Friday, March 5, 2010

Newsweek: "Victory At Last - The Emergence Of A Democratic Iraq" -- Bush Was Right!!



This is a fabulous article about the rising of a democracy.  This article is about the emergence of a democracy in Iraq.  Victory seems to be in the air.  This would never have been possible without President Bush and our brave men and women serving in the military.  Thank God for freedom.  Freedom is one of America's core principles and that is exactly what former President Bush and our troops helped to spread. Freedom Reigns!!!  God Bless America!!  You can look at some Iraq street scenes here.  

Rebirth of a Nation


Something that looks an awful lot like democracy is beginning to take hold in Iraq. It may not be 'mission accomplished'—but it's a start.

By Babak Dehghanpisheh, John Barry and Christopher Dickey
NEWSWEEKÂ

Published Feb 26, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Mar 8, 2010


"Iraqi democracy will succeed," President George W. Bush declared in November 2003, "and that success will send forth the news from Damascus to Tehran that freedom can be the future of every nation." The audience at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington answered with hearty applause. Bush went on: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."

In Iraq, meanwhile, an insurgency was growing, terrorism was spreading, and American forces were in a state of near panic. They had begun rounding up thousands of the Iraqis they had come to "liberate," dragging them from their homes in the middle of the night and throwing them into Abu Ghraib Prison. At the time of Bush's speech, some of those detainees were being tortured and humiliated. Iraq had entered a spiral of gruesome violence that would kill scores of thousands of its people and cost more than 4,000 U.S. military personnel their lives. American taxpayers month after month, year after year—and to this day—would spend more than $1.5 billion per week just to keep hundreds of thousands of beleaguered troops on the ground, fearful that if they withdrew too quickly, or at all, the carnage would grow worse and war, not democracy, would spread throughout the region.

Bush's rhetoric about democracy came to sound as bitterly ironic as his pumped-up appearance on an aircraft carrier a few months earlier, in front of an enormous banner that declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And yet it has to be said and it should be understood—now, almost seven hellish years later—that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.

The elections to be held in Iraq on March 7 feature 6,100 parliamentary candidates from all of the country's major sects and many different parties. They have wildly conflicting interests and ambitions. Yet in the past couple of years, these politicians have come to see themselves as part of the same club, where hardball political debate has supplanted civil war and legislation is hammered out, however slowly and painfully, through compromises—not dictatorial decrees or, for that matter, the executive fiats of U.S. occupiers. Although protected, encouraged, and sometimes tutored by Washington, Iraq's political class is now shaping its own system—what Gen. David Petraeus calls "Iraqracy." With luck, the politics will bolster the institutions through which true democracy thrives.

Of course, as U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad Christopher Hill says, "the real test of a democracy is not so much the behavior of the winners; it will be the behavior of the losers." Even if the vote comes off relatively peacefully, the maneuvering to form a government could go on for weeks or months. Elections in December 2005 did not produce a prime minister and cabinet until May 2006. And this time around the wrangling will be set against the background of withdrawing American troops. Their numbers have already dropped from a high of 170,000 to fewer than 100,000, and by August there should be no more than 50,000 U.S. soldiers left in the country. If political infighting turns to street fighting, the Americans may not be there to intervene.

Anxiety is high, not least in Washington, where Vice President Joe Biden now chairs a monthly cabinet-level meeting to monitor developments in Iraq. But a senior White House official says the group is now "cautiously optimistic" about developments there. "The big picture in Iraq is the emergence of politics," he notes. Indeed, what's most striking—and least commented upon—is that while Iraqi politicians have proved noisy, theatrical, inclined to storm off and push confrontations to the brink, in recent years they have always pulled back.

Think about what's happened just in the last month. After a Shiite--dominated government committee banned several candidates accused of ties to the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, there were fears that sectarian strife could pick up again. Saleh al-Mutlaq, who heads one of the largest Sunni parties, was disqualified. He says he tried complaining to the head of the committee, Ahmad Chalabi, and even met with the Iranian ambassador, thinking Tehran had had a hand in what he called these "dirty tricks"—but to no avail.

