[Grovenet] Questions About Our Intentions in Iraq...
Ron D'Eau Claire
rondec at easystreet.com
Mon Feb 19 10:37:53 PST 2007
I believe we are responsible for the bloodshed and destruction in Iraq, even
the inter-tribal warfare, because we, and the other "western powers" created
Iraq nearly 100 years ago, smashing together different tribes who did not
wish to be together. We haven't had this sort of violence since then because
we kept putting brutal leaders in power, like we put Saddam in power, who
would do anything to keep order. And when they chose to take brutal actions,
such as Saddam gassing the Kurds, we first provided him with the weapons
then looked the other way saying "tsk, tsk, what a terrible man...".
But just because we are responsible doesn't mean we can prevent bloodshed
now. Maybe we can't. But the legacy will always be a shameful part of
America's history in international affairs. True, other nations are involved
too, but it's the responsibility of my country that I think about.
Contemplating leaving Iraq now is, for me, like deciding to leave a sinking
ship with people still on board because it's too dangerous or too expensive
to continue to rescue them. Once we leave, they are on their own. A few
might get lucky and swim free. Most will drown. And we stand clear a safe
distance saying "tsk, tsk, if only they would do more to save themselves..."
The President's rosy pictures of a post-invasion Iraq are promises in my
mind. I'm a marketing specialist, not a lawyer. In international affairs, we
might deal in legal issues between heads of states and governments, but
working with the public is just like running an advertising campaign here:
it's all about 'marketing' and almost nothing about legalese and contracts.
In working with clients on marketing issues, I constantly remind them that
what the ad says and what they say is not the real message. The real message
is what people *thought* they heard; what they understood. We call it the
"take away" - the impression and beliefs a person takes away from the sales
presentation. If those impressions and beliefs aren't met, the salesman
might point to a contract that says something different and escape legal
liability, but you are not likely to believe him again. That's what we did
in promising a rosy future for Iraq. The question is whether we're prepared
to deliver. I don't think we are.
As for the future of Iraq, I have no confidence that its constitution will
last a year after we leave. The insurrection there isn't about who will sit
in the congress, it's about who will assassinate the current leaders and
take over with another theocracy like Iran or another secular dictatorship
like Saddam.
As for Iraq's neighbors, they all want Iraq's oil. A weak, divided and
desperate Iraq is ripe plum for the taking.
Ron D'Eau Claire
-----Original Message-----
From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
Behalf Of allnutt
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:52 PM
To: Forest Grove local interests list
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Questions About Our Intentions in Iraq...
Let's consider the possibility that we are framing the whole reality in Iraq
in the wrong terms.
The reality in Iraq is pretty good if you look at it the right way. Iraq is
not a threat to the US because of any WMD. Iraq is a country that now has a
constitution. Iraq is a country that, in it's last election had a huge
majority of the
people cast ballots (better than the US by far).
Iraq has an elected leader (more or less).
Iraq now has over 300,000 trained army men. (More or less depending on your
definition of how trained you have to be to be 'trained'.)
Iraq has neighbors who care about the future of Iraq.
If we focus only on the problems in Iraq then things look fairly hopeless.
But if you focus on the positives then things aren't quite so bad. As a
matter of fact, it almost looks like Iraqis are starting to actually stand
up. So, it should only be a short time from now that we should be able to
stand down. We will have accomplished a lot and we can leave the country
without Saddam Hussein in charge. Iraq will be called a sovereign nation and
their people will call upon their own leaders and military to lead their
country into the future.
We need to focus on the good things that we have accomplished and then let
Iraq fulfill its destiny as the shining example of a country with a
constitution and an elected leader in the middle east. We won't be leaving
Iraq to chaos we will be leaving them to govern themselves as all countries
want to do.
