Iraq, Getting better or worse?
 

Do you think the situation in Iraq is getting better, worse, or staying the same? (From the view of the United States)

When you say "the resistance is getting better", what is it you are asking? ;-)

Definately becoming worse from a military standpoint. As far as the political climate......one can only hope for the best, and plan for the worst. Unfortunately, if our record over the past year there is any indication, I doubt we are actually planning for the inevitable civil war.

I am talking about in terms of the United States. Are we gaining control, loosing control. I couldn't think of a really good way to ask the question because better or worse depends on what side you are on.

IIRC to date there have been over 10,000 US troops injured - that isn't a resounding success so far - but is it getting better? I don't know, but I do think the elections at the end of this month will be a good measure of the situation.

No, I don't think the US ever had firm control of the situation, and I don't think they will for a long time to come. I believe the situation will only get worse from this point on, we are going to see more attacks, more death, more violence and I would be very surprised if we see a peaceful election with a large turnout.

It's like asking whether a 2 year old boy is going to grow up to be a success.
Too early to tell.

Nonsense. When is the last 40 year war fought by the U.S.? (Is 40 years enough time to judge the successes or failures of a human being?) Certainly not anything in modern times. Wars are not judged by how old they are on a human lifetime scale.

There are a number of ways of looking at this question:

1- Before the war, the measure of success was speed and Iraqi's giving us flowers. If you discount the war since post-fall of Baghdad, speed was successful (but why you would discount the war after one specific battle is beyond me). The flowers concept was a complete failure.

2- The "sovereignty" hand over. It happened. So in that sense it is a success. What it produced is essentially nothing different than what was before. So in that sense it was a failure. If counting the number of dead American's since the hand over to the artificial sovereignty, we have seen the body count increase. So in that sense it was a failure.

The future is obviously unknowable. So if that is what you were getting at, clearly you are stating the obvious. But your implication that not enough time has passed to judge the failures and successes of this war and specifically your time comparison to the duration of life necessary to judge the success or failure of a human being, to that I say nonsense.

I think as we close in on the January 30th election things will only continue to worsen. It'll be a logistical nightmare trying to secure every polling place.

Remember the question is not a matter of success or failure. Mearly a question of the current trend. Is it getting worse there or better. Sometimes things must go down in order to go up or vice versa. The future is obviously unknown but the present and the past are not.

Well, no I didn't mean the literal analogy of 40 years until success in Iraq is quantifiable, just that it's way too early in the game to tell whats going to happen. History has shown that no 'successful' society was born 'overnight', or without war and violence to temper it into stability. So who knows about Iraq. The only thing one can say, at this point, is an attempt at Change is being made. All else is speculation.

Aside from helping to navigate a difficult course, what would be the value in coming to a conclusion on the current state of affairs in Iraq? It is difficult times over there, no one will argue this.

I'm in no position to judge this - as the main sources of information I have are untrustworthy media news sources. Also, it seems quite preposterous to simplify the complexities of a war/occupation/political transformation/historical process down to a choice between two words.

Art took my words. My sources of information are like watching the world through a keyhole, or worse.

If we speak only of attacks against the US and Iraqi forces then I expect they'll continue and increase to the capability of the attackers through the elections, or their postponement. The elections are very provocative to those interested in Iraq's power structure. Everyone in the region has a stake.

To be sure, it's a challenging period. There's no way around it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...383333,00.html

i do not see anything good on the horizon in iraq for the americans.
it is really unclear whether the "elections" on the 30th can possibly go forward, which is really quite a damaging possibility at the symbolic level.

the two main lackies of american policy in this context--blair and allawi--have both expressed their support for going ahead with the elections no matter how absurd the undertaking. however, as the guardian article points out, this is becoming an increasingly unlikely scenario. but we'll see.

i suspect the logic behind this is like that of the "hand-over of sovereignty"--set up a puppet regime and repeat for an extended period that this puppet regime represents national sovereignty and maybe somewhere someone will believe it. looks like most of those people live in the states and watch alot of tv. but no matter.

the resistance is getting bigger, not smaller, more violent not less....the war--which is still ongoing (the term insurgency seems to me meaningless)--- is intesifying, not diminishing....the only thing i see that looks sure is alot more people are going to end up dead.

on this, i suppose you could adopt the "long view"----but i find that this "long view" is little more than a rationalization the primary function of which is to enable a disregard of information in the shorter term and continued support for this sorry, misbegotten undertaking more generally--i dont see much in "the long view" beyond avoidance.

besides, i think it was keynes who once said "in the long run we are all dead"

No. That would be to ignore the initial measuring stick of success. We were given that. It was hugely off the mark. So, you're welcome to state that if we throw out everything that was stated about how this war would unfold and work from a position of absolute ignorance, yes - no one knows what will happen. But that is not the reality we have had and continue to have. A position of pure ignorance, as you desire, affords the ability to never judge - the war is always acceptable because it is never approaching or achieving failure because there is nothing to judge it by. You cannot wage a war from that position unless you do not care about the consequences.

This war, as measured according to the initial claims, is an utter failure. This war, as reviewed over the past year is getting worse. Only from your position of intentional blindness could one claim otherwise.

I hear what you're saying...but:

There is no book entitled: How to Build a Democracy in Iraq in 10 Easy Steps.

I would say that 'Nationbuilding' is more an art, than a science. So, yes there have been setbacks, yes there have been disappointments, yes things appear chaotic now...but the situation needs time to resolve itself, to run its course. Like I said before - and I really believe this - every stable, modern country had its growing pains in the early stages of its life, because progress and refinement don't occur overnight, they take TIME.

Taken from the start, I believe that the idea of introducting a democratic system of government in this troubled part of the world is a positive thing, positive for the people living there, and positive for the rest of the world. Dictatorships and theocracies have proven themselves a burden to everyone involved. These forms of government lead only to outward belligerence, and isolation from the international community. After all, what do the 'insurgents' have to offer the people of Iraq, what do they have to offer the surrounding countries and the rest of the world? What type of society do the 'insurgents' stand for? What are their values? I would say they stand for lawlessness, treachery, disregard for civil rights, ethnic segregation, no freedom of speech or press, the subjugation of women, a form of government based not on modern principles of law and order, but on a backward and medieval interpretation of Islamic scripture. We see in Iran and elsewhere the type of society this creates. So I think the effort, the effort, to try and help break the mold of past failure, and at least try to establish some sort of a stable, peaceful, prosperous and productive country is worth the trouble.

So logically, if you are against this idea from the very start - if you don't believe that this vision is possible, ethical, legal, necessary, moral, hopeful, constructive, productive, etc - then of course any and all activity on the part of the coalition will be characterized as hopeless.

I happen to believe the cause is just.
Just one person's opinion.

I understand your point. However, you are wrong.

You are either not paying attention to what is happening in Iraq (which I doubt) or you are letting your belief that this war is correct cloud your ability to answer the question.

You cannot answer this question with: things may need to get bad before they get better, therefore the fact that they are worse today than 8 months ago is simply "evidence" that things are getting better.

That is nonsense. You could use that excuse for any difficult situation as a means of avoiding the situation you face. You may believe things are going to be better someday off in the future - but the reality of today is that things are worse than they were in the recent past.

And to those who claim they are not in any position to know due to the filtration of media or similar - that too is nonsense. There are a few empirical facts that demonstrate quite clearly that more people have died over the past few months than had died in the same time frame during the previous year. More people dying is irrefutably worse than less people dying or the same number of people dying.

