Iraq: Are we really wanted?

It's got to be better than what they had!

szep27323360050124.gif
 
Is it possible that the terrorists are trying to influence the opinion of the Iraqi people. Here is a recent example of the constant barage that muslim people face concerning democracy and the "western" way of life.
Link
"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," said the speaker in the 35-minute message.
"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."
Can you say Taliban?
 
Elections in Iraq in five days and they pull out more of this negative dreck? Whatever.

Link
A just-released poll by the National Endowment for Democracy's highly-respected International Republican Institute (IRI) suggests that Sunday's Iraqi elections will be much more successful than the nattering nabobs of negativity predict.

IRI conducted the poll Dec. 26 to Jan. 7 in 16 (of 18) Iraqi provinces. It shows that "anticipated participation numbers among Iraqis remain consistent [with previous polls], with over 80 percent stating that they are very likely or somewhat likely to vote on Jan. 30."
...
There's more: The survey also indicates that more than half of all Iraqis living in the troubled Sunni areas — and nearly half of the Sunnis, themselves — are "likely" or "somewhat likely" to vote.
...
In addition, nearly half of those polled (45 percent) say they now support or identify strongly with a political party running in the election, a threefold increase since May.

The survey also relates that: "Iraqis remain optimistic about the future of their country as they anticipate their first post-Saddam democratic elections." Some 52 percent said they think the country will be better off in six months. And 60 percent expect conditions to improve in a year. Even more (65 percent) are optimistic about Iraq five years out.

And though security remains a critical issue, the economy is growing in importance. The survey found that the government is "credited with improving salaries and the overall economic environment."
 
Last edited:
It is expected that 60%, plus of the Iraqi people will vote despite the terrorists threats, so I'd say that we ARE wanted there, at least until the election, and afterwards until things settle down.

The Afghan people managed to get out and vote for Democracy as well.

Exactly who in their right minds wouldn't want freedom?

Surely these people don't want us there forever, and neither do we, but for now, we're needed there.
 
The people of Africa can be said to not want our help stopping AIDS if you follow the rationale offered here. Many Africans do not believe that the disease even exists and none seem to be willing to change their lifestyle to save themselves. So, if they don't want our help and are not willing to help themselves, why are libs so adamant that we are not helping them enough?

Liberals would say that we are obligated to help because we are capable of helping. They keep saying things like "with great power comes great responsibility" - or was that from Spiderman?

Anyway, my point is that neither side can have it both ways. Either you think that we should help those that cannot help themselves, or we should not. People controled by dictators are incapable of helping themselves. After decades of abuse and brainwashing, they are also incapable of understanding their freedom. It takes time. In ten years, they may not thank America, but they will have embraced their freedom - and that will lead to their willingness to fight for it at home, and possibly elsewhere. That makes it a worthy cause...
 
NYBamaFan said:
They keep saying things like "with great power comes great responsibility" - or was that from Spiderman?QUOTE]


That was Sir Winston Churchill. :)
 
NYBamaFan said:
The people of Africa can be said to not want our help stopping AIDS if you follow the rationale offered here. Many Africans do not believe that the disease even exists and none seem to be willing to change their lifestyle to save themselves. So, if they don't want our help and are not willing to help themselves, why are libs so adamant that we are not helping them enough?

Liberals would say that we are obligated to help because we are capable of helping. They keep saying things like "with great power comes great responsibility" - or was that from Spiderman?

Anyway, my point is that neither side can have it both ways. Either you think that we should help those that cannot help themselves, or we should not. People controled by dictators are incapable of helping themselves. After decades of abuse and brainwashing, they are also incapable of understanding their freedom. It takes time. In ten years, they may not thank America, but they will have embraced their freedom - and that will lead to their willingness to fight for it at home, and possibly elsewhere. That makes it a worthy cause...

Good points really. This isnt new for liberals though. Since generally their values are not based on any real standards of truth they easily hop all over the place on issues, placing them often in a hypocritical light. They are for victims, unless unborn. They are for equality, unless you are a white male,
they claim to champion the poor and are the first to tax food and energy.
They claim to champion the "working man" and require companies to pay a "minimum wage" wich leads to fewer bing hired. They call themselves the savior of the "working man" unless he makes "too much". They oppose the death penalty, unless you are aborted. They are champions of the environment but drive the very evil SUVS they decry. They are "pro education" so long as it is THEIR kids in privates schools.


I know I generalize but the point remains.

So heck yes, great point to make about the election. Boiler, I bet you are for good jobs and good wages so long as there are no evil companies around to hire them huh?
 
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads