English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

your question isn't very well put so i don't know exactly what you mean. but we went to iraq to help those people living under sadam who was horrible to them.

2006-06-15 20:41:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Not sure exactly what the question is, but think of all the miserable people that have existed at the birth or re-birth of any nation. Certainly there were miserable people during the American revolution, and look how happy we are now. Unfortunately we live in a world where more than a few have to suffer for the sake of progress. That is no excuse, it is fact. Iraq is a nation in the midst of re-birth and transformation. For every bad thing, trust me when I tell you there is more good. Each and every life on this planet is sacred, but our world is not perfect. Through continued sacrifice, perseverance, and some good old fashioned luck, one day the people of Iraq will be standing on their own two feet, thriving and prospering.

2006-06-16 09:29:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I am not sure what you are asking...
I will say however that I am thrilled for the people in Iraq that they have been liberated and no longer are under the rule of Saddam and are on their way to being a fully functional democracy in the middle east. That is absolutely huge to anyone that knows anything about the middle east and how the religions over there work.

2006-06-16 03:41:25 · answer #3 · answered by wizardslizards 4 · 0 0

Why is that some people believe that you can rise up and work all your problems over night? Let's get real here, Iraq is in mess right now, but at the same time in transition to became a better place in the future, it is in the transition that you see the mess, the killing, and the suffering. I don't know of a society that flourished in prosperity without going through tough times first.

2006-06-16 04:40:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Please think of all the innocent people that died under Saddam, and all the thousands more that would have died under the Baath party if they had stayed in power for years to come.

2006-06-16 03:43:47 · answer #5 · answered by C Bass 3 · 0 0

Try this on for size -- a report from somebody who knows Iraq:
---------------------------------
Signs of success in Iraq
by Jeff Jacoby
Townhall.com

When Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced last week that a US air strike had killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi reporters burst into cheers. It was a heartwarming -- and to American eyes, unnatural -- show of joy. Most American journalists would think it unseemly to cheer anything said at a press conference, including the news that a sadistic mass murderer had finally met his end.

Important and welcome as Zarqawi's assassination was, it didn't put a dent in the quagmire-of-the-week mindset that depicts the war as a fiasco wrapped in a scandal inside a failure. Typical of the prevailing pessimism was the glum Page One headline in The Washington Post the morning after Maliki's announcement: "After Zarqawi, No Clear Path In Weary Iraq."

Virtually from day one, the media have reported this war as a litany of gloom and doom. Images of violence and destruction dominate the TV coverage. Analysts endlessly second-guess every military and political decision. Allegations of wrongdoing by US soldiers get far more play than tales of their heroism and generosity. No wonder more than half of the public now believes that a war that ended one of the most evil dictatorships of our time was a mistake.

Some of this defeatism was inevitable, given the journalistic predisposition for bad news. ("If it bleeds, it leads.") And some of it was a function of the newsroom's left-wing bias -- many journalists oppose the war and revile the Bush administration, and their coverage often reflects that hostility.

But there have also been highly negative assessments of the war from observers who can't be accused of habitual nay saying or Bush-bashing. In a dispiriting piece that appeared on the day Zarqawi's death was announced, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that "in Iraq at the moment... savagery seems to be triumphing over decency." There may be no way to win this war without becoming as monstrous and cruel as the terrorists, he suggested, which is why "most Americans simply want to get away."

Another thoughtful commentator, The Washington Post's David Ignatius, had been even more despairing one day earlier: "This is an Iraqi nightmare," he wrote, "and America seems powerless to stop it."

But not everyone is so hopeless.

In the June issue of Commentary, veteran Middle East journalist Amir Taheri describes "The Real Iraq" as a far more promising place than the horror show of conventional media wisdom. Arriving in the United States after his latest tour of Iraq, Taheri says, he was "confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable" -- an image that "grossly... distorts the realities of present-day Iraq."

What are those realities? Drawing on nearly 40 years of observing Iraq first-hand, Taheri points to several leading indicators that he says he has always found reliable in gauging the country's true condition.

He begins with refugees. In the past, one could always tell that life in Iraq was growing desperate by the long lines of Iraqis trying to escape over the Iranian and Turkish borders. "Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003," Taheri notes, "this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets -- and we can be sure that we *would* be seeing it if it were there to be shown." Instead of fleeing the "nightmare" that Iraq has supposedly become, Iraqi refugees have been returning, more than 1.2 million of them as of last December.

A second indicator is the pilgrim traffic to the Shi'ite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Those pilgrimages all but dried up after Saddam bloodily crushed a Shi'ite uprising in 1991, and they didn't resume until the arrival of the Americans in 2003. "In 2005," writes Taheri, "the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most-visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina."

A third sign: the value of the Iraqi dinar. All but worthless during Saddam's final years, the dinar is today a safe and solid medium of exchange, and has been rising in value against other currencies. Related indicators are small-business activity, which is booming, and Iraqi agriculture, which has experienced a revival so remarkable that Iraq now exports food to its neighbors for the first time since the 1950s.

Finally, says Taheri, there is the willingness of Iraqis to speak their minds. Iraqis are very verbal, and "when they fall silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them." Such silence was not uncommon under Saddam, when many Iraqis were afraid to express any political opinion. They aren't silent now. In addition to talk radio, Internet blogs, and lively debates everywhere, "a vast network of independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100 privately owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations." Nowhere in the Arab world is freedom of expression more robust.

As Congress engages in its own wide-ranging Iraq debate this week, Taheri's essay is well worth reading. "Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy," he writes. "Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?"
-----------------------------


Bet you haven't seen anything like that in your local news, have you.

2006-06-16 10:23:11 · answer #6 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0 0

pray for them, pray that they fined peace and love and pray that one day they can walk down the street knowing that they are safe and they will reach the other side. pray that they get all the help they can get. and if you could do anything to help them, then please do cause god knows how much they need it.

2006-06-16 03:41:34 · answer #7 · answered by Yahia 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers