Pondering Failure in Iraq

[mabudon]

Curiousity, if I were "typical" the world would be in a much better situation, so I gotta say you're wrong in calling me that

You just want to somehow label me and toss me aside, so be it...

What do you think of that Iraq Hydrocarbons law I posted a link to?? That would be more on topic than your Canadian bashing... OH and I know a LOT of US citizens believe a LOT of stupid crap, so those who would somehow hate and distrust our country thanks to baseless sophism are not really too important in the big picture- lots of them believe in Aliens too, remember, but that don't mean they're right

 

[Curiosity]

Mabudon

Whatever you wish to rant, I don't have any desire to continue this ridiculous dialogue.

I wish to request something however, if you address me again ever - please spell my name correctly.

I know Canadians get confused with "U"s....but my name and the word Curiosity does not have a U in it.


Thank you.

 

[fuzzylogix]

That's fine, but you don't live in a democracy.

And just out of curiosity gopher, pulling out and leaving Iraq the mess that it is accomplishes what exactly? Your opinion please.

And sending in 21,000 more troops to increase the slaughtering accomplishes what exactly? Your opinion please?

 

[Tonington]

OK, so heres what I have a problem with *note, I didn't think the war in Iraq was a good idea, and I'm glad Canada isn't there, BUT. So we all know how much of a quagmire this is. One brutal leader has been ousted and now the violence is rampant. What good would it do for the President to say, OK we were wrong, lets leave Iraq in a mess, and maybe ten to fifteen years from now Iraq will be in the same state Afghanistan was in Pre 9/11. How on Earth does that make things better? Maybe the US could increase funding to the Iraqis, so they can pay troops for training, and the Americans can help the Iraqis to take control of their own destiny? That certainly would leave Iraq more legitimate than say if the Americans were to just up and leave abruptly?

 