I believe it was Bush who once claimed that the increased attacks by insurgents was a sign of their desperation and weakness. That was over a year ago. He was wrong. Anyone attempting to make that claim today needs to understand that this wishful thinking card has already been played and is now in the discard pile.

Life Magazine, 7 January 1946, an article appeared entitled "American's are Losing the Victory in Europe": http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000872.html

These quotes all sound a little familiar.....

..."A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting."

"The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348. There are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S.' "

And here's the kicker...

"We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."


Although, this may not be an exact parallel to the current state of affairs in Iraq, I think it illustrates the point that even after a clear Allied military victory in Europe in WW2, things weren't rosy right away.

Saying things are worse in Iraq now than they were this time last year is like saying a patient who is lying on the operating table in the middle of a surgery is in worse condition than he was before the surgeon cut him open.

History will have to judge. But 20 years from now, when (hopefully) Iraq is a successful democracy, people will probably say Bush had nothing to do with it anway, that Baathism and the Saddam regime were on the decline anyway and that democracy was inevitable.

the parallel to world war 2 is totally inappropriate. first because the war in iraq is not over. second because of everything else about the analogy.

the analogy to a patient on the operating table at least has the virtue of being funny. for some reason, it made me think of the game "operation"

i do not think that assessing the situation in iraq need come down to yet anther occasion for rehearsing your basic relation to the war itself....if you follow powerclowns argument out, it would mean that the view that the war is deepening follows from a hostile disposition toward the fact of the war rather than from looking at available information.

i might agree that some kind of democratization is a desirable goal for countries in the region in general terms (the states could use more democracy as well, for that matter), but nothing about the argument would lead one to conclude that the bush project is either legitimate in itself or that it advances that general cause. hailing "the effort" in the abstract runs us into the strange world of contemporary management literature, in which change and "leading change" have become ends in themselves--the obsession with "change" as an end in itself is something that should be looked at in the context where it makes sense, and carefully, rather than being taken as given and mapped onto other stiuations.

george w. bush and the war in iraq are to the discourse of democracy what stalin was to the discourse of worker revolution.

I think the comparison is appropriate in the sense that many people viewed the situation in Europe immediately after WW2 as dismal and worse than prior to the start of the war.
We hear plenty of comparisons to Vietnam (quagmire!), are those inappropriate too?

I love that game.

My post did not rest on my support (or lack thereof) for the war. Nowhere in my post did I express either sentiment.

I respectfully disagree. I think that the recent elections in Afghanistan, and the fact that Iraq will be holding elections this month is pretty clear evidence that the "bush project" does advance the cause of democracy.

Again, history will judge.

ranger: sorry for one point, on which i must have been unclear--i shifted from your post to powerclowns in the middle of my response--not all of it was directed at your post.

for wht its worth, i have never made much of a point about equating iraq and vietnam--i have argued that there are parallels between iraq and the algerian war--many many parallels.
more generally, analogies should illuminate, not obscure. reference to world war 2 is one made to legitimate the undertaking in iraq, to refer it to what studs terkel called the last good war. the analogy is more wishful thinking, more propaganda, than it is anything else.

second problem: the war in iraq is not over. referring what is going on now to the postwar reconstruction of europe is faulty on those grounds as well.

on another point, i do not think history is some guy who dispenses judgement: history is made by the folk who write it. you will not escape political assessments of the bush project by looking to history. i think for a long long time you will have debate over the legality of the war in the first place, the problems of trying to impose pseudo-democracy in the american style at the end of a gun barrel, debates about other ways to pushing for more democratic types of self-governance, etc. these will continue, they will not go away. george w bush will not make out well in history.

the question of elections at the end of the month is complex--it is generally agreed outside of the us that already they are a process without content. the sunni community is boycotting them. something on the order of 30 political organizations within iraq have petitioned that they be postponed. there is division within the allawi regime on the question of whether they will happen. it is not obvious that the fact of an election indicates a functioning democracy. i know that the administration would prefer to pretend otherwise---they are desperate for something to legitimate the folly of the war in iraq--everything else has failed---it would be yet another blow to its public image were the elections to be postponed.

I just wanted to flag this up for a moment. I don't think this is what the insurgency is necessarily all about. The insurgents want; an end to occupation, and end to being raided in their homes in the middle of the night, an end to checkpoints, and end to civillian deaths, an end to seeing foreign troops on their soil, an end to their humiliation at the hands of the west, an end to their human rights being violently snatched away from them by western troops, and a form of government that isn't subject to manipulation and the cheapening of values that is evident in the decadent west.

This is why direct intervention and occupation never works, whatever you do, it will always be interpreted by the occupied as an affront. The removal of Hussain should have been attempted using a more intelligent and delicate approach.

All due respect, but I don't think this is whats really going on in Iraq, I don't believe this is the mindset of the insurgency.

You have a society that, before the war, was held together by violence, fear and intimidation by one man and his (ethnic minority) tribe. The issues you bring up above, such as 'night' raids, civilians dying, personal humiliation and lack of civil rights; I would venture a guess that all these issues and worse flourished abundantly under Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. As far as the insurgency struggling against the spread of 'corrupted Western values', come on, who in the world is pure as the driven snow? The 'insurgency' itself has committed some pretty repellant and atrocious acts - I don't think they have a moral leg up on anyone. This Islamic purity that they espouse is, to my mind, a way to avoid the realities and responsibilities of the modern world, and at the same time a way these people forcibly corral their citizens together by appealing to age-old stereotypes and fears of the 'outsider'.

These 'insurgents', these leftover remnants of a violent dictatorship, fight for only one ideal that I can see: Power, and the right to control 25 million people and its resources in the same dysfunctional, violent, outdated and isolated way that many other suffering countries in that region operate.

edit: one more thing - can you imagine the type of Anti-Western government that these 'insurgents' would assemble if they came to power? If they hate the West so much now, can one picture how rabidly anti-Western they would become if they were let to come into power after all that has transpired?

I'm not saying that they are going about it in the right way, or that they hold any moral highground, I'm just trying to paint a less black-and-white picture of the events. I think it's often easy to say "They are Islamic Terrorists" as if that explains the issue.

Now I don't know whether the insurgents are Muslims, or if they are the leftovers from Saddam's secular state - but I don't think that makes a difference. Yes they are interested in power, of course, no one picks up a gun otherwise (unless they are led to believe in higher things like freedom, or religion, or nationalism by their masters). I'm not stating that anywhere is pure as snow of any kind, but it is so easy to demonise a foreign force that is occupying your country, it would be foolish to expect otherwise - no matter how good the intentions of that foreign force.

My point is that using a blunt instrument like millitary action may cause more problems than it solves, and more effective solutions might have been employed to remove Hussain from his seat of power. Any intervention in another nation's affairs is a dangerous business, and one that has to be done with the utmost care. I don't think that care was in sufficient quantities in this situation, and that these are some of the consequences.

I think that the concept of 'nationbuiilding' is one of those political hot potatoes that people will either be completely for or completely against.

If you are of the former, this might be of interest:

Lee H. Hamilton: Nation-building calls for vital, prolonged exercise

i'll repost this quote from robespierre:

The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. It is in the nature of things that the progress of Reason is slow and no one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies. One can encourage freedom, never create it by an invading force.
--Signed, The Incorruptible [Maxmilien Robespierre], Paris, 1791

I wouldn't disagree with any of this.

