Taken for granted.
- Invasion Iraq: 3 Years Later - MSNBC.com
This is just my opinion, but I'd say that approximately 52% of the people who voted take their freedom for granted. Life before the invasion plain-old sucked (according to the reporter's accounts). Life after the invasion isn't much better, if at all, to be sure. However, the POTENTIAL for a good life has increased.
Iraq under Saddam was stagnant and oppressive. Iraq now is dynamic and free. Too free. Plans should have already been made to account for the insurgence. If they were, then they haven't done all that good of a job yet. Why would personal security during Saddam's reign have been so good, but now shitty? What was the factor? Fear? Consistent suicide bombings and other similar terrorist actions would indicate that people there (a good enough percentage) don't fear death, or at least have a poor conception for cherishing life. Most of the insurgents are Sunnis. So do only Sunnis have this kamikaze streak? Apparently the Kurds and Shiites don't, because if they did they could've wreaked havoc in Saddam's Iraq many years ago. Or maybe they tried but were effectively suppressed. Through fear of death? We've already established that cannot be the case--based off of insurgency now (Sunnis), and assuming an attempted insurgency way back when (the rest). So oppression isn't the answer.
If it is only the Sunnis (not all of them) that have this kamikaze streak, that would explain most everything. What else could be used to quell the insurgency? Better border control? Satellite observation? These insurgents are getting into Iraq somehow. They aren't having Scotty beam them over. If they are using tunnels, then create a half-mile (or full mile) buffer, so that building a tunnel would be harder to do. Clamp down on the border first, then focus on eradicating the problems that remains internal. Just a suggestion.
Back to the topic at hand. 52% of respondents on this MSNBC poll think Iraqis have it worse. In the short term, perhaps. But any true change doesn't come easy. Remember: Hitler gained power (relatively) peacefully, but he had to be ousted by violence. And a lot of it. More lives were lost getting rid of him than getting rid of Saddam. And those lives were for the preservation of freedom (and life in Hitler's case) for everyone. People died for this 52%, so they could agree or disagree with whatever they want. And they're dying now, so another oppressed people can do the same thing.
The ONLY reason we think the war in Iraq is going so badly is because the media is painting it that way. Period. Iraqis are free. Scared to death, but free. All things do pass, though; and eventually they will find their place in the world. Stuff still happens in Afghanistan, but you almost NEVER hear about what's going on there. Why? It was a relative success, so let's just forget about it and focus on what we're considering a "failure?"
This is just my opinion, but I'd say that approximately 52% of the people who voted take their freedom for granted. Life before the invasion plain-old sucked (according to the reporter's accounts). Life after the invasion isn't much better, if at all, to be sure. However, the POTENTIAL for a good life has increased.
Iraq under Saddam was stagnant and oppressive. Iraq now is dynamic and free. Too free. Plans should have already been made to account for the insurgence. If they were, then they haven't done all that good of a job yet. Why would personal security during Saddam's reign have been so good, but now shitty? What was the factor? Fear? Consistent suicide bombings and other similar terrorist actions would indicate that people there (a good enough percentage) don't fear death, or at least have a poor conception for cherishing life. Most of the insurgents are Sunnis. So do only Sunnis have this kamikaze streak? Apparently the Kurds and Shiites don't, because if they did they could've wreaked havoc in Saddam's Iraq many years ago. Or maybe they tried but were effectively suppressed. Through fear of death? We've already established that cannot be the case--based off of insurgency now (Sunnis), and assuming an attempted insurgency way back when (the rest). So oppression isn't the answer.
If it is only the Sunnis (not all of them) that have this kamikaze streak, that would explain most everything. What else could be used to quell the insurgency? Better border control? Satellite observation? These insurgents are getting into Iraq somehow. They aren't having Scotty beam them over. If they are using tunnels, then create a half-mile (or full mile) buffer, so that building a tunnel would be harder to do. Clamp down on the border first, then focus on eradicating the problems that remains internal. Just a suggestion.
Back to the topic at hand. 52% of respondents on this MSNBC poll think Iraqis have it worse. In the short term, perhaps. But any true change doesn't come easy. Remember: Hitler gained power (relatively) peacefully, but he had to be ousted by violence. And a lot of it. More lives were lost getting rid of him than getting rid of Saddam. And those lives were for the preservation of freedom (and life in Hitler's case) for everyone. People died for this 52%, so they could agree or disagree with whatever they want. And they're dying now, so another oppressed people can do the same thing.
The ONLY reason we think the war in Iraq is going so badly is because the media is painting it that way. Period. Iraqis are free. Scared to death, but free. All things do pass, though; and eventually they will find their place in the world. Stuff still happens in Afghanistan, but you almost NEVER hear about what's going on there. Why? It was a relative success, so let's just forget about it and focus on what we're considering a "failure?"
posted by xanadian at 11:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home