THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Yup. But Americans have frightfully short memories. An informal survey among my undergrads when the US invaded, as to what nations the US had invaded since 1970 turned up one place: Iraq. No mention of Grenada (the great Reagan "victory") or Panama. Sigh.

Afghanistan is the same story; we promised them security and democracy, and look where they are at today. Most women and girls now stay at home except in Kabul. What progress! - backwards, after all the sacrifice and American taxpayer billions. Isn't it funny that we rarely hear anything about Afghanistan, even though we still have our military there. There's no way the UN is gonna control Afghanistan; they've already lost control over 90 percent of the country.

But for people like Occy, Tantor, and McGEntrix, Afghanistan is viewed as a great victory. Why is this, do you think?

The word "ignorance" comes to mind, but I'm sure it's a mistake.

Here's the picture of Afghanistan after two years of the US intervention in that country. We then moved into Iraq. We're the great democratizer of the world.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/afghanistan/afghan_today.htm

What a horrible source for children It should instead teach them to support the vaterland by portraying great victories. Only then will we be able to assure that they will willingly die for their fuehrer.
HEIL BUSH!

occum bill

There is a very good and thorough essay in the present NYRB on weapons inspections, intelligence and news coverage before the war began. It relates to a number of your claims and assumptions above. I highly recommend it to you, and to hobit... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922

Read that the other day, Blatham. Thanks.

Here's another embarassment from our administration. They've simply gone too far on "everything."
****************************************
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/22/1077384639114.html

I've seen you use the "what about all the others etc, etc, etc many times and is the reason I asked.
Hardly likely
Common ground at last.
Utter nonsense. I have never, and would never suggest such a thing. I believe our desires (peace) are the same and we simply disagree on the best course to get there.
Another meaningless insult, directed at me simply for disagreeing with your politics.
The same could be said of the conditions in this country with the same elapsed time after our war of independence began. Rome wasn't built in a day. It is far to soon to begin to measure the differences we have or haven't made.
Yes, I do. They now have hope. Many of the voices now crying foul would have been stifled by fear under Saddam. This is progress. I would prefer a faster timeframe as well, but it is progress none the less. Hope is a terrible thing to have to live without.
Please. I know you're aware of Saddam's methods and the horrors he perpetrated. You are over the top again.
Perhaps this will prove true, perhaps not. I do see real elections in their future. Not like the one's won unanimously by Saddam.
Clearly. Time will tell.
I don't believe that even you believe that.
Gods didn't. Neither did the UN. Time will tell if the US did.

Occopm, I'll give you the same answer I gave Tantor on another thread.

Not much fun having your posts picked apart, is it Bob. I'll refrain from doing it, if you will... (Attempts to pass the proverbial peace pipe)

edit= typo-changed "it" to "if"

Very good link Blatham. Thank you. I didn't see anything addressing the illegal engine diameter of the Al Samoud's or the Rodong Technology... Which claims and assumptions were you referring to?
I would also like to point out that I never defended Bush's over-selling (and yes, in some cases it appears outright lying) to "sell" the war. Please make the distinction that one doesn't have to agree with our leaders questionable ethics or his rhetoric to believe that taking out Saddam was a worthy cause. Nor did I jump on that bandwagon when Bush started using it for a backup excuse. I have felt for a very long time that the enormous resources of the US should be used to help free the citizens of the world of the worst oppressors.
To all: Is it not possible for us to debate the merits of each others politics without calling names and throwing out meaningless insults? Some of your positions strike me as ignorant, naïve, stupid, etc etc etc, too. But I try to resist the urge to say so.

bill

First of all, let me add my voice to yours re the name calling and insults. It's always a distraction and a detraction, and only rarely is it more fun than a careful discussion. hobit, as I've mentioned to him before, can be too quick to frustration and jabbing. But I've been guilty myself.

As to claims/assumptions of yours...actually, I confess to some sneakiness and misrepresentation. When I find a particularly excellent document, I'll do anything to get folks to read it. Sorry about that, but happy you found it valuable.

Pretty sneaky Blatham, but effective. :wink:

Those in power constantly distort history to justify action they took that backfired, or as a pretext for action which otherwise would be hard to justify. What they have not yet succeeded in doing is changing people's memories.

Occom repeats the lie that

This is the exact opposite of the truth. The UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq by Saddam and remained there until the last moment. They were withdrawn by the UN for their own safety immediately prior to the start of the US bombing campaign. Their pleas (and the protestations of France Germany Russia China) that UN inspectors be allowed to continue their work were ignored.

It was America and Britain who denied the opportunity for the UN (on our behalf) to validate Iraqi compliance.

With hindsight it is of course easy to see why they did this. There were no significant illegal weapons in Iraq. That would have been the conclusion of the inspectors had they been allowed to continue. However as Iraqi WMD were used as one of the major justifications for war, its not surprising that the warmongers did not want any doubt or question cast on their reality.

