Many of the twentysomething soldiers interviewed for stories about the growing resistance at the U.S. presence in Iraq seem bewildered as to why they're getting shot at. "We're here to help them!" is the common refrain.
These kids' wives are equally confused. In an amusing (and very sad) piece, Amanda Sanchez, wife of 3rd Infantry Division truck driver PJ, says:
I thought they [the Iraqis] would be more enthusiastic. I mean, who wouldn't want to live like Americans, to live in democracy, to send your children to school? I'm surprised at how naive the Iraqis are. Who wouldn't want to have freedom? It's hard for me to understand that they don't grasp the concept.
Oh, to be young and idealistic!
Meanwhile, 48-year-old Spec. James McNeely has clearly abandoned his heart and is using his head, in what has to be on any "Quotes of the War" Top 10 List:
They're getting tired of us. Wouldn't you be mad if they invaded your country?posted by dack
"Oh, to be young and idealistic!"
Right! I would much rather be living under a murderous, torturous, brutal dictatorship than in a country where you are free to express your own oppinions (and build your own website), free to send your children to the school of your choice, and free to disagree with the administration without being tortured and/or murdered!
Remember that if you tried to have a website like this in Iraq, you would be toast (When Saddam was still in power anyway).
Thank God we live in the greatest nation on earth!
Posted by: Jack on July 8, 2003 01:26 PMOops,
Spelling: opinions
Posted by: Jack on July 8, 2003 01:32 PMA lot of godless commies would've rather lived in a country where work and housing was guaranteed, and would've had a lot of trouble understanding why us Americans wouldn't want to be occupied by people who would bring such necessities to us.
Egotistical nationalistic supremacy is really bad foreign policy. The number of countries which can destroy our economy with a well placed nuclear weapon is growing. Seattle isn't that far from Pyongyang. North Korea also has less and less to lose. Think Boeing, Microsoft and the Jet Stream.
Posted by: Lefty on July 8, 2003 03:01 PM"Free to express your own opinions." As long as they aren't expressed within sight of anyone who matters or as long as you censor yourself.
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020904arrest0904p3.asp
"Free to send your children to the school of your choice." As long as you're not poor and forced to learn in an underfunded inner city school. And weren't Iraqi kids well educated?
"Free to disagree with the administration without being tortured and/or murdered!" As long as you do it out of the administration's sight. And don't forget that self-censorship thing. And err, the intimidation factor from yokels hiding behind patriotism without understanding the word.
"Thank God we live in the greatest nation on earth!"
I guess that's why all those damn Ay-rabs feel like they have to flee to Canada. But you wouldn't know what that feels like, would you?
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1046275844157_10/
Posted by: Steve on July 8, 2003 06:47 PMLefty,
Wow, I can't believe you are defending communism. I guess, I would rather just work hard and be rewarded justly. I know what it's like to be poor but I also know what it's like to be rewarded for working hard. Communism just can't compare.
Steve,
The first article was interesting and I don't necessarily agree with the authorities in that case. However, the difference between the USA and Iraq is that the man would've been killed in Iraq rather than arrested.
"As long as you're not poor and forced to learn in an underfunded inner city school"
Actually, on average, Inner City schools spend about the same as suburban schools and more than rural schools per pupil.
"I guess that's why all those damn Ay-rabs feel like they have to flee to Canada."
Careful, "Ay-rabs" doesn't sound very PC.
And, as long as immigrants are in the country legally, no problem. My wife is an immigrant. She started out in an inner city school (L.A.), her parents registered with the government, they worked very hard, became citizens and they are living the American Dream! Truthfully!
"I mean, who wouldn't want to live like Americans"...
Well, Canadians for one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54502-2003Jun30.html
And probably any Iraqi that had his or her life, children, relatives, friends, water, electricity, job, stability and computer(damn! now how are they going to build their websites?) bombed to crap by weapons of mass destruction. Oops, my bad! bunker busters, cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells are conventional weapons. Whereas, unfound 12 year old mustard gas, unfound American made anthrax and alluminum tubes are WMD's.
I will give Mrs. Sanchez the benefit of the doubt and chaulk that comment upto well deserved frustration at having her husband in an dangerous, yet avoidable, situation.
But it's that type of pompous, uninformed, patronizing statement that adds to the worlds lack of gratitude to "the greatest nation on earth!"