I'm a bit confused about your saying that we promised the Iraqi people that
we would be responsible for building a safe and secure Iraq. Bush said that
he wanted a safe and secure Iraq but he didn't promise that we would create
one. He did strongly imply that if we just got rid of Saddam that the
Iraqis would then have a safe and secure Iraq. I don't recall that any
promises that if it didn't happen automatically that a specific country
among the coalition of the willing would be responsible for implementing it.
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that if it didn't happen automatically
that the sovereign nation of Iraq that arose out from under Saddam would be
responsible for making Iraq safe and secure?
Katie
>
>
> I didn't mention discrepancies, Ed. You must be
> confusing posts <G>.
>
> We allowed the civil war to start by
> decapitating (or just hanging)the Iraqi
> government.
>
> I think we're responsible for stopping it.
>
> I agree with you about "getting out of the way".
> That's what I said (see
> below). But I don't believe that absolves us of
> the responsibility for
> rebuilding a safe, secure Iraq. After all,
> that's what we promised the Iraqi
> people when we invaded.
>
> Like I said, it's an opportunity for the USA to
> be a world leader rather
> than a world bully.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]
> On Behalf Of Ed Davie
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Questions About Our
> Intentions in Iraq...
>
>
> Your words, not mine. A lot of discrepancies
> here.
> I don't have time to go into all of them but for
> example, the so-called insurgency appears to be
> attacking mostly their people. And whether they
> really want us to leave is debatable. As long as
> we are there they have a reason to continue the
> attacks. If we leave, who knows, they may decide
> to resolve their differences. Differences
> remaining after many centuries of "existence".
> Differences that we can't understand, much less
> even help resolve.
> We really should get out of the way. It couldn't
> make it any worse.
> Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron D'Eau Claire
> To: 'Forest Grove local interests list'
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Questions About Our
> Intentions in Iraq...
>
>
> To answer your two questions:
>
> 1) The government of the USA sent our armed
> forces to Iraq.
>
> (We can debate endlessly who within our
> government may have committed
> illegal acts in getting Congress to approve
> the
> war. Our Senators and
> Congressmen are the ones in a position to get
> answers. In terms of doing the
> right thing for the people of Iraq today, does
> why we invaded matter? If
> Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, would it have
> been
> proper for us to cart them
> off then leave the country in the hands of the
> thugs who are terrorizing the
> people there now? Most people in Iraq lived
> quite well and securely under
> Saddam's dictatorship. Those people deserve
> nothing less today. It's what we
> promised them. Do we not keep our promises?)
>
> 2) A "defeat" is what the people perceive it
> to
> be (sort of like debating
> the meaning of "was"). I define defeat as our
> enemies getting things their
> way. In this case, the insurgency wants us to
> pack up and leave the country
> to them. If we pack up and leave, they won.
> The
> "not-winner" was defeated.
> That would be us.
>
> (Note that I'm not looking for the USA to step
> forward and do it alone. We
> could, but the costs might well bankrupt us
> even
> if the American people
> allowed it. It's quite possible that no US
> troops should be in the country
> today. Perhaps no non-Islamic people, troops
> or
> contractors, should be
> there. But we are responsible for what happens
> there. It's time to change
> tactics, all right. It's time to engage people
> all over the world to help
> fix the mess we made starting with the U.N. A
> prosperous, safe Iraq free of
> the insurgency, even if not under a
> "democratic"
> government, would be a
> victory for everyone except the insurgents. I
> think that if we could do such
> a thing, it'd be a victory with huge rewards
> for
> us; it'd change the USA
> from a frightening bully who threatens others
> to
> a leader among nations who
> inspires others.)
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com
> [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of Ed Davie
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:00 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Questions About Our
> Intentions in Iraq...
>
>
> To answer that, ask how we got into Iraq?
> And what, exactly, would constitute a
> "defeat"?
> Ed
>
> If we leave, then, isn't that another defeat
> for
> America? Should we allow
> ourselves to be run out of Iraq?
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
_______________________________________________
GroveNet mailing list
GroveNet at rdrop.com
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
More information about the GroveNet
mailing list