White House: Democracy in Iraq is unrealistic - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 08-14-2005, 11:26 AM

So much for all that talk of Iraq being better off after Saddam. Bid a warm welcome to our world's newest emerging oppressive Islamic state.

Quote:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad. The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

.......

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities. But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

.......

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081300853.html

Coppertop · 08-14-2005, 12:12 PM

Let me be the first to say:

well duh!

host · 08-14-2005, 12:49 PM

Isn't it a form of poetic justice that a "Connecticut Yankee in King Reagan's Court", the crown price of the Christian right.....sponsored by conservative American Christians and the American Petroleum Industry, would preside over the creation of the two newest "Islamic Republics" on this planet, bought and paid for with the lives and limbs of duped young American soldiers ?

Frank Rich's column in the NY Times today, titled <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14rich.html">Someone tell the president the war is over</a> . could just as appropriately be titled, Someone tell Bush that his presidency is over

Quote:

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.

The damage to conservative Christian's perception of Bush, with regard to the loss of women's rights under "Bush style" democracy", about to transpire in Iraq and Afghanistan, is partially mitigated by their own extremist, Biblical interpretation of the inferior status of women..........

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4144760.stm
Last Updated: Sunday, 14 August 2005,
Election hopes of Afghan women
By Tom Coghlan in Qalat, Zabul province

....But while the women advocate change, Ms Pekai in particular is adamant there should be strict limits.

"We live in an Islamic society," she says. "We want our rights, but only according to the rules and regulations of Sharia law."

"I agree for instance that a woman should be escorted by a male relative when she goes out."

She explains how a Western aid agency recently offered her election training in Germany.

"I asked them who will come as my legal guardian and they said 'you don't need a legal guardian in Germany'.

"I said in that case I didn't want to go. They were very surprised."

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
August 14, 2005
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Deal Is Elusive in Iraqi Talks
............Shiite officials also claim to have secured a controversial concession that critics say will threaten the rights of Iraqi women.

Shiite negotiator Baha Araji, reached via cellphone during a mid-negotiation cigarette break, said that personal status issues such as marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance would be subject to the religious authorities of each respective faith.

The clause, if it remains, would probably provoke a fierce reaction from women's rights activists, who maintain that their rights will be compromised if subjected to purely religious law..............

Quote:

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pswomen.asp
While Scripture teaches that a woman's role is not identical to that of men in every respect, and that pastoral leadership is assigned to men, it also teaches that women are equal in value to men.

http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
XVIII. The Family
.....A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. (Ephesians 5: 22-23)

My observations are that women who fall under the influence of the Koran or the Bible are subjected to humiliating affronts to their sensibilities and are relegated to second class status, with their political power and civil rights compromised.

Religious extremism, at the hands of president Bush or a shiite mullah, compromises the rights and the influence of women.

Look around you....the favored issues for "discussion" here at TFP politics are "Right to Life vs. Right to Choose" (Schiavo, full term abortion, etc.) "Gun Rights", Flag "waving", "wearing, "burning"......in short....Guns, God, Patriotism via symbols. Politicians are aware of this.

Where are the politically conscious women who object to subserviance at the hands of the bible, the koran, or at the hand of our misguided and incompetent puppet, our "Connecticut Yankee"?
We Americans all live a step away from martial law, we traded our freedom and rights for soothing platitudes of Bible thumping, conservative charlatans, who are spreading their fundamentalism worldwide, as they "democratize" at gunpoint!

tecoyah · 08-14-2005, 01:02 PM

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

I think he just said.....Uh...."We Lied"

but used much prettier words

filtherton · 08-14-2005, 01:36 PM

I wish i could say i was shocked. Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes before we liberate iran.

Schwan · 08-14-2005, 01:41 PM

This region has been a hot spot for thousands and thousands of years. Despite the fact that many armies managed to successfully invade, no one managed to stay for too long. Personally, I think this was clear to the real decision makers that decided to send soldiers there. They had short term goals and they were probably achieved, whatever they were. I think that whoever believed that a large military presence might actually introduce a new order to the region seriously suffers from delusions of grandeur.

Paq · 08-14-2005, 02:14 PM

"delusions of grandeur"--definitely the most apt response to this.abi

seriously, wasn't this the reason why so many were against the war in the first place? I seem to recall saying this very thing about...what, 3 yrs ago, along wtih several others.