[gopher]

```And just out of curiosity gopher, pulling out and leaving Iraq the mess that it is accomplishes what exactly? Your opinion please.```


For several years, pro war critics wanted the USA to stay in Vietnam for damn near eternity. The critics said commies will overrun the world if we don't continue the war. And they said we must fight commies there or we will have to fight them here on our own streets.

Do these words sound familiar? This is precisely what today's critics are saying about Iraq. It's the same old tired garbage that has absolutely no logic or common sense.

You read of President Ford's recent death -- what happened when he withdrew the troops from Vietnam?

The Vietnamese sorted out their problems and today they are capitalist!

Why? Because their conflicts were never our goddamn business in the first place.

What will be accomplished by the USA leaving Iraq as over 70 % of the population wants us to do?

Iraqis will sort out their own problems just as did the Vietnamese!

 

[talloola]

I don't agree that Iraq will sort itself out just as Vietnam did, they were all vietnamese, north and south,
the french were there before the u.s., then they left, and the u.s. arrived, the trouble was well underway, they didn't have all the
interference from a group of other countries, as well as Alqueda, just the north vietnamese.

If the U.S. left Iraq now, or even over the next 3 mos., the country would begin to bow to whoever
wins over the "various" groups, who are not all Iraqis. That problem was caused by the U.S., so they
are responsible for the outcome to a great extent.

I feel sick about all the death and destruction in that country, but, it is there, the u.s. can't just walk
away, after all they have done, and go back to "business as usual" at home, and leave the Iraqis to try
and sort out their problems, the U.S., "caused" their problems. The U.S. has to try and regain some
"respect" from other countries now, by giving one last "push" and, if the Iraqi government cannot hold
on to their country "after" one more "kick at the can", then perhaps the U.S. can go home, and at least
know that no matter "what",that government in Iraq just wasn't going to work, and leave it at that.

The place they are at "right now", should have happened long ago, as there has been a rather mixed
effort by the iraqi government to this point, and now they can't do that any longer, they have to step
up and be fair to everyone. Even though I was totally against George Bush's invasion of Iraq, I am
interested to see if that government, after nine more months of military action, can and will stand
on their own.

The Iraqi government "wants" the u.s. to be there, but now they know that November is the end of it,
so, lets see what happens. Perhaps there is a "faint" glimmer of hope that it could work.

I only wish that George Bush was much closer to the end of his presidency,as he has been a disaster
as a leader, I'm looking forward to their next election, as I know after this horrible experience, they
will tread a little lighter around the world.

I also know how much good they do in the world, and how generous they are, and the world without
the U.S. would be a much "poorer" place.

 

[Curiosity]

Talloola

You write:

I don't agree that Iraq will sort itself out just as Vietnam did, they were all vietnamese, north and south,
the french were there before the u.s., then they left, and the u.s. arrived, the trouble was well underway, they didn't have all the
interference from a group of other countries, as well as Alqueda, just the north vietnamese.

Can you clarify what your point is here for me?

You state the "French left ..... and the U.S. arrived, the trouble was well underway....".....have you knowledge of what French Colonialism has done to our world throughout history? As a Canadian you
might have more appreciation than some other nations who have not been kissed by the Fleur de Lis.

Then you ignore the intervening years during WWII when the Japanese occupied and savaged that nation - both north and south.....then the communist invaders....

Do you think the U.S. for no reason invaded that land? Do not believe that VietNam did not need assistance? During the post WWII years the Communist regime was spreading throughout Asia - perhaps it would have been more prudent for the U.S. to resist trying to assist the Vietnamese people who were struggling to create a democracy when they had been "occupied" for succeeding decades by outsiders.... I cannot believe we in the west do not recognize what a beautifully strong and intelligent people the Vietnamese are - both north and south - and I hope their future brings them much prosperity and independence.

The stories immigrants from VietNam share their stories with us as they arrive in the U.S. are of a nation surviving despite all adversities thrown their way by "invaders and occupiers".... and all people in western democracies seem to focus on are the VietNam War (a very small segment of their trauma) rather than the history of the people.

 

[northstar]

As usual, you are completely incorrect in your statements, earth, because you certainly do not represent Canadians in your open support of a terrorist organization and in your claims that Hezbollah are simply 'freedom fighters' when they have been declared by out national security for good reason as terrorists.

