Will Anything Good Ever Come From The U.S. Invasion of Iraq

[Fashion Lad!]

Yes, actually, it does. It's almost exactly like someone in an abusive relationship. They can't move on until they're ready, and your interference can just really fuck things up more, and to think you can "fix" them without their desire is the height of arrogance.

Umm...

I don't know about that one. Some people are in an abusive relationship but do not have the means to move on even with the desire to do so. Wow. I cannot believe you took such a simplistic approach. Of all people, you took a simplistic approach.

[Kalli]

Umm...

I don't know about that one. Some people are in an abusive relationship but do not have the means to move on even with the desire to do so. Wow. I cannot believe you took such a simplistic approach. Of all people, you took a simplistic approach.

Actually, I think it's a perfect analogy. There's nothing simplistic about it. Both situations are equally complex and sensitive in their own scale.

Saying that people in an abusive relationship DO want to move on but don't have the "means" is erroneous. It's far, far more likely that they haven't gotten to a place where they are ready to be helped. If they DO want to move on, they will. If they haven't, it's likely because they don't want to yet.

In either case, butting in to help unasked can be extremely damaging and dangerous.

[Fashion Lad!]

Saying that people in an abusive relationship DO want to move on but don't have the "means" is erroneous. It's far, far more likely that they haven't gotten to a place where they are ready to be helped. If they DO want to move on, they will. If they haven't, it's likely because they don't want to yet.

There is such a thing as being beaten down to the point where you feel you're worthless and no one else will love you so you have to put up with the pain. Would you say those people that have been beaten down to that point shouldn't be saved? Are they just not ready to be saved? Are we just going to let the black angel take them away from the situation that we could have pulled them out of because we don't want to be seen as arrogant?

How were the Iraqi people going to escape Saddam and take back their own country if he ruled the military?

[Kalli]

There is such a thing as being beaten down to the point where you feel you're worthless and no one else will love you so you have to put up with the pain. Would you say those people that have been beaten down to that point shouldn't be saved? Are they just not ready to be saved? Are we just going to let the black angel take them away from the situation that we could have pulled them out of because we don't want to be seen as arrogant?

How were the Iraqi people going to escape Saddam and take back their own country if he ruled the military?

That's not the point being made with the analogy. The point being made is that unless the people actually really want a change of regime, it will not stick once the intrusive party has gone, just the same way that a victim of an abusive relationship won't maintain the changes suggested by an intrusive party once THEY have gone.

[Fashion Lad!]

That's not the point being made with the analogy. The point being made is that unless the people actually really want a change of regime, it will not stick once the intrusive party has gone, just the same way that a victim of an abusive relationship won't maintain the changes suggested by an intrusive party once THEY have gone.

Well, then your analogy isn't a very good one. The Iraqi government is taking over, letting their citizens vote in free elections. The Iraqi troops being trained by the U.S. and coalition forces are taking over their own land, slowly but surely.

[BroomJockey]

The Iraqi troops being trained by the U.S. and coalition forces are taking over their own land, slowly but surely.

Yes, because the US troops are still there. What's to say that it isn't all taken over by someone else the millisecond you're gone? Again, the analogy is that once that inserted support is gone, they revert to old ways. Unless you've some magic crystal ball, I think you're merely being optimistic about the situation.

[Gravekeeper]

I thought it was a rather good analogy to be honest.

Raps is right though, most people just want to live stable lives regardless of whose in power. Saddam was a gigantic asshole, yeah, but the country was stable, you had food, water and electricity and no one was trying to blow you the fuck up because Saddam actually kept groups like Al Qaeda *out* of the country. Long as you kept your trap shut and didn't badmouth glorious leader you could get on with your life.

Now you have to worry about being randomly blown up or shot on a daily basis, are lucky to have electricity for more than a few hours a day and have to live with a foreign army in your backyard that in all honesty isn't known for its courtesy or respect for other cultures. Oh but hey! You can vote now!

Not surprising most of them don't see this as a step up. -.-

[Nyoibo]

*snippy*
You do realise that Saddam wasn't a particularly incompetent leader? He was making some progress towards modernising Iraq in a secular way. He appeared occasionally in images praying, but he wasn't a particularly religious person. Part of his policies were to ensure a future for Iraq without dependency on outside financial aid. Not everyone suffered.
Rapscallion

He was actually an extremely competent leader and moved Iraq forward immensly, read up on his earlier life, he did a hell of a lot of good for Iraq like modernising agriculture, increasing literacy, abolishing Sharia law as the governing law, he even helped the cause of womens rights.