IIRC, the response was that the culture simply was not suitable for democracy, or something like that

djtestudo · 08-14-2005, 02:48 PM

Sounds to me like this is what happens when people panic and put pressure on the government to speed everything up instead of letting things work out.

politicophile · 08-14-2005, 02:55 PM

Hardly the greatest piece of journalism I've ever seen. They quote two annonymous officials and refer to a handful of outside experts and that's pretty much the article. It could just as well be titled "At Least Two Administration Officials Think Iraq Will Not Be a Democracy". I'm not saying that the article is incorrect, but the slant they chose is certainly not the best one.

hunnychile · 08-14-2005, 03:15 PM

None of this shocks me, as I am fully aware that it's all been predicted in the Bible in the Book of Revelations. Symbols and seals may change or appear obscure, and the timetable might look like it's from the past and just part of a heretics dream, but everything it aligning just as The Book has predicted. The US has NO business messing around in the middle East, they are their own tribes...and the course has been set. These are exciting and extremely scary times. We need to let them build their own country and doctrines based upon their own beliefs.

BRING OUR BOYS HOME NOW. It's a no win situation there. Just like Viet Nam.

irateplatypus · 08-14-2005, 03:45 PM

ahh... the ever-present duo of Messieurs "U.S. Official" and "Senior Official", your insight is outmatched only by the venerable "source close to the Administration". The depth of knowledge and foresight is all-encompassing.

why do a few of the posts in this thread evoke a gleeful tone?

Paq · 08-14-2005, 04:39 PM

I( would humbly suggest that the 'gleeful tone' you detect is probably bc we, the anti-war people, are finally seeing an end to this, dare i say it.."quagmire"

Elphaba · 08-14-2005, 05:05 PM

There is nothing gleeful about any of this, or there shouldn't be. The lives lost have been tremendous in terms of Iraqi civilians, and we are well over 1,800 dead and many more wounded. And the death toll continues.

The motives for going to war with Iraq (and soon Iran?) is what we should all be concentrated on. Were they legitimate or not? Does anyone on this forum believe that we should now take on Iran with the same vague, unproven statements from the Bush Administration that we were given for Iraq?

Once again, Germany's President is saying "no way" to Bush's latest comment that all options, (including first strike I presume), are on the table with Iran.

I would hope that the people on this forum are willing to look at the whole of what has happened without the blinders of party loyalty. Dammit, people! Things are now well beyond simple politics in simple times.

daswig · 08-14-2005, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

The motives for going to war with Iraq (and soon Iran?) is what we should all be concentrated on. Were they legitimate or not? Does anyone on this forum believe that we should now take on Iran with the same vague, unproven statements from the Bush Administration that we were given for Iraq?

Wouldn't Iran's continuing widespread support of terrorists be a valid reason to go to war with them? For that matter, the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran has never been dealt with. What more do we need than the Iranian Government's support of rallies where people chant "Death to America"? Do we need for them to actually give somebody a nuke and it be used on US soil before we deal with them?

samcol · 08-14-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There is nothing gleeful about any of this, or there shouldn't be. The lives lost have been tremendous in terms of Iraqi civilians, and we are well over 1,800 dead and many more wounded. And the death toll continues.

The motives for going to war with Iraq (and soon Iran?) is what we should all be concentrated on. Were they legitimate or not? Does anyone on this forum believe that we should now take on Iran with the same vague, unproven statements from the Bush Administration that we were given for Iraq?

Once again, Germany's President is saying "no way" to Bush's latest comment that all options, (including first strike I presume), are on the table with Iran.

I would hope that the people on this forum are willing to look at the whole of what has happened without the blinders of party loyalty. Dammit, people! Things are now well beyond simple politics in simple times.

The whole Iran situation really scares me. Not because they may or may not have nukes, but because it's like Iraq deja vu all over again. Last time I checked Iraq isn't fixed yet, how can we possibly try to attack another country? Heck Aphganistan isn't exactly safe and secure yet either.

host · 08-14-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

ahh... the ever-present duo of Messieurs "U.S. Official" and "Senior Official", your insight is outmatched only by the venerable "source close to the Administration". The depth of knowledge and foresight is all-encompassing.

why do a few of the posts in this thread evoke a gleeful tone?

Could the "tone" be the beginning of an awareness that the liars and criminals who have attempted to destroy our US of America from within, are finally being confronted by the American people....

Quote:

http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/..._id=1000987803
Is Crackdown on Anonymous Sources Going Too Far?

By Joe Strupp

Published: July 22, 2005 8:10 AM ET
.......Getting Scotty on the Beam

While many reporters are willing to cut back on using confidential help, they also want the White House to do the same. Earlier this year, a group of seven D.C. bureau chiefs fed up with government briefings that were required to be off the record met with Press Secretary Scott McClellan and urged that he put an end to such events. In addition, the group sent an e-mail to several dozen other Washington bureau chiefs asking that when their reporters attend a background-only briefing, they ask that it be on the record and demand to know why it is not.