Two weeks later Mutlaq nervously paced the garden of the massive Saddam--era Al-Rashid Hotel as he weighed his dwindling options. "I got a call from the American Embassy today," he said, grimly. "They said, 'Most of the doors are closed. There's nothing left for us to work.'Â " He shook his head. "The American position is very weak."

But what's most interesting is what did not happen. There was no call for violence, and Mutlaq soon retracted his call for a boycott. The elections remain on track. Only about 150 candidates were ultimately crossed off the electoral lists. No red-faced Sunni politicians appeared on television ranting about a Shiite witch hunt or Kurdish conspiracy. In fact, other prominent Sunni politicians have been conspicuous for their low profile. Ali Hatem al--Suleiman, a tough, flamboyant Sunni sheik who heads the powerful Dulaim tribe in Anbar province, is running for Parliament on a list with Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. He scoffs at effete urban pols like Mutlaq: "They represent nothing. Did they join us in the fight against terrorists? We are tribes and have nothing to do with them."

What outsiders tend to miss as they focus on the old rivalries among Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds is that sectarianism is giving way to other priorities. "The word 'compromise' in Arabic—mosawama—is a dirty word," says Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, who served for many years as Iraq's national--security adviser and is running for Parliament. "You don't compromise on your concept, your ideology, your religion—or if you do," he flicked his hand dismissively, "then you're a traitor." Rubaie leans in close to make his point. "But we learned this trick of compromise. So the Kurds are with the Shia on one piece of legislation. The Shia are with the Sunnis on another piece of legislation, and the Sunnis are with the Kurds on still another."

The turnaround has been dramatic. "The political process is very combative," says a senior U.S. adviser to the Iraqi government who is not authorized to speak on the record. "They fight—but they get sufficient support to pass legislation." Some very important bills have stalled, most notably the one that's meant to decide how the country's oil riches are divvied up. But as shouting replaces shooting, the Parliament managed to pass 50 bills in the last year alone, while vetoing only three. The new legislation included the 2010 budget and an amendment to the investment law, as well as a broad law, one of the most progressive in the region, defining the activities of nongovernmental organizations.

The Iraqis have surprised even themselves with their passion for democratic processes. In 2005, after decades living in Saddam Hussein's totalitarian "republic of fear," they flooded to the polls as soon as they got the chance. Today Baghdad is papered over with campaign posters and the printing shops on Saadoun Street seem to be open 24 hours a day, cranking out more. Political cliques can no longer rely on voters to rubber-stamp lists of sectarian candidates. Those that seem to think they still might, like the Iranian-influenced Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, have seen their support wane dramatically. Provincial elections a year ago were dominated by issues like the need for electricity, jobs, clean water, clinics, and especially security. Maliki has developed a reputation for delivering some of that, and his candidates won majorities in nine of 18 provinces. They lead current polls as well.  CONTINUED HERE

 
Eagleburger on Newsweek's 'Victory' in Iraq Cover: 'They Changed Staff or Somebody's Getting Honest'
 



 
Bush Was Right
 

 
 

 

24 comments:

bluepitbull said...

Not only that, but now that asshat holder is admitting they will likely do the military tribunal. Isn't that an issue obama ran on?

Teresa said...

bluepitbull,
I believe so. Gee.. It seems like when Obama admin loses that America wins. YEA!

Opus #6 said...

American wins and even Iraq wins when Obama loses. Didn't he want to cut and run from Iraq way back when?

It is a great day for freedom. Yay!

Fuzzy Slippers said...

This is great! Of course many of us may consider moving to Iraq for its freedoms if we can't stop BO, so it's nice to know there's a free (or almost free) place to go.

Liberty said...

A democracy? Are we sure that's what we want to leave Iraq with? Democracy is defined as: "majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group."

It's one step up from pure anarchy- he with the might is right. Not exactly a freedom-and-glory-and-roses. A Constitutional Republic is what America has, and what I believe is the most perfect system of governance ever envisioned by man.

Sorry, pet peeve. :P

Anyway-
I find it difficult to proclaim that democracy has finally come to Iraq and everything is hunky-dory, especially considering this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505730.html?sid=ST2010022506210
http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2009/11/16/iraqi-christians-seek-return-sense-extinction/
Without freedom of the press and freedom of religion, how can a society be truly free?