Yet, what's done - is done, despite the woulda-coulda-shoulda's. As RangerDick (hehe...do you mean Ranger RICK?) points out, there were short-term 'consequences' to deposing Hitler, but ultimately, things worked out for the better.

Funny how he never mentions the second, third (fourth, fifth...) 'lessons of nature'... ;)

Back to the question of is it getting better or worse, this article from the BBC is not encouraging.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4145585.stm

the article is right on a rhetorical point---the term insurgency is a fantasy, as is the idea that the war is over. this is still war. a different phase from the invasion itself, but war nonetheless.

as for why robespierre didnt talk about the other "lessons of nature":
i dunno.
he is kinda dead to call for a quick soundbite.
i'll check in with my ouija board and get back to you with what he says.

i might still have a collection of stuff he published around here somewhere: plan b would be to look up the statement. but that would require figuring out my girlfriend's system of putting books on shelves--i think there is one, but it remains a mystery to me.
i know where the ouija board is, however.
i wonder how the ghost of someone who was guillotined can talk....maybe i'll ask him that too, if he picks up when i call.

Yes, it has been fully and undeniably established that the situation is far from stable. Are you implying that Iraq needs to be abandoned at this definitive stage, that its time for the coalition to give up on the idea of forming some sort of democracy?

I think the Coalition owes it to the people of Iraq, and the rest of the world, to see this thing through.

Wasn't one of the bitterest complaints from the Iraqis after Gulf War 1 the fact that the Coalition didn't stay and finish the job they started? Did they not want to see Hussein gone? I think implicit in this desire to see him gone was a desire to be free from tyranny, violence and oppression. A desire to enjoy the benefits we in the West enjoy: of living in a modern, thriving, dignified, prosperous, open society. I think Bush gets carried away sometimes with his awkward 'Let Freedom Ring' diatribes, but really, aren't the foremost values - upon which the Western world has been built - self-validating and universal to people everywhere?

I don't know if the benefits we in the west enjoy are necessarily the product of our free, open and enlightened societies more than they have to do with our expansionist history and the accumulated wealth from exploiting the resources from other parts of the world. It's easy being a democracy when you're sitting pretty on wealth amassed from past adventures.

And I would say that the Western world has most definitely not been built on these values, more that they were doled out to the people as a means of placating them when the elite realised the power of the mob, and their inability to control them through the more traditional methods of might and religion.

The West was built on adventure, private enterprise, imperialism, slavery and exploitation, a far cry from freedom, human rights or anything else so lofty.

Freedom is however, an infectious idea and has been shown to express itself spontaneously throughout history without its being forced from outside (interested) parties. Once achieved, it is also a much more efficient form of organisation.

But that doesn't help solve the current problem. The problem with the suicide-bomb is that it is next to impossible to defend against. The US could triple the troop numbers and still fail to provide any security. The very freedoms we are hoping to provide are being used against us. The presence of troops is counter-productive and swelling the ranks of the disaffected

Against this type of action, you have to either walk away, or swamp the area with troops.

Walking away would be disastrous and force the power-vacuum issue in Iraq - yes there would be a civil war, and yes it would be one that we precipitated, and yes, it would probably result in an Islamic dictator with a similarly firm grip on the region as the one Saddam held.

Another slight tangent - might it be possible to suggest that the reason a strict dictator rose to power in Iraq be due to the fact that only a strict dictator would be able to hold such a disparate country together? Here we are dealing with a rising tide of insurgency, and we are using violence to quell and counter it, and then calling Saddam a tyrant because he used the same methods. Might control over Iraq require those methods? Maybe Saddam was the only man vicious enough to keep Iraq from the meltdown we see at the moment. If this is the case, there is little hope for the goals of the coalition.

So what can we do?
Partition Iraq? As a policy that has been frowned on based on the histories of India/Pakistan/Kashmir, Israel/Palestine and Ireland/Northern Ireland.

Turn our backs while fighting and genocide start to occur as per the Balkan States (after the fall of the strict communist regimes that held them together) and coming back to help clean up the mess? No one is going to thank us for that either.

Or stick it out and hope the elections will precipitate some kind of normality? Personally, given the situation, I'd want to swamp the country with an international peace-keeping force with a strict mandate not to engage in activity other than providing security to the population. I'd bring an equal number of journalists in to try and enforce (or at least document) the correct behavior of those troops and try and involve other Arab nations in the rebuilding efforts.

These things however are all difficult to achieve given the coalition's insistence on war without sanction from the UN, and Bush's inflammatory remarks about the Axis of Evil and other such gung-ho-isms re the (politically beneficial for Bush) war on terror. We need as many friends as possible to help defuse this situation, and I'd like to see more steps being taken to try and smooth waters that could become rapidly very troubled indeed.

The West can't do this by themselves, no matter how much freedom and democracy we throw around.

I'm convinced that values play a large part in understanding the differences between cultures. 'Freedom', personal and otherwise, only surfaces where it is allowed to surface - where it is fostered and encouraged and deliberately woven into the fabric of a society, from the top down, through a certain system of values. I don't see this as being a spontaneous occurence; on the contrary, if nothing is done to bring it about, you have the opposite of freedom: oppression.

As far as iraq, I think the best way to go about achieving stability at this point is to continue to train more and more Iraqis to create an Iraqi security presence capable of dealing with the insurgency. They have to stop these killers from attacking police stations, assasinating government officials, and blowing up civilians on a daily basis. Once an effective security force is established, people won't have to live in fear, and life will return to normal. Electricity will return full time, water, food, schooling, communications, people can go back to work, etc. The key to this entire thing is the creation of an effective Iraqi security force: police, national guard, army. This is no secret to anyone.

i'm goin to have to agree with powerclown on this one.

I kinda see Iraq as a potentially good movie with a lot of bad actors.

I personally don't think our military situation there is a failure. I guess it's just me but I don't take casualty counts as a measure of how favorable war is. Mind you if all of a sudden troops started dropping in thousands by the hour, I would have a wave of concern.

Another opinion factor though is yes I do feel very safe because of the war. My view of America is that we are a beautiful country, we mean well, but we won't get stepped on. I feel as if we've been fair, and that after enough alarm has been raised to potential harm us we reacted.

Feel as if you want about that statement, but I've firm belief in what I would say is not the moral superiority of the United States, but the Moral reasonablility of the United States. Compared to the world governments at play that could hold as much sway as us we are the most partisan over the influence we have. I think from us liberating Iraq we've given them more options then any other country with similiar potential has been available too.


Yes the election on the 30th will cause more problem as it gets closer, but what I'm hoping for is for the people to prevail. As our election got closer, more and more incidents occurred, and I think it rallied more of our voters. Some went for Kerry, some went for Bush but all together the American people voted in larger then normal numbers and they were not intimidated by the cowardly actions of those insurgents in Iraq. I'm hoping the people of Iraq choose who they want, and no outward force (either it us or rebels) try to sway the outcome of the election



In the end though I think Iraq may fail because of the people there, and the nay sayers here.

I will offend people by this statement, but I must say it.

I think Iraq has a potential of failure becauase the muslim people is an empire fallen. They were a group who had such beautiful potential yet wasted it away, and now in the face of someone who is willing to help, someone who looks to be in a better situation, they will hold a subconcious contempt for us. Yes many will take us in with open arms, but the small naysayers in the group will spread their gospel like wildfire and anything we've done would begin to offend them and that feeling will fester over time.