"I think we are making some headway," says the AP's Johnson, one of those who spearheaded the protest and acknowledged fewer off-the-record briefings since it began.

Hutcheson of Knight Ridder says the background briefings had gotten so bad that he refused to quote anything from one in April held prior to a Bush energy speech. It included three White House officials, all demanding to be unidentified. "That was a marker, a low point in their use of anonymous briefings," Hutcheson says. "That pushed me over the edge, and I would not write about it.".............

that Bushco apologists and those plagued with a tendency to "shoot the messenger" first and ask questions never....are dwindling in number? Here is their <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1835559&postcount=46">record</a>. If you disagree with any of it, why not pick a damaging point, and debate it. It is well established that this administration will only speak to the press unofficially. This is their practice, it is a weak tactic to use it as a criticism of what is now becoming common knowledge. The US failed to plan for the aftermath of the invasion. Iraq produces no more electricity than it did one year ago.

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8736966/
By Suleiman al-Khalidi
Updated: 6:31 a.m. ET July 28, 2005

AMMAN - Iraq's electricity supply has risen above pre-war levels to 5,350 megawatts (MW) despite sabotage, boosted by hydroelectric power and more imports from Iran, Syria and Turkey, the minister in charge said on Thursday.

"Now electricity has reached a record after we broke 5,350 megawatts a few days ago for the first time since the war," Electricity Minister Mohsen Shalash told Reuters......

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091304K.shtml
Iraq Power Grid Shows U.S. Flaws
By T. Christian Miller
Los Angeles Times

Sunday 12 September 2004

........Even today, the U.S. has not reached the goal set by L. Paul Bremer III, the former head of the U.S.-led occupation authority, to produce 6,000 megawatts of power a day by June 1. By comparison, California has about 50% more people than Iraq but produces up to eight times as much electricity, about 45,000 megawatts at peak summer demand.

Iraq's electrical production tops out at 5,300 megawatts - higher than peak generation in the closing days of Saddam Hussein's regime, but far below the estimated 7,200 megawatts needed to fulfill the rapidly growing demand. .........

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/in...t/14armor.html
U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: August 14, 2005

For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents.

(Workers assembled body armor made of ceramic plates at ArmorWorks in Tempe, Ariz. Specially treated plates give troops extra protection.)

The ceramic plates in vests worn by most personnel cannot withstand certain munitions the insurgents use. But more than a year after military officials initiated an effort to replace the armor with thicker, more resistant plates, tens of thousands of soldiers are still without the stronger protection because of a string of delays in the Pentagon's procurement system.

The effort to replace the armor began in May 2004, just months after the Pentagon finished supplying troops with the original plates - a process also plagued by delays. The officials disclosed the new armor effort Wednesday after questioning by The New York Times, and acknowledged that it would take several more months or longer to complete.........

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1300853_3.html
........"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system..............

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/fallows.html
...........Before the war started, what basically was the argument between Rumsfeld and the uniformed military over the size of the force to fight the war?

Between the Army, in particular, and the civilian leadership in the Pentagon -- Donald Rumsfeld especially, but also Paul Wolfowitz -- there was a basic philosophical difference about how you sized the force to go into Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, through his career in the Pentagon, had been pushing very much for lean, mean, agile forces. By that logic, he said the U.S. should not over-prepare, overstaff, overload for the job of beating Saddam Hussein's regime.................

.......Explain the reasoning of the head of the U.S. Army, Gen. Shinseki, on how important the first days after the fall of Baghdad would be.

Shinseki of the Army drew not only on his experience in the Balkans, trying to administer a fractious region postwar. [He also drew from] all the corpus of evidence that had been produced by the Army War College, by every other group that looked into this, to say that there was a crucial moment just after the fall of a regime when the potential for disorder was enormous. So there would be ripple effects for years to come, depending on what happened in those first days or weeks when the regime went [down] ….

The Army War College study had worked out a very detailed checklist for how the military, and the Army in particular, should start thinking about the postwar, well before it actually went to war. One of their conclusions was that it was best to go in heavier than you actually needed to be, so that at the beginning of the postwar period your presence would be so intimidating that nobody would dare challenge you. You'd set a tone that would allow you then to draw down the forces very rapidly. So it was better to go in heavy and then draw down, than the reverse.

Shinseki based the need for more troops in part on his experience in Kosovo and Bosnia. Explain how he extrapolated.

Shinseki had been in charge of occupation logistics in Kosovo in particular. He said when in the Pentagon, "Well, let's assume the world is linear. If we required a certain amount of troops per 25,000 population in the Balkans, [and] if the world is not radically different, something of the same extent is going to be needed in Iraq." When he used that kind of extrapolation logic, he got to a number much, much larger than Donald Rumsfeld was thinking of for the troop presence.

