As I was reading over some articles and columns on the various happenings in Iraq and within the US, I came across an Op/Ed piece by David Gelertner in the LA Times that reminded me of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. While the popular myth -especially in the South - is this was a speech called for the freeing the slaves, it was actually a speech commemorating the deaths of the soldiers who died on the plains of Pennsylvania in their effort to preserve the Union that the Founding Fathers set in motion in 1776. In the same manner that Lincoln recalled the tragedy of losing such a large amount of America's population during this three day battle, we continue to be reminded in our daily course of life via the local radio, newspapers and by grieving mothers like Mrs. Sheehan that we are losing soldiers in Iraq. While the people of this country who are opposed to us entering into Iraq a will continue to jaw-jaw about us getting out of Iraq because we've lost some 1,850 soldiers (Lincoln oversaw 23,049 Union Deaths and 28,000 CSA deaths - He was the Prez of the US so he mourned their lose, even if he was pulling for the Union) who call for the US to call it quits in Iraq should at least read the fine words of President Lincoln and think real heard about how this applies to our situation today. So take a gander at Lincoln's famous speech that he delivered on the grounds where so many soldiers had died some five months before:
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain...Sherman said "War is Hell," but it took Lincoln to scratch through all of the muck and mire of the Civil War to note something that has become a universal truth in this nation, which is that we should all pull together to honor the troops who have died fighting in Iraq but we should also ensure that we see the mission through these trying times. Throughout my life, two things seem to hold true and that is they fight for G-d and Country. Now I'm sure that G-d will be there all the time but I'm not so sure if they're convinced that their Country is behind them, what with all of these negative stories in the press. So wake up all ya'll protesters and opponents of the war and breathe in the wise words of Abe Lincoln .
6 comments:
What, exactly, was the mission? WMD? There were none found. Get rid of Saddam? He's in jail. Fighting terrorism? We're creating more terrorists every day there than we are stopping them. Not only that, we are using the MEK, Saddam's personal terror unit, to covertly attack Iran in preparation for the inevitable war there.Impose a western style democracy more friendly to Korporate America than to the people of a country who don't seem to want it? Never will happen.
I've got three reasons why we went to Iraq:
1.Prevent Saddam from developing WMD beyond what a dozen countries' intelligence agencies thought thought he had and had previously used against the Kurds. (It's best to err on the side of caution)
2.End the cozy relationship between terrorists and rogue regimes.
3.Empty the swamp that breeds terrorism in the world and introduce democracy to the region. (It might not be a Jeffersonian democracy but its a hell of a lot closer than what Saddam offered.) It's not poverty that creates terrorism, but the regimes of terror that create the atmosphere that spurs on such acts.
Putting Saddam in jail and holding him resposable for his actions via an Iraqi based tribunal is one part of the equation of Iraq producing an Iraqi style democracy in the similar fashion that Turkey seems to have.
Aside from the Fedayeen, Ba'ath Party Dead-enders, as well as the radical remnants of the Special Republican Guard, the terrorists in Iraq only started showing from places like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Oman, Northern Africa and various other parts of the world at the behest of a terrorist who is from Jordan and could give less than a fig about how many Iraq citizens they kill just to spread chaos and death. I know some small part of Iraq's population might embrace this but I think they prefer the US helping them move forward and allowing them more power to make their own decisions and live their own lives without the fear of Saddam's henchmen busting down your door and wisking you away because you made a joke about Saddam. I guess you don't believe that other folks should enjoy freedoms that we take for granted everyday in the US.
Remember, we were not in Iraq in the WTC bombing of 1993, the 1998 bombing of our embassies in Africa, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole or even September 11th, so saying we created more terrorists by attacking Iraq is rather silly being they were coming for us now matter what you say. Yes, I admit there might be an inordinate amount of terrorists flocking to Iraq but I prefer them to swarm to our fly-paper of Iraq rather than demonstrating their efficiency in delivering death in the streets of Miami, Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, LA, New York and Washington D.C.