Teresa said...

Opie,
Yes, it is a great day for freedom. Work still needs to be done but much progress has been made in Iraq so far. They can build up there democracy just like the U.S. did many years ago.

Teresa said...

Fuzzy Slippers,
What a grand idea!! Who knows... We might be forced to move to Iraq.

The Conservative Lady said...

Definitely promising and I think President Bush will go down in history as doing the right thing.
Imagine Biden giving the Obama administration credit for victory in Iraq. What a putz!

Teresa said...

Liberty,
Iraq's system of government is a democratic, federal, representative, parliamentary republic. There are many similarities between Iraq's government and U.S. government. If your looking for perfection than your never going to get that. You are not even going to get perfection from either our government or from our society here in the United States. This article said nothing of Iraq being "perfect", but shows that much progress has been made over the past few years. You seem to mainly focus on the negative.

Democracy- Form of government, where a constitution guarantees basic personal and political rights, fair and free elections, and independent courts of law.

Christians started returning to Baghdad in 2007.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4048616&page=1


Maliki urges return of Iraq's Christians.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/26/world/fg-popeiraq26

To any outsider, the picture may not seem perfect. However, Iraqis can now go out on the streets late at night and shops and markets have resumed long working hours. Water and electricity are still a daily problem, but ask any Iraqi who has lived through the ups and downs witnessed before 2007, and they will tell a small success story.

"General David Petraeus, commanding general of the Multi-National Force in Iraq in 2007, also played a major role in bringing peace and stability to the Sunni areas of Iraq. Al Qaida and other terrorists who dominated prior to the surge are now on the run. They are still there, but their existence is now very different."
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/iraq-has-made-substantial-progress-1.560421

With regards to the Iraqi journalist- some of the "problem" was because of rules and standards trying to be established by the government which she may or may not want to follow.

It is more peaceful in Iraq than one step above anarchy- more than you are willing to give both our troops and Iraqi troops credit for in all their efforts in bringing peace to Iraq.

Because of free and open elections, a government has been in place in Iraq for a few years. Another set of free elections is scheduled to happen soon.

Freedom of the press and freedom of religion are already in Iraq. That philosophy just needs to be stregnthened and reinforced over time. With freedom of the press comes rules and regulations just like here in the United States.

I prefer to think positively while realizing there is much room for improvement in Iraq. And, while realizing that Iraq has come a long way since 2003, and even 2006.

America's Republic has made many improvements since 1776. We must remember that Iraq has only started a democracy about 3-4 years ago.

The_Kid said...

Its BUSH'S FAULT !!!!!!!!!!!

Teresa said...

The Conservative Lady,
Biden is such a numnutz.

I do believe that Bush will go down in history as doing the right thing.

Teresa said...

The Kid,
Your right. Its all Bush's fault that Iraq is now an emerging democracy and the people have freedoms they never had before. Yep. He's guilty of spreading freedom and caring for others' in need, those who were living in fear under a ruthless. murderous dictator.

The_Kid said...

Darn Right Teresa.

And history will be very complimentary.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

I find that I cannot get too elated over the Iraq news, because anything can happen the moment we pull out completely.

Maggie Thornton said...

No matter what happens, Bush was definitely right. There are no people on earth not wanting to be free except tyrants - who are already free.

Teresa, I love the photos and the one of the wedding dress on the street was very, very touching. Remember the weddings we saw blown to bits in the early days of the war.

Also loved the election posters.

Eagleburger got it right, but he doesn't look well, does he? Wonder if he has been ill.

If Democracy doesn't stand it will be because Iran or al Qaeda got another foothold.

What a great, uplifting article. I had missed the Newsweek cover. It's about time.

Liberty said...

Democracy:
(1913 edition of Webster's): "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."
(1828 edition of Webster's): "Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the power of legislation. Such was the government of Athens." (this pure democracy, by the way, didn't help Athens; they eventually fell, largely because of divisions among themselves. Mob rule didn't work out so well for them.)