Posted by: Another Steve on July 8, 2003 11:44 PMPerhaps if the Iraqi's were permitted to choose the government and style of government without the aid of the mighty US Freedom Delivery Service they would be more appreciative. Call it what you like but the fact of the matter still remains, the US is an occupying force and as long as it is the people of whichever country they are occupying this year will be bitter and less than receptive to the good old American way.
Posted by: Mitch on July 9, 2003 07:36 AM"mighty US Freedom Delivery Service"
That is the funniest term for imperialism I have ever heard. I am still laughing ...
Posted by: Graham on July 9, 2003 08:04 AMI agree that the Iraqi's should be "free" to choose the government of their liking (I don't think the people would choose a ruthless dictatorship - would you choose it?). However, whether or not you agree that we should have removed Saddam from power, leaving now could mean a civil war for Iraq. And the people would probably not have any say in what kind of government was formed.
Some will be bitter (not everyone) but it would be devastating to leave them now.
Jack:
"The man would have been killed rather than arrested."
No one is arguing that being arrested is better than being killed. However, when the government of a supposedly free nation feels it must intimidate and arrest citizens that disagree with it, well, there's a problem. Where's the outrage? Is this behavior worthy of a nation that considers itself the greatest on earth? I thought we held our government to higher standards. Evidently not:
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1863097
And don't forget that Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of Burma's pro-democracy movement has (like Nelson Mandela) "only been arrested".
"Actually, on average, Inner City schools spend about the same as suburban schools and more than rural schools per pupil."
Can't argue this point with any data so I'll concede.
"As long as immigrants are in the country legally, no problem."
But there is a problem when legal immigrants feel intimidated enough to leave the country.
"...they worked very hard, became citizens and they are living the American Dream!"
This is great Jack. Stories like that are nice to hear. The thing is, you could hear that same story in Canada, the UK, Spain, Germany, heck, even Russia or France. The U.S. does not have exclusive rights to hard work paying off. Sorry.
Posted by: Steve on July 9, 2003 08:14 AMHow come Americans are so sure that everybody in the world envy them!
Currently, I can see a lot of country where life is better, human rights respected, wealth beter shared, nature preserved, energy spared, police less rude and subsequently people feeling better.
As Steve said, wake up and look further than your "beloved" country.
According to the 2003 UN Human Development Report the US has slipped to the seventh place of best countries to live in. It's behind Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands and Belgium. Canada is eight.
Respect for human rights are not even part of the report.
To say that any nation would rather be ruled by the US empire is a joke. How long would Americans put up with another nation killing and ruleing over our people, even if was to unseat a corrupted and fraudulently elected Persident. Ask the people of the Carabians if they like being under the shadow of the US Empire. The truth is we are being very poorly served by both political parties that have allready given our country over too big business and thier neverending cooporate greed. The media may continue to keep Americans in the dark about what our governmant is really up too abroad but they really fail to serve us in the long run. We might like too hear that we are the best and that the whole world wants to be one big American Planet liveing by the grace of god under the PAX AMERICANA. The only real problem is that we might believe this propaganda, the reste of the peoples of this planet aren't buying, and many feel that the truely dangerous rogue nation is none other than the unilateral US Empire.
Posted by: nick on July 9, 2003 01:37 PMIsn't this comment section much more fun when you have an opposing view point or two? ;)
Look, I'm not saying other countries should envy the US, and I'm not saying that the US is perfect. We have many problems. But we also have freedom. And because we have experienced freedom (with all of it's imperfections), we can look at other forms of government such as dictatorships and communism and say freedom is the way to go. It may be hard getting there but in the end, it's the only way a human being should live.
Sure there are other countries that are good places to live. I never said there weren't. But I still stand by what I said: "we live in the greatest nation on earth". It's not perfect but it's still the greatest!
Posted by: Jack on July 9, 2003 02:43 PMJack:
This comment section has been great so far. At least it hasn't degenerated into a flame war.
I'd hazard to guess the U.S. citizens have less freedom than they realize.
Freedom to choose their own government? No, government seems to be selected by small group of individuals.
Freedom to express their thoughts without harassment? Not unless you're expressing the thoughts the government finds acceptable.
Freedom from government? Not really considering the vast and expanding reach of the Office of Homeland Security, TIPS et al.
Freedom to assemble? Only in designated areas, please.
Freedom to choose foreign policy? Not if the facts for sending innocent soldiers to war are falsified.
The list could go on, of course, but I'm sure you understand. American citizens are only as free as the government and corporations allow. For the majority of citizens, that seems good enough considering they are happy waving a flag and watching Disney. But it's not really freedom.