Unlike in the US, in Britain, the issue of Iraqi wmd actually forms the basis of the legal justification for the presence of British troops. They only remain in Iraq legally whilst they continue in their work of finding isolating and containing illegal Iraqi weapons. Whilst they have found none, this doesn't matter. They can legally remain there for ever so long as they maintain the wmd farce. However what you will NEVER hear Tony Blair admit, is that wmd do not exist. If he did, the legal basis for the continued presence of British troops would collapse instantly, and they would have to be withdrawn.

More snags
The Iraqis aren't as stupid or compliant as the Neo Fascists thought they would be.

Iraqi leaders delay pact with U.S.

Iraqi leaders delay pact with U.S.
Decision may postpone approval of interim constitution
By DEXTER FILKINS
New York Times


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's interim leaders said Sunday that they could not negotiate a formal agreement with the U.S. military on maintaining troops in Iraq and that the task must await the next sovereign Iraqi government.

The delay could put the Americans in the position of negotiating an agreement with leaders they did not appoint on such sensitive issues as when the use of force would be allowed.

It also means that another feature of the agreement of Nov. 15, which set out the steps to sovereignty, will not occur on schedule. Other things falling by the wayside are the approval of an interim constitution, which was supposed to occur by next Saturday, and the now abandoned plan to hold caucuses to pick a transitional assembly.

But the Americans have clung to the final date of handing power to a new Iraqi administration -- June 30.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/headline/world/2415562

Bill wrote:

That is the most morally twisted sentence I have ever read. Even though they are lying to me about just about everything it's okay because maybe one of their lies about Saddam might be true???


A position exactly opposed to the one taken by candidate Bush only five years ago, so I take it you are in favor of nation building and would have pursued efforts in Chad, Rwanda and elsewhere where conditions to this day are far worse than they ever were under Saddam in Iraq. And no, they don't have WMDs but neither did Saddam. Which brings us to Pakistan, seller of nuclear secrets to rogue states around the world. Pakistan next or North Korea?
And by the way, how did you come to the idea that Saddam was one of the worst oppressors and a worthy cause? It wasn't one of those leaders, with the questionable ethics and rhetoric, who told you? Was it?



Joe

Bush and Blair would argue that the people only want an easy life. They don't want to fight and die for something that isnt obviously necessary to fight and die for. They don't understand that some things have to be pursued with vigour, in their own best long term interests, because they can't see clearly what those best long term interests are. So war is sometimes necessary, even when its not clear why. Of course its not surprising that those who have to do the killing and the dying might take a different attitude towards war than the people directing it from the safety and splendour of their palaces. And how annoying and frustrating it must be that those same ignorant masses have a vote! It may not be possible to fool all of the people all of the time, but governments keep trying. How else can they give the lead the people deserve?

Well. Quite a lot of different topics and subtopics touched upon in everyone's post.

I would just like to add that I listened to Occom Bill's audio clip from an Iraqi woman who managed to get out of Iraq and is here in the US, but who still has ties to people "back home", many of whom have died or just disappeared.

Her most important point, from the perspective of this forum and present discussion, is that the people of Iraq are "dead" inside. She states, with great passion and emotion, that we don't yet understand sufficiently just how bad it was under the reign of Hussein. I assume that she was referring not just to death, torture, and disappearance, but the effects on the peoples' minds, hearts, soul, and spirit.

I believe that is probably true. In fact, I would offer the opinion that the entire populace is suffering from what we in the west would term "post traumatic stress disorder". If true, in general, then they are simply unable to change over night. In fact, it may take a generation, or even two, for significant change to take place in these areas of the "hearts and minds".

Very high expectations, impatience, and other factors have created an impossible situation for everyone involved. Granted, it appears certain that the Bush administration invested none of its considerable resources into the anticipation of, and planning for, possible outcomes following the cessation of the main "shooting war". Instead, they planned the military part down to the nth degree. All I have sensed is a reactive stance from everyone over there, and precious little proactive campaigns (other than building schools by the troops). Perhaps it reflects insufficient media reporting from us, perhaps not.

Since the rebuilding of the electrical grids will take some time (but not as much time as has been evidenced already - witness what engineering projects were done so very rapidly during WWII), the powerful medium of TV and radio has been problematical. Perhaps I am just ignorant here, but where electricity is on, there should be (but isn't?) almost non-stop talking, explanations, anything to create and change understanding in the populace on the air.

I read that the quantity of newspapers has increased in Iraq. Put out by whom, putting forth what views? What are we, and other nations so that it doesn't sound self-serving, doing in the print arena. Distribution of printed material? If we can make millions of flyers to drop from the sky about other topics during the engagement, we can do it now. Are we? I haven't heard anything about it.

There are so many things that we could, no, should be doing, and are not doing. The only players in that void of opportunity appear to be the clerics, home-grown insurgents, and fighters from outside of Iraqi who have their various agendas.

Are we (the US) so fearful of the backlash of world opinion about our past actions and attributed motivations for those actions, and anticipated future actions, that we are frozen in abject inactivity?