On Fox News today the Talking heads were going at it and the following question was asked.

Question: If the war ends with minimal civilian casualties, a democracy takes hold, and Middle East peace and relations are stabilized would you think that this operation is a success?

Answer: NO

Some people just bewilder me.

Books are good for something. They teach us that democracy experiments only succeed in countries with longstanding, established institutions that are adaptable to change and democracy. Democracy cannot not just be installed and expected to work immediately, if at all. Actually, only forced authoritarian control over a long period of time will allow democracy to take hold in Iraq.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Oh brother


Once again you both just proved my point, read the original post and shoot again.


Enga, Are you off your rocker? Equating Saudi with Iraq is generalizing drivel.

Criticize the Government in Iraq you get you tongue cut out and bleed to death in the street. Does that happen in Saudi?

I will not even spend the time to elaborate on both of your stupid rhetoric. I've been to NASA does that make me a rocket scientist?



WOW Dhead did you learn that in the 6th or 7th year?

RS,
calm down, I'm not disagreeing with you. It would be very successful. I realized that you said "if democracy takes hold." It's just not that easy, but I think it can be done if we don't expect a fast transition. It needs to be implemented properly. I don't know why that's rhetoric. Oh, and that's funny, I graduated in four.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

- I deleted the first reply because after reading it this morning I did not feel it was applicable. Anyway, I will stick with the notion that yes - Saudi, Iran and Iraq are all pretty much the same when it comes to oppression of the people and the way they run the government. The "meddling" of the US will only make those folks hate us more. Some of these countries may be a little bit harder/harsher than others but they follow the code of the Koran and it is pretty straight forward in punishment issues. If we want to go around the world getting rid of dictators and setting up democracies why didn't we start with Cuba? They are only 90 miles away from Key West, Fla. The only reason I can figure is that they do not have any natural resources that we want. Is the US's purpose to govern the world in only "select" countries? I hate to think it is.

Here is some interesting reading for anyone that wants to look at a point of view other than what is spit out by the media - cnn/fox, etc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpibr043205509apr04,0,7471020.story?coll=ny%2Dviewpoints%2Dheadlines

Ya'll keep in mind - I do not watch tv news anymore because of all the BS they put out.

Tank - I can't believe you called me the L word. I am not a liberal.

__________________
Jim

The New York Times Week in Review today has two good articles about Iraq after the war. They are VERY moderate, not critical of the effort, not liberal. They'd be a good read. One is by Friedman (he's pretty pro-war), one is about the oil situation. There's one about Jessica Lynch which is good, and another on the starving Iraqis which is also a good read. Oh, excellent little article on Cuba also.

Jim,
I agree with the poor quality of the TV news coverage, but I watch it anyway. I never turn to those channels for quality analysis. Regarding Cuba, there's an article in the Week in Review section that discusses Cuba and the difficulties we had there during Kennedy.

Sorry I can't link to these articles, you need a user account. If you don't have one, it's worth setting up. Even if you're a rabid conservative, what they have is worth reading and considering. You may not agree, but often times (not always), their arguments and articles are extremely eloquent and substantive in writing, and offer facts and substantial theory to back up the point they're trying to make.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

First, on the subject of media, I spend a lot of time getting my news from various international news sources just to see what they're saying. Here's a link to a good source: Mario's Cyberspace Station

You want unbiased news? Make it yourself. Here's a recipe:

Take everything you have been taught, add what you have learned by life experience, mix with common sense, logic, emotion and every shred of information available. Allow to marinate in your brain until a head forms. Remove solid facts from liquid concepts, use what works for you, and store what remains for later use. Repeat as often as required.

The point is that there isn't any source of unbiased news. Everyone has an opinion on any topic, and that opinion is biased. Even an opinion formed by looking at both sides of an issue and trying to make a logical and informed decision about what your opinion of that issue is, can be called biased. Why? because we all see things differently based upon personal life experience, our own values, and what we see as being correct and/or proper.