What America has is a Constitutional Republic. There are different kinds of Constitutional Republics because different countries have different needs, and their people see things differently. Just goes to show that our system isn't always the best for everyone. Do I think our system is the best? Yes. But that's just me.

"If your looking for perfection than your never going to get that."

I never said I was. I said that I think our system is the closest to perfection man can ever conceive.

"You seem to mainly focus on the negative"

If nobody focused on the negative, we'd never get anything done. People only focused on the negative with Saddam Hussein's regime- the deaths, the killings, the assassinations- and didn't focus on the good- the freedom of press, religion, and speech, the comparative freedom of movement and expression, and the stability and peace. They had all those things, and what did we give them after we so rudely barged into their country?

War, mayhem, more death. Saddam Hussein only killed an average of 12,000 people a year. During 25 years. We've killed an average of 14,000 a year. Yeah, I think we're winning that little contest, though I'm not sure I want to.

On the subject of religious freedom- this from Iraqi-Americans
http://www.chaldeanfederation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:iraqi-american-christians-blast-us-policies-in-iraq&catid=1:latest-news
http://www.chaldeanfederation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129:-in-iraq-the-unending-crucifiction-of-christians&catid=1:latest-news
Despite the wonderful actions of our military, religious freedom is still elusive in Iraq- and there are no signs that our puppet-government will be able to rein in the violence.

"With regards to the Iraqi journalist- some of the "problem" was because of rules and standards trying to be established by the government which she may or may not want to follow."

Our puppet-government hasn't established any rules. That was the point of the article. The rules from Hussein's era and right after Coalition entry are still in effect. Violence is being perpetrated against journalists, and where is the government? Nowhere to be found. Laws have been drafted, but have yet to be enacted by parliament.

Liberty said...

"America's Republic has made many improvements since 1776."

Except for abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, I can't think of anything that has been improved.

"However, Iraqis can now go out on the streets late at night and shops and markets have resumed long working hours. Water and electricity are still a daily problem..."

I'll say. Do you know what havoc has been wreaked upon their electrical and water systems? They didn't have a good one before...but...my dad is an electrician, so we were looking at some pictures of an Iraqi electrical line. >.< That is all there is to say.

Of course, I have to wonder- how were those services before we butted our big selves in? I'll bet shop owners stayed open late.

The basic problem is this- you cannot force a representative system of government upon people that it has no hold on. America, Americans, were ready for that kind of system. We invented it. But you know what- we didn't wait for someone else to come claim our independence. We took it. And we were happy with it.

What we are imposing upon the Iraqi people is wrong. Yes, it may be a Republic. Yes, we may think it the best system imaginable. But the Iraqi people may not agree. Many of them were prosperous under Saddam Hussein. They were happy. And we tore apart their world with a few strokes of a President's pen. It is frightening how much power one man can have over the fate of so many- no matter his political beliefs.

The facts of the matter are these- we imposed a system upon the Iraqi people they do not understand. We cannot force republicanism upon people any more than we can force religion. And if we try, it will reap nothing but heartache. I can guarantee that this situation will come back around to bite us in the rear- after we leave (because we must, eventually, and it might as well be sooner rather than later), when the government that is only being upheld with the might of our guns and firepower falls, then we will see that we cannot force a system upon people and expect it to stand.

I may be way off base. Maybe in fifteen years I'll look at Iraq and see a flourishing Republic. But I doubt it. Why? Because you cannot force a system upon someone and expect it to last. You cannot mold people's thoughts, beliefs, and outlooks so easily. And when the government we have instituted does fall, I can guarantee that the next generation, knowing America only through the muzzle of a gun, they will rise up against us and curse us, just as the Afghanis did do, and will do again.

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

Does Reid still think we've lost ? You should hear Nevada Senate commercials right now. That's brought up all the time.

Teresa said...

Odie,
Who knows with Reid. That guy is a little out there.

Teresa said...

Liberty,


Where did you get your death figures? What goes into it? Is it a sum of all casualties of every attack or does it also include people who die in the aftermath of malnutrition or starvation? Is it only collateral damage or does it include targets (insurgents)? Is it just Iraqis counted or does it include terrorists from other countries who crossed the border into Iraq in order to wage jihad on American soldiers? Does it include civilians killed by insurgents, and not by American forces?

