You Make the Call....IRAQ
Since I've been crossing the lines into the "enemy's camp" at the lair of the Urban Fox, I thought I'd open this challenge/question to you all...hopefully some of the Fox's readers will come here to post their solutions to the question.
If you could convince President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to accept your mediated solution to the current operations in Iraq, what would your recommendation be?
Take as many or as few words as you need to get your point across.
Hmmmm, birds of a feather certainly do seem to flock to this blog together. I'm the lone wacko, Yank (and I'll remind you that you'd be speaking either German or Russian without our help in the 1940s), conservative blogger brave enough to venture into your midst to support the other side of the issue. If you'd just rather me "piss off" I'll be happy to do just that...but only when the Fox asks me to leave...
What do you call people that fire mortar rounds into the exercise yard of a prison full of suspected "anti-government" prisoners and enemies of the interim Iraqi government?
What do you call people that round up members of the Iraqi National Guard and execute them "gangland" style with a bullet to the back of the head?
What do you call someone that kidnaps a defenseless countrywoman of yours and brutally murders her in the name of returning Iraq back to the hands of brutal dictators recently deposed?
If the word terrorist doesn't fit...I just don't get it.
We can argue all day long whether or not this war is a "just war" or not. Your sources of information are just that...sources. I read each and every one you cited in your initial blog entry. Many, many blogs out there are opinion oriented blogs...not major media outlets with huge research departments (that sometimes go under utilized...ask Dan Rather) checking each and every fact. People are writing about how they feel about the news stories that are coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever. To cite that American/Coalition forces used chemical weapons during the Fallujah offensive is probably a little bit over the top. While I would imagine that the use of CS gas (tear gas used for crowd control across the planet) would be unpleasant for someone that wasn't wearing a protective garment and mask...but hardly capable of "burning fighters beyond recognition." I've sucked down my fair share of CS during training events and exercises and I'll tell you one thing, you'll never find me in a crowd of protesters after being warned about the potential use of tear gas. Not at all pleasant.
Fox, I don't know what it is about you, but you keep trying to put Bush and Blair into the uniforms of Hitler and Mussolini. Yes, it's your opinion...but you're not backing this up with facts. You're using information collected from a variety of questionable news (Arab TV/Al Jazeerah like) and blog sources and expecting EVERYONE to buy it. Obviously you have quite a loyal, slavish following as I haven't seen anyone call you on the carpet for trying to force your point of view on your readers. I suppose that since I question your viewpoint I must be Hirohito, Goebels, and Himmler rolled into one.
My question to you...and your fans:
If you could convince President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to accept your mediated solution to the current operations in Iraq, what would your recommendation be? Take as many or as few words as you need to get your point across. Respond here...or at my blog: http://majordad1984.blogspot.com
I'll post this "challenge" on my blog for your responses.
Tonight as I sit here enjoying two day old turkey and ham left over from Thanksgiving...I'll ask the Almighty to watch over our troops, our leaders, and both our great nations.
See y'all on the high ground...
MajorDad1984
posted by MajorDad @ 11/27/2004 08:02:00 PM
13 Comments:
Okay...so far I've got two votes for "cutting and running" but we have to pay for the mess we've created.
Fair enough, these are opinions...everyone has one and most stink (except your own I suppose.)
Let me throw something in here...that might get people thinking down a different path.
How is the spread of what I'll call a radical Islamic desire any different than the concept of colonialism all our nations practiced at one point or another?
I have nothing against the Islamic faith...except when it comes to the point where it is threatening world order. The attacks of 9/11 were the most spectacular terrorist events ever seen...and had impacts that were felt not only in America, but also around the world. These attacks were commited in the name of Allah by some fanatics twisting the Koran to suit their sick ideas. We've seen this many times before where religion becomes the basis for international action. The Crusades were probably the first...
We're not trying to bring Christianity to Iraq, but we're trying to bring some stability. If you want to compare someone to Hitler...why don't we take a look at Saddam Hussein and start comparing the Baath Party to the National Socialist Party?
See y'all on the high ground...
MajorDad1984
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Major:
First off, I believe that we never should have gone into Iraq, or at least not in the timeframe that we did. Secondly, I would have gone in with higher troop levels to begin with, as was suggested by some in the Pentagon.
