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

That's one of the primary reasons why the "coalition of the willing" has been disintegrating.

I think the people who say the Bush administration intended to invade Iraq before 9/11 are out of their gourd. That's all of them. And that is based on numerous people including Tommy Franks, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and others I consider credible who say it just isn't so. And the one making mountains out of molehills are those who keep trying to make a case that the invasion of Iraq was already on the drawing board before 9/11.

Agreed.

Fox, in addition to my previous requests for clarification of your position on how the PNAC is 'untrustworthy,' can you answer another question for me: Do you believe the ends justify the means? Ever?

Cycloptichorn

In looking at it from the stand point of the Iraqi people you may be right, we don't really know yet until we see how it unfolds which may not really be for years yet.

But in terms of the Bush administration and all those who were after going into Iraq by any means using any excuse necessary, it matters what their motives were or failing to ever really know that, just that they deceived about the reasons for going to war, matters. It matters because we need to know about our leaders and what kind of people they are/ were so the next time a president tries selling us a war we might look more closely into it. (I think on the whole we have learned our lesson judging by polls and how many people want to go to war with Iran even if they are guilty of something.)

You made the comparison of someone getting money from (I forget exactly) a source and you said it really don't matter why they did it in the end. In the first place, this money that the Iraqi's got (if it can be said they got it) didn't come without a huge price paid in lives and destruction. In the second place; if you don't know why someone did something then you don't really know what they are ultimately after which might not manifest itself until you are in too deep to get out of it--easily.

Yes Revel, but I am not talking about intended ends resulting from devious motives. I am talking about unexpected good results.

Only when you separate the motive from the unintended good results can you see the picture clearly. One has nothing to do with the other.

If the Bush administration had bad motives, then yes, we should look at that. So far, I haven 't seen anybody present much information that I find credible to support that.

But good results, whatever the initial motives might have been, are good results nevertheless.

Cyclop writes


I don't know enough about PNAC to know whether they are trsstworthy or not and don't have sufficient interest to check it out at the moment. I doubt seriously that Paul O'Neill is part of that group, however, and I give hm little or no credibility at all on the issue of Iraq.

Okay, that's cool.

I'm not trying to harangue (heh, I like that word) ya or anything today, Fox, just saying that an in-depth study and reading of PNAC documents will surprise the hell out of you if you haven't done it before. It paints a clear picture of the current admin's plans, and these plans were long before 9/11 happened, and there are some major players involved. I would seriously recommend reading it for your own edification, or at least to help you understand those who hold positions so drastically different than yours.

I mean, you say this:



But if you read the PNAC documents it makes it quite clear that the invasion of Iraq was intended pre-9/11. It's even pre-Bush admin. But who are the members involved in making this strategy? Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld. It is categorically true to say that the architects of the Iraq invasion planned it far in advance of the invasion of Afghanistan and even 9/11.

As for Paul O'Neill... Well, he was secretary of the Treasury at the time. He undoubtedly knew a lot more about what was going on than you or I did; on what basis do you challenge his credibility?

Cycloptichorn

Fox, why exactly are you denying what has been stated by Rice, Powell and others: That Iraq was no threat at all? It has been stated before 9/11, and just last week Powell said so again.

They had the same information, right? And explicit orders by Rumsfeld to bring forth that kind of information that would justify a war is not exactly the same as having only faulty information to your avail.



That, in fact, the information was not lacking, but misread and mispresented in a most outrageous way is not, though.



Actually, that might be your problem. Fox, just look at how the war was sold. Did you believe in WMD? Did you believe in a Saddam-al Qaeda connection?




Even though I have no clue as to what the results that had been envisioned other than capturing Saddam and finding the WMD might have been, I'm with you on that one.



I've had kind of the same conversation when I was in Chile last time. I was talking to this guy who absolutely defended the Pinochet regime. I asked him "But what about the thousands of people that just 'disappeared'?" and he would answer "But hey, what we got instead of Allende was a good thing for many people. So who can argue that Pinochet wasn't a good leader?"



Ah, but you're not even knocking the agenda, Fox!



