Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Iraq Votes Again

Here is a reminder of why I am a proud supporter of the war in Iraq:

From a story reported last year in the Daily Star of Beirut:


''They called all the prisoners out to the courtyard for what they called a 'celebration.' " The speaker is Ibrahim al-Idrissi, head of the Association for Free Prisoners, an organization that documents the deaths of Iraqi political prisoners under the former regime. He is recalling a day in 1982 at a prison in Baghdad.

''We all knew what they meant by 'celebration.' All the prisoners were chained to a pipe that ran the length of the courtyard wall. One prisoner, Amer al-Tikriti, was called out. They said if he didn't tell them everything they wanted to know, they would show him torture like he had never seen. He merely told them he would show them patience like they had never seen.

''This is when they brought out his wife, who was five months pregnant. One of the guards said that if he refused to talk he would get 12 guards to rape his wife until she lost the baby. Amer said nothing. So they did. We were forced to watch. Whenever one of us cast down his eyes, they would beat us."

''Amer's wife didn't lose the baby. So the guard took a knife, cut her belly open and took the baby out with his hands. The woman and child died minutes later. Then the guard used the same knife to cut Amer's throat."

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

11 Comments:

  • At 12:12 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Ironically, 1982 is right around the time the United States began its earnest support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, removing it from the list of state sponsors of terror in February of that year. Dec. 20, 1983, the infamous photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam was taken. Formal relations with Iraq were restored in November 1984.

    This reminds me of another quote by Theodore Roosevelt:

    "No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expedience."

     
  • At 1:36 AM, Blogger spence0422 said…

    I understand that mike, but its not 1982, its 2005. And a handshake is not comparable to infanticide than murderThere are many instances like that one that many former US leaders probably regret. Madeline Albright in Pyongyang is one that comes to mind. But that does not implicate her in that regime's crimes. The real question is not about who can point out past problems, but who can point to present and future actions that deserve support. I believe our action in Iraq is an example.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    It was a long time ago - indeed, our whole lifetimes, as a matter of fact. That was esentially the point of my post - that a lot can change in 20 years, and to use what Saddam did then as justification for our action now is a bit of a stretch to say the least, especially when at that point in time and even after, we were activly supporting him.

     
  • At 9:20 AM, Blogger DERepublican said…

    Mike,

    You just got owned by Steve's response. Grant it, I'm very tired from working the nightshift- but when I read that post, and read your first comment- you definately had an attitude where you wanted to "show steve something." It was like you were trying to say "ha- the US and (insert "evil" here) Republicans are the ones to blame because of it. In comes Steve's reply, and you back track left and right, making no sense at all- prefacing your jibberish with "that was essentially the point of my post." And frankly (maybe too frankly because I'm tired), I'm sick and tired of you Democrats/Liberals/ being against the war and all it stands for- when you have no freaking clue what the war stands for- or why we're over there.

    First it was "War for Oil", in fact, I still hear that "tried and true" babbal these days.

    Then it was "Bush Lied, US Soldiers died." Then, you would switch- and say we did in fact go to war to rid Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction (not JUST for oil), but Bush lied about his intelligence.... (when really it was Bad intelligence that everyone used- including your favorite son Bill Clinton...)

    And now, that Iran is denying the holocaust, threatening nuclear war and attacks on Israel, N.Korea most likely has the bomb now, coupled with the proof that Saddam Hussein used weapons of Mass Destruction on his OWN people... Tortured and RAPED his OWN people... You STILL attempt to go against any of the reasonings for why we went there, and STILL deny that our troops- OUR US FORCES... our US M.I.L.I.T.A.R.Y... is indeed- a force for good in the world.

    You rail against the military, their mission... indeed your hatred for them is so deep you can't stand seeing them in the very bastions of liberalism: high schools and colleges. As our troops are carrying out their mission- and helping the Iraqis build their own government, their own future, their own democracy- republic- whatever you want to call it... you still can't just shut up and say "you know... Today was a good day.... Maybe Bush was right."

    Because I'll tell you what- If war ever breaks out with Iran and it goes nuclear... history will deem that our mission in Iraq was "the easy part." 2/3rds of Iranians are under the age of 25. There is now a fairly elected government on their eastern (Afghanistan) border, as well as on their western (Iraq). Their new form of Government, coupled with the blessing God's bestowed upon them with oil, and other resources... that country will prosper like crazy.

    Soon Iranians will be asking themselves why those in Iraq don't have sewage in their streets- when they do... or why the power doesn't go out in Iraq- when theirs does... and they'll also ask why the Government of Iraq doesn't waste billions of dollars in building elaborate mosques while their country does.

    I really liked the quote you used. "No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of experience." You should tell them to John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, the Clintons and every other US Military and Mission basher. Because it's completely obvious- it's all been done in order to gain political points.

    (don't take this too personally... I just read what i typed out... and feel i wrote it to personally- when it says "you", just take it as "you democrats" I just got done working the nightshift- and am pulling 60 hour weeks during christmastime and haven't talked politics in a while... so i'm tired and cranky- however I do feel just about all of what i said should be said... so yeah- this is the disclaimer- don't take it personal Mike)

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Even though I still think your comments are generally assinine, I am glad that you put the last part in there, as I could find probably a dozen posts or more that show that not only have I consistenly supported our military, but also, at least generally speaking, success in Iraq as well (though I still refute that we had justification in going in there).