But now that we are there, I think the strategy has to be getting out as quickly as possible with still repairing the damage we've done. Training the Iraqis as quickly as possible. Letting them decide what form of government they want, not pushing our ideal on them. Additionally, if I was President Bush, I would not put Condi as Sec. of State. While I think she is a well-spoken, intelligent woman who definitely deserves respect, I think her role as national security advisor and her strong support for the Iraq war in the face of so much international opposition has probably damaged her ability to engage in diplomacy with foreign nations. And, diplomacy is something I think we need to do more of. We need to make more of an effort to gain support from more nations so that we have more of a coalition, rather than a lessening coalition (some Eastern European nations are reducing their troop levels). We need to not do things like rename French fries "freedom fries" just because the French vocally disagreed with us. They are entitled to their opinion of the situation, just as we are entitled to ours.
Finally, the spread of "radical" Islam is different because, in my opinion, the terrorists who attacked on Sept 11th felt threatend by us (rightly or wrongly) and were trying to send us a message to back off. Colonialism, on the other hand, was an attempt to take over others. Additionally, "radical" Islam comes at the same time as a rise in fundamental Judaism and Christianity. I encourage you to read the book The Battle For God by Karen Armstrong if you are interested in the rise of fundamental religion. I'm reading it right now, and I've found it to be interesting and not too hard to understand despite the complexitise of the issue.
I think that jumped around quite a bit, I apologize. I had to write it twice, as my Internet disconnected just as I was sending it.
Jenni said:
Finally, the spread of "radical" Islam is different because, in my opinion, the terrorists who attacked on Sept 11th felt threatend by us (rightly or wrongly) and were trying to send us a message to back off. Colonialism, on the other hand, was an attempt to take over others. Additionally, "radical" Islam comes at the same time as a rise in fundamental Judaism and Christianity. I encourage you to read the book The Battle For God by Karen Armstrong if you are interested in the rise of fundamental religion. I'm reading it right now, and I've found it to be interesting and not too hard to understand despite the complexitise of the issue.The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 felt threatened? Wanted us to back off? So that allows you to forgive them for flying four aircraft full of fuel and innocent people into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and until thwarted by some very brave men and women...into the White House or Capital?
I'm tired...of hearing about American repression of Islamic peoples. I believe that we stepped into the Bosnian mess to assist the Bosnian Muslim population...preventing further genocidal conduct. Yes, we had yet another "problem" in Europe that the civilized, advanced, superior to American culture that couldn't police their own region....AGAIN.
How were we a threat to Al Qaeda? What were we doing that would warrant the murder of over 3000 in the span of 1 hour.
I'm listening...
Major...
As you probably realize since you quoted me I said "the terrorists who attacked on Sept 11th felt threatend by us (rightly or wrongly)." I believe that they felt threatened, but that is different than thinking that we are actually threatening them, which is why I said "(rightly or wrongly)."
I don't think we were doing anything that would warrant the attack on the World Trade Centers, and from your post I sense that you think I don't care about the loss of life and that I "forgive them for flying four aircraft full of fuel and innocent people," which just isn't true. First of all, I said nothing of the sort and you are jumping to conclusions. Second of all, two close family friends of mine were at the WTC that morning. And given that, I can't think of anything that justifies terrorism.
Finally, I just want to let you know that I am deeply offended that you jumped to the conclusion that I have forgiven the terrorists of 9/11. Even thinking about it right now while I am typing brings tears to my eyes. But you wouldn't know that because you are making assumptions about me based on one short post that was not even directly about September 11th. Just because I don't have the same opinion as you does not mean I don't care just as deeply.
Jenni:
I apologize for causing you to cry over my post...I guess that tact might not be my strongest suit.
I am going to take you to task...as you even leave open the rightness or wrongness of the acts on 9/11. This is a white or black thing with me...it was WRONG! No ands, ifs, or buts.
The folks that want to take issue with the way we're running operations in Iraq want to wield large numbers of dead Iraqi citizens laying their deaths at the feet of the Coalition. I take issue with that as my friends are currently battalion and brigade commanders of many of the units who have fought, are fighting, and will fight against those that would stand in the way of the fledgling Iraqi government creating a new Iraq. My contemporaries still on active duty are fine, middle aged men, following orders to implement our foreign policy...and do what the United Nations and the world community failed to do in the years since 1991.
Again, I apologize for causing you grief, but your words lead me to believe that you left the door open for the terrorists have some claim to legitimacy in the attacks on 9/11. From your response, you've cleared things up a little bit. I hope you accept my explanation...and why I feel as strongly as I do.
I grew up almost within sight of the Trade Centers...and this past October when I traveled back to West Point for my 20th reunion it simply wasn't the same flying into Newark's Liberty Airport and not seeing those engineering marvels standing across the water. I lost an acquaintance from high school in the attacks...and probably more than that. He's the only one I know of. A West Point classmate of mine lost a brother who was a fire fighter...when the towers collapsed on his ladder company.