The why is not only as important as the results, it can even dwarf the results in comparison.

So, the ends do justify the means. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre, I really think you should drop your line of argument, its getting ever more strained and convoluted. Not only are you saying the ends justifies the means, but you now appear to be saying the ends justify the motives. This is nonsense. Are the Iraqi people better off now than under Saddam? Is daily life better? Can they move about freely at night? Do they feel safe? The majority of Iraqis are pleased to see the back of Saddam, but for most, their lives have not been made better by our invasion. I thought there was some sense in the argument that the motives were good but its turned out bad, you however seem to be saying the motives were bad but by accident its turned out good. This is the logic of the mad house.

"Well officer as you can see I've wrapped the car around the lamp-post but over there is a massive brick wall that I didn't hit so I think you'll agree its all worked out rather well and so justifies my initial decision to steal it".

OE, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I have nothing more to add than what I have already said. And no, Cyclop, saying the 'why' is not as important as the 'results' is in no way the same thing as saying the that the ends justify the means. It only says that motive is not as important as the results. If the results are good, few care what the motive was. In this OE and I very strongly disagree.

Quote, " If the results are good, few care what the motive was." Talk about convoluted, this one takes the cake.

My town is ripping up a major street causing a tremendous amount of headache to every motorist. It will take a few years to complete this project, and in the meantime, we all have to deal with slow traffic, orange cones, detours, etc. ..... Big inconveniences.

Why are they doing this? Because when the project is through the prior road which was woefully inadequate in size to accomodate the traffic flow, and which had all those stop lights making it slow going across town when you were in a hurry, will be replaced with a large, flyover highway that will greatly improve traffic in the area. Once the project is done, nobody will be complaining about the few months that we had to deal with the headaches that come with improvements. Nobody will remember all the complaints they had about the construction workers who are there everyday making us slow down because of their presence.

Christians, who have worshipped in Iraq or the territory now known as Iraq for 1800 years or so now cannot do so.
Saddam protected their right of assembly and right to worship. That's finished now, it's Islam or nothing...and nothing's not a smart choice today.

Getting better?

Anyway, as I said before, whether the Iraqis' lot is better or worse now is not the point.

The country is occupied, the oil industry is secured for western interests, the government (when it eventually starts) is a puppet, the oil production is tied to the dollar. That is what the invasion was for.
Mission accomplished. I hope Tony Blair at least pays the price for this.

I disagree as well. I think that poor motives invariably bring about disaster, and are more important than the results!!!

For example: let's say I plan the assassination of a prominent French minister. If I assassinate him, and it leads to a greater good b/c he was a bad guy, then are the results more important than the motive?

There was a net positive gain from my evil actions; are you saying that justifies those actions, or the evilness of those actions goes away, or that we must committ such actions in order to accomplish good ends, or that the perpetrators of bad motives that have unexpected positive effects should not be punished for their actions? I'm not sure about your position.

Cycloptichorn

Well, splendid, Tico. How many people were shot to realize the project?

To compare this with the deaths of innocents, dozens of thousands of them, if not more, is sick. Sick.

Cycloptichorn

August 3, 2004



Christians Leaving Iraq
The religious leaders of Iraq's small Christian community have long-downplayed the fact that many Iraqi-Christians are leaving Iraq. But Sunday's coordinated attacks in Baghdad and Mosul on five churches -- which, unlike mosques, have not previously been targeted -- will no doubt strengthen the resolve of Iraqi-Christians thinking of leaving Iraq and convince others of the necessity of doing so.

Iraq's Christians -- Chaldean Catholics; Assyrians; Roman and Syriac Catholics; Greek, Syriac and Armenian Orthodox; Angicans and others -- make up 3 percent of the population, and are concentrated in the cities. Of course, the lack of security has been a problem for all Iraqis, whatever their religion, but the country's Christians feel particularly vulnerable to attack. For one, many within the insurgency view the American-led coalition as a Christian crusade and Iraq's Christian community as its supporters and collaborators. Shops selling alcohol, many of them owned by Christians, have been attacked, their merchandise destroyed, and their owners beaten and even murdered. As the BBC reported last month, the Iraqi police blamed the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army for the attacks: "His men are no longer fighting American and interim Iraqi government troops, and some suspect they are now channelling their energies into a moral battle instead."

