Excerpt of President's Statement About Iraq

[adios]

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.


What's wrong with what the U.S. president says here?

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.


What's wrong with what the U.S. president says here?

[/ QUOTE ]

That he's been saying it for 6 years?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.


What's wrong with what the U.S. president says here?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rejoin" and "reintegrate"???

Also, how can the President possibly know that the Iraqis crave freedom? Many people prefer order to freedom.

The use of the word "unattainable" is somewhat out of place too, I think. It's not a question of whether the Iraqis are capable of attaining freedom, but rather whether they are sufficiently desirous of freedom to make it a high enough priority and to pay the steep and necessary price for it.

Bush and the Neocons have a Dream, all right. The key questions are: whether the Iraqis share that dream and crave it badly enough to make the requisite sacrifices, and whether they will place that dream above sectarian ambitions and area/tribal/militia loyalties.

Bush somehow thinks he knows the answer to that question. I think the only way to find out the answer to that question is by observing the Iraqis' actions. So far, my impression is that results do not point encouragingly towards The Dream for Iraq.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

[/ QUOTE ]

this part

[Zygote]

since when did democracy = freedom?

I dont see why people think this way

[adios]

John, this is not only a neocon dream it's been part of U.S. foreign policy prior to the Bush administration. People have short memories I realize but it's unconscienable IMO for the Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, to go spouting off about Iraq and how they had nothing to do with foriegn policy related to Iraq.

Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by William J. Clinton 42nd President of the United States

Iraqi Liberation Act

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
since when did democracy = freedom?

I dont see why people think this way

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I wish someone would tell that to the Administration [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

IMO two prerequisites for freedom in the Middle East are:

1) A strong Constitution, so oriented as to be compatible with and highly protective of freedom

2) An official REPUDIATION of Shari'a Law and Shari'a-based governance

The first was blown when primary compatibility with the Shari'a was written into the new Iraqi Constitution.

The second just isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, IMO (although I'd love to think or see otherwise).

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
John, this is not only a neocon dream it's been part of U.S. foreign policy prior to the Bush administration. People have short memories I realize but it's unconscienable IMO for the Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, to go spouting off about Iraq and how they had nothing to do with foriegn policy related to Iraq.

Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by William J. Clinton 42nd President of the United States

Iraqi Liberation Act

The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you fully after reading that. The excerpt and quote proves your point that democracy for Iraq has been a part of U.S. policy before the Bush administration and that it was not only limited to the Neocons.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
since when did democracy = freedom?

I dont see why people think this way

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention 'democracy' is something entirely different what US administration would like for Iraq. I'm certain people in the US wouldn't like that kind of 'democracy' in their country.

Not to mention 'freedom' means something entirely different for citizens of probably all countries around the globe than freedom US administration would like for Iraq. I'm sure people in the USA wouldn't like that kind of freedom in their country.

Why more people don't think about it this way?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention 'freedom' means something entirely different for citizens of probably all countries around the globe than freedom US administration would like for Iraq. I'm sure people in the USA wouldn't like that kind of freedom in their country.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good point IMO.