Since most canadians understand that Hamas is a terrorist organization and MAINSTREAM ISLAM has issued a Fatawa against Nato alined citicizens. {Yes citicizens!} TERRORIST SUPPORTERS ARE THE minority since Canadians support the laws of this country in not pushing false propaganda messages about a terrorist organization who targets children and civilians. i HOPE THEY CLUE IN AT THE BOARDER WHEN YOU SCAN YOUR CONSCIOUS.

Anyone who is enjoying the freedom and peace of our country should understand clearly that Hamas is a dangerous terrorist organization who targets 'sympathy' invoking propaganda on forums such as this. They are in fact evil, curropting the minds of children through offering one point of view through family, community, school and games that show how to murder North Americans.

This is all backed by the rantings of a rock worshipper, who justified murder, rape, slavery, torture and stealing. This is taught as vividly through MAINSTREAM teachings of the Quran. Fatawa's have been issued by IMAM's for civilian deaths of all infidels in the name of Allah [the newspapers incorrectly translated the arabic word for allah to GOD and this is not God, it is Allah, the Moon God}.

So now people are understanding the gravity of the situation, and l am not saying l suport sending more troops. I feel the situation is not looking peaceful or hopeful. With drugs and oil fueling the way and a religion that is all about hate and deception in the name of Allah the moon God, l want our people out.

Anyone who supports Hezbollah or Hamas or the PLO or the number of identified and declared terrorist organizations should just leave our country, they don't deserve to live here and enjoy everything that our soldiers in world war one and two, fought and courageously laid down their lifes for. Anyone who supports these groups in any way should educate themselves about the reality, which is far removed from the propoganda plastered on these boards through earth and logic to name a few.

For example the Prez. AhMADiJIHAD, who openly supports terrorism and has financed Hezbollah, Hamas and a number of other organization is behind several fatawas, and about as sane as a serial killer.

tO CONSTANTLY MAKE UP SUCH STUPIDITY AND GIVE BACK DATED INFORMATION IN CUT AND PASTE ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THESE CLAIMS OF SUPPORT CREDIBLE IS DECIETFUL.

 

[earth_as_one]

We are at a point where it really doesn't make any difference whether the US sends in more troops or not. So many mistakes have been made with Iraq for so long, that sending in another 20,000 troops will not stop Iraq from descending into anarchy.

Here is a list of mistakes:

As soon as Iraq had been disarmed of WMDs, sanctions should have been eased. Instead, the US used its position as a permanent member of the UNSC to maintain the sanctions long after they had served their purpose. It was a mistake not to reward Iraq's cooperation with UNSCOM in 1998. Instead the US put the onus on Iraq to prove it did not possess WMDs. Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. When Iraq realized sanctions would never be lifted no matter how much it cooperated with UNSCOM, and that UNSCOM's had become a front for foreign spy missions, it stopped cooperating. That's when Clinton advised UNSCOM to leave Iraq and ordered Iraq bombed from one end to the other.

Bugging Saddam
Monday, Jan. 18, 1999
By BRUCE W. NELAN

...The suggestion: U.S. spies had used UNSCOM, a purportedly neutral U.N. commission, to collect lethal targeting intelligence about Saddam while masquerading as independent inspectors. It was a shocking charge--as if Girl Scouts peddling cookies were also casing your house for a burglary--...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,18060,00.html

When Iraq agreed to a ceasefire in 1991, the US and UK kept bombing Iraq under the guise of no-fly zones, right up until the 2003 invasion in violation of the terms of the ceasefire.

In a pair of editorials after the 1991 Gulf War, one of them titled "Don't Shoot Down Iraqi Aircraft," The New York Times called the plan to create vast "no-fly zones" (NFZs) in Iraq "legally untenable and politically unwise." The editorials, based on a careful reading of United Nations resolutions, were explicit: "The [cease-fire] accord permits Iraq to fly all types of aircraft and sets no restriction on their use. Shooting them down would put the United States in the position of breaking an accord it is pledged to uphold." Saying that Washington was entering "new and dangerous territory," the Times warned, "The purpose [of the NFZs] is unclear, probably unwise and maybe even illegal."
In fact, no UN resolution or other international authority exists to legitimize the NFZs, which are currently the scene of an intensifying air-to-ground firefight between an armada of U.S. and British warplanes and an ineffectual Iraqi defense system. The British-American presence over Iraq is a case of might-makes-right, and Iraq's feeble attempts to defend its skies are justified under international law....
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/23/dreyfuss-r.html

The invasion itself was a mistake. The US failed to prove Iraq possessed WMDs or was involved in 9/11. Therefore it was not sanctioned by the UNSC and was illegal:

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm

