POLL: The occupation of Iraq is a success

Remove all ads!

I agree that the Iraqi citizens are pretty low on the list of goals...I've read your links, and after weighing everything - I feel better about military action as opposed to doing nothing.

Of course it's not an ideal situation, and if islamic extremists weren't bent on exporting terror, and were content with remaining within their borders and cursing the USA, I'd feel better about it. But the fact is, Iraq was not a member of the international community, it invaded a neighboring state, continued to deter weapons inspectors from searching for banned weapons, and failed to comply with UN resolutions. They acted as a rogue state, deserving neither recognition nor the sovereignty afforded to other nations. knowing the law, international and domestic, has shown me that acting as a rogue state implies an indifference to the laws of the international communtiy.

This rogue state has been a breeding ground for terror groups as is/was Afghanistan, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia and Iran. What better way to cripple terror cells than by striking where they live? Hell, now Bin Laden lives in a hole in Pakistan and it takes 3 months for his communications to reach the outside world - They are so content in remaining in the 8th century culturally and ideologically, I have no problem keeping them there technologically.

A stable and democratic Iraq, once achieved, may be a stabilizing factor for the entire region. Even if it takes a long time...Which I believe it will. I've never said the US is blameless in the crises in the the Middle East, but maybe now we are putting ourselves on the line to make the future better...An investment we were not interested in making previously.

 

The term rogue state is idiotic. There is no such thing. It is a tool to denounce opponents. Nothing else. It is irrelevant to international law.

Check the actual issue of Foreign Affairs; it has two critical articles on Bush's Follies: Stumbling Into War

Taking Arabs Seriously

A good read.

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be alot of civilizations around the world that are like this. For some reason, some cultures do not have discipline when in comes to controlling ones passions and emotions.

The Middle East is obviously one example. Just the mention of removing Arafat from Palenstein almost puts the population into a crazed frenzy.

It could be that the Middle East needs dictators and oppressive governments. Hmmmm. Besides Baghdad, there wasn't really any civilization in that part of the world until the English came. Looking at the Middle East is like looking into our past - the centuries before the Greeks and Romans.

 

Yeah, sure. When 99% of the population of the civilized and educated Europe could not read, these uneducated and uncivilized Arabs were translating Aristotle and other ancient philosophers and they were developing mathematics, architecture and medicine.

 

True, true.

But unfortunately, they haven't advanced much since then.

 

"Ouh, we invented internet, that must mean the rest of the world is so medieval they need dictators, it's the only thing they understand... those animals."

Just me ranting.

 

For those who think this would be good policy: Please keep in mind that an unexpected consequence of our involvement in Vietnam may have led to what happened in Cambodia, where over a million people died. Although I agree that China and Russia also share responsibility for what happened to Southeast Asia during the 60s and 70s, we played a part in destabilizing the region with our military involvement.

With this type of scheme a five year involvement and 87 billion dollars will be just the downpayment. We could be there even longer with far-reaching consequences for the people and well-being of the nations in the region.

It seems odd how those who supported this war tried to justify it by taking the moral high ground and how we were doing this for the Iraqi people and all that baloney. There is almost nothing moral about this sort of scheme. Unless one may believe that trading Iraqi lives for American lives is a moral way to conduct policy.

[ September 17, 2003, 03:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I'm still amazed there are people lamenting the fall of Saddam Hussein. Well, I guess you just miss some of his "playful" antics:

Draining the southern marshes, causing grave environmental damage and forcible relocation of civilians in an attempt to eliminate opposition to the regime.

Murdering Shi'a clerics.

Destroying villages and forcibly relocating people in both the north and the south and destroying villages in the south.

He has used chemical weapons against his own people

Wow...Now that I think about it, I miss him too!

 

The problem with Iraq is, one cannot force reforms and changes all at once, too much too fast. The people, who have been under Saddam's rule for a while cannot handle it.

 

I do think that is very implausible.

For one, if this was the plan, they're pulling it through since more then ten years without success. I think about the military-compound in Saudi-Arabia, the battle-ship in Yemen and the two embassies in Africa.

And that sounds more, as this would be a side-effect, of the attempt to "reshape" the Middle-East.

 

Llandon,

Aside from "them" beeing a bit diffuse, you insult and underestimate the Iraqis. In 1988, a long time ago, Iraq was the country in the middle east with a technological ability, education, health-care, weman rights (!) and living standard second only to Israel.
A lot of bad things can be said about Saddam. Neutrally said, he is probably the most effective and successful ruler of his country in the last century. To say it blunt, he managed to reform a country of goat shepards into a developed nation. That's quite an achievement.
What you see now in Iraq is the result of two lost wars, a 13-year bombing campaign (reportedly so successful that in the recent war the US planners ran out of fixed targets, that is, undestroyed ones) and the harshest embargo ever implemented on a nation, at a ghastly price for the ordinary iraqis.