In the tensions existing between the Pentagon and the military, Shinseki seemed a particular target. Explain.

Shinseki's last, say, year and a half in office was a series of apparently calculated and intentional insults from the civilian leadership, especially Donald Rumsfeld. The episode that got the most public attention was when Rumsfeld announced Shinseki's successor as chief of staff, about a year and a half before his term was up. Usually this announcement is made right at the last minute to avoid turning the incumbent into a lame duck.

Three weeks before the war, Shinseki testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Describe what happened.

Shinseki has been, through his career, a real by-the-book guy. So he would not go out of his way to make public disagreements that were clearly going on inside the Pentagon. But in the hearing where Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan was sort of drawing him out on what he expected the troop levels to be, Shinseki finally said, based on his own past experience, that he thought it would be several hundred thousand troops. This became a real arcane term about, what did several hundred thousand mean? But let's say 300,000 and up. His real level, internally, had been in the 400,000 range.

Several days later, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, appeared before a different committee. [He] went out of his way essentially to slap Shinseki in the face, to say there had been some recent estimates that had been wildly off the mark -- using the term, "wildly off the mark." Then he went on to say that it was almost impossible to imagine that it would be harder, and take more troops, to occupy Iraq than it had taken to conquer them; whereas that point, that it would be harder to occupy than conquer, was in fact the central theme the Army had been advancing before the war.

Was this public rebuke surprising?

The public rebuke of Shinseki by Wolfowitz was probably the most direct public dressing-down of a military officer, a four-star general, by a civilian superior since Harry Truman and Douglas MacArthur, 50 years ago. This public confrontation between Wolfowitz and Shinseki must have reflected the really deep disagreements going on within the Pentagon then, and a sign of the civilian leadership's impatience with what they viewed as the lack of cooperation from the uniformed military.

A couple of days later, Paul Wolfowitz was testifying before another congressional committee. He went out of his way, in a gesture that everyone involved recognized as being directly addressed to Shinseki, to say, "Let me address some of the ideas that have been floating around recently." He went on to say there had been suggestions of the levels of troops that might be required that were, quote, "wildly off the mark."

This was not the way that generals and Pentagon superiors talked to each other.................

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Sounds to me like this is what happens when people panic and put pressure on the government to speed everything up instead of letting things work out.

I am sorry to inform all "apologists" for this administration who read or post on TFP Politics, that it is no longer acceptable to transfer the source of the responsibility for the unprecedented foreign and domestic policy failures that our country is currently experiencing.........onto those critical of the administration or onto those who report the truth about the status and the results. It won't work.....the damage is too severe, and the evidence shows that Bush, Rumsfeld, et al, and those complicit via their support of them, have accomplished needless, death, division, weakening of US credibility and security, at great fiscal expense....all by themselves. Face it.....work to reverse it....stop attempting to transfer the blame from where it rightfully belongs.

irateplatypus · 08-14-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

I( would humbly suggest that the 'gleeful tone' you detect is probably bc we, the anti-war people, are finally seeing an end to this, dare i say it.."quagmire"

if indeed you do perceive a "quagmire", what about the situation leads to believe it is coming to an end?

not necessarily to Paq:

it's amazing how many people are waiting with baited breath for any sign of U.S. failure. when a person feels emboldened by a newspaper article whose only named source is someone who has authored a book called "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq." (a book published before the iraqi's have voted on a Constitution), it speaks volumes about what outcome they truly wish for. i really cannot understand it.

the trouble with the ideological left is that they are unable to see anyone but our President as the enemy. there are people in the world whose very core-beliefs compel them to slaughter all kaffir, the West-haters along with the rest of us... and yet all the left's energy is spent fighting a battle (and losing, i might add) against a silver-spooned rich boy from texas who they think not too bright. such people look and sound completely ridiculous to those with a bit of perspective in life.

Paq · 08-14-2005, 11:07 PM

It's not that i believe it is coming to an end, just that i am kinda happy that the admin is admitting that their original, lofty goals are not feasible and instead of 'staying the course' and running us into the ground, they are more willing to accept the truth.

#2, I do not want a huge failure of US anything. Honestly, I don't, i don't see bush as my enemy, i see him as a shortsighted person, which is what the article basically says about the entire admin. I also did not see iraq as our enemy before, during, or after 9-11 as they, as has been shown repeatedly before, had nothing to do with it. Iraq, to me, was just a scapegoat and the invasion was something that was planned probably before clinton was out of office...

now, the one problem i do have with bush, you did touch upon. Actually, nto really. It is not that i consider bush to be a silverspooned rich boy from TX who isnt' bright, it's that I consider him to be a silverspooned rich boy from TX who may be bright, but has no intellectual curiosity and no concept of any opposition from anyone. If he says it is true, he expects everyone to agree, wholeheartedly, which is one reason why i do not buy the justification for invading Iraq. I don't accept it at face value, i don't accept that "oh, they didn't follow resolution xxx and that means we can invade." Sorry, but war should be a last recourse, not something you stumble towards.

like I said, i don't wish failure for the US, at all. I never have, never will, that's what makes people sick. I'm about as patriotic as they come, but, i do have enough skepticism to question what appears to be ulterior motives.