As a result of the above mistakes, foreign invasion forces were recieved with hostility not welcomed as liberators.

Once the US seized control of Iraq, it made another serious mistake:

Wrong Turn at a Postwar Crossroads?
Decision to Disband Iraqi Army Cost U.S. Time and Credibility

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 20, 2003

..."This was a mistake, to dissolve the army and the police," said Ayad Alawi, head of the security committee of the Iraqi Governing Council. "We absolutely not only lost time. The vacuum allowed our enemies to regroup and to infiltrate the country."

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a vocal opponent of the war, calls the move the Bush administration's "worst mistake" in postwar Iraq... http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer

This mistake led to looting, rape and murder which has grown over time to become a civil war.

Another mistake was to indesciminately round up Iraqis and torture them at places like Abu Ghraib:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

WASHINGTON — Coalition military intelligence officials estimated that 70% to 90% of prisoners detained in Iraq since the war began last year "had been arrested by mistake,"...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-04.htm

Torturing mostly innocent people didn't win any Iraqi hearts or minds.

As the insurgency picked up steam and American soldiers started dying, incidents like the Haditha massacre became inevitable:

Survivors say Marines went house to house in a rage

...the Marines arrived first at the door of Abdul Hamid Hassan Ali, 89, who had been using a wheelchair after his left leg was amputated. They shot him dead and then turned their guns on his three sons and their families, survivors said.

Waleed Abdul Hameed, 48, a worker in an Anbar religious-affairs office, was among the first of the family members to be gunned down. His 9-year-old daughter, Eman, who survived, said she was wearing her pajamas when the Marines arrived. Her brother, Abdul Rahman, 7, also survived, and said he hid his face with a blanket when his father was shot. Minutes later, the boy saw his mother fall to the ground, dying....

...Everybody was at home when the gunmen arrived. Except for one 12-year-old daughter, the family was wiped out. Four girls and one boy, ranging in age from 4 to 15, were shot dead by the Marines...

...The Marines yelled in the faces of her family members before they shot them, she said. After they were shot, they kicked them and hit the bodies with their guns...

...Four university students, two of them brothers, and their taxi driver drove too close to where the families had been killed. Witnesses said Marines stopped their car, ordered them to get out and shot them dead...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003031922_hadithatale01.html

None of the Haditha massacre victims have ever been linked to an insurgent group.

This is not about cutting and running but accepting reality.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.​

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. ​

All the king's horses and all the king's men ​

Couldn't put Humpty together again.​

Sometimes its not a good idea to "maintain the course"

The USS Enterprise was cruising in Canadian waters as part of a NATO naval exercize, when suddenly a voice came on their Radio.

" Attention, unidentified vessel , bearing 113; change course immediately to 360. You are in collision course with us at your current heading.
The task force commander, an Admiral of the USN no less, instructed his radio operator to call back :" Negative! This is the USS Enterprise! You change your course. "

The unidentified caller responded in a strong Newfie accent: " That's a negative me son, we won't change course. You must bear to port , 360 to avoid collision!"

The Admiral took over the Mike and let loose with a tirade of obscenity, finishing with: We will not change course! If you do not change course we will run you down!"

Who the hell is this anyway?


Well me son, this is the lighthouse keeper!

Everything the US has done to Iraq over the last 15 years, has put Iraq on course for civil war. 20,000 new soldiers won't change much. Eventually the Americans will retreat into their fortresses. Once the Iraqis settle things amongst themselves, they will turn their attention to the Americans. Eventually, the US will be forced to pull its military out of Iraq.

 

[TomG]

I have the greatest of sympathy for the people of Iraq who are now required to step up and take charge of their own country now that freedom and democracy have been implemented. But how is any arbitrary piece of geography supposed to step up after decades of dictatorship, economic blockade, bombardment and occupation.

And, above all where is the country? Is the country that which is defined by borders drawn by a colonial power? Where are the groups of individuals who simply and overwhelmingly just want to live together, and who are willing to be collectively governed to do so? Where is the willingness by virtually everybody to be governed by any other person or institution that is appropriately chosen to exercise the coercive powers of government? Where is the society that will form a country to administer its collective affairs? Who or what is it that must step up, what is there to step to and what must be done? Where are these things? What is a step?

