So, after twelve years of sanctions that kept Saddam Hussein in power by giving him the ability to decide who starves and who lives, the US has liberated Iraq. That, after a decade of shamelessly supporting the dictator through to worst of his atrocities.
Now that Iraqis will have freedom of speech and the press (they will, right?), it seems to me that the most useful thing that people in the US who want Iraq to be a real democracy can do is: shut up and listen. I include myself among the people who should do this: if democracy will happen, it will come from the people of Iraq, and nowhere else.
From my standpoint, the most important priority (besides providing food and water) is to make sure that voices from Iraq--particularly those not on the US payroll--get heard as widely as possible. That will make it possible to help create a democracy in Iraq.
As it stands, actual democracy in Iraq would mean a vast Kurdish and Shi'ite majority, which means stronger ties with Iran, and a threat to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In other words: the US is not likely to let that happen. There is no precedent that suggests democracy as an outcome, as long as the US (much less Bush) has control.
This, in turn, means that anyone (pro- or anti-war) who has the well-being of the Iraqi people in mind will listen to Iraq, and watch the Bush administration very closely.
Actually, anyone in the press watching the Bush administration with something other than drooling adulation would be a good start. I won't even mention the Democrats. It's not as though they're being subtle about using Iraq as a way to convert taxpayer's money into corporate profits.
And there's this: StopJayGarner.com
Man am I really happy that you live in Canada. Please stay there. Your anti-american propaganda is oozing with hatred for the U.S.
"Your anti-american propaganda is oozing with hatred for the U.S."
no shit.
also, this blog has been one of the best over the last few weeks.
I guess I feel obligated to point out that I'm an American citizen who lived in the US for the first 18 years of my life. Also, I'm going to be living in the good ole US of A for the summer (lucky you!)
While I hesitate to use the word "hate", I am indeed extremely frustrated with many political institutions in the US, including the press and the presidency. But it's important to distinguish between this and hating a whole country. The things I love about the US greatly outnumber the things I dislike about it.
I think one would be hard pressed to find more than a few instances of the reflexive hatred of everything American that right wingers talk about constantly.
In the end, it's a matter of definitions. If by "hate", one means "understand", then it is indeed my goal to hate the US.
Hmm, I think hating one's country (and others, too) is way underrated, perhaps especially in the American case.
I thought the whole fucking point of being an American was that freedom and liberty thing? Shurely that includes the right to hate, as a matter of principle, not only the policies and acts of one's government (but then it not being one's government in any real sense is most of the problem) but the attitudes and opinions of many of one's fellow citizens.
No one who attacks other's for "hating the country" ever takes the time to explain why that's such a bad thing, what harm it does, and to whom. I remain completely unconvinced of the general utility of (what is the range of alternatives here?) "loving one's country". That a country (a government? a state? an administration) is the sort of thing one should, prima facie, love...shurely this demands justification.
Dru. Let me rephrase what I said about your hatred for the U.S. Maybe you can plausibly make the argument that your are frustrated about some of the policies of our government, but when attack the actions of our government just because it is a republican "right wing" regime, you lose credibility. You cannot present an intellectual argument against our country protecting itself from future mass terrorist attacks on our soil. That is what this war is about; changing the face of the middle-east! In the past, before 9-11, I was content to explore diplomacy with regards to the Islraeli/Palestinian conflict and with countries the conflict has affected i.e. THE ENTIRE MUSLIM MIDDLE_EAST. When those towers fell, diplomacy was no longer the first response option. Obviously, they will only respect showing our strength. I am very sad that the majority of the middle-east equates strength with the ability to effect violence. They have asked for violence and they have gotten it. The government controlled media in these countries have incited great hatred for the U.S. I for one, am extremely grateful that George Bush has had the courage to fight this veritable plague of evil head-on, in spite of hard-core opposition. Incidently, I voted for Bill Clinton. Twice. Today, I am somewhat regretting those decisions although at the time, I did what I felt was right. I would not blindly go with one party or the other. Today, the rhetoric of bleeding-heart liberals, like you DRU, are chasing the middle away, to the right. Mainly because you are choosing the wrong side and trying your best to justify it with long-winded intellectual arguments that just don't hold weight when it comes to the security of our country, and our children's future. The democratic party is in real trouble and I am afraid it may be for some time to come. That worries me because our country does best when it is somewhat balanced in the middle. I know that you would rather it be a socialist state, and I am sure people like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, would like it to be ulta-conservative. Neither are good.
Tony,
I stopped reading your post when I got to this sentence: "You cannot present an intellectual argument against our country protecting itself from future mass terrorist attacks on our soil."
I guess that shows your narrow mindedness and unwillingness to believe that a viscious dictator, who has a history of hate towards the U.S., could or would attck us, either directly or indirectly, if given half of a chance. I think you are either naive, or a staunch liberal, using this issue to attack a republican administration. Hmmm. Maybe a little of both.
hahahaha. *I'm* being narrow minded?!
So if he's such a threat, why did we support him for decades, give him chemical weapons, and then keep him in power when we could have supported the popular rebellions?