[Kalli]

Well, then your analogy isn't a very good one. The Iraqi government is taking over, letting their citizens vote in free elections. The Iraqi troops being trained by the U.S. and coalition forces are taking over their own land, slowly but surely.

Wasn't my analogy, but it's still very valid for the point he was making. You can't just take an analogy and debunk it based on the fact that it doesn't correlate on a completely seperate point for which it was made.

[Fashion Lad!]

Yes, because the US troops are still there. What's to say that it isn't all taken over by someone else the millisecond you're gone? Again, the analogy is that once that inserted support is gone, they revert to old ways. Unless you've some magic crystal ball, I think you're merely being optimistic about the situation.

And who's to say you're right? You're north of me, which the last time I checked was very far west of Iraq. Maybe you're pessimistic.

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't smart. But would you want to live there with that man as your leader?

I'm sticking with the analogy was horrible at best. Unless you consider brainwashing as justification to stay in your current prediciment.

[Nyoibo]

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't smart. But would you want to live there with that man as your leader?

The Saddam of 20 or so years ago, no wouldn't mind.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't smart. But would you want to live there with that man as your leader?

Whether or not I want to live there is irrelevant since I have a choice ( Hide in Canada >.> ). The Iraqi's don't.

As I pointed out already, what do you think they perfer?

Living under Saddam where you just had to keep your mouth shut and you could live a stable life with food, water, power and no threat of random explody death.

or

Living with a foreign army that blew your country up and who doesn't give a rat's ass about your culture or way of life. Where you may only get so many hours of electricity a day. Obtaining food and water could be problematic depending where you live. If you venture out for it there's a chance of you being randomly shot or blown up by one of the terrorist groups that followed the US to Iraq or by insurgent groups that formed because the US overthrew Saddam.

If I had to choose I'd take option A thanks. Saddam might be an asshole, but he provided stability and security. Which is all most people really want and which is why historically the US has had shit and all luck trying to influence or forcibly changed other countries.

Like it or not, democracy is not for everyone.

[Fashion Lad!]

Whether or not I want to live there is irrelevant since I have a choice ( Hide in Canada >.> ). The Iraqi's don't.

Iraqis didn't have the choice under Saddam. They were terrified of him. That's no way for anyone to live. I text one of my friend at work, his parents are living in Iraq, he moved to the U.S. roughly 2 years ago. He calls me "Ben-o" I like him, he makes me laugh. I asked him what he thought about the war in Iraq.

He told me this, "overthrowing Saddam was the best thing that could have happened. The worst was when Bush failed to delivery on his promises to rebuild Iraq and the killed Iraqis. Saddam is gone. Saddam is gone and people are happy about that."

Did you forget?

[Gravekeeper]

I text one of my friend at work, his parents are living in Iraq, he moved to the U.S. roughly 2 years ago.

So he doesn't have to live there in other words.

The worst was when Bush failed to delivery on his promises to rebuild Iraq and the killed Iraqis.

...he *did* fail.

But, sure, hear say evidence from a single guy you know at work. Well, I'm convinced!

Did you forget?

Did I forget what? The single most staged photo op in the history of the entire war aside from numbnuts landing on the air craft carrier with the Mission Accomplished banner?

Yeah, they just "happened" to have the American flag that was flying on the Pentagon on 9/11 with them to drap over the statue. Mhmmkay.

[Fashion Lad!]

Gravekeeper, he got out of Iraq 2 years ago. With Saddam, it was harder to leave.

My friend said Bush failed at rebuilding Iraq, I don't dispute it. So you saying "... he *did* fail" is beyond me.

If every Iraqi came up to you and said the same exact thing as my friend, who was an Iraqi citizen, would you still dispute. Most people there *hated* Saddam. They were terrified of Saddam. Despite the dangers of voting, nearly 60% still managed to vote.

How about the Iraqis that are still thankful for Bush? While it isn't a majority now, they still exist. What about the Iraqis that were thankful for Bush at the very start of the war? That was a majority. Most Iraqis from what my friend said, his parents are still in Iraq, say they are upset by the lack of rebuilding. No one is disputing that, unlike how you interpret it, I guess.

I'm done on this topic. You deny what someone who lived through a majority of that war says is what kills me.

Think about this, my Oma grew up in Germany during WW2, she was part of the Hitler youth organization. She still thinks Hitler was a good leader because they had full-employment because of his actions. But, the only time she ever began to doubt Hitler was when she say a program on the History Channel on the holocaust.

Sometimes just because everything is stable doesn't mean everything is good.