Early on in this war - comments were made to the effect...

"Freedom isn't given...It's earned...It's fought for."

I largely agree with that statement.

So - does the US have to lose the war in order for Iraq to truly be free?

If we lose - they will have fought for, and earned thier freedom...they will be united by our defeat.


BTW - I am not trying to imply this is part of BushCo's plan or give him any kudos for losing the war...

taking the largest number of other sentient beings with? :shrug:

it has nothing to do with "earning" freedom. that's silly sentimentalism. they won't be free unless we lose this "war." that much seems true. it's true, however, because the people prosecuting this war have no intention of allowing the people of iraq to actually be "free" (in the sense we americans usually mean when we say it.) that isn't paranoia, it's a simple recouting of what those people have told us.

that said, "freedom" is an ill-defined word. it's like "truth," a word that's properly applied to specifics, but which completely loses its meaning when it isn't. people can have all sorts of specific freedoms but it's generally useless arguing whether any given person "is" free. how free *should* "free" people be? free to do what? that's not a trivial question, and the question of iraqi "freedom" is closely entangled with it.

Saddam is now looking like a saint by most standards.
The "ceasefire/massacre" in Fallujah; the rape and torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and other prisons in Iraq. Only "God/Bush" knows whats going on in Guantonamo Bay???

While 50% of Americans sponsor these activities, the other 50% are content to blame "this Administration". At some point we have to ask ourselves -- Is attributing blame really enough?

No one can terrorize a whole nation,

unless we are all his accomplices.

Edward R. Murrow

So - does the US have to lose the war in order for Iraq to truly be free?

The U.S. has to leave Iraq in order for Iraq to have even the possibility of being truly free. It might be years before the Iraqis are at peace... or it might be a matter of a few weeks or months... but it will never happen while any U.S. forces or "diplomats" of any description are there.

Funny how so many here fall in love with anyone willing to pick up a gun and shoot Americans. You'd think there would be some sympathy for those Iraqis who choose to fight for their freedom through politics, negotiations and activism, but to hell with these appeasers. Sadr is the man!

Not a day goes by that I don't marvel at what a genius Nelson Mandella was, given that the lust for righteous violence is so prevalent.

You can take all of the "pacifists" stances you want and the fact would still be that the US is in Iraq, killing Iraqis. If Mandella had been under the control of Bush/Cheney he would have "died" in prison before his fifth year served. It's all well and good to sit in your room and type "peace" into your computer, but if your family is being murdered, your town being destroyed, and you very civilization being dismantled all by goddless, bruts and thugs, then you might have a slightly different take on the situation.

Peace

And Sistani hasn't died in prison. Is the resistance movement making it better?

Breathe all the fire you like, kiddo, but you don't speak for Iraq any more than I do.

we have killers, right now, stalking the streest and towns of Iraq and doing so in your name. I don't have to "speak" for Iraqis, they are speaking for themselves quite well. And if you think that pacifist stance is going to deter the Bush gang, you are sadly mistaken. The Bush mob would just love it if all Iraqi resistance was "peaceful", Bush would win without any negative effects, as he would view them. Remember the 15 million people who poured out into the streets in the cities of the world against his Imperialist grab? He called it a "focus group". You can't fight a Hitler with non-violence - well you can from inside of a concentration camp.

Whether the war is right or wrong, implying that our soldiers are intentionally killing civilians is irresponsible. I have friends and family in the military- they are not wanton killers.

who were shot down at a check point. Tell that to the kid who was killed by US troops because he happen to be in the "rong place at the wrong time". I didn't say that all 130,000-odd US troops were killers, I said we have thugs and killers over there - and believe me, we do.

of the 500,000+ Iraqis who were killed by their own leader? Or to the Israeli families whose kids have been killed by suicide bombers? Or to the Palesinian families who have suffered the losses of innocents to Israeli reprisals?

Non-combatants are always killed in conflicts. The simple fact is that the U.S. military, doing what they have been ordered to do, is conducting a war operation with an astoundingly low number of civilian casualties.

We have murdering thugs in the streets of our cities. Saying "the U.S. military is murdering Iraqi civilians" is wrong, and is an anti-military statement (regardless of what you think of their orders).

Hitler, Stalin, Mao- those are murderers of innocents. Do not lump our military in with them. If we were like them, every Iraqi would be dead by now.

War can change people...for the worse...

Two are, one has been, one was and will go back (probably). None of them complain about it, and they are all quality people. Those that see action take no joy in killing, and all feel that they can do some individual good.

... I was in SA working on the first democratic election for 5 months in the lead up to that grand day. There are very few parallels to be draw from the Iraq situation. Iraq was invaded by a foreign army. In SA, if we restrict the discussion to the apartheid era (nearly 5 decades), it was for the most part a domestic uprising. And the struggle was not without violence or death. According to the HRC statistics, 21,000 people died in political violence in South Africa during apartheid - of whom 14,000 people died during the six-year transition process from 1990 to 1994. In the period that I was there, approximately 2000 people were killed. On the day of my arrival Jan 27, 1994 the doors of my hotel were blown off -- what a greeting from the Klan. By the way these same characters are now stationed in Iraq working as "contractors". I could go on and on but my real point is this, Mandela was a great man because he did not condone the violence (contrast with the US president) -- he worked both passionately and intelligently to curb it. I did meet Mandela during my work there and to this day I weep when I hear his name or recall that moment.

If only Iraq had been given the time, like South Africa, to self-correct, I am certain that a "Mandela" would have been emerged in Iraq.

I just think your last sentence applies to postwar Iraq as well as to prewar Iraq.

If we are not fighting the segment of the US population who are imperialists/facsists, warmongers/racists, fundamentalist/dominionists, greedy/oblivious then we might as well agree with them, be one of them. I, for one, do not believe that electing Kerry to office is going to change this nation - it will slow down the rot, it will put a prettier face on the aggression, but only full-blown conflict - civil war - will ever get this country back on track. I really hate that this is so, but I feel certain that it is.

n/t

Don't try to get over the "Iraq Syndrome" by throwing another weak nation up against the wall. Search your soul. Ask what you've become, and if you like it.

Incarceration rates in George W. Bush's America
and Stalin's USSR:

USSR (1950): 1,423 per 100,000
USA (2002): 2298 per 100,000

Incarceration rate of Black men in South Africa
before ANC rule and in contemporary America:

Sud Afrique (1993): 851 per 100,000
USA (2002): 7150 per 100,000