And yes, i understand that the source for all this is 'questionable," but that is what we get for electing him...
seriously, isn't it tiring to always question the source when it doesn't fit into your mold?

Seaver · 08-15-2005, 05:54 AM

Quote:

This region has been a hot spot for thousands and thousands of years. Despite the fact that many armies managed to successfully invade, no one managed to stay for too long.

You sure?

Babylonians did a good job. Persians did too, as did the Califs, as did the Ottoman Turks.

Charlatan · 08-15-2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Wouldn't Iran's continuing widespread support of terrorists be a valid reason to go to war with them? For that matter, the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran has never been dealt with. What more do we need than the Iranian Government's support of rallies where people chant "Death to America"? Do we need for them to actually give somebody a nuke and it be used on US soil before we deal with them?

I can't believe you just suggested that the US invade Iran because of a hostage crisis that ended in 1980. Are you really suggesting this? Is that a straw you need to grasp?

As for their support of terrorist being enough to warrant and invasion, you are correct, that would be enough cause for the current Administration.

I've said it before and I am sure I will say it again... war is never going to solve the long term problems of the Middle East having problems with the US. It sure looks good on television the US. It looks like the US is rolling up its collective sleeves and doing something.

Might as well be getting rid of a wasps nest with a stick.

The only way to solve the problem is going to be a long term solution of policing the criminals (terrorists) and diplomacy (read: education). This will, however, take decades. Unfortunately, elections happen every two years in the US and that just makes everything short term look all the more appealing to the strategists.

boatin · 08-15-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the trouble with the ideological left is that they are unable to see anyone but our President as the enemy. there are people in the world whose very core-beliefs compel them to slaughter all kaffir, the West-haters along with the rest of us...

As a self identified member of the 'ideological left', I can say with total confidence that you are wrong. I definitely recognize there are fucked up people in the world. Bad guys that need to be stopped. Terrorists that need to be battled.

But I believe that the way those battles are done matters - it must happen as transparently as possible in as consensus building a way as possible. Because no situation exists in a bubble. How you treat your neighbors now matters in a year.

So when an administration doesn't build consensus, public and world opinion, and goes off in a cowboy fashion with seriously questionable tactics, I don't trust their next move - they have proven themselves untrustworthy. As such, I will do what I can to change the current policies/practices through local/national politics and by talking much politics as much as possible.

If you believed that every day an administration caused more damage to your beloved country, wouldn't it be morally reprehensible to sit and do nothing?

For anyone to characterize the "left's" opinion this way:

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the left's energy is spent fighting a battle (and losing, i might add) against a silver-spooned rich boy from texas who they think not too bright.

makes me see that as:

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

such people look and sound completely ridiculous to those with a bit of perspective in life.

Pacifier · 08-15-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it's amazing how many people are waiting with baited breath for any sign of U.S. failure. .

Thats easy.
The so called "anti-war crowd" has predicted a lot of the shit thats currently happening in Iraq. There were reports about the US play "try and error" in Iraq from day one.
Sure "we" are happy now, but frankly I would also be a lot happier if I've benn wrong and the Iraq would be a safe nation by now and on a good way to democracy, but it is still far away. Additinally I'm afraid that as long as the "everything is OK, we'll just need more bombs" right wing crowd has the command things will not become better.

Schwan · 08-15-2005, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

You sure?

Babylonians did a good job. Persians did too, as did the Califs, as did the Ottoman Turks.

Babylonians and Persians actually lived there - they didn’t need to invade. As far as I know, all successful invasions didn't last very long (but correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, the US is nowhere in vicinity of the area. It's half a world away. I think it's a bit more challenging to maintain supply lines through half the globe. It's not like you cross a few mountains and a desert and you're there.

Seaver · 08-15-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Babylonians and Persians actually lived there - they didn’t need to invade. As far as I know, all successful invasions didn't last very long (but correct me if I'm wrong). Besides, the US is nowhere in vicinity of the area. It's half a world away. I think it's a bit more challenging to maintain supply lines through half the globe. It's not like you cross a few mountains and a desert and you're there.

'

Well the Babylonians did, but the Persians origionally came out of the North. So they were truely invaders.