    Steve brought up 1982, then argued when I brought up 1982 that 1982 had no real relevance. That 1982 had no relevance was in fact the point of my post; you can't use what Saddam did then to retroactivly justify our invasion, which in reality was based on, at best, faulty intelligence.

    As per the rest of your comments, I'll take it easy on you because of lack of sleep, but I will say that to lump all Democrats, even all Liberals, together is foolish and even dangerous. I'll agree there are some who have gone way too far in opposing not only the war but pretty much eveything this country does. However, that does not mean we should deny historical fact, or that complexities exist.

    As for Iran, were our military not so tied up in Iraq, I do not think they would be so emboldened as to make the statements that they have recently made. I think they feel "safe" because we have "all our eggs in one basket" if you will. Perhaps we attacked the wrong "Ir-" country to begin with, who knows.

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger DERepublican said…

    We attacked precisely the right "Ir" country. Iran's military is much much stronger than Iraq's. Iraq and Saddam Hussein would've been wiped off the map and Iran would be double the size it is today had we not supplied the bastard with F-15's and MANY other military supplies. The Iran-Iraq war, in our view at the time, was one of the major cold-battles with the USSR. We supplied Iraq, they supplied Iran (hence Russia's warm Relationship with Iran today).

    Now, like I said before... and I do think it's a very simply point to understand... the dynamics in Iran are key. 66+% of the population is under 25... that's incredibly young. It's a country of early adults, teens and children. How old are those in power, the religious leaders, etc? ALOT older than 25. Talk about a simple way to be out of touch.

    In Iran today, rather than spending money on capital improvements (sewage sytem, improving electrical grids and supply, ensuring clean running water, the like), the streets of Tehran are seeing money spent on incredible religious improvements. Huge Mosques are being built up near the old one's and sending the message that "all that matters is Allah." Sound familiar? To me it does, old Afghanistan. (Note Suggested Reading: The Kite Runner)

    The thing is, Iran's vast population isn't buying it. When they look to the east they see a free Afghanistan, whose economy is booming and where women are having freedoms they've never seen or felt before. When they look to the west they see a diverse Iraq that although it's going through some growing pains, is 3,000 times better now (aka no sewage or human feces floating down the middle of the street).

    By going after the little fish (Iraq), we showed the big fish (Iran) that we're dead serious and we'll back up what we say (unlike Mr. Clinton). We also have put into place the economical and political factors that can embolden the opposition in Iran (also known as those who care about their quality of life). With a new $100 Billion (ish) bill being proposed for Iraq nation-building/military costs over there... It could prove to be a much better investment than an incredibly costly war with Iran.

    Oh, and lumping all Republicans and Conservatives together is a foolish thing to do as well. ;-) The difference however, is in terms of the debate of Ideas- the only thing coming from your party is "no" and "against" and "pull out"(retreat) and "we can't win"... There was one who thought differently and refused to let himself be lumped in with the others, but Democrats hate him with a passion (Zell Miller anyone). If there are other factions in the Democratic party, why are they so afraid to speak up and take a stand for principle (thereby distinguishing themself from other liberals)?

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Delaware's Tom Carper among others have spoke out against Dean's attitude, and though Dems were not amused that one of our own spoke at a Republican convention, we continue to stand by Liberman (though some have been critical).

    "We supplied Iraq, they supplied Iran." - I know most Republicans would rather forget Iran-Contra, but it seems to me we were supplying both sides to some degree. However, no need to refight that Cold War battle.

    I'm not necessarily saying that we should have (or should) go into Iran, but I think the case against them was and is much stronger than that presented against Iraq. Obviously, it would have been more difficult - but Iran knows that as well. Seeing the difficulties we have had in Iraq (in spite of the success), they must get some encouragement that they are safe and we are not prepared currently to pose a credible threat. At the same time, they are esenatially surrounded by the United States (Afghanistan and Iraq), so they must be somewhat paranoid, driving their desire for a nuke.

    What scares me the most is that Israel simply will not allow that to happen, especially given recent statements. I fear the mess it would make if they go after Iran. Why dealing with the nuclear weapons development isn't priority 1, I have no idea - we already lost North Korea, but we can't afford to have another hostile power with a wacky leader to have the power to start WWIII.

     
  • At 11:14 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Israel cannot bomb Iran's nuke facilities right now. Why? They would have to fly over Iraq, meaning the US would have to support, even complicitly, that move.

     
  • At 12:23 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    Correct, but that certainly doesn't mean that they can't. We don't really want them to have nukes either, after all. Could make for an uncomfortable situation though

     
  • At 1:42 AM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Iran is my #1 FP concern right now...because so much is uncertain.

     
  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger DERepublican said…

    Thing about Iran, is you can't "attack" Iran as an issue of foreign policy with a one-dimensional strategy, Just like you can't when you look at our forces and their mission in Iraq. As Bush stated, its not just military, it's security, economical, political, solving cultural divides and working to bring all sides to the table and to get each one to take up their stake in Iraq's future. With Iran, like i listed above, military force isn't the only option.

    With Iran's president recently banning western music, I think it's evident that he understands that as well.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home