"we live in the greatest nation on earth"
Perhaps it would be better if everyone (not just Americans) started this sentence with "In my opinion,". Until people have lived elsewhere, they have no point of reference. I personally would prefer 6 weeks paid vacation, better health care for all citizens, more affordable post-secondary education, and an elected government. By that standard, France would be the greatest nation on earth. Perish the thought.
Posted by: Steve on July 9, 2003 05:20 PMThanks Steve
As a french living in US, I appreciate your post. My hope is that something will happen in the next year and that people here will begin to wake up.
We, frenchies had to swallow so much bashing last winter... Guess that some people here owes us kind of excuses (the weasels told you not to go to Irak, for the exact reasons debated her all along since the beginning of the war), it will never happen but I like to think this.
What I keep to tell my friends and family in France is this: "what you think is not really important, it will not change anything and we already know it. What counts is what American people think, and what are the chances to have Bush defeated in 2004. So watch out american news to follow the story (and pray...)". So far, this is not very encouraging, but mood and opinion looks very unstable and everything can switch rapidly.
let see how this story unfolds.
Have any of you given any thought to why Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded? Afghanistan because of Al-Qaeda? Prove it. bin Laden wasn't killed or captured and since the US intelligence has proven nothing but how embarassingly wrong or corrupted they can be, there was really no reason to invade afghanistan. NONE of the 9/11 terrorists were Afghanis. But Afghanistan and Iraq were guilty of one crime. they had natural resources Bush ad Cheney couldn't control.
If Bush loses or can't steal the next election, he and his business partners will be nonetheless the most powerful people on earth. They will control or influence the natural resourses that make the machines go, the US military will be required to protect them and the US economy will owe them every dollar they can get their hands on because they control the companies that feed, provide shelter, clothe and run the computers for the US military and every other business in the world.
Think about it and either get scared, mad or on the bandwagon.
Now that we Know Bush lied about everything we know he lied about, why don't we Americans, who love our great country and freedom and democracy investigate to find out what else he lied about? We Americans who are also Muslims learn from the Quran: "What their tongues reveal is bad but what their hearts conceal is far worse." If a president lied to get into a war that will benefit no one but himself (Iraqis aren't better off, the only difference is they're now being killed and oppressed by foreigners), then don't you feell that maybe your freedom, liberty and democracy might be threatened by such a person?
Boy, I wish I had more time to respond to all of these fun comments. Quickly:
Mc Kenzie, what natural resources are we now controlling in Afghanistan?
micmac, have you seen the classified reports? I haven't. We don't know that Bush lied about anything.
Also, I love the UN report on "best countries to live in". No need to take into consideration "respect for human rights"... That's humorous!
Cheers!
Posted by: Jack on July 10, 2003 10:37 AMYou now control the greatest exporter of heroin on earth!
Kind of ironic how the War on Terror has inadvertently helped the bad guys in the War of Drugs.
As for not knowing whether the Bush government lied...you are right. But if they didn't lie then they are completely incompetent for missing the facts (the man they sent to investigate the Niger report descredited the intel months before Bush's state of the union). Incompetence on one hand and dishonesty on the other...take your pick.
Do you honestly think that the US ranking would be better if they took human rights into account? You're probably right, those Norwegians are pretty shady characters.
Posted by: Another Steve on July 10, 2003 11:47 AMIncompetance vs. Dishonesty:
Ok, I will grant you that there may be one, the other or both somewhere along the trail. But at this point, we don't know that it reached the oval office. You can speculate all you want but I will wait for the facts before I cast judgement. After all, we don't have a dress with the President's DNA on it. :)
UN report:
I haven't disputed the findings of the UN report. But then again I don't really have to, do I? C'mon, any report about "the best countries to live in" that doesn't take human rights into consideration is so laughable that you obviously can't take any part of it seriously. Really!
Look, how hard is it to figure out that Bush wanted to go to war for reasons that he knew would not be popular (natural resources, projection of American power, establishing new bases in the Middle East), so he used scare tactics (WMD, Terrorism) to get the country on his side. It's really not that complicated. And most of the pundits who are supporting Bush by saying the WMD lies aren't a big issue are just to chickenshit to admit that they support the war regardless of any facts or information. The bottom line to many, many people is that America was attacked on Sept 11th, so SOMEONE has to pay. If we can get oil out of the bargain too, then all the better.