Institutions serve a country, and a country serves a society. A society isn’t created by bringing institutions home like a box from WalMart. If groups have a desire to live together they will find a way to do so. The institutions and documents adopted are largely irrelevant except for administrative convenience. The starting place is with individuals who simply want to live together. In absence of that willingness, there is nothing to step up to.

My sympathies to all peoples who are governed by those required to step up and pretend that illusion is real. My sympathies to all those who are required to step up along a path that lacks even the substance of beach sand. To those who are required to find a path where no marks of those who went before can be found following each changing tide of fashion in step dancing.

My sympathies to all those who suffer the increased misery their governments are required to inflect as the price of IMF assistance. IMF is just another exercise in sterile counter-productive theory that confuses form with substance, effect with cause, greed with magnanimity, corruption with virtue. Oh Curiosity, not even an American yet and already threatening us. Please threaten us some more. I want the divide much wider and deeper so I will not stand alone. I will be part of the world that has suffered through American step dancing and is still standing. We are not alone. Tap dancing to please a bully is truly being alone.

 

[thomaska]

The way I see it, the U.S. is still in for one or two more surge of "America-hate". The first being when we leave that cess-pool of religious zealots and brainwashed sheeple, and the entire region goes to hell in a handbasket even worse than it is now. This will of course be the U.S.s' fault, not the brain washed masses killing each other while chanting "Allah hu ackbar". Gotta give credit to Saddam, he could could kill thousands and still manage to stay in the MSM's and liberals friends list...

Not sure what the second will be, but I'm sure it will keep everyone on the forums and in front of the TV.

I say we leave Iraq, but for purely selfish reasons. I don't want to go back there. And I don't want to see any more Americans killed for Iraqi freedom. If they want it, they should take it themselves.

 

[Curiosity]

I find it rather odd nobody mentions what Iraq would be had the U.S. not intervened....

Remember those wonderful U.N. mandates? Sanctions? Twelve years of IAEC "inspections"?

Remember that wonderful Oil for Food Program?

Remember Hussein's behavior in Gulf One? Setting Kuwait on fire?

The United Nations are strangely silent yet again on this whole situation other than nodding sagely while they have carefully pocketed all the money they received from Saddam while he was in power....

There are many loose ends which will never again be acknowledged or spoken of....

Bush has become the Great Distractor..... at a cost to the U.S. and the wonderful members of the coalition in Iraq.....of untold human lives in death and injury and the monetary waste is unspeakable...... perhaps it is time for the U.S. to learn again they must let the nations of our world live as they see "fit" for themselves and not a western democratic standard.

 

[tracy]

I hate how divisive this has become. I think the problem is we're being asked to choose between bad and worse and some of us just don't know which is which. Was it worse with Sadaam Hussein in power? I think we can all agree that was a terrible time for Iraq. But, is it better now? I don't know. Are less people dying? I don't know. Are the people in Iraq better off? I don't know, I don't live there. In fact, I find the certainty other people have to be completely baffling and I don't know why there is so much anger towards those of us who aren't sure of things or who see things a different way. I don't love Sadaam Hussein, I don't hate America, I don't hate muslims or love terrorists... The strangest thing is, my marine friend is heading there soon but he's never been so harsh towards people who have qualms about what's going there. He seems to think it's possible to disagree about it without disliking the person he disagrees with.

 

[talloola]

Talloola

You write:

Can you clarify what your point is here for me?

You state the "French left ..... and the U.S. arrived, the trouble was well underway....".....have you knowledge of what French Colonialism has done to our world throughout history? As a Canadian you
might have more appreciation than some other nations who have not been kissed by the Fleur de Lis.
No, I don't have enough knowledge in detail to clarify those points, I only know that the French had
been in Vietnam before the U.S. decided to go there, and I was just making the point that the U.S.
did not start "their" problems, just went there to "help", which was a huge mistake. I would assume
the french realized they were not going to gain anything, for themselves, so why stay around and
suffer more harm to themselves," as in my opinion," the french were not there to "help" bring democracy
to the Vietnemese, for the sake of the Vietnemese, but for some gain for themselves.

Then you ignore the intervening years during WWII when the Japanese occupied and savaged that nation - both north and south.....then the communist invaders....