You want to see something weird? This, in my opinion is weird:

War Crimes

And I say it's weird, because I find it strange that there is so much factual reference to laws, treaties, agreements, accords, and various other legalities. But then, there's the body of this article, which is absolutely biased propaganda that has no basis in fact at all. But I suppose that any source of information can be educational.

I watched a piece on CNN last night that featured Winston S. Churchill, grandson of the WWII British Prime Minister. I was astounded by his insight. Someone else here, having seen the exact same broadcast, might feel that he was an idiot who knew nothing, and had nothing to contribute to the discussion. Or that CNN only had him on because his grandfather was famous.

Then, on the other hand, we have the Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. He is clearly the most inaccurate single news source in the world today. Yet, many people actually believe him when he claims that it is our government that is deceiving our people through trickery, and that the images we show on TV were produced in Hollywood. "There are no American soldiers at the Saddam International airport. I will take you there on Saturday, and show you personally".



I hope he knows that as long as he's wearing that uniform, he's a legitimate military target.

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."

Good point Scott and it seems that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf needs to walk outside and take a look around doesn't it.

It opened my eyes alot when I lived and worked overseas (and watched the local news on the single government run tv channel) and it made me thankful to live in America. I would recommend to anyone that if the opportunity ever presents itself to live/work overseas as a civilian to take it. It is most definitely an eye opening experience once you live amoungst the people and see the world from their point of view. I don't claim to be an expert on middle eastern affairs but I did live in the middle east long enough to understand and respect the values and beliefs of the Muslim people.

I actually sat down and watched 60 minutes this evening and heard for the first time the use of the term "Arab-American" war. I'm kinda in DH's camp when it comes to being very concerned about the can of worms we have opened. The people in the middle eastern countries are watching their local news that is making the US look bad and to me it is not at all hard to understand why the hatred of the US in that region will increase. Don't get me wrong I support American troops but do not believe we have any business being over there. So what if in Iraq they cut the tongue out of people that speak out against the government? Which is worse - getting your tongue cut out in Iraq or getting beaten 1/2 to death and then starved in a Saudi jail. What happens to the Cubans who speak out against their government? I'm sure it is along the same lines but we are not trying to liberate Cuba are we. Oh yea, I have lived among Cuban people in the US in south Fla and in my opinion they were some of the finest people I have ever run accross.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that this is probably going to, in the mind of the people that live in the middle eastern countries, turn into a holy war because the Arab states see Muslims getting killed. They believe strongly in the saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Again, I have lived there and as long as these people are left alone they will leave you alone. The reason the World Trade center buildings got crashed into was because of the hatred toward the US for the meddling in the region (I guess you could consider a jetliner a "weapon of mass destruction" in that situation). It is unfortunate that we are probably setting ourselves up for more of this type of terrorist activity. I still have not seen any mention of the army uncovering any large manufacturing or storage facilities of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Maybe they showed it on the news that I don't watch.

Folks this ain't about freeing the people of Iraq. This is about controlling the SECOND LARGEST oil reserves in the world and reducing/eliminating the power of OPEC. If they did not have any oil we would not be over there "liberating" them from Saddam. Even one of those US government officials they interviewed on 60 minutes this evening mentioned the "vast resources" that we will have control over. I guess you could say we "win" when the oil companies get settled in but I have the uneasy feeling that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

__________________
Jim

Jim, your feelings echo mine but in a more pessimistic way. This operation we have begun in Iraq is not a doomed experiment. Far from it. We have the opportunity to enhance our standings with the Muslim world. Today in the NY Times there was an article about the starving people who welcomed the food rations issued by American troops on the move. Despite the language barrier, the people have been able have adopted the universal sign language of rubbing their stomachs or pointing to their mouths. Many of them offered up their Dinars in the hopes that Americans would welcome the chance to trade some food for a war memento. The people hate America largely because they have been trained to. We see this as an American war IN Iraq. They see it as an American war ON Iraq. One little letter, big difference in meaning (Tom Friedman wrote about this). We have this great opportunity to establish a mutally beneficial partnership with the Arab world. We probably won't though. We'll encounter international opposition, and face financial burdens that we won't want to bear.