The figures I have seen estimated about 150,000 civilian deaths form 2003 to 2008. Even if that number were closer to a quarter of a million by now, that is still less than half the estimate of over 500,000 civilian deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein, and that’s the lowest estimate of the latter I have seen - human rights organizations and Iraqi politicians put that figure in the millions.

This poll was taken in 2007, and since then their has been a further decline in violence in Iraq so it is fair to make the inference that there is most likely additional support for Iraqis thinking that life is better now than under Saddam Hussein.

“Most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.”

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5669


"America's Republic has made many improvements since 1776."

You responded: "America's Republic has made many improvements since 1776."


Except for abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, I can't think of anything that has been improved. Except for abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, I can't think of anything that has been improved.
What??? We have much better medicine, sanitation, electricity, infrastructure, technology and innovations that have led to inventions and cures, than we did in 1776.

The freedom of religion is in the process of being built up in Iraq. Yes, it does need improvements but it is set (hopefully) on a path for additional freedoms that Iraqis did not have under Saddam Hussein.

Teresa said...

Liberty,

According to one of your articles: “Corbin said he couldn't comment on whether Iraqi Christians were hurt by the U.S.-led war.”
"I can't answer that," Corbin told the Free Press. "Let's leave that to the historians."

Christian Iraqis may or may not have been hurt by the military action. But regardless, this is not a permanent situation and it is slowly getting better for Christians in Iraq. It is telling that they can’t or don’t determine that the Iraq War harmed Christians.


There has been a decline in violence and deaths in Iraq over the last 3-4 years. It is almost guaranteed that if Saddam stayed in power that he would have continued the murders, mass murders, pillaging, and raping of Iraqis so the death count would have risen under him rather than how it is has and continues to be on a decline in Iraq now. But, after this election, and the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq we will see whether the peace continues or violence returns.


Liberty said, “I can guarantee that this situation will come back around to bite us in the rear- after we leave (because we must, eventually, and it might as well be sooner rather than later), when the government that is only being upheld with the might of our guns and firepower falls, then we will see that we cannot force a system upon people and expect it to stand.”

How can you possibly make a guarantee that the United States freeing Iraqis from an evil, murderous oppressor will come back to bite us in the butt? That is quite a bold statement. The Iraqis have started their own form of government the past 3 or so years and the U.S. military forces have been playing a back seat to Iraqi forces and assisting them under Iraqi command and orders during those years.
You said “You cannot mold people's thoughts, beliefs, and outlooks so easily”

You can mold new generations and help people to change their beliefs and outlooks. That is exactly what has been done and continues to be done in our country. Iraqis can keep their own religious and ethnic beliefs but other beliefs about certain aspects of life and countries can be re-molded and taught differently to younger and future generations.
I believe that you have already been proven wrong, especially with the Iraqis voting for their democracy today. We will see in the coming years whether the further advancements of freedoms in Iraq comes to fruition or not.

Liberty said...

http://icasualties.org/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.infowars.com/iraq-death-toll-spikes-ahead-of-election/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU3JU20100101
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-iraqtoll_24int.ART.State.Edition1.4a98e22.html (this one only counts from '05, not the beginning of the war)
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me090424b.htm (this gentleman makes some good points- "Of course there's a difference between 700,000 and 100,000 dead. But is that to say that a war that's caused 100,000 dead is somehow, in any possible way, less horrific or more justifiable?")
From last-cited article-
"As of this writing, the combined combat and non-combat deaths of American and Coalition soldiers in Iraq, since 2003, total 4,595--a devastating toll from the western perspective, but one that must be multiplied 200 times to begin to understand the extent of the devastation of Iraq's own death toll."

We ought to count the aftermath casualties. Because we caused the aftermath.

I would count many of the "insurgents" into that total. Why? Because most of them are ordinary men protecting themselves. They aren't fighting for Allah. They aren't waging some holy war.