I believe the struggle we're in right now is every bit as grave as the one we won in WWII. The advent of horrendous nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons make the stakes that much higher. We don't have the luxury to wait for the next strike. If we do, we'll be counting the dead in the millions, not the thousands.
Based on your reaction to 9/11, I would think that you'd want to do what it took to prevent an attack with more casualties. By taking the sanctuaries away from those that would attack us again, we can only improve our chances of avoiding another "day of infamy."
See you on the high ground...you're always welcome here.
MajorDad1984
Major...
The phrase rightly or wrongly was meant to convey that the terrorists beliefs were open to interpretation, not their actions, as I thought I made clear by stating that I did not think terrorism was ever justified. If it can't be justified, it would be pretty hard to be right.
Okay..
I'm going to try to remain unemotional, which is hard when dealing with issues surrounding 9/11 and its repercussions. First of all, I am truly sorry to hear that you knew people lost in the attacks. Secondly, I don't think it was so much that you lacked tack, but that I felt that you were sort of twisting my argument and accusing me of feelings which are nearly the complete opposite of what I truly believe.
I agree, we should do what we can to prevent another attack and eliminate the sanctuaries of terrorists. I think where we disagree is whether or not Iraq was one of those sanctuaries prior to the war on Iraq. And I am certainly not advocating that we wait around for the next strike. I fully supported the war in Afghanistan and the concept of the war on terror more broadly. It is Iraq in particularly that I have issue with, as I did not believe that they had WMDs prior to the war and have not seen evidence contrary since the war. I think Saddam was a cruel dictator who deserved to be removed, but not necessarily in the timeframe and fashion that was used. I would have liked to see a larger international coalition, as I believe the only way to fight the war on terror is through international cooperation. It is truly a gloabl threat (although the U.S. is the largest target because of its status as a hegemon).
I want to repeat that I am in no way condoning acts of terrorism or the actions of Saddam. I believe the U.S. needed to have a strong response to the terrorist attacks and in no way advocate that we should have just forgiven them and moved on. I am just saying I personally disagree with parts of our response and strategy.
I apologize if my response overreacted a bit. As you are tired of hearing about the American repression of Islamic peoples, I am tired of hearing that if I have a liberal opinion or don't support the war in Iraq then I must care more about the Muslims than Americans, because that just is not the case. And your response to my post seemed, to me, to take some of what I said out of context and put it into the "liberals condoning terrorists" paradigm. America is nation founded on great ideals, ideals that I firmly believe in and strongly support. I'd like to think I care about all people just about equally.
Most of all, I hope that your friends and all our troops return safely and as soon as possible, and that we can all work together to defeat terrorism.
I meant to type tact, not tack...oops!
Would I be out of line to suggest that the discussion here is wandering away from the question that the good Major has posed us? We were asked to say what our recommendation to Bush and Blair be about the mediated solution.
That's probably a plenty contentious enough issue here, and yet we seemed to have meandered into the powder keg of the attacks on the World Trade Centre. I can't believe for one minute that anybody reading this blog will make a single excuse for those attacks. There can be no justification for that kind of assault on so many innocent people - religious, politica, moral, whatever. I'm sure we can debate the ins and outs until we are blue in the face (and I am well aware of the discussion on what constitutes "innocent"). Can't we leave that discussion for another day?
We have also tended to get bogged down in discussion about the rights and wrongs of the war. Fine, but irrelevant to the question in the sense that our mediated solution starts from now, and the decision to take us in has been made and the war is being fought.
Do I have an answer? No I do not - this is a complex and tangled web indeed, and I am not arrogant enough to think that I know the answers.
Do I have a view? I think I do. The situation is a mess. We have coalition soldiers fighting and dying. We have Iraqis - military, insurgent, civilian, whatever - dying. We have civilians of other nations being kidnapped and killed, seemingly left, right and centre. It's a mess alright. I cannot see how we can just walk away from this, but I don't see any statement from our leaders about what their proposed goals in Iraq are now that Saddam has been removed.
What are the flashpoints? Well, for a number of people it looks very much as though the coalition forces are now little more than an occupying army. This will surely only create more "insurgents", people prepared to fight against their perceived oppressors. How do we get away from that? Is it practical to prop up a local government, wave cheerily and walk away? No, I do not believe it is.
