THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

That was a bit of trickery on your part Foxy. You want me to answer a question I never asked.

You said

Quote:

Tell me again how Iraq is worse off?

I asked

Quote:

Can we honestly say the Iraqis themselves are better off now in their current condition than they were just before the invasion?

We invaded to positively improve the condition of the Iraqis. Not to leave them as were or worse off. We have to show positive improvement. Have we done so? I'm not sure we have, that's all.

0 Replies

Okay Steve, good point. But I will refer to my previous post as illustration that yes, Iraq is indeed better off than before the invasion.

0 Replies

Steve, you seem to think that Iraq is what you see in the news. There is a lot more to the country than what you can see on TV or read about on the Internet.

There is plenty of peace, excpet where the insurgents won't let there be.
Plenty of security, excpet where terrorists are active.
Plenty of Investment, was it 83 Billion US dollars?
no WMD found, yet.
Oil production hasn't increased?
Secure borders? the US doesn't even have secure borders.
no Democracy? A helluva lot closer today than they were during Saddam's rule.
No legitamate govt.? According to who?
no free press? A single news source that tends to inflame an insurgency during a time when cooler heads need to prevail? Hardly the despotic manuevering that some would wish it to be. ask any other journalist how the freedom of the press is now compared to pre-invasion status.
No freedom from oppression? You are really reaching on this one.

Your plenty of list also forgets hope.

Destroyed the authority of the UN? How? By not letting the UN dictate US foriegn policy and defense? Hardly.

Split NATO? They split themselves. Choosing to support a despot instead of the people that are being opressed is hardly something to be proud of.

Yes, I can say that the Iraqi's are better off now. That you would think they aren't frightens me because you seem sane. again, just in case you missed it, YES, the Iraqi's are better off now, than they were before the invasion.

0 Replies

I certainly agree that having got rid of Saddam, it would be a mistake to put him back in power.

The thing that really gets me about this whole Iraq affair is that (believe it or not) I have always been in two minds about it.

Saddam was/is one sob, for sure. I really wanted some cast iron reason for intervention and getting rid of him. And I really wanted that intervention to be demonstrated as necessary/legitimate after the event. And I really want things to be better for the Iraqis themselves.

But one by one all the stated reasons for invasion have fallen away as mistakes or lies.

And none of the secondary reasons, bringing freedom democracy etc. have been established.

Things don't look like they are getting better. The place is a complete mess.

I thought to myself, ok if you're going to do it anyway, you might as well invade get rid of Saddam and do some good in that country. But what makes me mad with the situation is that I really thought Iraq would fairly soon be a better place. It isn't. And I now think such considerations were way down on the list of priorities.

I never thought the wmd were real. But i did think building a better Iraq was worth doing. I wasnt conned over the first reason, but the second one got me, and I don't take kindly to being lied to.

0 Replies

The problem, Steve, which I don't think anyone expected, is that some Iraqi's DON'T WANT a better Iraq and they are fighting it tooth and nail. Those that do want a better Iraq are also fighting for it, you just don't hear about it as often.

Northern Iraq has been doing quite well, as has Southern Iraq for the most part. The Iraqi army is growing every day. They have a soveriegn government taking more and more control of their own situation. Life outside the hot spots is moving on.

0 Replies

Well I wish I could share your optimism, really I do.

But I think the people who sold this war to us grossly underestimated the magnitude of the task. It has gone wrong, no doubt about that, we were supposed to be greeted with flowers remember? not rpgs.

I think it will go one of three ways now

1. We retrieve the situation, but not without a lot more bloodshed, and over a much longer time scale than we hoped.

2. Bush decides to cut and run...an absolute disgrace imo

3. The conflict broadens out to involve Iran and maybe Syria either by accident or design...(I suspect it would be by design) and America finally imposes a new political order in the whole middle east. 16:52 13/08/04

0 Replies

Or, hoaw about these?

1. The Iraqi government goes ahead and squishes the insurgency, then holds elections and a government of Iraqi's create a stable nation.

2. Syria and Iran see what can be done and revolt against their oppressive governments and new governments that do not oppress so many people are created.

