« All Work And No Play Makes Matt Something Something | Main | Touché »
September 18, 2004
It Don't Get Much More First-Hand Than This
I'm just taking a short break from my Analysis homework, so I can't say much. I just figured I'd plug a blog I've been reading regularly since June, and just haven't gotten around to mentioning here yet. It's one of many blogs written by Iraqis who are taking full advantage of their new freedom to say whatever they want without fearing for their lives or those of their families.
There are a few such blogs that I read, but I've found Iraq The Model to be the best. (It has links to others, which have links to others, etc., for the curious.) It's written by three brothers—two dentists and a doctor.
I was astonished when I first came across it. All kinds of stories about how thankful many, many Iraqis are for what we have accomplished over there. Do we hear any of it over here? Of course not. Just quick daily sound bites of how many people had died in fighting the previous day. Anyway, I was hooked. These people are not "partisans"... their number one interest is survival, both their own and that of their country. Many posts have brought me to tears (starting with this one, from the official transfer of power), not just out of happiness for these people and their new lives and freedoms, but sadness that so few in our country are hearing these voices.
Actually, one thing's for sure... more people are hearing them now than ever before.
(I was reminded to plug it after reading this recent post.)
03:43 PM | Permalink
Comments
As a fairly stark anti-Bush-ite (?), I will agree that there is not a lot of reporting of the Iraqis that are celebrating their new-found freedom.
Of course, for every article that goes unpublished about that subject, there is another article that does not get a lot of coverage. Some examples:
Pentagon Says Guantanamo Prisoner Incorrectly Detained
American Muslims Accuse Banks and Other Financial Institutions of Discrimination
My thoughts on the war in Iraq?
1) Saddam was a bad man. While I think some of the "evidence" of his atrocities (genocide of Kurds) might be exaggerated, there is enough good evidence that he was a horrible person.
However, there are countless other horrible people in power around the globe. Human rights violations in China. Genocide in several African countries. North Korea. Are we going to invade all of these places? *Should* we invade all of these countries?
2) We are doing a lot of good in Iraq, and the Iraqi people have, as a whole, a better life now than they did before we invaded this time.
However, we are still pouring in ONE BILLION dollars a week into the country. I would certainly hope that the country would be better with that much money flowing in. My complaint is that I believe this money could be better served improving the lives of Americans back home. As a Libertarian, I would much prefer that the money was not taken out of my paycheck to begin with, even.
3) If we leave now, it will create a power vacuum in the Mideast. This is not good for the region at all.
While this is true, it is based around the fact that we went into Iraq when, I believe, we should not have. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and the last person I would trust to get out of it is the person that got us into it in the first place.
4) President Bush truly believed that Iraq had WMDs before invading. He was not deliberating misleading the American people when he argued this point.
However, Iraq was cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. Before the US invaded, the UN weapons inspectors were arguing for more time. Their search ended when the US invaded, not when Saddam threw them out (again). Most people in the UN were calling for more time, for one more resolution. Iraq was cooperating. Maybe not as open as we would *like*, but I think most people would say that they were more open than closed at the moment we invaded. Is this the message we want to send to other rogue nations (Iran, North Korea, etc.)? "Even if you are open, we still might invade." Countries then have no incentive to open up to UN weapons inspectors.
5) The most important point of all, I believe: We are *no* safer than we were before we invaded. If anything, I believe we are less safe.
As you remember, bin Laden was on the US payrolls for a while. He then began to hate the US and became a terrorist. What caused that change? Desert Storm, and the American "invasion" of sacred Muslim soil.
bin Laden does not hate us because we are "free", as much as Bush would like for us to believe. bin Laden has a list of complaints he has against the US. Some of them are outlandish, and some might have some validity. Most of these complains stem from the American behavior during the first war in Iraq.
So what does Bush decide to do to rectify this problem? We invade Iraq *again*. We force our way back into the Mideast. We throw out a dictator we do not agree with and put our chosen leader into power.
Now, I will agree that a lot of Iraqis welcome us and the liberation of Iraq. However, terrorists are not usually made from the majority of the populace. They are the extremists. How do you think borderline extremists in Iraq are going to react to this invasion?
You are going to get Iraqis who say things like this: "I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists? Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq." (Midfielder Ahmed Manajid, of the Iraqi Olympic soccer team)
How are people who are held for 2.5 years, without charges, without a trial, in a prison halfway around the world, going to feel? How is that the right thing to do?
No, I feel that we have given up some basic freedoms for a false sense of security. Those who have not learned from history are doomed to repeat it, and I feel that phrase applies to the United States of America right now.
-Hank, home sick for the day.
Posted by: Hank | Sep 20, 2004 4:31:23 PM
Aw come on, no fair... for one thing, a comment that's longer than any single post on my site is just poor form. (Incidentally, both TypePad.com and Blogger.com are great places to create one's own website...) And if I don't respond point-by-point—which, as badly as I would like to, I won't, and wouldn't want anyone else to in this venue—I look like the loser.
Plus you've apparently had all kinds of time to write all this out, being home sick, while I've spent the entire weekend working on those blankety-blank Analysis problem sets, and still haven't finished them!!! I think you were smart to jump ship on that class.
Anyway, I dislike this scatter-shot method for discussing politics, precisely because it causes us to take on many deep and multifaceted issues at once, and only superficially. Maybe I'll address the point you called "the most important of all" in a separate post sometime.
But definitely not until at least Wednesday...
Posted by: Matt | Sep 20, 2004 6:12:39 PM
Yeah, I started noting the length after a while.
And I certainly will not assume victory because you do not respond point-by-point. Indeed, I am not sure there would ever be a victor. As you said previously, we could throw URLs at each other all day, but that will not do anything in the end.
I welcome a (delayed) response to the most important point of all. it is the one I am most concerned about, and ultimately I think it is the one that effects the average American more than any of the others.
Posted by: Hank | Sep 21, 2004 12:36:37 PM
