. They thought we were just going to leave them high and dry like before. Maybe the pro-Iraqi sentiment is trying to make up for past wrongs.

[Devlzown]

4. Well, I was against the first gulf war as well.

Iraq told our government in advance that it was about to invade Kuwait and Bush I gave Saddam the go ahead. But all that aside, I think the purpose of our military is defensive, not offensive. I genuinely feel for people who suffer under oppressive regimes, but it is not my duty to die for them nor is it right for the government to send others in to die for their cause.

[booley]

6. seems to me...

that the sudden interest in "helping" the iraqis had more to do with the admin grasping at straws. As the WMD and terrorist arguements were shot thru with holes and the peace protesters kept bringing up how much damage that the iraqi peopel had already endured, the admin thought that focusing on "Liberating" the Iraqis would finally shut up critics.

After all, that Saddam was a dictator was the only true thing Bush did say.

[Cocoa]

3. Bernie Sanders made a very interesting point about Nicaragua

I think the Iraq blackout has already begun...

http://bernie.house.gov/statements/20031117133855.asp?print

<snip>

Rather amazingly, there is almost no coverage about Nicaragua today. When the United States was attempting to overthrow the Sandinistas, there was constant and full blown media attention and every problem in that country received extensive coverage. Today, nothing. Nicaragua no longer exists for the American media. It would take a bit of work to discover that 14 years after the victory to bring "democracy and prosperity," Nicaragua's deteriorating economy has made it one of the poorest countries in the world. Unemployment in Nicaragua today is over 50%, basic social services are almost non-existent and there are reports that some children in that country have died of starvation. In terms of freedom and democracy, the last President of that country is being investigated for having stolen over $100 million dollars, an incredible sum for a country so small and poor. Could any lessons be learned from today's Nicaragua regarding American foreign policy, unilateral intervention and whether political rhetoric had anything to do with reality? Maybe? But you sure wouldn't know it from the almost total media blackout that exists today with regard to Nicaragua.

more...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Bernie Sanders for President!

Well, one can dream. It would be nice to have a president with a sense of history and a desire for justice.

Unfortunately, such a person, even if he was a Democrat (unlike Bernie) would be immediately labeled a traitor by the pugs and "too liberal" by the Dems.