Remember when we were just going to be freeing the Iraqi people? Well, times have changed, and now we are just going to impose our will on them.
"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or, if necessary, kill them until we have imposed law and order upon this country.", said Paul Bremer, the Man in Charge over there.
Imposing our will? Why, I'll be darned if that don't sound just like something a colonial invader would say.
Posted by danisaacs at July 02, 2003 03:27 PM | TrackBack
He was speaking to the insurgents when he said was going to fight and kill "them". But he was talking about the Country when he finished with "..until we have imposed law and order upon this country".
I did infer that "our will" was Law and Order. If that is not the case, then I may have overstated things. Obviously I read the article, and understood the context. Linking to the article provides readers with the context. And they can (as you did) make up there own minds.
Regardless, imposing law and order are not the acts of liberators. They had law and order before we got there. "Impose" is not the tone you'd like to hear from your Liberators. At least, I don't think it is. I've never been liberated, and can only imagine.
Posted by: I have no real name, but like to correct people behind my cloak of anonymity. on July 2, 2003 08:31 PMThey had law and order before we got there.
Of course they did. Who wouldn't want to bask in the Glory that was Saddam Hussein? :-)
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2003 09:16 AMWas there not order? Were there not laws? The society functioned.
Are you seriously defending the Saddam way of life pre-1991? Am I reading this completely wrong?
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2003 02:56 PMPeople had food, jobs, and services. To imply otherwise is foolish.
So did the Soviet Union. What is your point? For someone who screams about your own civil liberties, your lack of compassion for other peoples civil liberties is disturbing. :-)
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2003 04:38 PMMy point is clear. That they had law and order before we got involved. Not that it was great law and perfect order. But that it was pretty far removed from totalitarian barbarism.
Oh boy, you are serious. And I'm the one who has bad logic?
According to you, it was better that the Iraqis lived in oppression because, well, they could get cable?
Dan, maybe you want to reread that last comment...and maybe a bit on Iraqi history.
Posted by: Brian on July 7, 2003 11:33 PM"Was there not order? Were there not laws? The society functioned. Prior to 1990, it was actually a fairly good society. Secular, very good medical schools, flourishing industry. 40 Million people did not live their lives in fear of a madman. "
Refute it with facts if you wish. My only contention is that they had a functioning society, not one rife with civil war and unrest, prior to international sanctions. Is it one I'd prefer? Not in the least. But it is one that existed, and that we destroyed. It remains to be seen if what replaces it leaves them better off.
Posted by: Oppressively Dan on July 8, 2003 01:05 PMWhat? How is cleric oppression (the more likely outcome of the Iraqi mess) explained by what I said? You seem to making my argument for me now.
And which 19th Century strife are you talking about? There was quite a bit of it. :)
BTW, there is bit of that protest prohibition going on in the US, too. They do more limiting and controlling than banning, so far. But you can still be arrested for protesting without a permit, or outside a designated area.
Posted by: Designated Dan on July 8, 2003 04:04 PMtmfxaabw aykifzkp http://gbjmhwch.com nkmdnvin uaqpatpz [URL=http://arbjkoxd.com]ogfhiueq[/URL]
Posted by: oculagiv on May 29, 2007 03:53 PMvdrvcdju [URL=http://zbcnpuwa.com]nijdadnh[/URL] dpwayern http://erlpliob.com ccwbijyr rkqvigjr
Posted by: vnkwcasg on May 30, 2007 06:33 PM