As for MEK, the State Dept. declared them a terrorist and our military cornered and disbanned the group by confiscating their armor and weapons. Now we shouldn't take the possibility of using force agaist Iran off the table but I think we're going to approach them like we with communist countries like Poland during the Cold War. If you read the news carefully you'll discover some 60% of the Iranian public are under 30 and are seething to be free from the clutches of the mullahs. If you look at the various blogs out of or on Iran you'll discover one incident after the other when the youngsters and the growing democracy movement are protesting for democracy and the end of the mullahs. You also hear about how the regime has beaten the kids rallying for democracy. Look up the dissident Akbar Ganji to see what this democracy movement wants. Our best effort is to publicly condemn the mullahs and stand up for the democracy movement by pledging you support vocally, financially, morally and whatever they need to take down the mullahs. If we use force, we could create a nationalistic fervor that is best left switched off. Unlike Iraq, the people of Iran need only a push to remove the mullahs. So don't get wrapped up in the crap the MSM has to say about Iran. (And before you say the Iranians voted in their new president democratically, should recall that the mullah controlled Guardian Council decides who runs and who doesn't (they disqualified some 1,000 plus candidates in a previous presidential election). I wouldn't say this is a democracy, would you?)
Let's see, a large market of plentiful goods, rule of law, more constant and working utilities, property rights, freedom of speech and religion and jobs is far better than what Saddam provided. People always love the freedoms of the west more than what the Pew research polls let on. As they gather steam with the creation and voting on the constitution they'll embrace various aspects (I doubt some of the trashy parts of the US Pop Culture will be in great demand in Iraq). I believe that Iraq is a challange we must stand pat on until the Iraqis can eventually prop themselves up. By staying in Iraq during such trying times we create an image of being a strong horse that isn't sppoked easy. By standing firm and bringing about what we promise, we'll achieve more in our effort in defeating terrorists than turning tail and running away from the fight. I'm guessing that if my horse was running against yours, I'd have an awesome payday. I'm sticking with Ole Abe on this one.
No, we weren't in the mentioned places, we were in Saudi Arabia, which is where the attackers came from. Under Saddam, the people had water and electricity, they only lost it after we blew evrything up during the invasion. Under Saddam Iraq had more Ph.D.'s per capita than the US. Now the new Iraqi constitution was be an Islamic one, so we effectively destroyed theonly secular government in the region. Way to go.
In your post, you mentioned the tens of thousands that died in the civil war. Is that how many of our troops Bush is willing to sacrifice?
All the countries intelligence agencies that felt Saddam was developing WMD, yet none of them supported the invasion? Who, besides Israel, were they? Did they recieve their intelligence from Ahmad Chalabi? Our own intelligence agencies said there was no evidence Saddam was developing a weapons program, and under the illegal sanctions imposed on him by the US and the UK following the first Gulf War, he was unable to develop one.
The gassing of the Kurds had happeed to a border city caught between the Iranians and Iraqis in their conflict in 1988!. It was ancient history, like the "dodgy dossier" that Britain used to justify their role in this whole sordid affair. When James Baker III went to investigate these charges in 1988, he put the responsibility on the Iranians who had used cyanide gas as the victims all showed signs of death from that toxin as opposed to the gas that Saddam was using. This haooened in 1988, it's ancient history, get over it!
I said we were not in Iraq at the time these terrorists launched their attacks. As for the 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, you're right but remember housing troops in Saudi were much lower on their lists of griviences for these attacks. They had decided to attack and launch their global jihad because they wanted to impose their ideology of death on the whole world to the point that could erase any remnants of Western Civilization. Don't be lulled into thinking that if we get out of Iraq that these terrorists are simply giving up. They despise our way of life (We would both be executed by using our computers and expressing our opinions.) and will impose their blood cult on all of us to create their World caliphte. You can't reason with these people so why not help them on their way to "paradise" by keeping them on the defensive.
As for the thing about Saddam providing them electricity, I guess you didn't know that the Shi'a of the South we denied electricity by Saddam because he despised them for rising up in 1991(Yes GHW Bush should have supported the uprising and taken out Saddam then.) and 1996. Even in the Sunni regions, Saddam played one group against the other by giving them electricity and water. If you weren't with Saddam you generally got the short end of the stick. They didn't have the luxury of living in Saddam's mega-palaces our getting such money for infrastructure upkeep. (You seem to watch too much of Michael Moore's frap on Iraq.)
The number of Ph.D's in Iraqi doth not make a paradise. Even if you were lucky to learn anything from the atred and continued praising of Sddam, the would still have through jump through hoops to get the money for a college degree. If you were given money, you could go to an Western University but your family was held hostage to ensure you returned to repay the depth by working for Saddam. I doubt that most of these Ph.D's enjoyed the freedoms that professors generally enjoy in the West.