Schwan · 08-15-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Well the Babylonians did, but the Persians origionally came out of the North. So they were truely invaders.

I guess it depends on the point of view. The land that currently incorporates Iraq was an integral part of Persia. The Median, Parthian and Sassanid empires, all of them predominately Persian, incorporated these lands. In fact, the Persians spent much more time in Iraq than the Arabs did until now.

But to be fair, there were a few succesful invasions; Alexander overthrew Darius, though ultimately he overstretched his reign and the empire fell after his death (interesting example in light of the current events). There was a rather amusing Roman invasion that ended with emperor Valerian gettng stuffed. And the Turks - yes, but didn't they actually assimilate more than invade?

So maybe I should clarify my point - outside invasions of middle east states are not a good idea, ever.

martinguerre · 08-15-2005, 04:58 PM

first, a point of history. most of the invasions that are cited as sucessful are military, not cultural or even really political. New kingdoms would rise in that area, and as long as they collected taxes, the average Joe on the street had no real interaction. They just saw some ever changing middle men pass on taxes to a ever changing overlord. Especially since the rise of Arab nationalism (in part spread to help the West uproot Turkish control in the Mid-East IIRC), the idea of occupation is simply a different matter.

our aims were drastically different, and more expansive. they proved to be too much, it seems. and what is the most tragic is that a whole lot of people predicted that this would be the case...before so many lives were lost. it's a shame.

TeddyKennedy · 08-15-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwan

Babylonians and Persians actually lived there - they didn’t need to invade. As far as I know, all successful invasions didn't last very long (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Which is why California and Texas are governed by the Spanish and Native Americans.

highthief · 08-16-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeddyKennedy

Which is why California and Texas are governed by the Spanish and Native Americans.

I thought california was governed by the Austrians?

kutulu · 08-18-2005, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

it's amazing how many people are waiting with baited breath for any sign of U.S. failure.

the trouble with the ideological left is that they are unable to see anyone but our President as the enemy.

Please spare us from the simple-minded 'the left hates America' response.

Paq · 08-18-2005, 11:41 PM

i just don't get how the right can say the left hates america. I just can't see that, nor can i see how the left would say the right hates america. i woudl, however, say that each has their own ideas about what is right for america, but then, i would be captain obvious

Seriously, though, the right does not have the monopoly on patriotism..sorry, just not buying that

host · 08-22-2005, 01:43 AM

This news report seems to hint of a disturbing failure by defense secretary Rumsfeld to meet the minimum objectives of securing vital Iraqi infrastructure and the flow of Iraqi oil for export to accomplish the two fold requirements of steady income for the "new Iraq", while insuring more Iraqi oil exports to the world market to help ease supply concerns that have aggravated rising crude oil prices that surely will bankrupt Delta and Northwest airlines very soon, and risk triggering a rapid, worldwide recession and a widening US trade fiscal deficit.

Quote:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050822/iraq_oil.html?.v=2
AP
Electricity Cut Halts Iraq Oil Exports
Monday August 22, 4:44 am ET
By Abbas Fayadh, Associated Press Writer
Iraq's Oil Exports Shut Down by a Power Cut That Darkened Parts of Central and Southern Iraq

BASRA, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's oil exports were shut down Monday by a power cut that darkened parts of central and southern Iraq, including the country's only functioning oil export terminals, Iraqi and foreign oil officials said.

ADVERTISEMENT
Exports through the country's other main route, the northern export pipeline to Turkey, have long been halted by incessant sabotage.

Iraqi officials said sabotage was also responsible for Monday's blackout, which prevented oil from being pumped into tankers waiting at berths.

A port official and an employee at the South Oil Co., which runs Iraq's southern oil fields, said workers stopped pumping stopped at 7 a.m. Monday. Both men spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to media. They gave no further details.

A tanker agent with a shipping company in Jordan confirmed that exports from southern Iraq had ceased due to the power cut.

"Oil terminals have completely stopped exports from Basra and Khor al-Amaya," said Mohammed Hadi, head of Iraq operations for Norton Lilly International. "Both terminals use the same power source."

Hadi said the shutdown, which costs Iraq some $4.25 million per hour, would probably push up the price of oil while curtailing the chief revenue source for Iraq's government.

Electricity was cut across Baghdad and many parts of Iraq early Monday after an attack on a major electricity feeder line between Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, and the capital.

Government spokesman Laith Kubba said Sunday the attack occurred two days ago, "and this will, of course, affect the power supply in Baghdad." He said repairs were underway.

The power failure in southern Iraq occurred after a shutdown of the Khor al-Zobayr power plant outside Basra, the chief supply for Basra and the oil terminals, Hadi said. The failure there triggered other power plant shutdowns, Hadi said.

