Mandela's Autobiography and Steve Biko.

[Theja]

The suffering of the Iraqi people was caused by Saddam and associates. Post Saddam, the suffering of the Iraqi people are being caused by terrorists and former Saddam loyalists.

George Bush did a great thing in liberating the Iraqi people. It is the Iraqi people who are unwilling to live in peace and prosperity with each other.

Regardless of the outcome, Mandela was shortsighted in not speaking for the oppressed under Saddam. Good thing South Africa was more humane in that he was kept alive even in jail. Under Saddam he would have disappeared long ago.

[ches]

Originally Posted by Theja

The suffering of the Iraqi people was caused by Saddam and associates. Post Saddam, the suffering of the Iraqi people are being caused by terrorists and former Saddam loyalists.

George Bush did a great thing in liberating the Iraqi people. It is the Iraqi people who are unwilling to live in peace and prosperity with each other.

I'm sorry, Theja, but you're sticking your head in the sand and regurgitating the party line. Blaming "terrorists" (the current party line is "muslim extremists," btw) for the direct consequences of the US invasion is not patriotism, it's a sham and I can see through it. Regardless of Saddam Hussein's atrocities, "regular" Iraqis did not fear for their lives on a daily basis, which they do now. Hussein kept "terrorists" at bay while also keeping liberty at bay.

At the least have the courage to say "we did this right, and we did this wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it."

[Theja]

.... Saddam kept the terrorists at bay? He ruled the nation with the terrorists. It is these terrorists who are terrified of sharing power with others on equal footing.

Anyway, we will always disagree on this, so there it is.

It is very easy for cowards to look back and criticize.


Looking at history, Germany knew it was defeated, admitted its wrong, and with the help of America called the Marshall Plan, became the richest nation in Europe now --- the number three in the world.

Besides the terrorists, it seems the fanatical Muslims are also not into rebuilding the nation in the way we look at it.

[ches]

Originally Posted by Theja

.... Saddam kept the terrorists at bay? He ruled the nation with the terrorists. It is these terrorists who are terrified of sharing power with others on equal footing.

Anyway, we will always disagree on this, so there it is.

Theja, you can only have a difference of opinion, not a difference of fact. You are wrong. The majority of terrorists in Iraq right now are not Iraqi citizens. They are terrorists who have come to Iraq to fight the Americans, presumably because post-911 it is harder to get into America to fight Americans.

Saddam was not a devout Muslim. He was secular, enjoyed alcohol, and was not at all the champion of theologist Muslims. All he cared about was pertetualizing his own luxury and power. There are very few remaining members of his government who had any clout who are not already captured or killed. Ther terrorists remain at large, because there is one getting into the country for every one who kills himself (and others) or is captured or killed.

George W. Bush is not Jesus; he's not perfect. He even sometimes admits his mistakes.

[Theja]

Who is cooperating and giving shelter to these terrorists?

Yes, some foreigners are coming in, but the Saddam loyalists too have turned terrorists, that's what I mean.

[ches]

Originally Posted by Theja

Who is cooperating and giving shelter to these terrorists?

Yes, some foreigners are coming in, but the Saddam loyalists too have turned terrorists, that's what I mean.

By your logic, you could say that the US, through not maintaining the borders, is cooperating by letting terrorists into the country. That's a counter-productive form of reasoning, however.

Iraq post-invasion was a free-for-all; the natural anarchic response to a lifetime of totalitarian suffering. The invasion planned for winning the war, not winning the peace. The invasion force was not sufficient to rule the country with essentially the same iron fist of the Hussein era, though this time a benevolent iron fist that gradually transitioned to democracy while maintaining order. It was bad planning at worst, and careless at best. Or should that be the other way around?

Blaming "terrorists" is a cop-out, because the terrorists weren't there before, but they're sure there now. If they all "turned terrorist," then you must surely blame the mechanism that caused their turn, and this was the invasion and subsequent disarray (probably more the disarray than the invasion). All roads lead to taking responsibility for your actions. Fortunately, Condoleeza Rice agrees.