Who am I to say my way of life is better?...all I know is I wake up feeling safer.

yeah that's a good point

How could invading a country that had no involvement with Al Queda make you feel safer? If anything, it's added to the recruitment drive for terrorists and made America a bigger target; therefore making you unsafer.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the vast majority of muslims (even militant muslims) saw the US as a lumbering and distasteful opponent. Only the crazies like Mullah Omar and Bin Laden actually thought that it was appropriate to "bring the war" to America, rather than simply fight them when US troops were in Islamic countries (like Lebannon for example).

Now, however, the US has made itself out to be a vast military train, bearing down on all "free Islamic nations"... Invading Iraq was the worst thing you guys could have done for your security.

And besides, everyone seems to forget (or be brainwashed) that it wasn't anything obvious about 9/11 that was used to justify the invasion, but a vague notion of punishing Iraq for breaking UN sanctions and declarations. The same UN, by the way, that the neo-cons now lambast at every chance.

As an analogy let me refer to Internment during the Irish Troubles. After some terrible terrorist attacks the UK decided to simply round up as many suspected Irish Nationalists, sympathizes and suspected terrorists as possible and intern them without trial. This was the greatest thing they could have done for IRA recruitment as it infruiated most reasonable Nationalists and fostered a sense of persecution. In their actions, the UK had created the biggest recruitment drive for terrorists that had ever happened and ended up doing them a favour.

I see the invasion of Iraq in a simliar light.

I agree with your first statement, but not your second.


And this is perhaps the most insightful, accurate and (dare I say) intelligent thing I've seen on this board for quite some time.

Well put. But so very often overlooked...


But this I disagree with. What makes you think any other democracy would have done worse? Italy, France, the UK? In fact, the job of "liberating" Iraq is more difficult for America than for anyone else. And therefore, less likely to succeed.

As is obvious with each passing day.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, but I don't have the same faith in people ignoring intimidation.

Remember, we're not talking about a few thousand terrorists here. We're talking about (according to the Iraqi provisional government itself) around 200,000 fighters.

I personally would not go to vote at a centre which I believed had a good chance of being blown up whilst I was there. Let alone suffer the whispering campaign and downright threats from the insurgents in my own neighbourhood as I was observed "collaborating". Be realistic. I doubt you would risk yourself and your loved ones either.

I don't think it's got anything to do with nay-sayers "here". Do you think the average Iraqi gives a shit what the New York Times or San Francisco Chronicle are writing? I doubt they also watch CNN or Fox. They're too busy trying to find food to feed their starving children and stay clear of the roving bands of US Marines.

I think there is a germ is half-truth in what you say.

The Islamic culture has failed. Failed to live up to its potential.

Bizare. I know that I wake up feeling less safe because of Iraq. And rightly so. Look at what happened in Bali, in Jakarta, in Singapore...

And all this just because Australia offered a few troops and moral support to the Bush war machine.


Mr Mephisto

What I haven't really seen addressed is the results of an election.

Some of what I see posted in here seems to operate under the assumption that the barrier is getting the elections conducted.

For myself, and I believe others, this is not the primary issue. I realize that elections are going to occur at some time. But here is where I draw issue with the results:

The people who are currently fighting are coming from a number of places. Some of them are fighting to retain or regroup their political power. Hopefully people here are aware that those politically powerful are an ethnic minority in Iraq.

That is, they have reasonable fear about the type of government that might be established and officially sanctioned in regards to whether it would address their needs as a minority group--further complicated by the fact that they have been tyrannizing the majority for quite some time.

Now thats the legitimacy issue. But I want to make some more clear here:
For both practical purposes (doesn't make sense to ask an insurgent to vote) and safety (they might even blow the darn polling places up) we are going to leapfrog certain regions in the voting process.

To use a very crude analogy, we might consider what would happen if the blacks, or mexicans, or even native americans were currently embroiled in a violent insurgency during our election cycle. Now, it would seem to make sense to skip over some border states, or southern states, or reservations because they were filled with training camps and combatents.

However, obviously the election would effectively disenfranchise the very population that is fighting due to its disenfranchisement.

I suppose it's a fair question to ask me what I propose to resolve that conundrum. unfortunately it's a question i can't answer. My view is the very structure of what is going on makes our positin unteneble.

That is, we can not ask insurgents to come to the polls, we probably don't even want them to know where they would be. Yet we can not leave them out of the process. That's why they are fighting on one level.


This is one reason I see our efforts as eventually becoming a failure. Even if we start to see empirical evidence of what we consider process--say, some kind of voting occurring.

It masks the fact that the very process was flawed to begin with and couldn't even come up with a valid result. This is the classic methodological problem of selection bias. *sigh* hopefully that gives some more insight to some of our position and gives you all something to ponder tonight.

Actually Mr. M, I feel safer in my own opinion because I felt like we've done the right thing as a country. But as of now I can say it's my opinion and I can easily see and hear why people feel both ways.

I'm always up to hearing points for and against the invasion of Iraq though because I"ll be honest my point of view is based on a mixture of blind faith and facts.

Yes in some points of view the war in Iraq can be seen as an attack, but really after all the years of Iraq being what it was I saw it more as the cancer of the world, and the US with the techonology we had as a the instruments and surgeons to remove it.

I'll tell you why I feel safer though Mr. M, and remember this is just from me and I don't reflect anyone's point of view I don't believe.

I feel safer because America is standing strong. I think we were so concerned about acting PC and not offending other nations that we were losing our own indentity. If you want to boil it down to war time Machismo I guess you can, but really it's how I've felt the US has been potrayed the last 12 years.

I loved Clinton domestically, but I felt that foreign policy wise we were stepped on by people. I felt as if we were sidestepping dangerous situations by what I would say "Fluffed Diplomacy". Give KimJong-Il 76 millions dollars to shut up? I think that would be more incentive for him to bribe us. It was actions like that, and those we weren't even aware of that made me feel that US was becoming weaker and weaker.

I believe in the soul of the United States, I believe once again in our reasonability. I think we don't really want to dominate anymore as much as nuetralize the potential problems to us. Iraq has been a problem for a while, and it was also an outstanding symbol of the recent weakness of the United States. Don't capture the guy who started the war, accept his plea bargain, let him kill more people, let him break the laws that you and the world organization set up for him.... That was Iraq. I think that situation right there damages our reputation and security over time as a much as terrorist attacks.

So by ivading Iraq I felt as if the US was finally telling the world "They broke laws and we must enforce them, we can't expect results from half ass solutions. We made a mistake and we going to try to clean it up".


Knowing that though, and this is where all the cynics come in. Have what we done been good or bad (which is the question in the first place).

Seeing how it was before, the situation now, the freedom that hopefully these Iraqi people will have and seemingly want to embrace is infinitely better then what they had 15 years ago.


Heh as I said blind faith, but from me an honest answer.

Not to take anything away from other countries, what I meant by my statement was the US was one of the chooses with the Manpower, technology, and money to hold a war. I know it wouldn't happen but imagine Russia, or China, or other countries like that. I do admit though that reading it now, I was wrong because in my mind the I only saw a few countries capable of that action and you are right I didn't consider France, Italy, so on. Knowing what I know now, I do agree with you yes US would have a hard time with it, but also because of the US tenacity I think the plusses outweigh the negatives.

