in current events

Not really courting popularity

So, our original reason for invading that country over there was because we knew they had “weapons of mass destruction.” Though, um, it seems now that maybe they didn’t.

So, as it became clearer to Those In Charge that we weren’t going to find any such weapons, the story shifted to one of regime change, and this idea of rescuing citizens from their oppressors, made official through the name Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Then we go stormin’ in, and, with some minor hitches, make our way into Baghdad, take over the city, and Iraqis cheer at the toppling of the statue of their (likely dead) leader.

And I get this sense that I’m supposed to feel joy at the liberation of the oppressed, the cheering masses in the streets, yet, what keeps recurring (and this is where I’ll be distinctly unpopular) is, “Fuck them.”

If Hussein’s regime was so painfully repressive, where was the revolution from within? Don’t tell me it’s just because they were afraid. Throughout history people have risen up to fight for their freedom, if the situation had become unbearable. And it’s pretty clear that we’re dealing with a culture that’s willing to die for its cause, yet, in this instance, the only Iraqis willing to die were those fighting the Coaltion of the Shilling.

Why are we expending value people and resources to help people who won’t help themselves?


  1. we weren’t trying to help them. which is what you were really saying. the administration’s blatant misdirection and manipulation is the cause of the dissent here in america; it’s not the courses of action we disagree with, but how we came to them. if any of us were dating this administration, we’d dump them.

  2. “If Hussein’s regime was so painfully repressive, where was the revolution from within?”

    Come on now Peter, do so research. Saddam methodically killed off all the opposition over 30 years of rule. Its well documented. NYT Magazine had a psycological profile of him a couple years back that went into a lot of the details. The man’s hero is Joe Stalin, he was/is extremely smart and completely ruthless. Its hard for a country to have a revolution when all 200,000 of the potential revolutionary leaders are dead. And in spite of that there are revolutionary movements in the south, and they didn’t support the US because we betrayed them 10 years ago. And there are revolutionary movements in the north, but they’ve been running their own independent Kurdistan for 10 years. And they are the ones who “liberated” Mosul and Kirkut.

    That doesn’t justify the invasion of course. The Iraqis obviously have very mixed feelings about the US coming in, and war of course is very rarely the best way to solve problems in the first place. But don’t try and down play the repressiveness of Saddam, he’s one sick mofo who mastered the art of rule through violence.

  3. Iraqi dissenters.
    The Russian Purge victims.
    The Jewish Holocaust victims.
    Blacklisted American workers and artists.
    Lenny Bruce.

    It’s really hard to feel sorry for all these shmucks who were so complicit in their own oppression.

  4. Don’t believe anything you read… there is no such country as Iraq, and Baghdad was just used in the Arabian Nights and Sinbad. Think about it! How come you never saw any video from Baghdad until *after* all those Hollywood special-effects movies came out, huh!? It’s all a media plot!

  5. I agree peter ( think tahts your name juding by the URL).

    Why such a policy cahnge.. remember the first gulf war, the shite uprsing had taken over all but 4 (of 18) provinces or states.. im not sure what they call them.. and we allowed Saddam to use helicopter gunships within and around the no fly zone to put down the rebels. only after we allowed such use was saddam able to quell the rebellion…. so, its not taht they didnt help themselves.. just that bush isnt telling us the real reason for going in there.

  6. Afraid doesn’t being to cover it.

    Hard to rise up when the government does things like kill your relatives. You try to do something, they kill you. You try to leave, they kill your relatives. You leave and try to do something, they kill your relatives.

    Sort of kills incentive, doesn’t it? Also kills any thought of having a group of people support you. They have more to risk helping you than ratting you out.

    The post 1991 failure to act can be SQUARELY blamed on political failure on the part of Europe. But then again, so can WWII.

    The arrogance and racism demonstrated by the “arab savages can’t run their own democracy” sentiment is a huge problem for much of Europe and, apparently, here too. But then again, thse sort of folks thought the US wouldn’t be able to do it back in 1776 either. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

    Additionally, the uprisings in 91, supported by theocracracy driven fanaticism hardly counted as a betterment of the peoples. It’d have sucked less, but it’d have sucked just the same.

    Isn’t it amazing that we went from being unable to defeat the enemy to being able to ‘stage’ things in the middle of downtown Baghdad. The flailing here on the part of the skeptics borders on the ridiculous.

    Ask yourselves, what good will a secular democracy do for the region?

  7. Two well put 4-letter words which a lot of people would probably agree with.

    They are certainly two words heard in the LACK of voice on the part of the Arab community in America and abroad following 9-11 up until they realized we were pissed and some of us were having a hard time containing it around them.

    But I digress. To answer your question, we have the stated reasons and probably some unstated reasons, which wouldn’t be very popular. I’d say it’s what we do every few years. Look at Panama, Somalia, Bosnia and you’ll see what I mean.

  8. “Isn’t it amazing that we went from being unable to defeat the enemy…”

    sez who?

    Who ever said we couldn’t defeat the Iraqi army/regime?

    I call straw argument.

Comments are closed.