Replies

As for the domestic psychology aspect? It is in Washington's discussion of the bad side effects of Americans taking sides in respect to favored and dis-favored foreign nations. I do not have the material before me, or I could refer to the specific paragraphs of the discussion.

As to those "purple fingers?" Surely you can see that celebrating that election as some sort of American triumph was ridiculous. According to the reports at the time, most of the voters went to the polls with instructions from their favored Mullahs, as to whom to vote. The dyed fingers struck me almost as a mockery of the values of the American Revolution, which certainly did not celebrate universal suffrage, among anyone qualified merely by existence. (It was 50 years before the major vote expansion here. That concept was never offered as the defining aspect of "Liberty." And the chaos in Iraq since that "free election," is hardly an exhibition of American style Liberty.)

Of course, I am not suggesting that the Iraqi dictator respected us. In fact, as I recall, he put out a contract on "W"'s father in the 1990s, which I have always thought might have influenced the decision to attack Iraq, later.

It may have been a contriubuting factor. I never seem to quite understand the objecion to our actions in Iraq. Do you realize that if we followed your and other people's stated policies to the full extent, we would have driven Hitler back beyond his nation's borders and walked away. There he would have been free to subjugate and kill his own people, and exterminate Jews at will. He could have reorganized his army and ordered them to amas on the borders of his neighbors. So do you really mean what you say here, or are you willing to accept there are exceptions to every decent policy?

As for the domestic psychology aspect? It is in Washington's discussion of the bad side effects of Americans taking sides in respect to favored and dis-favored foreign nations. I do not have the material before me, or I could refer to the specific paragraphs of the discussion.

Did we take action in Venezuela? Do we really take action in nations we don't agree with as a rule? No. There are plenty of nations we disagree with. We don't invade them. There has to be something more going on.

In Iraq there was something more going on. On top of everthing else, Hussien was providing a reward to suicide bombers in Isreal at $25,000 per family. He was also urging terrorists around the world to attack Western interests. He was mouthing off as if he was financing global terrorism. He would start these hours long diatribes and say all manner of things that incriminated himself, true or not.

As to those "purple fingers?" Surely you can see that celebrating that election as some sort of American triumph was ridiculous.

Oh cut it out. They did just what you and I do. They talked to others, determined who they wanted to vote for, and followed through. Please don't recite this nonsense that was lofted by our Leftist media.

According to the reports at the time, most of the voters went to the polls with instructions from their favored Mullahs, as to whom to vote.

They voted by secret ballot. You tell me who could know this. What if our voters voted as their pastor recommended? Is that a violation of their rights, the "American" concept? No. If it makes sense, you do it. If it doesn't, you politely nod your head in agreement, and vote as you please. Even if they did vote as the Mullah instructed, that is still an exercise of free will. Why is it important to you to denegrate the process? This is right out of Leftist journalism 101. "If you lose, still characterize it as your victory."

We won. The Iraqi people won.

The dyed fingers struck me almost as a mockery of the values of the American Revolution, which certainly did not celebrate universal suffrage, among anyone qualified merely by existence. (It was 50 years before the major vote expansion here. That concept was never offered as the defining aspect of "Liberty."

Our Founding policies were determined by societal norms of the day. Iraq's new founding was determined by the societal norms of the 21st Century. There's nothing necessarily evil about that. The U. S. insistance of women in the process was meant to help woman gain more respect, to elevate their station in life. It wasn't designed to let them take over or dominate. In a nation where some still believed in clitorectomies, stoning for being raped, single digit age brides, and executions for not wearing the proper clothing, it was noble to try and set up a situation where women could help determine their fates/futures. It wasn't some evil devil's plot.

And the chaos in Iraq since that "free election," is hardly an exhibition of American style Liberty.)

If we're being honest with ourselves, the nation of Iraq was very stable prior to ISIS. To it's credit the nation of Iraq has pushed back the agents of ISIS. It has freed territory and returned those territories to peace and order.

It's not reasoned to trash Iraq as a bad place, based on the reality of an invasion it did not do anything to spark.

Please give any evidence you can think of where Iraq has slid back to the Saddam Hussein model. I don't think you can.

While Iraqi norms are never going to be the same as the U. S., on the religious level, I think it is reasoned to state that in many ways it does model the U. S.

1. It's people are free
2. The nation is peaceful where it hasn't been attacked and captured.
3. The government functions reasonably well.
4. It's people do not live in fear of being killed by it's leaders.
5. The Kurds have relative autonomy, an agreement Iraq has stood by.
6. It's neighbors are not under the gun.

This isn't a better condition than before? Sure it is.