Do you know why the men in this New Insurgency are fighting? They're fighting to protect something- their way of life. They're fighting to protect their mothers and sisters, their younger brothers, their old fathers, their wives, children and homes. It is a matter of self defense.

Frankly, I think that the blood of our soldiers that have died over there is on the head of our politicians. They sent our boys over there to die, and for what? The "insurgents" are fighting to protect themselves!

Also, if we hadn't gone to Iraq, would the insurgents be killing people?

"Even if that number were closer to a quarter of a million by now, that is still less than half the estimate of over 500,000 civilian deaths attributed to Saddam Hussein, and that’s the lowest estimate of the latter I have seen - human rights organizations and Iraqi politicians put that figure in the millions."

I thought we didn't trust human rights organizations. :P

Anyway- let's say, for the purposes of our argument, that we've killed 200,000 in our seven years of imperialism in Iraq. Saddam killed 500,000-600,000 over his twenty-five years in power. If you average all that out, we've killed far more. But in any case, I don't think anyone has a reliable number of bodies for either side; our military doesn't "do body counts."

A poll on the surge, taken about the same time as the one about Hussein-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
Another opinion poll done by the BBC (PDF)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
Public opinion in Iraq has gotten better of late.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf

"What??? We have much better medicine, sanitation, electricity, infrastructure, technology and innovations that have led to inventions and cures, than we did in 1776."

...That isn't our government. That is our standard of living, which is entirely seperate from the government. Or do you think the Federal government should have some hand in our standard of living?

Liberty said...

"It is almost guaranteed that if Saddam stayed in power that he would have continued the murders, mass murders, pillaging, and raping of Iraqis so the death count would have risen under him rather than how it is has and continues to be on a decline in Iraq now."

The only "mass murders" Saddam committed were against the Kurds. One mass murder. So it doesn't really count as a plural. But anyway- in the end, as one of the articles I quoted up above stated- debating 'differences' in body-count is like arguing that a man who has only raped two women is somehow better than one who has raped ten. They're both guilty, they've both done terrible things, and how many they've done it to isn't really an issue.

"How can you possibly make a guarantee that the United States freeing Iraqis from an evil, murderous oppressor will come back to bite us in the butt?"

It has happened before. We helped "free" Afghanistan from a "brutal opressor"- the Soviets. Fast forward thirty years...Taliban, anyone? We cannot mess with other countries' cultures, beliefs, outlooks, and politics, and expect it to turn out all hunky dory.

We forced a system upon the Iraqis, a system that is unfamiliar to that region. So it won't work like it should- they'll go the way of America, only in hyperspeed so that it happens in a matter of years rather than decades. Further, we forced and imposed this system through the muzzle of a gun- never the best way to make converts. Why do you think the Catholic church was so unpopular among native Americans and certain sects in Europe? Because they forced people to "believe." It doesn't work. A forced convert, whether to a religious system or a political one, is not a convert at all; they are prisoners to a higher power.

I don't know how to express myself well enough to get my point across, but let me try.

Indoctrinating an entire country to what we think is right is wrong. There are billions of people on the planet. None of them think exactly the same way, or they shouldn't. In the same way, none of us can force upon another our beliefs. To try to would trespass against every system and code of ethics that make us human.

"...especially with the Iraqis voting for their democracy today."

The ability to vote doesn't make one free. Even China has elections.

But does that make the Chinese "free" by our definition of the word? Of course not.

Our system is not the only system. Neither is our system the best for all.

Teresa said...

Liberty,

You stated, "I would count many of the "insurgents" into that total. Why? Because most of them are ordinary men protecting themselves. They aren't fighting for Allah. They aren't waging some holy war.

Do you know why the men in this New Insurgency are fighting? They're fighting to protect something- their way of life. They're fighting to protect their mothers and sisters, their younger brothers, their old fathers, their wives, children and homes. It is a matter of self defense."


The words you stated above is very much Anti-American in sentiment and irks me to no end so I have decided to use them and am informing you now, that I am using them in a soon-to-be blog post on the insurgency and how the insurgents have killed our troops. And, you seem to have more comapssion for our enemy instead of our troops fighting overseas. This is not meant to be a personal attack, but a critique or attack on your outlandish thoughts.