So true, yet once again this is blind faith... we've had so much more then they have had. If I wanted to be shallow I could say I don't want to vote because I will die and lose my car, home, and luxuries in life. I'm an American though and not an Iraqi.

They now have something we've had for a while and celebrate... they have choice. I think that will be enough to motivate some of them to going. It would motivate me if I was an iraqi.

I'd be curious to know how you quantify this statement.
There have been a grand total of 0 terrorist attacks in the US since entering Iraq.

I voted things have stayed the same. As long as there are daily bombings that kill people, it pretty much seems business as usual.

Mephisto's statement is the equally valid inverse version of the "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" statement.

I don't think this is true.

Its a quantifiable fact that there haven't been attacks in the US since entering Iraq.
At the very least, the statement "Iraq is part of the War on Terror" is a matter of opinion.

I don't see any equality in it at all.

your argument resembles the following, powerclown:

since i began moving my coffee cup back and forth across my desk, it has not snowed in philadelphia.
when i am not typing this post, i have spent some time pushing my cup back and forth and looking out the window.
my cup was just moved again.
it is still not snowing.

obviously my actions are warding off snow, and making philadelphia a safer place to drive around in.

That's a quaint analogy rb, but answer me this:

Has there been a terrorist attack in the states since entering Iraq?

I stand by my assertion that the statement: "Invading Iraq was the worst thing you guys could have done for your security." is simply an opinion.

if that's the point you were making, rest assured that mephisto knows his statement was an opinion.

the logic of your post is a problem, powerclown----it correlates unrelated elements in order to draw arbitrary conclusions.

on the other hand, i am still moving my coffee cup back and forth.
(there it goes again)
it is still not snowing.
(just look out my window)
q.e.d.

That's all I was questioning...
One can't know for sure what another is thinking until they come out and say it.
--------------------------------------
rb, I don't think the elements are unrelated at all.

Critics of this war insist that this undertaking in Iraq has only put the US in more danger, but where is the proof? Where are the legions of people lining up to destroy America? Where are all these fresh, new recruits of al-Qaeda that this situation has supposedly caused?? Where are the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-'colonialism', anti-'resource-plundering', anti-anti-UN fighters who are supposed to be taking out their revenge on the US?

It would seem that many of them are in Iraq, attacking, killing and injuring Americans right now - current estimates sugest there are about a quarter of a million of them.

The key phrase here is: ...attacking, killing, injuring....in Iraq.
Not...in America.

Hey, I don't wish to be the de facto Defender of the Iraqi War here. I have a certain amount of criticism of aspects of this war myself. The ball has been dropped repeatedly, opportunities have been squandered, mistakes have been made - I will be the first to acknowledge episodes of incompetence. But, as I said, there is no manual for this extremely complicated undertaking - a large part of this is learning on the job, as they go. The reason I'm willing to accept some setback is because I believe the overall cause is worthwhile.

in complete agreement with you on this.

last option makes sense to me

I explained it in the post. Reread it.

The reason it's made you unsafer is:

- becuase you are now a larger target
- because American soldiers and citizens are being killed daily in Iraq (or do these not count in your opinion?)
- because there are now millions of angry muslims who are more likely to tacitly support anti-Americanism
- because there are now hundreds of thousands more angry militants who are more likely to act upon their anger becuase the invasion of Iraq
- because the invasion of Iraq is probably the best recruitment aid for Al Queda and probably in their favour
- because Iraq was not a threat to the US before the invasion, but now it is
- because, because, because...

I could go on. I'm suprised you believe otherwise.

With regards to their being no attacks since the invasion, I think you're mixing up cause and affect. I'll tell you what. There hasn't been any attacks since Janet Jackson's tit fell out. Therefore her tit must be helping protect America.

As we say in Ireland, "same difference"

Mr Mephisto

this is sort of a catch-22 that comes with the situation. I recognize all of the problems you listed above but actually see the benifits outweigh it.

The biggest things I see though is what I mentioned above

Iraq = the symbol of America's failure in the middle east before this war. We basically let their tryant dictator go back to his cubby hole and abuse his people, and turned a blind eye to that.

Iraq = a battle ground we can fight those terrorist in (who in did are coming from other countries) other then fighting them on our own soil, where they are basically hidden until the bomb goes off.

Iraq = A place where while fighting those terrorist, we can also try to rally the citizans either through our actions or maybe even propaganda to start a wave of change for hopefully what is the better.


So yes, maybe we have stirred the bee hive, but we have beekeepers (our military) helping out, rather then having to tend those bee's ourselves (the citizans).

You say these things as if they were factual. Where is the proof for any of it?

Wow. Now that's a statement.

On a less documentary note, I've sure noticed a lot of Al Quada decapitations in Iraq for a country with no connection to them.

Just found this, too:

While there is no manual, I submit that this isn't a bad way to go:

This may be old news, but I haven't seen anyone post it.

And you sure don't hear it on the news.

Looks like it was a press conference. Where'd you hear about if it wasn't on the news?
Or did you mean old news as in October 2003?

I heard about it via e-mail, and referenced it on the internet.

I sure didn't hear it on See BS with Dan Rather.

Also there is speculation that Iraq had terror links with Al Qaeda all the way back in 1993 in and around the Olympic Motel and Somalia. This was ofcourse run out of Khartorum.

SIGH

Where is the proof for anything?

There's certainly no proof that you are safer.

Everything is relative.


Mr Mephisto

or that we are in more danger, thus why I stand by my belief that as a whole I feel safer.

What's your point?

Even by your standards sob, you should be able to see the difference.

When the US invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power. The 9/11 Comission itself found that there was no link between Iraq and the attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Of course, since the invasion, Hussein is no longer in power and there are lots of opportunities for terrorists to get involved.

Your statement also assumes that all (or maybe you mean "most") decapitations are the actions of Al Queda. I think you'll find that most of them are the actions of insurgent groups; repugnant as they are, they are not all Al Queda.


Mr Mephisto

I'm not arguing with you Konichiwaneko. You gave a considered and intelligent response. I understand your position, whilst disagreeing with it.

In my mind I can't see how you can feel safer. I believe you if you say you do, but at least you explained why rather than make a one or two sentence quip.

Mr Mephisto

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...387460,00.html

this article is about fallujah after the americans detroyed it.
it is quite at odds with other material on the battle, and is worth having a look....

Mr. Mephisto, for myself and the 40+ percent of Americans who know why
you "SIGH", it is time to accept that we can not persuade the other side with
"facts". If William Safire's syndicated column, dated January 28, 2003,
(SOB's contribution) contained "facts", would Bush not have cited that
informatiom when he was questioned by the press, just three days later?
(See first quote box below). Would the Bushco not have used Safire's "facts"
for the last 24 months. to justify their Iraqi operations, if there was any
merit in them ?

The "facts" are all there, Mr. Mephisto, for those who do not rely on Bushco
shills like Safire and Richard Miniter for reliable information. The Bush quote
below on the Iraq Al Queda connection, or lack of connection, is from the
white house website, and the Powell quote regarding Saddam's lack of WDM
in 2001 is from the Dept. of State website. Dr. Rice is quoted from a CNN
program transcript. It is much more convenient to leave it to Safire and
Miniter to edit and consolidate what you then use to frame your "informed
opinion", than to do your own research and attempt to seperate the facts
from the spin of columnists and the Bushco's massive psy-ops.

