Tony Blaire - Look at the Internet

[micki76]

Well, its the same site as in the original post and I have read a good bit of it already. It's been up here all day.
It doesn't matter if you take me seriously or not. I just wanted to know. Forget it.

[Soledad]

Well, I'd like to know your thoughts on what you've read. Does it make sense to you? Do you see where their line of logic is going?

[micki76]

I've read quite a bit, not all of it. No, I don't see anything that intimates "Middle Eastern domination".
In the Statement On Post War Iraq I read this :
'The United States military will necessarily bear much of the initial burden of maintaining stability in Iraq, securing its territorial integrity, finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, and supporting efforts to deliver humanitarian assistance to those most in need. For the next year or more, U.S and coalition troops will have to comprise the bulk of the total international military presence in Iraq. But as the security situation permits, authority should transfer to civilian agencies, and to representatives of the Iraqi people themselves. Much of the long-term security presence, as well as the resources for reconstruction, will have to come from our allies in Europe and elsewhere - suggesting the importance of involving the NATO Alliance and other international institutions early in any planning and implementation of the post-conflict stage.'

I read that we're going to give them their country after we secure its independence. I don't read that we're taking over the Middle East as our own. I've looked for it and I don't see it. That was why I was asking you how you formed your opinions.

[micki76]

In the Second Statement on Post War Iraq I read:
'The Iraqi people committed to a democratic future must be fully involved in this process in order for it to succeed. Consistent with security requirements, our goal should be to progressively transfer authority as soon as possible to enable Iraqis to control their own destiny. Millions of Iraqis are untainted by service to the Ba'athist dictatorship and are committed to the establishment of democratic institutions. It is these Iraqis - not Americans, Europeans or international bureaucrats - who should make political and economic decisions on behalf of Iraq.'


And this:
'Administration of post-war Iraq should from the beginning include not only Americans but officials from those countries committed to our goals in Iraq. Bringing different nationalities into the administrative organization is important because it allows us to draw on the expertise others have acquired from their own previous peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts. It will also facilitate closer and more effective ties between the security forces in post-war Iraq and those charged with administrating the political and economic rebuilding of Iraq.'

I still do not see it. I'm still reading.

[Soledad]

Try reading in between the lines at times. They're not going to be obvious about it.

[micki76]

I can read between the lines in anything ever written, if I so choose. Soledad, I thought you had an argument here, but apparently you choose to "read between the lines". I could do that with every facet of life, but where would that get me? I could read between the lines of the constitution, of the bible, of Shakespeare for that matter.

Why wouldn' they come right out and say it? If that's truly how the feel and they're goal. Wouldn't they get much more support from people who would actually like to see that happen? Doesn;t make much sense to set up a site and then expect everyone to read between the lines.

[mugsy]

Soledad, I see where you're going with it, but I have to agree with Micki that the overall tone of the article is one of giving the people Iraq control of their own country, with help. Now, I'm sure that the U.S. will back the candidates that will be most helpful to the U.S., but, I'm not sure where the crime is in that.

[Soledad]

What I'm saying Micki, is that they are not going to say "we are going to go out and dominate the middle east, take over their oil wells, install military bases and impose American values on them." They would no more say that than say "we are going to war and we are going to kill a lot of innocent civilians and little Iraqi children", they are going to say "collateral damage." It's just the system. It's politics, Micki, they aren't going to "tell it like it is" if it's going to look bad in anyway.

[mugsy]

I guess I'm not getting the whole thing with collateral damage. It's the price of war. I asked my parents about how it was during WWII and they said there was not the discussion about it. It was accepted as part of the horribleness of war and nobody laid blame to anyone else for it.

[Soledad]

I wasn't contesting the use of the word collateral damage, just implying that it is a euphemism and that there is more behind those two rather clinical sounding words than most would expect.

It sure sounds better than massive civilian death, don't you think?

[mugsy]

But what I was saying was that in other wars that was not an issue, rather it was accepted as being a horrible part of war.

[Soledad]

That's fine, but I wasn't saying that collateral damage was bad, just misleading.

[mugsy]

Gotcha. Sorry, but standing out in the cold for 3 hours this afternoon made my brain tired! lol

[micki76]

Well Soledad, I've done my best to create a discussion of your views and opinions and I can see that's not gonna happen. I was very curious and interested in any information or views that you had, instead I get sent out into the Internet. (I'm generally not to trusting of websites, as they've been notorious for bogus information not saying that’s the case here.)
I reiterate. All I've seen of your insight is that you're against this war and you think we're taking over the Middle East. I just wanted to know how you came to these conclusions. That's all. I just thought you'd welcome the chance make your argument in a way that would enable people to potentially understand and grasp your beliefs about the situation.
I know we're all going off half cocked (myself included) about why this war is right or just, or why it isn't. So many feel the rights of Iraqi's are being violated and just as many others feel like we're doing an injustice if we look the other way and let Saddam continue in power. I HATE war. I FEAR war. I FEAR any person/group that will not even consider attempting to see another viewpoint. That kind of tunnel vision is scary, and I've had my own fair share of it lately.
No, I don't know what the Iraqi people want. I'm not so sure they do either. You don't either. I *think* if it were me living the life of an Iraqi citizen, I would want my freedom. But then again I may not know how to live any other way.

I truly believe that conquering the Middle East is not the goal of our leaders. I also believe if we ever did, it would be the end of our country. We would be blown off the planet. I don't think our leaders are so stupid that they don't realize that.

[Soledad]

That website was a starting point. It is not bogus. I don't know why you have this belief that anything on the internet is somehow shady. This site is run by Kristol, a major advisor to the president. I don't really know what else to say on the matter.

I would give you other information that has helped form my opinion, but it is mostly online and what is not I don't know that I feel like posting internationally (cost and all).

I am left feeling as though you want me to do all the work for you. I came to my conclusions about this war because A LOT of study and reading, if you cannot do some of it, then I can't really help you.