3. terrorists get a hold of Saddams stash of WMD's that were hidden or moved out of country and blow everybody up.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. The Iraqi government goes ahead and squishes the insurgency, then holds elections and a government of Iraqi's create a stable nation.

It can only do some squishin with some squishers and the Iraqi govt is totally dependent on USUK at the moment.

Quote:

2. Syria and Iran see what can be done and revolt against their oppressive governments and new governments that do not oppress so many people are created.

I think Iraq was supposed to serve as an example, but its not working out that way. At the moment both Syria and Iran are allowing irregular fighters to cross into Iraq to take on USUK forces and much enjoying the mayhem they see.

Quote:

3. terrorists get a hold of Saddams stash of WMD's that were hidden or moved out of country and blow everybody up.

If we can't find them, how will the terrorists get to them? Especially as they dont exist.

0 Replies

Squish sounds so much more affectionate that 'attack' don't you think?

It is not conclusive or a 'slam dunk', but it is not beyond reason to assume that Saddam was unloading his WMD during the months Bush was dutifully trying to cut a deal with a balky U.N. (Of course we now suspect many of those balky members at the U.N. had mercenary reasons to be so.) In any case, if Saddam did ship whatever WMD he had off to Syria or whereever, then the terrorists in all probability know where some or most or all of them are.

0 Replies

Quote:

The most conservative estimates of pre-invasion Iraq was 300,000 Iraqis executed

Fox, didn't we go over this already? That number which you like to throw around to support your case is far from the 'most conservative' estimate.

Quote:

It is not conclusive or a 'slam dunk', but it is not beyond reason to assume that Saddam was unloading his WMD during the months Bush was dutifully trying to cut a deal with a balky U.N.

In that case, it is not beyond reason to assume that the Admin took us to war on false grounds, knowingly. If you are going to use conjecture to support your case you must be willing to allow others to do it as well.

Quote:

In any case, if Saddam did ship whatever WMD he had off to Syria or whereever, then the terrorists in all probability know where some or most or all of them are.

If Saddam did ship all his WMD out, then the war in Iraq has made us MUCH less safe. Great work, America!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Tariq Ali writes

McGeough's report continued: "The prime minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement ... saying Dr Allawi had never visited the center and he did not carry a gun. But the informants told the Herald that Dr Allawi shot each young man in the head as about a dozen Iraqi policemen and four Americans from the prime minister's personal security team watched in stunned silence." McGeough appears regularly on TV and radio to defend his story, which does not go away.

The fact is that Iraq is in a much bigger mess today than before the war. The situation was summed up by a former inmate of Abu Ghraib prison: "We want electricity in our homes, not up the arse."

from

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0812-04.htm

0 Replies

Sorry Cyclop. If you have more conservative numbers than the 300,000 route me to your source. I've posted numerous credible sources citing that number. There are other sources, from Iraqis themselves, that say 300,000 is way too low.

I never object to anyone using conjecture so long as it is identified as such. I don't think posting somebody else's conjecture is any more credible than using our own reason and logic to come to a conclusion.

There is no reason to believe that Saddam was not capable of or did not share his WMD with others long before, during, and after the threat of invasion. To think that allowing him to stay in power and continue to research and manufacture WMD would have made us safer just doesn't make it on the logic meter.

0 Replies

Quote:

I never thought the wmd were real. But i did think building a better Iraq was worth doing. I wasnt conned over the first reason, but the second one got me, and I don't take kindly to being lied to.

Steve, your post could have been written by me. We are all asked frequently: Don't you believe Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein? Only a fool would answer No. But that is not the point.

You and I believe the US did not have to attack and trash a country to get rid of its dictator. If we did decide to do that, and lie to the people about why we were doing it, then we should have done it right. With at least 200,000 troops to ensure security and with an after-plan. And with a determination to stick around until the country is stable, no matter what the political fall out in an election year. The country is a hotbed of factions -- and no one can blame "outside" or "foreign" agitators -- and it will take genius, commitment, and perhaps a miracle to turn this country into any form of a democracy within ten years.

Anyone can make a list of What's good about Iraq. Anyone can make a list of a few "good" things about the worst most dictator-dominated country in the world. You can always find a few right things.