Trouble for me is, I just can't do it, and you, obviously, can't either. We will
convince Bushco apologists and supporters of nothing. They are the enablers
of this scary, disfunctional, destructive, administration, because they are
misinformed and quite content to remain so. They find their resolve in their
own ignorance. They react to those who compare them to the citizens of
Germany in the late 1930's by calling us "fringe" or "X-file" groups.

They have refused to accept the determination of U.S. and U.N. weapons
inspectors that there no WMD found in Iraq that legitimized statements made
by Bush and his appointees making a case for an invasion of Iraq on grounds
that Saddam posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States.

They have refused to accept the determination by the 9/11 commission and
of former CIA director George Tenent that no reliable intelligence exists to
legitimize the claim that Saddam was a supporter of and a conspirator with al queda.
They have refused to accept that the insurgents fighting against U.S. troops
in Iraq are nearly all Iraqis, or that Bush's claim that we are fighting them
"there" so that we won't have to fight them "here", has no basis in fact.
They ignore the fact that senior Bush administration officials Powell and
Rice made public statements before 9/11 that directly contradicted the
Bushco post 9/11 propaganda attempt to justify invading Iraq:
Finally, there is this in your recent "Economist Article on Iraq" thread:

My point was that your statement was inaccurate. I just tried to word it more politely than this:

Ooooh, that was good. You switched from "al Qaeda" to "attacks." Your statement was that Iraq was "a country that had no involvement with Al Queda." Even though that long post of mine was titled, "Clear link between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

Unless you believe that every al Qaeda cell was involved in the attacks, your statement is irrelevant to what I said.

However, what I said is borne out on page 66 of the 9/11 report.

That misrepresentation wasn't nearly as good.

"A lot."

Not "all." Not "most."

"A lot."

Now for a little more:


Link

Now mind you, the following is only circumstantial, but just for the fun of it, here's a satellite photo of Salman Pak--25 miles south of Baghdad. Before the Marines blew the shit out of it.

Notice anything interesting in it?


<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XQCqAjIdKm*Q!RZLgC5fodsCcF8pcPuyQHWTcJwBAQZwSQEFDRezIdv5ETkUiev*DWUGcDPNh!0XLmMbAd2KGgxdniiLq14byq4LlPLXcrVbPtzreJISp1qV683!N0GyLnd3ljzfQpw/photo_2.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg?dc=4675505372460097691></img>

How could an opinion be inaccurate? I have mine, you have yours.

And, and with reference to my statement "Even by your standards sob", I wasn't trying to be impolite. I was stating that I don't believe that most or all (or just "a lot") of the decapitations are the actions of Al Queda. Personally I think that Al Queda is credited with a lot more than it already carries out. I believe it has inspired a lot of groups, but I think as an effective force it was probably destroyed in Afghanistan and by subsequent arrests and targetted assassinations by the US and its allies. Of course, once again, that's just my opinion.

You continue to search for reasons to take offence at my posts. You've even ignored personal messages I've sent clarifying your misunderstanding of certain things I've posted and compliments I've made.

I can't really do anything if you want to be insulted.

SIGH

You're splitting hairs. If you want to dissect every sentence, word for word, then there's likely to be no value in further discussion.

I don't really want to play games. I come here for engaging, educational and enjoyable repartee with fellow board-members. Despite my attempts, my interaction with you has proven to be none of the above.

I wish you well and will try, in any subsequent discussion, to be more exacting, should I choose to comment on your posts.

Mr Mephisto

sob, your reference to the 707 airliner at Salmon Pak is examined in an
article by Seymour Hersh. Hersh won a pulitzer prize for his investigative
reporting on the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, after army officer Colin Powell,
ordered at that time to determine whether the event took place, reported back
to his U.S. Army superiors that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre">"In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of the Massacre, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public.</a>

The reader reviews of Hersh's new book on the Iraq invasion and occupation
are illuminating in that the opinions of the reviewers are as polarized as they
are on this forum. There is no middle ground ! <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060195916/002-1623418-2797669?">
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060195916/002-1623418-2797669?</a>
Thread readers: check out the last sentence about Salmon Pak in the above
quote box and determine what source you think might be more credible;
Seymour Hersh, the reporter who exposed Colin Powell's 1969 whitewash of
the My Lai massacre....or SOB's reference to the unsubstantiated PBS.org
report about a terrorist hijacker training center, complete with a 707
passenger jet, used as a hijacker training tool.

And check the date on this article: 2003-05-05.

I guess that means the airplane in the picture didn't really exist.

Neither the meaningless detour to Vietnam or the attempt to change the subject to the attacks (again) had anything to do with his statement.

SOURCE:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...D7AE75F9B8.htm


this is just obscene.

regardless of where you might stand of the surreal matter of post-hoc justifications for bushwar (largely a psychological excersize, it seems to me), the ongoing everyday attrition of this war on the american position--political, ethical, discursive---cannot be denied. the foulness outlined in this article seems but a symptom.

it also seems a good moment for consideration of the effects of conservative discourse more generally: this defense was taken from limbaugh---the attempt to trivialize torture is a conservative monopoly---strange to consider the question of how this could possible square with "morality"....

SOB did not include the following, which appeared on the same page
(on the right side.....) that he copied and pasted into the last quote box in his post (above). It is a PBS Frontline editors note, dated one year after 2003-05-05:
What is "meaningless", is not the reference I offered to compare Colin Powell's
credibility concerning My Lai, to that of journalist Seymour Hersh.........
and it is not, "my attempt".....as you called it, "to change the subject to
the attacks (again)".

No, Tarl Cabot, what is "meaningless" is the reasoning that the Bushco and
their supporters have advanced to justify 10,000+ American military casualties, to date in their Iraq folly, including <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailynews/010/nation/A_daily_look_at_U_S_military_d:.shtml">1355 dead</a>.
Meaningless "Bushshit", such as this quote from the "war prezzdent":
More than 1000 additional U.S. troops have died in Iraq since Bush invited
the opposition, which the links I included in my last post clearly demonstrate
are primarily Iraqis, "to bring them on".

Is it "misleading" to point out, as I did in a preceding post, that Powell said
this:
Then this......
Finally, in Sept. 2004, Powell stated the following:
Powell and the Bushco do not seem to know what the fuck they are saying
or doing. How many dead Americans and Iraqis will it take until newsprint
fills up with pieces like this, <a href="http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/10614345.htm?1c">Iraq It's beginning to look like Vietnam </a> and we haul our misdirected military resources out of Iraq ?

Hell, I saw those BEFORE any troops went over. The only difference was that you left out "quagmire."

I'm also getting bored with correcting people who misquote and misrepresent what I said. For the record, I opposed Mr Mephisto's characterization of Iraq as "a country that had no involvement with Al Queda."

So with credit to John Henke, whom I'm plagiarizing from because of a lack of interest in endlessly having to repeat what I ACTUALLY said, I'll submit the following:

Neither I nor the 9/11 Report are claiming that Iraq and Al Qaeda were engaged in an ongoing collaborative relationship. I merely point out that there was quite a history of mutual overtures, an apparent willingness to work together, and possible historic cooperation on chemical production/training.

I do not consider it relevant to the prewar calculation that Iraq was in an ongoing cooperative relationship with Al Qaeda. As Bush said, the danger from that relationship laid in the future.