I don't know much about those years, but I will be happy to hear about it if you want to fill me in.

Do you think the U.S. for no reason invaded that land? No
Do not believe that VietNam did not need assistance? I do believe they needed assistance, as they were
not doing well in their efforts to have their own democracy, I do believe the U.S. believed they could assist them in having the democracy they desired.

During the post WWII years the Communist regime was spreading throughout Asia - perhaps it would have been more prudent for the U.S. to resist trying to assist the Vietnamese people who were struggling to create a democracy when they had been "occupied" for succeeding decades by outsiders...
It seems in "hindsight" that the U.S. definitely shouldn't have gone in there, but it's easy to judge after
the fact. I suppose it could have "worked" and the story would have been different.

. I cannot believe we in the west do not recognize what a beautifully strong and intelligent people the Vietnamese are - both north and south - and I hope their future brings them much prosperity and independence.
I believe that too, and wish them the same.

The stories immigrants from VietNam share their stories with us as they arrive in the U.S. are of a nation surviving despite all adversities thrown their way by "invaders and occupiers".... and all people in western democracies seem to focus on are the VietNam War
I can understand that, as the media in the west tells the story "always" from the point of view, of the
devastation of the U.S.soldiers, as a result of that war, so the focus is never on the Vietmese people,
but its' about the U.S. and the breakdown of "their" support for that war, as the situation, and u.s.
deaths increased throughout the war.

(a very small segment of their trauma) rather than the history of the people
I don't think the U.S. people are at all concerned with the history of the Vietnemese people, as
probably, the Vietnemese people would feel the same, as they had to concentrate on their own
devastation and recovery, that's probably fairly normal re: each countries circumstances.

 

[earth_as_one]

Hussein was a tyrant and a cold blooded killer. But the biggest source of preventable death in Iraq before the 2003 invasion was a result of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq until they gave up their WMD programs.

Its a fact that Iraq gave up their WMD programs by 1996. In 1998, UNSCOM chief Richard Butler said this:

Richard Butler
July 1998
“If Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.”

Yet the Americans refused to lift the sanctions until Iraq was able to prove they did not possess WMDs. Cooperation wasn't enough.

Iraqi Sanctions:
Myth and Fact

On August 6, 1990, immediately prior to the “Persian Gulf War,” the United Nations levied sanctions against Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. In the ensuing 11-year span, the sanctions have not changed, though the Iraqi landscape has undeniably been altered forever. Well over one million Iraqis are dead as a direct result of the sanctions, over half of them children, and over four million Iraqis have fled the country in hope of a better life. The economy is in shambles, disease and malnutrition are commonplace, and even potable drinking water has become rare. Yet throughout the devastating aftermath of the “Persian Gulf War” and the sanctions, Saddam Hussein maintains his position as dictator. The aim of this article is to debunk the most common myths surrounding the Iraqi sanctions whose existence is dependent upon them...

http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm

All this because the US refused to lift the sanctions. Shameful.

Husssein was a cold blooded killer, but most of his atrocities occurred during the Iran/Iraq war with American assistance and support. After the 1991 war, Hussein brutally crushed a Shia revolt.

After that Hussein really wasn't that active.

Between 1993 and 1999 Hussein ordered the execution of about 5500 prisoners, many of whom were found guilty of plotting to overthrow Hussein and others were convicted of capital crimes.

Between 2000 and the start of the US led invasion in March 2003, the US state department attributes 275 executions of people convicted of capital crimes to Hussein.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

In 2001, both Rice and Powell declared Iraq was not a threat:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Explain again why this invasion was necessary. Seems to me Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone and if Iraqis went about their business and didn't try to overthrow Hussein, they were relatively safe. Iraq and low crime rates and there weren't any suicide bombers, car bombs, assassinations, raping, looting... going on. Iraq was relatively quiet and peaceful, except for attacks by American and British warplanes.

Lifting or at least easing the economic embargo would have significantly reduced mortality rates and improved Iraqi quality of life.

In order to impose "freedom and democracy" on Iraq and save the Iraqi people the US government, self appointed arbitrator of good governance, invaded and occupied Iraq based on false allegations and outright lies.

The invasion killed about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers by the time Bush made his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech. Most of the Iraqi soldiers were poorly armed, poorly trained conscripts who never had a chance.