We got rid of the worst regime on earth (the USSR) without invasion. We liberated the East bloc without invasion. The same could have easily been done in Iraq, with patience. But greed and fear do not allow patience, they require action.
Posted by: BRad on July 10, 2003 12:58 PMJack you are right the human rights should be used.
A lot more than 6 countries:
don't support the death penalty;
don't imprison 13 year olds without being tried or convicted;
have 6 weeks paid vacation;
have better health care for all citizens;
can easier critize their government;
If human rights would be considered where do you think the US would end up?
Posted by: p on July 10, 2003 01:54 PMYou miss the point.
The fact that they don't take human rights into account invalidates the report because they are obviously not using important criteria to determine what makes a country a great place to live.
Perhaps these are some of their criteria:
Climate
Food
Taxes (the higher, the better)
Number of people receiving free, inferior healthcare
Number of people driving VW's
Welfare (the more people on it, the better)
I don't know! What's the criteria?
The point is that the whole report is bogus if they leave out something as important as human rights!
:p
I would say that human rights is not that important for this type of report. Human rights is not a very statistic friendly factor and this report is based on #'s. And I would argue that the higher a countries ranking in human development the better that countries human rights record. Although America would seem to buck that trend.
Calling it bogus and implying that America's human rights record will propel you to the covetted "greatest nation on earth" position seems a little niave.
Plus your list of posible criteria seems a little misinformed. Not sure how free health care became inferior to the super duper, pay and stay, two tiered american system. And paying taxes may arguably be better than trillions of dollars of debt.
Sincerely though Jack, you need to recruit some like minded friends to this site. The majority of this debates participants seem to be slightly skewed to the left. Or at least an informed middle. :)
Posted by: Another Steve on July 10, 2003 04:09 PMAgain, I am not implying that America's human rights record would propel us to the top of the list. What I'm saying is that, since they left off this important criteria, who knows what criteria they used. I think human rights is that important that it must be considered when determining a great place to live.
What I meant about "inferior healthcare" is that when it is free, it is usually inferior. Take a look at Canada for a model. It takes forever to see a doctor because they can't keep enough them.
Thanks for your invitation to invite some friends to this site. I appreciate the fact that everyone has been very civil to me (even though I'm a right-winged nut). This is fun!
I think we all benefit from this type of friendly discussion...
Posted by: Jack on July 10, 2003 05:50 PMHey, maybe I could even post my own comment article sometime...what do you say Dack?
Posted by: Jack on July 10, 2003 05:57 PMRe: "have you seen the classified reports?" I'm sorry, I forgot you're in the US and unless you're extremely good at cutting thru the propaganda or you know how to by-pass the censors or you read or understand a foreign language...what the rest of the human race knows as common knowledge, you still think is in a classified report. Jack, Mr. Bush went to Poland and said "We've found the WMD". WAs that true or was it a lie? Don't make the same excuses that German citizens made to justify Hitler's actions. Mr. Bush said Iraq was an emminent threat to US security. It was not. Iraq couldn't even defend itself when it was attacked. Mr. Bush gave false justifications for the war that has taken at least 4000 innocent lives--not counting the innocent lives of our own brothers, sisters, cousins and sons who were lied to and made to believe they would be welcomed with open arms for the favor of delivering them from Saddam. Americans are usually too smart to be made into such fools. Our government has been co-opted by criminals. The only reason he's gotten away with it is because of 9/11, we're still in shock. How else can you explain people saying that It's not that complicated and, I suppose, acceptable for Bush to have lied because he "knew" the real reasons were too unpopular. PEOPLE ARE DYING. LIVES, JUST AS VALUABLE AS YOUR'S OR MINE ARE BEING DESTROYED. And there are Americans saying that's alright, SOMEBODY had to pay for 9/11. So who is going to pay for the days between March 19 and May 1, 2003?
Posted by: micmac on July 10, 2003 06:23 PMI recently returned to the US, I had intended to retire there. I became ill. I went to three different DRs, one of who probably moonlighted with the KKK--he didn't like my race and/or religion so he did an unnecessary proceedure on me and exacerbated my condition and caused me unspeakable pain...at least he didn't charge me for it, he didn't want any evidence. Anyway I high-tailed by butt back up to Canada. Long story, short, Igot treated well and quickly, I'm well and not in debt. Don't believe everything you read in the propaganda machine.
Posted by: micmac on July 10, 2003 06:37 PMRe: "Mc Kenzie, what natural resources are we now controlling in Afghanistan?"