I support the above statements in spite of the media-fueled opposing viewpoint: "Nope, no 'collaborative relationship' here. Move along. Bush lied."

I understand your position though. If you admit that Salman Pak was a terrorist training camp, it at least partially justifies our presence in Iraq.

And that would never do.

P.S. Has anyone told the Marines that the plane they blew up was "unsubstantiated?"

I don't agree here...
Here is proof for something. Something positive..
It's a start.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Election. Says Abdel Hussein al-Hindawi, the head of the Electoral Commission: "These are the first free, multi-party elections since 1954 and I can tell you that according to our 6,000 electoral agents throughout the country, there is a real fervour [to vote] even in the Sunni regions." Nearly 14 million voters are eligible to go to the polls.

Iraq is spending 250 million dollars for this landmark election. Voting papers are being printed in Switzerland to avoid counterfeiting, and a company will distribute them to the 9,000 polling stations which will be equipped with 40,000 ballot boxes.

Adds Hindawi: "We have banned any emblem showing violence or religious symbols. . . . Under this rule, we have rejected one list which depicted a tank, another which opted for a Koran with a sun, and a third which had mass graves."

-Legal. Two seminars on the rule of law in Iraq were held in October as part of a university partnership led by DePaul University to improve legal education in Iraq. The first seminar was titled "The New Iraqi Constitution" and was held in Baghdad.

-Women's Rights. Iraqi women, meanwhile, continue with their struggle for greater rights and freedoms in the new Iraq. Zainab Al-Suwaij and Ala Talabani, two Iraqi feminist activists, work on behalf of their countrywomen. Al-Suwaij, who went into exile in the U.S. after the failed Shiite uprising in 1991, "created the American Islamic Congress with the goal of promoting moderation and tolerance within and outside the Islamic community. After the American occupation of Iraq she has also spent 14 months there working to develop projects focused on improving the educational system--her schools for dropouts have a 97 percent rate of success--and empowering Iraqi women."

-Humanitarian. Thirty-four Iraqi medics, academics and police officers arrived in Britain in October to study forensic archaeology at Bournemouth University so they could identify their dead and gather evidence of genocide in their homeland. Seven of the group agreed to be interviewed about the project, paid for with nearly £1 million [$1.9 million] of British Government funds, on condition their identities were protected. Iraq will also receive other valuable foreign assistance to help deal with the tragic legacy of dictatorship.

-Economics. Alan P. Larson, the undersecretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs, provides an useful overview of the economic situation in Iraq before and after the liberation: In 1979 Iraq had a per capita living standard on a par with Italy. By the fall of Saddam Hussein's government, Iraq had the GDP of an impoverished developing country and had become the most heavily indebted nation in the world. This grim legacy, compounded by a serious security situation, poses big hurdles to economic development.

Despite these problems, the Iraqis are persevering and succeeding. Iraqi policies made it possible for economic output in the first ten months of 2004 to be 51.7% higher than in 2003. Per capita income in 2004 is projected to be $780, up from approximately $500 in 2003. The Iraqi government has set forth a solid medium-term economic plan. The newly independent Central Bank is keeping inflation in check, with the consumer price index rising only 5.7 percent in the first eight months of 2004 compared with 46 percent in 2003. The new dinar has appreciated 27 percent against the dollar in the past year.

Says Larson: "The economic progress Iraqis have achieved so far, under very difficult circumstances, testifies to their competence and courage. This holds especially true for the men and women who make up the new Iraqi government, who, at great personal risk, are busy building their vision of a democratic and free Iraq."

-Debt Relief. "The United States, Germany and other G7 nations agreed . . . to write off up to 80 percent or $33 billion of Iraq's Paris Club debt, which could pave the way for a wider international accord, officials said." That means, for example, that Australia will forgive Iraq $1.1 billion. The deal might have another good financial spinoff for Iraq: "The accord with the Paris Club, which holds about $42 billion in Iraqi debt, may help pave the way for Iraq to receive about $8 billion in aid from the [International Monetary Fund] and World Bank." The Kuwaiti government, meanwhile, will be asking the parliament to approve an 80% cut in Iraq's $16 billion debt, a reduction in line with the Paris Club decision. Iraq's debt to Russia will be reduced from around $10.5 billion to between $700 million and $1 billion. And Saudi Arabia has also expressed willingness to make substantial cuts in Iraqi debt.

-Financial. Despite security concerns, the Baghdad Stock Exchange continues to move ahead:
"There's a lot of interest," said Mazin Aziza, who represents one of the 13 Iraqi banks now listed on the exchange. "People like to buy and sell on the exchange. We wait for security to improve. Then there will be much more trading." . . .

-Oil. "Iraq, the fifth-largest oil producer in the Middle East, will spend more than $1 billion next year to increase oil production capacity by about 15 percent to 3.25 million barrels a day, an Iraqi official said. 'The budget is fixed for priority projects to build new export pipelines and complete modifications to our refineries,' Abdulilah al-Amir, a foreign relations adviser to Iraqi Oil Minister Thamir al-Ghadhban, said." The authorities plan to build a new refinery in the town of Zakho, in the Kurdish north, close to the Syrian and Turkish borders and along a pipeline route to Turkey. Iraqi officials also are conducting talks with Norway towards building greater cooperation in the oil industry. And the Ministry of Oil has announced that it has shortlisted five foreign companies to study the giant Rumaila oil field in the south and another four to study the oilfields around Kirkuk.

-Oil Industry. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, meanwhile, is onto the second leg of it Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) program (the first stage consisted of renovation of existing oil infrastructure):

The new program goal is to increase liquid petroleum gas (LPG) production to 3,000 metric tons. "This is what we think of as propane," said [Marcia] Meekins, [oil engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' southern district]. "And, of course, the reason they (Iraq) want to increase their production is that now, they have to import it. They want to decrease their reliance on imports." One report concludes that "the Iraqi petroleum industry, despite frequent sabotage attacks and other disruptions, is managing to pump a steady stream of oil, providing a much-needed cushion to international markets and a silver lining to the insurgency-riven aftermath of the US-led invasion.

Problems still haunt the industry, including a major pipeline rupture last week. Even so, Iraq has been a reliable supplier this year." Arguably, this is at least partly due to hard work and determination of a new generation of experts who are trying to rebuild Iraq's oil production: Amid Iraq's rusty refineries, sabotage and fuel shortages, there is a new breed of savvy bankers, hands-on oil managers and western-educated engineers who believe oil can help build a dynamic, modern nation which will inspire the Middle East.

-Business. In Amman, Jordan, the Iraq Procurement 2004 forum and exhibition recently opened, "providing the opportunity for Iraqi businessmen to meet with representatives of global companies hoping to play a role in the rebuilding of the war-stricken state. . . . An exhibition hosting over 50 regional and global companies will be held on the sidelines of the forum, providing the companies with the chance to display their products. During the three-day event, certain projects in the fields of IT, healthcare, energy production, telecommunications, banking, agriculture, water and sewage system will be presented to foreign investors."

-Fallujah. Together, the United States and the Iraqi government have earmarked as much as $100 million for the reconstruction effort in Fallujah, according to Ambassador Bill Taylor of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. . . . He said that the reconstruction will likely begin with infrastructure projects aimed at restoring basic services. Specifically, he identified a need to repair electricity distribution lines, sewage lines and water treatment facilities. Once basic services are restored, reconstruction efforts will turn to schools, clinics and solid waste management, he said.