With regards to oil, Bush has constantly said that the oil is the Iraqi's. I don't believe him for a second. However, I remain optomistic and believe that an equal partnership with Iraq could be mutually beneficial.

When the war is over and the fighting has stopped, there will be an American military government temporarily (we hope) installed. I have no doubt about this. This will be the sensitive time. The media will attempt to further polarize the Arab middle eastern world against us. This is the time when the situation will be most delicate. There have been talks of military action against Syria and Iran based purely on accusations. If these actions are taken, the Arab image of America will be worsened even more.

The only way for this to work out well is for Bush to allow EQUAL bids allowed for oil control by ALL international firms, and if we work along side, in equality, with Arab leadership to establish stability in Iraq. The Arab empire, once proud and strong, has been steadily demoralized and marginalized for the past many decades. Our occupation MUST appear equal and fair in nature, and we must commit everything, all our resources, to make life for the Arab people better. If we don't, things will collapse.

9/11 happened because the poor terrorists, naive as they are, were taught to believe that America was the one to force the Arab world to be one of have-nots. Partial truth, partial lie. International politics, anarchic in character, and human nature have allowed the strong to rape the poor. The Arab world was a casualty (I don't believe it is all our fault though, far from it). Arab peoples without voices and without representation, in their search for an explanation, were easy targets for the teachings of extremists who sought to place blame entirely on America.

Again, the after war period will be a steep uphill struggle, but the opportunity is there. We just need to approach it with care, caution and prudence. Largely, the people in the Muslim world have been manipulated by both the West AND their own leaders equally. We have an opportunity to show them Arab world that we mean well. Will we take it? Arab consensus says no (consensus is manipulated by the lies told by their meda). We need to make every effort to prove otherwise.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Watch out for the media.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by engatwork
> I'm kinda in DH's camp when it comes to being very concerned about the can of worms we have opened.

Worms we can handle, just go fishin'.

>and to me it is not at all hard to understand why the hatred of the US in that region will increase.

The only people I see thinking this way either:

a) Hate themselves
b) Hate the US
c) Hate Bush

which is it with you?

>Don't get me wrong I support American troops but do not believe we have any business being over there.

Why is it not in our interest to stabilize a region where we buy lots of product that is essential to our economy?

Why is it not in our interest to eliminate WMDs in the hands of terrorists or terrorist states that openly brag that they would use them if given half a chance?

> I'm sure it is along the same lines but we are not trying to liberate Cuba are we.

This is the "everybody does it argument". So if we catch a serial killer, we should let him go because we can't catch them all? You would have the US consistently wrong instead of occassionally right?


>Muslims getting killed.

Are you upset with Muslims getting killed or only when they are being killed by "whitey"?

Let me see if I can keep track of my count so far:

800,000 Pakistanis killed by Pakistan in 8 MONTHS in 1971

20,000 Syrians killed in a WEEK by Syria in 1982

1.5 million Afghans killed by the Taliban in 5 YEARS

200,000 Iragis killed by Saddam in 1988

5000 Palistinians killed by Jordan in 1 MONTH in 1970

300,000 Palistinians ethnically cleansed by Kuwait in 1991

Your concern for Muslims does not ring true.


> as long as these people are left alone they will leave you alone.

If they don't, we'll have to keep squishing them.

>Folks this ain't about freeing the people of Iraq.

Yes it is, among other things.

>This is about controlling the SECOND LARGEST oil reserves in the world and reducing/eliminating the power of OPEC.

This oil belongs to the Iraqi people.

> I guess you could say we "win" when the oil companies get settled in but I have the uneasy feeling that this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

What an odd position to be rooting for.

CJ,
I was refering to Arab media as the polarizing force, not American media. For whatever problems people think American media and new coverage has, media in the Middle East is way more propagandized. My mistake, I didn't specify which one.

Alex

__________________
1983 300D (parked for four years)
2012 VW Sportwagen TDI Manual
2001 Miata SE
1962 Chevrolet Corvair Rampside

Thanks for clearing all that up Glen. I guess you would have to live over there for awhile to see it from a different perspective than what cnn shows.

__________________
Jim