They haven't hammered this out yet. Shi'a under Sistani (who believes that politics should be seperated by religion) prefer Islam playing a big role in Iraq but I doubt he'll allow a theocracy emerging in Iraq like Iran did under Khomenie (sp.). I'll hold off comments until the folks in Iraq agree on the constitution. Now matter what, they still have the current constitution if things go wrong. I guess Turkey, Lebanon and Israel don't count as secular democracies.
I wasn't saying that we should endure that many deaths. I was trying to point out that past US President's like Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Johnson and Nixon endured many more deaths and the US still stuck behind them before calling it quits. I hope we never reach such levels because that's a hell of a lot of people to die. While we've lost so many troops in these past wars and Iraq, it will pale in comparison to what the terrorists will enact on us when we withdrawal. Imagine what they could do to our open society.
Lets see, Spain, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Czech Republic. No, they had other sources and we have 14 intelligence agencies with the US that had other sources. Chalabi, who I have great respect for, was very helpful in getting things done politically in post war Iraq. And what's not to like about a man's tireless fight to free his fellow countrymen in Iraq. He must have been pretty right to have finished second in the runnng for Iraq's Prime Ministership. Pretty darn good If I say so myself.
As for the weapons, I preferred we erred on the side of caution. Bully for us. I think you meant the UN Security Council sanctions created in 1991 under Article Seven(enforcable by force)to check Saddam. It was the UN that created also created the now defunct Oil for Food program that Saddam got lots of cash in his coffers to provide food to his people but said the hell with that and bought Mercedes and built palaces for his friends and families.
The Gassing of the Kurds was done by Saddam, no doubt about it. Just read Kanan Makiya's book Cruelty and Silence or Jeffery Goldberg's wonderful article "The Great Terror," in the March 25, 2002 issue of The New Yorker if you don't believe me. I'm not so sure about what Baker said but he was Secretary of Tresuary in 1988 and didn't become Secretary of State in 1989. It didn't prevent the risk averse GHW Bush from using this in his arguments from dislodging Saddam in Desert Storm in 1991.
Ancient History? I guess you feel the same about WWII, Korea, Vietnam and various other wars we fought. If the gassing of the Kurds is ancient history than the left should stop harping about all the thins like the 2000 election, the Six Day War, Abu Gahrib and all of the other things the left brings up to make a point. I cannot forget the horrific actions of Saddam any more than I can the actions of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro or the vrious other tyrants in the world. So I guess that if, in some odd hyothtical way, someone you loved or even your whole family was killed in 1988 and they found the murderer, you'd say that it was ancient history. I can pretty much assure you that the survivors of these 1988 attacks would beg to differ with your assessment that this is just history.
Israel, under the likudniks, not a secular Democracy? Where Palestinians (even the Christian ones) are treated as second class citizens? As for Chalabi's doing so wel int he elections, according to Seymour hersh, the ballot boxes were stuffed to ensure that some one sympathetic to America won, so if he placed second...and finally, you talk about the stolen elections as if they were ancient history, why shouldn't the 1988 Kurd gassing be as well. And finally, wew went to War in Iraq the first time to defend the democracy in Kuwait, until someone rightfully pointed out that, geee, isn't that a monarchy, so I suppose that someone pulled the Kurd gassing out of their ass, which I again stae was propagated by the Iranians who used cyanide gas, not the Republican guard.
And finally, while we are talking about making the world safer, where's Osama? You remember him, don't you? Why did Bush say on March 11, 2002, "I don't know where he is, and frankly, I don't care. He's not that important"? The mastermind behind the most horrific terrorist act on American soil not important? Where are this President's priorities?
Likud, Labour and Shinui party are secular while some of the othes like Shas are not. Some 1 million Arabs are Israeli citizens and are members of the Knesset. Second class citizens, I think not. (You seem to get along with Israel when you're not wanting to blow them up.) Palestinians are not citizens of Israel because they have a miny state of their own. Seymour Hersh, now that's a joke in journalism who seems to live in a different planet known as Nutzo. He seems to be full of rhetoric and absent of facts.
I quess I should have chosen a better example. What's your beef with the Kurds? Do you think the same about the Holocaust? We noted we were defending Kuwait against a barborous dictator with a blatant disregard to boarders. The government of Kuwait asked for our help and we came to the rescue.
You said in previous comments on other posts that Osama was dead and now he's alive. Make up your mind dude. It'd be nice to get Osama but just catching the head of al Qaeda doesn't mean that all is through in the GWOT. We've got destroy the terrorists all the way to the roots and not just the top of the trees. He's been on the hunt since September 11, 2005 and will not rest until he's done. Remember the President said this will be a gerational fight.
Post a Comment