The next invasion of this battered city has begun. Teams of reconstruction experts have set up shop in the municipal government complex downtown, having commandeered a former youth sports complex to serve as their headquarters. There, they have launched a crucial, large-scale effort aimed at rebuilding a city that was devastated during the U.S.-led offensive to take control of the longtime rebel stronghold.

-Transportation. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Programs and Contracting Office in Baghdad are also expected to issue contracts soon worth $36 million to Iraqi firms to renovate some 76 train stations throughout the country. Speaking of rail infrastructure, a USAID program is constructing a 45-mile railway line (link in PDF) between the southern port of Umm Qasr and Shuaibah junction near Basrah. The project should be completed by January 2005.

-Health Care. A large part of the effort to rebuild the country's health system consists of improving the skills of Iraqi doctors, who in most cases have been cut off for many years from the latest overseas medical developments. As part of that strategy, "the Japanese government will invite 10 doctors from the southern Iraqi city of Samawah and its vicinity to Japan from . . . for training in infectious disease prevention as part of its reconstruction assistance for Iraq." Already, "in March and October this year, Japan and Egypt jointly provided medical training for a total of 215 Iraqi doctors at Cairo University."

-Infrastructure. A new initiative to provide water and sanitation systems as well as hygiene awareness is improving sanitary conditions for the residents of 21 villages in eastern Kirkuk as well as the southwestern part of As Sulaymaniyah Governorate. This initiative is being implemented by an international NGO in partnership with USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance. This project is supporting well drilling, construction of water storage and distribution networks, provision of household latrines, and is addressing health and hygiene education and awareness and delivering some basic health interventions.

-Medical. Just as Iraqi doctors need to catch up with the rest of the world after years of isolation, so do Iraqi academics and teachers. To help them, British academic institutions continue to provide assistance for Iraqi universities: The AOC-British Council Further Education Iraq Group was launched in February this year following discussions with Dr Hamadi and the president of the Iraqi Foundation for Technical Education.

Its vision is to help develop a "restructured, modernised and responsive" vocational education system along regional lines to support the skills needed to reconstruct Iraq. A total of ten UK FE colleges are so far involved in providing expertise in areas such as management, exchange programmes and standardised qualifications for teachers, and developing teaching and learning methods and the curriculum. Books and learning materials are also being provided by organisations such as British Education Suppliers Association and The British Publishers Association.

-Humanitarian Aid. It will clearly take years to repair the damage of decades of destruction and neglect. In the meantime, emergency aid continues to play a vital role, filling in the gaps. Assistance is coming for Iraqi hospitals:
More than eight tons of donated medical supplies will leave Detroit (DETROIT?!?!) next week bound for a storage depot in Baghdad, Iraq, to help the interim government there resupply war-torn civilian hospitals. . . . The materials were donated by doctors and hospitals. The shipment was organized by local Iraqis.

Wally Jadan, president and chief executive of the Southfield-based Arabic content radio and television network Radio and TV Orient, hopes to organize more shipments in the coming months along with a mission by Iraqi physicians living in Metro Detroit.

not to be an ass, but could you post a source link please, sir?

Yes, sir.
whitehouse.gov...
;)

I mean, Wall Street Journal. Which has subsequent links to everything mentioned above.

All well and good powerclown. But that's got nothing to do with whether the US is safer or unsafer. I believe it is the latter. Sob and others took umbrage at that opinion (for some reason) and so began the petty argument.

I agree that, if we take the list you posted, at face value, then Iraq is in some ways "better off". But in many many other ways, it's a lot worse off.

I hazard a guess that if you asked the average Baghdad resident if they preferred their life today to that when Hussein was in power, that they will choose the latter. Not for any love of Hussein, but simply for a love of safety, stability and state integrity.


Mr Mephisto

I missed this post earlier host. Many thanks for your contribution.

You know, the sad thing is (and perhaps to the surprise of some of those who attack me and my politics on this board), I originally supported the war.

Yep. Me. Mr Mephisto. Mr "Anti-Bush, America-hater" Mephisto.

Why? Becuase I believed what Bush and Co told us. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (still do). I laud the actions of the majority of US troops there and around the world.

But guess what? Once I realised we had been lied to, that there was a much larger degree of cyncial social engineering at work, I changed my mind.

I withdrew my support for the war. I investigated further and monitored the situation; and did not rely upon Fox News or Dan Rather alone for reports. Now when I question the war, when I criticise the actions of America, I'm labeled as a lefty. Because I don't swallow the bitter pill of Bush/Cheney propaganda, I'm considered an apologist for tyranny. I'm asked "why are you so interested in US politics anyway?". I'm personally attacked and insulted.

Oh well. Such is life.

Mr Mephisto

sad to say , mr mephisto, but welcome to how the american right "deals with" dissent.
denial: not just a river in egypt....

Actually Mephisto I think you are a smart educated person who post your opinions. Politics should be opinion, and it's not wrong to choose your sides in this arguement.

I'm conservative, but I know that too much conservatism would be horrible for our country. I also know though that too much liberalism would harm us also.

Let me say this, even if you did hate Bush Mr. M, why shouldn't you? You should feel how you want about people. As long as you don't tell me to hate bush, and vice versa I don't tell you to love him I think we stand on even grounds. If you, with constructive reason and dialog motivate me enough to change my opinion on a subject matter that's excellent.




In that post about the Iraq election, in my opinion it's a good thing because it's a developmental story that comes out of the woodworks for what America is doing in Iraq. Does it make America safer? In the broad picture I believe it does. In the immediate picture it will probably be harmful because as the election comes, many of our soldiers will die. People will be crying foul as they see "Unneeded" bloodshed, while others would quietly stay solemn realizing how unique and inspiring such an event will be.


There should always be both sides, if not at least a twinkle of question. We need balance.

I couldn't have said it better myself Konichiwaneko.


Mr Mephisto

but in this case, almost all conservative arguments are empty.

politics is not simply a matter of opinion if by that you mean arbitrary positions that one adopts not on the basis of any factual material, or considered engagement with material whose status is problematic, but rather because it follows from a disposition.

nor is there much value to a diversity of positions for its own sake if, as in teh case of the war in iraq, every single premise brought to bear on the matter from teh right had proven to be either false outright (wmds, the linkage of iraq to the "war on terror"), incomplete to the point of total incompetence (the "strategy" for dealing with iraq), a thin veil for the rationalization of crimes against humanity (the administrations apparent affection for abuse/torture in addition to the creation of the various legal black holes)....

there must come a point when even the most dispositionally committed conservative has to reconsider his or her position, dont you think?

or is message board culture a space where you can go to write out otherwise totally untenable positions that you defend in big lebowski fashion (that's your opinion, man)....

Reconsidering position doesn't mean 180 degree turn.

The message board is a place to express your opinion because it's the choice of the person listening to you to either give you attention or not. It's also a place that allows you to develop the repetoire among the people you chat among.

Me personally if you qoute me facts and documents all day long, your opinion to me is more in tuned to a cookie cutter liberal or republican. Yet if you don't need to depend on documents, don't paste hyperlinks left and right saying "See, someone wrote about it so it has to be true"...if you put down exactly what you feel from what you've read and what you deduced in the intelligent head of yours then I honestly believe it's you.

why not? if i was as wrong as the conservatives have been and are on iraq because i followed some political line or another, and i could see that i was wrong, i would reconsider my position. it's pretty simple.