"I have and I know Iraqis, do you?
I know doctors, do you want me to do prostate surgery for you?
I know mechanics, do you want me to take apart the engine on your car?
Are you getting the picture?
"Right and up to now you have always advocated abandonment of the people so that the strong dogs can get what they want. I remember you laughing your head off when I told you about Moktada Al-Sadr a few years ago. It seems you are a little more informed now but your mocking approach to discussion seems just as partisan and ignorant to me."
First, what are you talking about with respect to your "[telling me] about Moktada Al-Sadr a few years ago"? I think you have me confused with someone else, or maybe you're just confused.
Second, the strong dogs will get what they want. That's the point. The people willing to fight in Iraq are fighting, the rest are sheep watching to see which dog will run the herd. And that dog won't be our dog.
All the lives, all the treasure and all the talk won't do much, if anything, to create the kind of place you so naively dream of in Iraq.
And that's a necessary step in the march forward of civilizations. Sometimes you have to go thirsty to remember the blissful joy of a cool drink of water and sometime you have to live under radical, Islamic rule before you're willing to fight and die to live free.
As for the rest of your post, what a hobgloblin of happy-happy generalities you write. Unfortunately the real world isn't based on what should be but rather what is. Right now what "is" isn't what you want and, in Iraq, it's not in our control.
So listen carefully; evil-doers aren't the only ones who've historically done great harm; sometimes starry eyed do-gooders have also created horrible results. If we invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq based on do-gooder notions then that will simply be another example of unrealistic, faith based thinking leading to horrible human tragedy and damaging the underpinnings of a great nation. Ed |
