The Iraqi Perspective

[theundeadhero]

I'm not pro Bush or pro Kerry or anything. I stay away from politics pretty much as far as I can but this past week I've spent a lot of time (like 5 hours a day not counting weekends) with Iraqi people. I've been learning how to talk and read in their lanuage, a lot about their culture, and what's really going on over there and the reasons behind it. The Iraqi's are extremely grateful that we invaded their country. They say themselves that wihtout us the country was going to die and dissapear. It was completely miserable over there. Most us of believe that the media is full of sh*t and it's mostly a bunch of hype. Only a select few overseas aren't happy about what has happened and the media is completely exploiting it and making it look like they hate us. At the same time, anti-war people believe everything the media is telling them because it's what they want to hear, even though with every other subject the media is still a liar or exaggerator. The country had billions of billions of dollars but wasn'y using the money to help the people. Now the gov. is giving elderly and unfortunate children money to get the things they need. Only regeme supporters were allowed to have cell phones and sattalite t.v. but now it's available to anyone who can afford it, which is more people than you would imagine. The internet was only available to those people, but now that's being worked on to make it more accesable. People don't live in fear of dying becuase they went outside their house and said the wrong thing. They call American soldiers their "First Martyrs", the first people willing to die to help them win a better life. They are so thankful Pres. Bush ended the Regeme. Don't believe media, believe experience. You can hate Bush all you want and you can hate me because my job is to kill people, but I don't really care. We didn't do it for you, we did it for them, and they appreciate it.

[Shlup]

Awesome to hear this from a more relyable source than the TV. Thank you for taking the time to give us your perspective; I think it's great to hear. The media gives us a lot of "They hate us" or "They love us," but I never know what to believe from those people.

Do you have an online journal? You should start one; I'd like to read about what you're doing over there and stuff.

[theundeadhero]

I could start one but I can't promise to post on a regular basis becuase I don't know how often I"ll be able to get on the internet once I get back over there.

[Shlup]

That's understandable. We don't get to hear the soldiers' perspective over here very much, so I was thinking it'd be cool. Either way though, its up to you.

[fire_of_avalon]

I'm going to say it again, not to be a smart ass, but because I think people are geniunely overlooking it.

The media only gives us what we ask for. (This of course goes on majority standards.)

Now, onward to topic.

You are a soldier. There's not a question in my mind why you're there and why you do what you do. In all honesty, I feel there's only one type of person who deserves a bit more of my respect right off the bat than most people, and that's a person willing to sacrifice themselves for something bigger than they are. I also understand that you have, in truth, liberated a people from the hands of a corrupt group. But that doesn't mean I believe you weren't sent there under false pretenses, and I think that's a disrespect to America, and a huge disrespect to all soldiers everywhere.

If this war had been about liberation, I would support Bush. However, I faithfully support our troops for doing their jobs, and I'll never stop doing so, because I know the great majority of you act with good hearts, and the best interests of not only America, but most of the world, at large.

But there's a difference between a soldier and the war s/he fights.

[theundeadhero]

I didn't mention why we were sent over there because there are so many reasons on so many levels I don't believe their will ever be a straight answer. No matter the reason though, this thread was about the actions that took place once we did get overseas. Nobody really looks at that because they're too concerned about why they think we're over there. Just to clear one thing up though, they call the country "I-rack", it's not "I-rock".

[Shlup]

I just don't get why people are so stuck on this idea of "false pretenses" as though there was one and only one reason we invated Iraq. The fact that we didn't find any WMD is good in spite of it being the main, but not the only, reason we entered Iraq.

I just think being so against something good just because the main reason for doing it turned out to be wrong is rediculous.

[Big D]

I just think being so against something good just because the main reason for doing it turned out to be wrong is rediculous.

Up to a hundred thousand people are dead because of this 'good' thing. I doubt anyone's upset about Hussein's removal from power, but they're upset about the process - an illegal, poorly-planned, poorly-run and horrifically costly war that has harmed the innocent far more than it has harmed the guilty, and is having flow-on effects around the Middle East.

People aren't just against the war because of the Bush administration's lies, though that's just about reason enough. They're against it because there were so many better options than this divisive, deadly act by a small number of - dare I say it - rogue nations. Other countries are having to give up troops and money to help rebuild Iraq and keep more of its people from dying needlessly.

Suppose some vigilantes think your neighbour has class-A drugs in his house. A speed lab or something. If they blow up his house, then discover that he had no drugs, then destroying his house is hardly a "good thing" just because the guy wasn't nice.

[theundeadhero]

Read attachment please.

[Big D]

Lovely manipulation of the truth in that attachment.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January .
. .

US personnel, or does that include civilian deaths, prisoner deaths, collateral fatalities?

