Bush went, uninvited, to Iraq, ousted Sadaam Hussein, and set up a government and its leaders of his own choosing. He announced, after the “election” (we also have had two “elections”, by the way) that the governing of Iraq was to be handled by and for the people of Iraq, as they chose.
Now, however, Iraq has gone absolutely to hell. That, as you might guess, is entirely the fault of Prime Minister Maliki, so the Bush Bunch is going to step back in and do a great deal of governmental oversight.
Now, I understand, many Iraqis wish they had Sadaam back. In spite of his mass graves, which are as nothing compared to Bully Bush’s mass graves, he maintained a semblance of order now missing from Iraq.
The thought has occurred to me, could it just be that Sadaam was right all along?
3 weeks ago
9 comments:
To understand the Arab mind takes some doing even if one is studying the subject. This herd of the neo-con architects of the war never studied and they never cared, after all they already "knew it all".
There is an huge problem with the nations that we call the Middle East. They were mainly hatched in the minds of the victorious leaders of the Allied Nations in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (Israel came to be later). Those leader showed the same lack of knowledge and interest in the Middle Eastern needs and wants as the Bush Administration does now. Thus they arbitarily drew the maps in the area based on their own colonial convinience rather than on who were the people inside those borders that thus were dictated to become fellow citizens to each other. Tribes were split, enemies were lumped together and religious rivals were told to kiss and make up.
This is roughly how it is with Iraq and I suppose that the historical facts are slowly becoming known even by this arrogant bunch in the White House. Whether Saddam was right after all is debateable. However, it is clearly evident that what these neo-cons introduced instead is much worse than was there before. If this artificial nation state, Iraq, will remain as the one entety when the dust settles down, it will not be the Jeffersonian democracy as some of the crusading ideologs let us believe.
Can Bush leave Iraq with Saddam's fate unresolved?
That, DB, is one of the many insoluble problems that Bush has brought down upon us. If Sadaam is being tried for murder, should Bush not also be tried for murder on a much grander scale?
I know it's incumbent upon our government and others who enjoy the blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed because, otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind of world: a world in which radical forms of Islam compete for power; a world in which moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent; a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West...
Hi Littlebill
Good post! it drives you crazy but even today Bush was bragging how he freed 12 million Iraqi's. They are in a living hell on earth as you know and it will get worse.
I have a bit of what I believe and I won't cloud up the space with the rest but if you're interested it is at the link.
I did a post a while back thinking that Frist suggested letting the Taliban help in governing Afghanistan because they were too hard to fight. I suggested that letting Saddam out and monitoring him as we do the current Government would be the best way to get Iraq back in order but at this point nothing will stop what Bush has set in motion.
Nothing will stop Bush's middle east breakdown. The only way for a W (win) is to fight preferably from the Home front where our soldiers can defend us and deploy from here as needed. To me the key is to get these political children to stop playing games, realize how bad things really are and going to be, and start putting the country first but I don't see this happening and that is our biggest problem!
We must start taking back our America on Nov 7 as our future is dependent on it! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/25/10587/268
You're, unfortunately, right,AAP. What a mess! I just hope he's sweating. I think he and Rumsfeld both mouth words about taking responsibility, however, with only their egos in mind.
ALL: Regime change should have meant any thug other than Saddam Hussein (and his sons) installed in Baghdad.
Excuse me, but wasn't that what "regime change" meant under Clinton?
Good discussion and (nice post by Messenger).
But I still go back to the main point: the whole idea of preemptive or preventive war is corrupt and corruptive.
The BushiTitanic could never have been marketed, sold and set sail for Iraq without the added freight of 'freedom' on board. 'Dogma' of democracy is the right word. With this dogma, Neocons proposed to bulldoze all of the complexities of the Middle East and all of the contradictions of American Middle Eastern policies.
Disgust. Unremitting disgust is what I hold for this cabal. Every man jack.