The long term goal must be to allow the people of Iraq to form a government of their own choosing - and I mean freely and of their own choosing. I realise it sounds ridiculous, but it must be their democratic right to choose an undemocratic government if that is what they decide to do in a free election. I get the distinct feeling that we in the coalition would be a little uneasy with anything other than a democracy, but isn't that what democracy is all about? We must be seen to be scrupulously honest in this.
It feels to me like a free and fair election is some way away, and we have the more immediate problem of stopping the fighting. I think we need "impartial" intervention. The US and UK troops are too easily seen as the enemy. We need an alternative approach. In theory this should be the United Nations - but I'm not sure that they would be seen as any more impartial, and I'm not sure they would have the will to do it, or indeed the military werewithal without the support of the US. I'd like to glibly suggest that it would be great if the "peacekeepers" (let's call them that) could be muslim, but perhaps that's a pipedream, given the political sensitivities between the shiites and sunni muslims.
Sigh.
Major - this is bloody hard.
As you have no doubt realised, I don't have the answer, and now I seem to be just rambling.
What I will say is that if we are starting to be seen as the enemy by the very people that we went in to protect, then we are on a hiding to nothing and we need to change our approach - which is not the same thing as saying we should cut and run.
Enjoy your thanksgiving leftovers, and please everyone try and play nice.
ST
Hi DagneyT. Before you chastise someone for not paying attention, I suggest you take the trouble to check whose post you are replying to.
Thanks for your thoughts though.
Dagney...
Iraq is a mess. Any war is a mess. But this one specifically involves lots of civilian casualities and terrorists who are kidnapping civilians and beheading them. That's messy. Furthermore, I know soliders who are serving in Iraq and I do talk to them and some of them would agree that it is a mess. Our troops think for themselves and often reach conflicting opinions about the cause they are fighting for and the way it is happening, just like those of us supporting them from home.
No one here has brought up Michael Moore, so bringing him into the fray seems a bit off topic to me.
Finally, I take issue with your statement that "it is their [the Iraqis] decision" whether they want to be a democracy or not. In their recent press conference, Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush were specifically asked about their reaction to the possibility of Iraq or Palestine not becoming democratic states. Bush's reply was something to the effect of that they are having elections and it is going to be democratic because that is how it's been set up. I can't find the transcript, or I would give you his exact quote. In any case, both the response of Mr. Blair and that of Mr. Bush lead me to believe that they are not interested in a non-democratic form of government.
I am not negative in my assessment of the war on terror. I just don't believe Iraq was actually a part of the war on terror when we entered Iraq, as none of the terrorists were Iraqis and there has been no evidence of a connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Since you read the 9/11 commission report, you will already know that. Additionally, I don't think it's negative to point out that we have yet to find Bin Laden, the anthrax terrorist, or any WMDs. Those are simple facts.
Finally, I want to reiterate what Fox has already said. The best way to have others actually listen to what you have to say is to express your opinion respectfully and without personal attacks on other people, especially in a format such as a blog. Personal attacks are silly, because you know nothing about the person you are speaking with other than what they type.
Major, I appreciate your willingness to engage in debate with the other side, but I have to say that Dagney, who I see from her site you personally invited to help you fend us liberals off, has made me feel that our opinions are not truly welcome. I have a backbone and I will consistently stand up for what I believe in. However, blogging is something I do in my free time partially for fun and partially to keep informed on the diversity of opinions otu there, and reading someone personally attack me or others is not fun. Therefore, I am afraid that I may not be visiting your site anytime soon if this tone continues, as there are other sites where I can read the conservative viewpoint. I saw that both you and Fox posted responses on his blog, so hopefully the attacks there are finished. I can only hope that there will be some agreement to disagree on this blog as well.
Good luck to you all...
Hey...kids....let's get back to playing a little nicer.
Dagney was invited...as were a number of my other conservative blog friends. Not that I need the help, but I thought that they'd enjoy the reparte we've enjoyed here...at the Urban Fox' place...and other places in the blogosphere.
Just like in sports...if you play the same opponent day after day....night after night, your game tends to get a little stagnant. I want to get some fresh blood in here and some differing opinions.
Dagney...welcome aboard and I continue to welcome your participation. She's a Texas lady to be sure...perhaps a little more opinionated and less likely to sugar coat her feelings than I am, but that shouldn't be cause for her to be "dissed" to use some "urban" lingo here. Keep of the fire, ma'am.
I'm tickled as can be that people are coming to read the ramblings I've posted to date...and I think that we're getting along famously.
I'll see you on the high ground...and off to spend some quality time with MajorMom. MajorTeen's off studying...and MajorBaby's crashed for the night.
Take care...be good.
MajorDad1984
Post a Comment
<< Home