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. €
From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

The US was attacked; it was fighting in self-defence and to aid its allies, who were fighting for their very survival. World War Two was a fight against the genocidal expansionism of the Nazis. The war was a moral cause, as well as a political one.

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. € From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,334
per year.

Everyone knows that the Korean War was a "police action" against communism. It was little more than an abomination; it's exactly the kind of thing we're seeing in the "war on terrorism". Just because bad things happened in the past doesn't make the present any better or more justifiable.

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. € >From
1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

No kidding. Atrocities happened regularly in Vietnam; if anything, it should've shown the world that meddling in other nations' affairs like that should never be done without dire need.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never
attacked us.

The NATO air strikes prevented the genocide of 300,000 Kosovar Muslim innocents. It also led to the fall and current war-crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic. It was a swift, efficient campaign; the civilian death toll was far too high, but it was far better than Bush's bungles.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times
by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

After the USS Cole attack and the African embassy bombings, Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on terrorist facilities and camps in Afghanistan. They were trying to capture or kill Bin Laden from 1997 onward. Whoever wrote this document is either lying, or poorly informed.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has
...liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida

Yes, Iraq is so free right now, and there's no violence or fear in Afghanistan.:rolleyes2 Afghanistan is still under UN interim administration, and insurgents are capturing Western civilians. Iraq is both a mess and a bloodbath.

put
nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot

By threatening to invade other sovereign nations and kill their leaders and cause heavy collateral casualties, yes. Way to go.

and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

Hussein's wars killed two million people. Those wars were fought with US and Russian weaponry and support. Up to a hundred thousand people have died in the war that eventually led to Hussein's capture. Again, way to go.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...It
took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

In the Branch Davidian case, the US authorities were actually trying to avoid bloodshed. In Iraq, Bush made it clear he was going to invade and kill no matter what was said or done.

We've been looking for
evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary
Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time
for the
3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican
Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank
at
Chappaquiddick.

The US government has already announced that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Not that they haven't found any, but that there were none at all.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!

Tell that to the people of Fallujah.

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is
high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Yes, and this message was brought to you from a totally non-biased source. Also, US forces are overjoyed at their sometimes poor equipment and poor support.

For those who don't remember - During WWII, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a
Senator!

Yeah, getting a fair trial with equal legal representation has never been important in the US, especially for communists. We know this already. It's what makes America the greatest land of freedom in the world.

If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
English
thank a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating
'till
next November . . .

Yep, don't bother thanking the president who decided to go to the world's aid against the Nazis. That had nothing to do with it; it was all G.I. Joe's doing.


I mean, omgwtf.
That's one of the most stereotypical pieces of garbage propoganda I've ever read. If the US public are buying into that, it's no wonder Bush is currently ahead in the elections. I fear for this world, I really do...

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I mean, omgwtf.
That's one of the most stereotypical pieces of garbage propoganda I've ever read. If the US public are buying into that, it's no wonder Bush is currently ahead in the elections. I fear for this world, I really do...

Truer words were never spoken.

*salutes Big D*

[Garland]

The US actions in Iraq might not have been the best solution, but they were a solution. That puts the US a step above any of the "we shouldn't get involved" nations, and two steps above those nations who pretended not to get involved, while actually being paid off by a corrupt Food for Oil program. The oustings of the Taleban and Hussein could've been handled better, but considering noone else was willing to handle them, noone should be able to complain about how they were handled.

[Shlup]

The US actions in Iraq might not have been the best solution, but they were a solution. That puts the US a step above any of the "we shouldn't get involved" nations, and two steps above those nations who pretended not to get involved, while actually being paid off by a corrupt Food for Oil program. The oustings of the Taleban and Hussein could've been handled better, but considering noone else was willing to handle them, noone should be able to complain about how they were handled.

This is true. Its easy to say "You're doing it wrong!" when you aren't the one trying. People've died and continue to die, but people were dying before, being murdered by their own leader, and no other country did anything.

I can't say I'm entirely happy with whats going on, but I think whats worse is so many people are willing to say "Sure, Iraq is free from a murderour dictator, but..." Its quite depressing.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

My major problem is justification and corruption, but hey, who cares about picky little details like that?

[Garland]

There's a selfish reason behind everything, if you look hard enough. The US involvement in WWII is largely seen as a good thing, though it wasn't brought about by any sense of good will or justice. It was revenge on Japan. The French aided the fledgling US-to-be in the American Revolution, not out of good will, or a desire to help a down trodden people, but to see England humiliated for beating France in a prior war. There's never a wholly selfless reason for any good deed when it comes to politics. Sometimes, though, there are good ends that come about from all the selfish actions that drive world politics. Granted, the war in Iraq may have been selfish in its intent, but what war isn't? They're all based on greed or revenge on some level. At least some good came of this war, though. That's more than can be said for many wars before it.