There was no electricity Monday morning in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, or the port city of Umm Qasr, Hadi said.

By late morning, after power had been off for seven hours, Hadi estimated the loss of revenue from exporting an average of 65,000 barrels per hour at $29.5 million.

Iraq exports about 1.5 million barrels a day from the south.

Exports from the northern oil fields around Kirkuk have long been interrupted due to sabotage on the pipelines. Officials at the Northern Oil Co., which runs the northern fields, said that every three or four months there is some limited pumping of about 250,000 barrels to the Ceyhan port in Turkey.

But no shipments are currently being made to Ceyhan, the officials said.

Associated Press correspondent Jim Krane contributed to this report from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...tm?POE=NEWISVA
Posted 8/7/2005 11:23 PM

Unit had asked for more Marines
By Kimberly Johnson, Special for USA TODAY
HADITHAH, Iraq — A Marine regiment that took heavy casualties last week in western Iraq — including 19 killed from a Reserve unit headquartered in Ohio — had repeatedly asked for about 1,000 more troops. Those requests were not granted...........
............But the issue highlights whether there are enough U.S. and Iraqi troops to battle a deeply rooted insurgency.

Thomas Hammes, a retired Marine colonel who has written a book on anti-insurgency tactics, said ground commanders have been saying that they don't have enough troops to cover the country, despite the Pentagon's insistence that they do.

Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Sunday, "I don't doubt every colonel wishes he had more in his area, but the decisions about how troops are (deployed) are made by the commanders above them."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that he would authorize an increase in the number of troops in Iraq if top commanders asked for them. The Pentagon says that so far they haven't.

Alston said it was "not uncommon for commanders in the field to say 'I need more troops.' ".............

Can anyone continue the pretense that a "one party" majority in the federal executive and legislative branches of the US government is resulting in any advantage for the majority of Americans?

On March 14, 2003, a few says befor the US invasion of iraq, Haliburton common stock closing price was <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=HAL&a=02&b=15&c=2003&d=02&e=15&f=2003&g=d">19.55</a>
Haliburton common stock closing price last friday, Aug. 18, 2005 was <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y">56.47</>

Hardknock · 08-25-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

I think he just said.....Uh...."We Lied"

but used much prettier words

And yet these assholes still hold office while the American public just doesn't give a shit about it cause at least they stopped adam and steve. I'm so embarassed to be an American.

Willravel · 08-29-2005, 12:47 PM

They seem to think these 'factors' are new or were unpredictable. How many voices calle out before this war preicting our current situation perfectly? I myslef am one of those powerful clairvoyant wizards, with abilities for basic foresight greater than the whole of my government.

Sun Tzu · 09-01-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I wish i could say i was shocked. Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes before we liberate iran.

Sun Tzu · 09-01-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

i just don't get how the right can say the left hates america. I just can't see that, nor can i see how the left would say the right hates america. i woudl, however, say that each has their own ideas about what is right for america, but then, i would be captain obvious

Seriously, though, the right does not have the monopoly on patriotism..sorry, just not buying that

Does it matter who wins or loses in a Steelers vs Cowboys game? Not if your the NFL; $$$ either way.

08-14-2005, 01:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." I think he just said.....Uh...."We Lied" but used much prettier words __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-14-2005, 01:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
Schwan A boy and his dog Location: EU!	This region has been a hot spot for thousands and thousands of years. Despite the fact that many armies managed to successfully invade, no one managed to stay for too long. Personally, I think this was clear to the real decision makers that decided to send soldiers there. They had short term goals and they were probably achieved, whatever they were. I think that whoever believed that a large military presence might actually introduce a new order to the region seriously suffers from delusions of grandeur. Last edited by Schwan; 08-14-2005 at 02:26 PM..

08-14-2005, 02:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	"delusions of grandeur"--definitely the most apt response to this.abi seriously, wasn't this the reason why so many were against the war in the first place? I seem to recall saying this very thing about...what, 3 yrs ago, along wtih several others. IIRC, the response was that the culture simply was not suitable for democracy, or something like that __________________ Live. Chris

08-14-2005, 02:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Sounds to me like this is what happens when people panic and put pressure on the government to speed everything up instead of letting things work out. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

08-14-2005, 02:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	Hardly the greatest piece of journalism I've ever seen. They quote two annonymous officials and refer to a handful of outside experts and that's pretty much the article. It could just as well be titled "At Least Two Administration Officials Think Iraq Will Not Be a Democracy". I'm not saying that the article is incorrect, but the slant they chose is certainly not the best one. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

08-14-2005, 12:12 PM	#2 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Let me be the first to say: well duh!

08-14-2005, 01:36 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I wish i could say i was shocked. Hopefully we can learn from our mistakes before we liberate iran.

