Tuesday, May 01, 2007
"Saddam Himself Was a Weapon of Mass Destruction"
You should watch this interview with Colonel Salahdin Ahmad Ameen, of the Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga, done by Michael Totten, and Patrick Lasswell. He reflects on the horrors of Saddam's reign, Abu Ghraib, and why the U.S. shouldn't leave the mission unfinished in Iraq. He appears confident that we'll stay, but he points out that if we leave, it will have been the ninth time (including Kissinger's sellout in 1974, as well as Bush I's in 1991) the Kurds will have been hung out to dry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think anyone can dispute that Saddam was a terrible despotic menace. But, he couldn't have been much of a menace, if other Muslim countries didn't feel compelled enough to come to the assistance of their Kurdish Muslim brothers.
It is funny how Muslims can be united in opposing a non-Muslim foe, such as the US or Israel, but don't have the same motivation to unite in promoting peace amongst each other.
US diplomatic and US military intervention will not bring liberal democracy to Iraq or the region. First, the US have too much historical baggage of causing some of the problems there. Saddam use to be our ally.
Second, in my opinion, the Muslim masses in the greater Muslim world are not interested in establishing democracy. Muslim liberal democracy advocates are vehemently and viciously attacked by threats and physical violence from their fellow Muslims in the Muslim world and in the west. If Muslims cannot convince other Muslims to favor liberal democracy, how much success will non-Muslims have in doing so?
It would be prudent and reasonable for the US to leave. This will force the Muslim world to be proactive in fixing their own problems.
if there were more qj's out there, maybe there would be more people taking the anti-war movement seriously. Instead, we get these namecalling children who end up isolating rather than gathering support.
Rachel, I agree.
If many of the anti-war movement acted with more maturity, they would likely make better progress. The problem as I see it (and I am distinctly not anti-war, so take it for what it's worth) is that the media latches onto the shrill nutcases that are not only anti-war, but in many cases anti-America.
Cindy Sheehan did you no favors, but I think the larger problem is the sensationalist media that selects people like her as instant heroes, and that is the face that more centrist people like me see and abhor. I understand why others disagree that removing Hussein was the right thing to do - I was a fence sitter myself during the run-up to the invasion. But cozying up to Chavez or Communists is not the correct approach, and only alienates the very people you're trying to convince.
Post a Comment