Oh, I forgot, Afghnaistan has the largest untapped natural reserves in the world. Natural gas is Cheney's shtick. He and Khalizad had made deals with the taliban to give them the land they needed to run natural gas pipelines thru Afghanistan for Unocal, built by Haliburton, to the persian gulf but then bin Laden came thru town and convinced them not to do it and the Taliban reneged on the deal.
Thanks Jack.
I think if there were more "right wing nuts" like you who were open to civilised debates, America would be a better place. Too often any sort of descenting views are greeted with boycotts and name calling (my favourite goes something like "go back to russia you unamerican, commie, tree hugging hippy").
Enough fraternizing with the enemy...as a Canadian I agree that our health care system could be better but for the $44 I pay a month (as does every other Albertan) we get good coverage. Although we do have trouble keeping doctors in some of the more northern and rural areas of the country, the fact that we have the most urban poplation in the world means that most people have access to excellent medical facilities. And people are all treated fairly, no matter what HMO you are with (I'm not even sure what an HMO is, and from what I've heard, I don't want to).
I also read up a bit on the UN report:
http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/
The report is about creating a more stable, balanced world...pretty much trying to create a better planet full of happy people. The best world to live in list is just a by-product of a much bigger study...pretty much a marketing tool to get some press.
The US government should pay more attention to this study...if the world was a happier place maybe less people would hate them so much.
Posted by: Another Steve on July 10, 2003 08:02 PMMicmac,
WMD was one of the reasons we needed to remove Saddam’s regime. But since we haven’t found the smoking gun, that’s all you want to talk about. What about the fact that Saddam has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people (indisputable)? What about the fact that he funds terrorists (openly offering money to Palestinian homicide bombers among others), and has trained terrorists? (look at me, I’m using links!) War is never a good solution but sometimes it is a necessary evil. Thank God we put an end to Saddam’s terror! We can’t take back the lives of the 4000 innocent Iraqi’s but at least we prevented Saddam from torturing, raping and murdering thousands more.
Hey, sorry to hear you ran into a bad doctor (they exist in every country) and I’m glad you are back to better health. I have a friend (bleeding heart liberal) who is a doctor and she has talked about going somewhere that has a shortage of doctors. Some of the places she has considered: Indian reservations (is that PC?), Alaska and Canada. You know, my family goes to the doctor on a fairly regular basis and we only pay $10 per visit (alright, I’ll admit that my employer pays for the coverage – but, I can choose my employer).
Natural gas in Afghanistan:
I tried to find evidence to support your claim about Afghanistan having “the largest untapped natural reserves in the world”. Sorry, I just couldn’t find anything. I did find this however.
Another Jack,
Thanks for the kind words. You have a lot of great comments and I also appreciate your openness to civilized debate!
Well, I’m jumping out of this thread. It’s hard being the only defender of freedom, justice and the American way. ;)
But, in the words of California’s next Governor, “I’ll be back”.
Cheers!
I am truly impressed: a string of over 30 back-and-forth comments on heated topics among a half-dozen people , and not a single name called.
It warms my heart that there *are* people in the U.S. of A. that are able to coherently express and debate views which are based on more than just news soundbites. I suppose that statistically there had to be some intelligent, independent-thinking people in the US, but to actually witness evidence of it is very comforting.
Too bad there aren't enough of you to make a difference.
Posted by: me on July 11, 2003 09:32 PMMe: Hence the name. The Rational Enquirer.
Thanks to all for a good thread.
Posted by: dack on July 12, 2003 12:52 AMRe:Natural gas in Afghanistan: I'm truly sorry I misquoted my source. I should have said that control of Afghanistan gives the US the ability to run the pipelines (built & owned and operated by the Cheney gang) for the largest untapped natural gas resources in the world (other than that in the Arctic Circle). Those reserves are in Russia and in the former Soviet Union satelite countries of Afghansitan, Chechnya and Kazakhstan (all Muslim countries). You can go on and call me a name, but you wouldn't want to disappoint Dack.
The facts make clear the picture of what's going on re: control of the world's natural gas, oil and mineral resources and the fact that who will control them will be the most powerful people on earth. I'm not as computer savvy as you young whipper snappers(OOps I called a name!) but I'll try to create a link for your perusal : http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4283251,00.html and another: http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATCheney.htm I don't know if I did it right, it doesn't look like the others but you should still be able to see it, if not let me know.