Iraq's national security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie held Egyptian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi responsible for Sunday's attacks on the churches, which occurred during mass, killing 11 people and injuring 47: "Zarqawi and his extremists are basically trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and Christians in Iraq. It's clear they want to drive Christians out of the country." But as the Christian Science Monitor reported last month:


"Not all Christians are killed by Islamic militants. Issaq [director of international relations for the Assyrian Democratic Movement] has compiled a list of 102 Christians killed since April 9, 2003. Some were killed for selling alcohol; others for working with Americans as translators or laundresses. (About 10 percent were killed by coalition troops, casualties of postwar violence.) Many were kidnapped and killed for money, a fate that befalls Muslims, too.


But sometimes it's hard to separate kidnappings from religious murders. Among Iraqis, there's a widespread belief that Christians are wealthy. This stereotype, too, can kill."

Iraq's Christians had their churches destroyed and themselves forcibly relocated under Saddam Hussein, but they didn't experience the sort of persecution that the majority Shia, not to say the Kurds, have been subjected to. Considered less politically threatening by the Baath Party than Islamic minorities and the Shia majority, Christians were granted a greater degree of religious freedom in return for their political obedience. Relations between Muslims and Christians have generally been placid.


Today, Iraqi Christians are upset about what they say is inadequate representation in the current government (a claim echoed by every group) and they fear the creation of an Islamist state. Some Christian leaders say that a separate Christian province is necessary to protect the country's minority. Aside from the obvious failure of coalition troops to provide security, the United States is blamed by some Christians for promoting Islamic rule in Iraq, where Christians date their presence to the first century. As one Assyrian-Iraqi told UPI in early June:


"The American-funded TV station, Al Iraqia, broadcasts Muslim programs four times every day and for two hours each Friday but nothing for the other religions. The recent inauguration of the new government was opened by a Muslim mullah reciting a long passage and a prayer from the Koran, but none of our priests were invited. Why do they do this? Why do the Americans promote Muslims? They need to promote equality and democracy and freedom, not Muslim dictatorship."

Among the Iraqi-Christians who have emigrated, some have settled in neighboring countries like Syria, while others have received asylum in Australia, North America, and Europe. Australia's Iraqi-born population, which includes the various Christian dominations as well as Kurds and Jews, has grown dramatically since Gulf War. In 1991, there were 5,186 Iraqi-born persons in Australia, but in 2001, the last year for which census figures are available there were 24,819. Among Iraqi-Armenians, who make up one of the smaller Christian communities, some have emigrated to the Republic of Armenia.

The number of Christians seeking to emigrate is unknown, but the estimated 800,000 that live in Iraq today represent a marked decline from the 1987 census that registered 1.4 million Iraqi-Christians. Shmael Benjamin a member of the political bureau of the Assyrian Democratic Movement told Reuters: "We're the Red Indians of Iraq. We were the majority, today we're the minority, our percentage is reducing day by day in this country." Perhaps, as Slate puts it, "with Iraq's Shiites and Kurds having earlier been targeted by bombings, it was probably only a matter of time before the country's Christians would get their turn." But given the previous attacks on Christians, the continuing lack of security for everyone, and fears of a future Islamist state, Iraqi's Christians are more likely to draw the conclusion that it is time to pack their bags.

-- Nonna Gorilovskaya

Re-tracking the thread

So, nothing but Schiavo and the Pope in the news? What's really going on in Iraq these days?

http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com





http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3025C76E-24F0-4316-8BCA-9388509FD5B0.htm



The insurgents are making some pretty bold attacks these days for a group that is broken, on the run, or losing. Our and Iraq's path to victory is far from complete, though it is presented as being so by many here...

Cycloptichorn

Agree, Cyclo, I wonder how many supporting this chaos in Iraq are willing to live in the very same environment?