08-14-2005, 03:15 PM	#10 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	None of this shocks me, as I am fully aware that it's all been predicted in the Bible in the Book of Revelations. Symbols and seals may change or appear obscure, and the timetable might look like it's from the past and just part of a heretics dream, but everything it aligning just as The Book has predicted. The US has NO business messing around in the middle East, they are their own tribes...and the course has been set. These are exciting and extremely scary times. We need to let them build their own country and doctrines based upon their own beliefs. BRING OUR BOYS HOME NOW. It's a no win situation there. Just like Viet Nam. __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB Last edited by hunnychile; 08-14-2005 at 03:32 PM..

08-14-2005, 03:45 PM	#11 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	ahh... the ever-present duo of Messieurs "U.S. Official" and "Senior Official", your insight is outmatched only by the venerable "source close to the Administration". The depth of knowledge and foresight is all-encompassing. why do a few of the posts in this thread evoke a gleeful tone? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

08-14-2005, 04:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	I( would humbly suggest that the 'gleeful tone' you detect is probably bc we, the anti-war people, are finally seeing an end to this, dare i say it.."quagmire" __________________ Live. Chris

08-14-2005, 05:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There is nothing gleeful about any of this, or there shouldn't be. The lives lost have been tremendous in terms of Iraqi civilians, and we are well over 1,800 dead and many more wounded. And the death toll continues. The motives for going to war with Iraq (and soon Iran?) is what we should all be concentrated on. Were they legitimate or not? Does anyone on this forum believe that we should now take on Iran with the same vague, unproven statements from the Bush Administration that we were given for Iraq? Once again, Germany's President is saying "no way" to Bush's latest comment that all options, (including first strike I presume), are on the table with Iran. I would hope that the people on this forum are willing to look at the whole of what has happened without the blinders of party loyalty. Dammit, people! Things are now well beyond simple politics in simple times.

08-14-2005, 11:07 PM	#18 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	It's not that i believe it is coming to an end, just that i am kinda happy that the admin is admitting that their original, lofty goals are not feasible and instead of 'staying the course' and running us into the ground, they are more willing to accept the truth. #2, I do not want a huge failure of US anything. Honestly, I don't, i don't see bush as my enemy, i see him as a shortsighted person, which is what the article basically says about the entire admin. I also did not see iraq as our enemy before, during, or after 9-11 as they, as has been shown repeatedly before, had nothing to do with it. Iraq, to me, was just a scapegoat and the invasion was something that was planned probably before clinton was out of office... now, the one problem i do have with bush, you did touch upon. Actually, nto really. It is not that i consider bush to be a silverspooned rich boy from TX who isnt' bright, it's that I consider him to be a silverspooned rich boy from TX who may be bright, but has no intellectual curiosity and no concept of any opposition from anyone. If he says it is true, he expects everyone to agree, wholeheartedly, which is one reason why i do not buy the justification for invading Iraq. I don't accept it at face value, i don't accept that "oh, they didn't follow resolution xxx and that means we can invade." Sorry, but war should be a last recourse, not something you stumble towards. like I said, i don't wish failure for the US, at all. I never have, never will, that's what makes people sick. I'm about as patriotic as they come, but, i do have enough skepticism to question what appears to be ulterior motives. And yes, i understand that the source for all this is 'questionable," but that is what we get for electing him... seriously, isn't it tiring to always question the source when it doesn't fit into your mold? __________________ Live. Chris

08-15-2005, 04:58 PM	#26 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	first, a point of history. most of the invasions that are cited as sucessful are military, not cultural or even really political. New kingdoms would rise in that area, and as long as they collected taxes, the average Joe on the street had no real interaction. They just saw some ever changing middle men pass on taxes to a ever changing overlord. Especially since the rise of Arab nationalism (in part spread to help the West uproot Turkish control in the Mid-East IIRC), the idea of occupation is simply a different matter. our aims were drastically different, and more expansive. they proved to be too much, it seems. and what is the most tragic is that a whole lot of people predicted that this would be the case...before so many lives were lost. it's a shame. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

08-18-2005, 11:41 PM	#30 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i just don't get how the right can say the left hates america. I just can't see that, nor can i see how the left would say the right hates america. i woudl, however, say that each has their own ideas about what is right for america, but then, i would be captain obvious Seriously, though, the right does not have the monopoly on patriotism..sorry, just not buying that __________________ Live. Chris

08-29-2005, 12:47 PM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They seem to think these 'factors' are new or were unpredictable. How many voices calle out before this war preicting our current situation perfectly? I myslef am one of those powerful clairvoyant wizards, with abilities for basic foresight greater than the whole of my government.