But they don't compensate for the chaos, the kidnappings, and the civilian deaths. All of the deaths.

0 Replies

So let me ask a couple of questions here so I can get a better handle on leftist thinking...

Does it matter who it is that dies? Do American deaths mean more than Iraqi deaths? Does it matter who causes the deaths? Does a person being dead as a result of an american bomb worse than a death caused by Saddam sending them through a wood chipper? Does it matter that fewer people will die in the future as a result of x number of deaths now? Even though different people were going to die than the ones that did?

0 Replies

In a 1996 Frontline Special on The Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkoph spoke these prophetic words.

Quote:

Gen. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

Transcript

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

... I think I managed to illuminate the reality of power-politics pretty well. ... I'll repeat what I said.

Quote:
The principle (of preventative war) is now establised that the most powerful nation on earth reserves the right to attack and change the govt. of any other nation on the basis that that nation might conceivably become a threat to US or US interests at some indeterminate time in the future, this assessment being the sole prerogative of the United States govt. and does not imply any reciprocity in favour of less powerful countries.

Here, just to ram home the point, I was being serious. It was not a joke or an attempt at irony.

Yes, I had inferred you were being serious in your flagrant and probably unwitting departure from reality. I do not doubt that you truly believe what you wrote. However, I know you have not provided any facts or logic that would support your claims. We have only your rammed home opinion.

But this is the actual reality:

Quote:

It is now established that the US reserves the right to attack and change the government of any nation who the US has reason to believe is harboring those persons who have publically declared war on us and several times subsequent to that public declaration of war have murdered or maimed our citizens.

The US's failure thus far to civilize Afghanistan and Iraq is caused by exactly two things:
1. Civilizing these countries after the damage done to their citizens and their cultures by their former governments is an enormously complicated process.
2. The US is not yet competent to accomplish civilizing these countries without a great deal of help from a great many additional nations of the world.

Has the US screwed up in Afghanistan and Iraq? Yes, just like we screwed up initially in our efforts to civilize Japan and Germany after WWII. Eventually, the US managed to muddle through and do that civilizing right.

To increase our chances of failure, keep criticizing our motives about which you know nothing. To increase our chances of success criticize our methods and recommend better ones. Hopefully, you know something about better methods.

Lest you harbor any doubt, I am serious! "It was not a joke or an attempt at irony."

0 Replies

Ican,
You lump Afghanistan and Iraq together like they were two peas in a pod. Thre majority of world opinion and the US population was behind our actions in Afghanistan. We were directly attacking those that attacked us or harbored them. Iraq was a completely different situation.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Ican,
You lump Afghanistan and Iraq together like they were two peas in a pod. Thre majority of world opinion and the US population was behind our actions in Afghanistan. We were directly attacking those that attacked us or harbored them. Iraq was a completely different situation.

Iraq became the same situtation when a number of al Qaeda fled Afghanistan and obtained sanctuary in Iraq per the Iraq-al-Qaeda "connection". Yes, the damage done by the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to their citizens and cultures while "connected" with al Qaeda are different. The fact that this or that country's citizens were behind or opposed to our efforts to defend ourselves, doesn't change the fact that in both invasions the US was attempting to defend its citizens regardless of the differences between the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.

There was one other major difference between the government of Afghanistan and the government of Iraq. The governments of France, Russia and Germany had vested interests in the survival of the Iraqi government that in their minds transcended the right of the US to defend itself. The governments of France, Russia, and Germany had no such vested interests in the survival of the Afghanistan government.

0 Replies

And I think you are absolutely right Kara.

Its one thing to invade a country for motives that are not exactly straightforward. Its another to go ahead but get it wrong. Almost like declaring war attacking the enemy then losing the war.

Ican, I can't get into debates with you as to the difference between real reality and actual reality. What I posted was my opinion. This is not (definitely not) an academic forum. I don't have to reference every statement. Where I state a fact, and you have evidence to the contrary, of course you can challenge that. But challenging my opinion because it differs from yours gets us nowhere. Off now, some serious cricket to watch.

{do Americans play cricket?}

silly question....do you know what it is?

0 Replies

Cricket. Hah.

Take off the shinguards and we'll talk.

(Do the British play baseball?) :wink:

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know