War, collateral damage, increased crime rates and civil war has resulted in a significant increase in violent Iraqi civilian deaths.

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Post invasion, civil war Iraq is now far more dangerous than it ever was under Hussein.

New high in Iraqi civilian deaths
Tuesday January 2, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

A record number of Iraqi civilians were killed last year, figures released by Iraq's interior ministry showed today.
The data said 12,320 Iraqi civilians had died in what officials described as "terrorist violence", Reuters reported.

Almost 2,000 of those were killed in December - more than three times the number of deaths in January - and the figures also showed that 1,231 policeman and 602 Iraqi soldiers died in 2006.

Sectarian violence between Iraq's Sunni and Shia Muslims increased dramatically after the bombing of the golden domed al-Askari shrine, in Samarra, by Sunni extremists last February...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1981434,00.html

So I fail to see how anyone can claim Iraqis are better off as a result of the US led invasion. In fact, George Bush Jr. is responsible for pretty much the same scale of Iraqi deaths as Saddam Hussein.

Explain to me again how Bush has improved Iraq....

I think the Iraqi people would have been much better off if the economic sanctions were just eased a little. There was no need to invade Iraq.

 

[thomaska]

In fact, George Bush Jr. is responsible for pretty much the same scale of Iraqi deaths as Saddam Hussein.

Just wondering if you noticed them killing each other over there? And is that Dubya's fault too? Is he now responsible for them not being able to control their tendencies to murder anyone from a different tribe or someone who interprets the edicts of Islam differently?


Here is the bottom line: The new Democratically controlled Congress in the U.S. can do absolutely nothing to stop George W. Bush from continuing his war in Iraq.

1. Non-binding resolutions cannot stop the funding for the war

2. There is not enough of a majority in the Senate or House to create and pass legislation to cut off the funding. It would get vetoed at any rate.

3. There is not a big enough majority in the Senate or House to impeach the President.

So like it or not, the world is stuck with this disaster until "W" is out of office. So no one will know what the failure in Iraq will look like until January of 2009.

 

[tamarin]

Looks like the war is going to intensify. Whether a fresh infusion of troops and an enhanced mandate to clear and hold neighbourhoods is the correct decision will soon be settled. I must say to Bush's credit he does deliver speeches well. He performed strongly on the tube last night. Just as he did in debates with a more 'cerebral' Kerry. He isn't the dummy many want him to be.
Will the new initiative work? If pressure is applied on Iran at the same time the sectarian strongholds about Baghdad are aggressively subdued it's possible. If the Iraqi PM gets onside and reads the riot act to the key malcontents undermining his administration it's possible. If a power sharing and wealth sharing formula is agreed upon by Iraq's chief sectors and then enforced it's possible.
We've come to think of Iraqis as incorrigible or unmanageable. Folks, who despite the opportunity presented by the removal of Hussein, will still screw up. Well it's sh*t or get off the pot time for them. Should be an interesting two years.

 

[earth_as_one]

Just wondering if you noticed them killing each other over there? And is that Dubya's fault too? Is he now responsible for them not being able to control their tendencies to murder anyone from a different tribe or someone who interprets the edicts of Islam differently?...

If Hussein can be blamed for all the death and destruction resulting from his decisions to invade Iran, Kuwait and crush internal rebellions, then Bush can be blamed for all the death and destruction resulting from his decision to invade Iraq. Are you saying Bush isn't responsible for the consequences of his actions?

Iraqis are no more violent than anyone else.

During IceStorm '98, I was living in Cornwall Ontario, center of the destruction. On day two, I found myself parked in a long line of cars queued up at the only gas station still open. We all knew that eventually the gas would run out. Then some idiot cut in the front of the line. A group of people got out of their cars and began banging on the idiot's window. After he gave them the one finger salute, they started rocking the car, trying to flip it over. The idiot then drove off and almost hit an innocent bystander. That was only after two days. On day four, I also saw people arguing, shouting, pushing and shoving as they fought over the last food on the shelves at a grocery store. During this crisis I saw the very best and worst in people.

Another example I could point to was the SuperDome after Katrina.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213214.stm

Imagine how people would behave after a decade of chronic shortages of basic necessities like clean water, food, medicine... I figure all "civilized" countries are about week from civil war given the right conditions. That's human nature. Think about that as you sit in your warm house full of food....

 

