next time we go off on one of these "humanitarian efforts" to help a third world country under tyranny

Question

wouldn't it be a good idea to find out if those citizens who are supposedly being oppressed want us there?

i know we didn't go to iraq to kick out saddam, but people often defend the iraq war by saying we've made it better for the people in iraq. saddam may not have been the greatest guy, but at least when he ruled the country there was some stability. there's no doubt that the country is worse off now than they were before the war began.

Answer 1

here is where I get confused in the whole Iraq thing.
We go in to Iraq, first because Bush claimed Saddam possessed Nukes and "our next warning would be in the form of a mushroom cloud". Then We said he had to be stopped because he was persecuting the Shiite minority and we had to save them from the Sunni. So we get in and realize the Shiite are aligned with Iran and Al-Qaeda so we arm the Sunni's that we went in to kill so they could help us kill the Shiite we went in to save??? We also had to Save the Kurds who were also being killed and attacked by Saddam, but then Bush declares the Kurds (PKK) terrorists and they are attacking our allies in Turkey, so now we have to kill them too??,, So why exactly are we there again, and who are we saving??
Its ridiculous-we have killed 100,000 civilians, and there is a website that had Iraqi children's profiles on it, The two things that stood out were
1.They all wanted to be doctors
2. They said the thing they hate the most is "The Americans, for attacking their country
So we have succeeded in creating the next wave of terrorists as well
Now we are building the biggest most opulent embassy in the world, and 2/3rds of Iraqis don't have electricity or clean drinking water, yeah we've done a great job..

Answer 2

You know, I could have a 40% Best Answer ratio if I didn't feel compelled to respond to questions like this.

You think the people were generally better off under Saddam? That's pretty funny. Consider this:

1) Under Saddam, you could only feel relatively safe and secure if you a member of the (minority) Baathist party. If you were a successful Sunni, some powerful Baath party member would invent some excuse to steal everything you have. Oh yes, they were better off under Saddan!

2) There are numerous stories of women being grabbed off the street by guards of Saddam's sons. One of the two sons would then rape the women. In one well documented case, the woman was married to a lieutenient in Saddam's army, showing that rank was no insurance against the Hussein family's despotism.

3) Olympic athletes who did not perfrom well were tortured by Qusay, one of Saddam's sons. There was no joy in representing Iraq back then. Now, Iraqi athletes can hold their heads high. They are an enviable minority in the corrupt Middle East. They are citizens of a legitimate democracy.

4) Hussein and his family appropriated much of the country's wealth for themselves, meaning that the typical Iraqi could never share in his country's economy, and even if he somehow became successful, one of Hussein's henchmen would eventually get jealous and take it all away, brutally.

5) Many parts of Iraq never had a decent school room, reliable electricity, or even a sewage system (!!!) before we arrived. That has all changed. So don't tell me people were better off with Saddam.

6) If you were a Kurd, you lived only through the continued protection of our "no fly zone". Otherwise, Saddam would have eventually put an end to their opposition to his corrupt rule. Ask any Kurd which country they love, and they will tell you the USA.

7) For the entire population, never being able to make your own decisions, elect your own leaders, and direct your own life meant not living a full life. People were completely subservient to the whims of Saddam. Don't you think that even a gilded cage (for the lucky few) is still a cage? For the great majority, life under Saddam meant never being able to even talk freely with neighbors, or fearing that some neighbor would wrongly accuse you of being against Saddam. If someone reported you to the Secret Police, you probably weren't ever coming home again. It was just like under Communism in Eastern Europe. Neighbors routinely avoided one another. They simply couldn't take the risk of being friendly and making some off-hand comment that would destroy their lives.

Whatever transitory difficulties the Iraqis are facing, remember this: they are a legitimate democracy. They drafted their own Constitution, elected their own leaders, wrote their own laws, created their own police force, and can be proud that, unlike people who are considered to ignorant and backwards to rule themselves, they are pioneering democracy in the Middle East.

In due time, the Iraqi government will be strong enough to handle its own internal affairs, and the terrorism will be largely eradicated. Don't assume these people are so volatile and irrational that they can't handle democracy. They can.

Answer 3

Back slid'n all the way up the hill G Bush?
"History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake," Bush said. "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_o...


If I am not mistaken, Bin Laden is not a threat to the US. So why on earth would G Bush use him like this?


Just goes to show how much this man is a lier!

Somebody prove me wrong please, come on cons rep, answer the question...

Did he just not lie to the world? To his country? To his fellow man?

Yes or No?

If War Denial is dangerous, then Bin Laden must be a threat! It would be nice if this so called man made up his mind for the better of our troops!

Sorry Bas;lkj;

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApTO.2oRecZ_GY0sB6b3LATQ7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071101150937AAd7Fuc

I posted a question on yahoo Q/A form and figured this would be some great ammo vs G Bush.


Sending it to you if you want to use it, feel free.

Answer 4

No, certainly not. A single global language would decimate world culture, eliminate industries, and cost an unfathomable amount of time and money. Not to mention, the question of what language would be chosen (Mandarin is, after all, the most spoken language).

Answer 5

I don't remember Iraqis taking to the streets in protest for their government, or Iraq not having access by internet or phone... as was the case in Burma. The United Nations is the biggest piece of crap that has existed in terms of world organizations.

Answer 6

The next time we go off on one of these Humanitarian efforts... it should be right here to help our oppressed and hungry citizens instead of sending trillions of dollars to countries that will never appreciate it to begin with.

Answer 7

What??? You mean there aren't daily parades int eh streets there??? Throwing roses and chocolates at our troops and begging to kiss their asses?

Thats what I remember being told would happen. All that oil would pay for the war....I want my money back if you can prove it's not!!!

Answer 8

I'm wondering how many people in the US are going without because we are spending money in Iraq that we should be spending to fix problems here. Wouldn't that be a good idea?

Answer 9

The people of Iraq are beggining to experience the benefits of our hero's work and they are very pleased we are there.

Answer 10

Have you been there? I think there are many that have actually experienced the country would strongly disagree.