[thomaska]

If Hussein can be blamed for all the death and destruction resulting from his decisions to invade Iran, Kuwait and crush internal rebellions, then Bush can be blamed for all the death and destruction resulting from his decision to invade Iraq. Are you saying Bush isn't responsible for the consequences of his actions?

Iraqis are no more violent than anyone else.

During IceStorm '98, I was living in Cornwall Ontario, center of the destruction. On day two, I found myself parked in a long line of cars queued up at the only gas station still open. We all knew that eventually the gas would run out. Then some idiot cut in the front of the line. A group of people got out of their cars and began banging on the idiot's window. After he gave them the one finger salute, they started rocking the car, trying to flip it over. The idiot then drove off and almost hit an innocent bystander. That was only after two days. On day four, I also saw people arguing, shouting, pushing and shoving as they fought over the last food on the shelves at a grocery store. During this crisis I saw the very best and worst in people.

Another example I could point to was the SuperDome after Katrina.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213214.stm

Imagine how people would behave after a decade of chronic shortages of basic necessities like clean water, food, medicine... I figure all "civilized" countries are about week from civil war given the right conditions. That's human nature. Think about that as you sit in your warm house full of food....

I'm saying Bush isn't responsible for the Iraqi's or anyone else in the world for that matter, murdering their neighbors. How about some personal responsibilty for one's own actions?

I suppose that it a difficult concept to grasp when it is much more PC to blame the U.S.

And please, unless you are living in downtown Ramadi, try not to be so condescending about having a warm house and food to eat. And even if you are in downtown Ramadi, use some of that internet access money you have to go buy something to eat.

 

[AndyF]

The Consequences of Failure in Iraq

The conquering nation would need to search for another oil patsy nation to justify yet another incursion onto some other nation's property. You see it's all very simple. History has shown that when you have a large standing army, it needs to be justified or the poor will start asking where they're taxes are going. Besides the generals don't want to retire, and AIPAC won't allow "bubba" to change his policy.

They Would Be Awful. But Failure Can Still Be Averted.

Not awful at all, the US would be home where they belong, and my grandkids won't have to build a fortress Canada to keep out the Iraqi grandkids who will be carrying Cesium 137 into Ottawa and other places. I say let failure happen, the sooner they're out the safer we are.

But I suppose for some that would be a sad day wouldn't it. "Dad gum Raqis aen't cooperatin in de similashion plan, Festus." Bush needs a Japan/McArthur type victory for his political ends. He hopes the Arabs do the same as the Japanese, sign surrender papers and the war is over. Forget it, these people fight generational wars, and Bush won't be around to see the effects of his stupidity.

Change the set and have the Americans trying to assimilate us with their conquering army, and the Canadians would do the exact same thing as the militant Iraqis. Can't believe what I'm hearing, a conquered nation being criticized for not cooperating.

Lets take this scenerio further. If the Americans took a Canadian leader and tried him, and the judge had a conflict of interest, and some Canadians wanted a fair trial so they asked the Americans to have the trial in Switzerland, but they ignore all that, I think Canadians would be angry and insist he be tried by a Canadian non-american influenced judge, and that he was allowed due process and change of venue, just like all Canadians. Most Canadians would tell the Americans, "He may be a nasty character, but he's OURs to deal with, not yours".

There is some push to have an American style constitution imposed on the Iraqis. What a farce. For the very first test of the principles of that constitution a-la-American-style, the Iraqis watch as one of their own(Saddam) receives a travesty of justice. By example, what kind of justice, WHERE ANY AMERICAN HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT, can any Iraqi receive under this new constitution.?

Incidently, Saddam could have been tried in Reagan's days for the same crimes, but the US decided to use him first, which constitutes complicity. The effect was even worse. Saddam was allowed to continue his terror while Iran remained the enemy. So the lesse-fair attitude of the US was the sole reason the Kurds were allowed to be murdered from/while Reagan was in office.

At the onset of Saddam's trial, Nato should have voiced a statute of limitations, and that would have sent the message to the US to stop using people for their own means. The US would try people at the appropriate time from then on.

There were times when Saddam was not allowed to call witnesses. All the nasty tricks like this will be revealed one day when the freedom of information act releases the transcripts 40 years from now.

AndyF