A little anectdote about "they haven't improved much since":
A while ago I jobbed in a company producing concrete production plants and selling them worldwide as one of the top 3 manufacturers. Iraq, as well as US companies, was among the happy customers. I remember an engeneer in the plant design section speaking with deep respect about the know how of the iraqi engeneers. Buying our factories and those of our competitiors the iraqis had excellent understanding and insight - and they gave him actually tips on how to improve his plants, and he was in this business for just 20 years at that time.
So please, don't tell me any bull about that "they" haven't improved much since.

The US have bombed Iraq down to the level it is at atm, and blaming Saddam is only the convenient excuse that spares feeling silly for not giving a sh*t for the iraqis and the effects of the embargo for a decade.

The iraqis are proud people. This sort of sickening and arrogant "they are just primitive ragheads" attitude is probably one of the factors producing US casualties in Iraq atm.

[ September 24, 2003, 00:33: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Given the current situation, it would seem probable. However, they're forgetting something: terrorists generally like to hit the soft targets, and the US military isn't exactly what I'd call a soft target. While there are no doubt plenty of jihadists willing to engage the US military in Iraq (and keep them bogged down) - don't be surprised that more major attacks occur elsewhere.

 

When reading the following article I had the feeling of experiencing a slight deja-vu. Now that the issue of lack of evidence for the claimed threat by Saddam has about all but vanished - it is now crystal clear there are none - people continue to defend the war, claiming it did good and that it was justified, if not legally, then morally and for feeling good that's the only important part anyway.

And so this is my rebuttal on the now so popular references to Saddam's cruelties as the best reason to justify this war - not surprising as they are about the only thing that remained unchallenged and undisputed in the discussions about the war on Iraq.

I second that. The full article can be found here, a good read.

 

I couldn't agree more with this one.

 

In Iraq there is a lot of (selfmade) trouble the US faces. The violence against US troops no longer comes only from the evil Baathists and Jihadists which ominous names loom like a phantomous menace about the talks about the trouble in Iraq. US troops are alienating the population and driving them into hostility. This all isn't new and I have posted something like that several times before.

And the US trouble is understandable, fighting guerrillas is straining. As one officer put it nicely: "Soldiers who have just conducted combat against dark-skinned personnel wearing civilian clothes have difficulty trusting dark-skinned personnel wearing civilian clothes." And of course there are the cultural differences and the language barrier. In any case, the US tropps are in a loose-loose situation, just like the iraqis.

It seems that even the handpicked US-Iraqis in the governing council have recognised this and now, and that's amazing, neocon pet Ahmed Chalabi happens to utter independent toughts, like:

After all, what am I talking about? have a look at this article named 'Logic' of occupation points to more trouble.

 

Lies, damn' lies and statistics - or: Never trust a poll you haven't faked or distorted yourself. In their understandable desire to bring up good news from Iraq to cover their a**es, US officials like Bremer, Wolfowitz and Cheney bring up polls that, so they say, show that the iraqis like the US invasion and love the US.

The full thing is from the Washington Post and is pretty instructive.

 

I found an interesting article in the Time Magazine titled: So, What Went Wrong?

Not much left to say.

 

This link is from MSNBC news 8-hour battle follows new bombings this link shows in what desperate IMHO situation the US forces are in Iraq they try hard to bring down the resistance cells but because they have never learned another way (more subtle i dare say) they are causing more problems than they solve

I am afraid that this war is lost no matter how many battles the US army has won. They lost it in the communication level there were they have won during the first gulf war. And i am afraid that there is no way to turn things around. I feel sorry for the young soldiers of the US army that went there with images of glory and world acceptance and now they are facing something similar to what the US soldiers faced in Vietnam. Guerrila warfare and hate from the people they were supposed to liberate.
Are they responsible for this turn of events? No IMO but as it is commonly practiced in the western world the one who really is to be blaimed is just shedding crocodile tears in his comfortable oval office and swears retaliation for the lost souls just to lose more people in a war that really was unnecessary. And after all why hide behind our finger, this war was never made for the wellfare of the Iraqi people. Because if this war made for them then why the officials think of them and treat them like animals?

Sir Bel have you any evidence for this? Because from what i hear, things were not like that in Iraq during Saddams rule.

Sir Bel these two facts were separated by a decade almost and please spare me the drama because if USA administration was so caring for the Kurds they would have already slapped Turkey for her attacks and the plan of eradication they have and is operational even now in the southern provinces of Turkey and in Iraq too. I have not seen any UN resolution though that declares the actions of the turkish army illegal or any sanction imposed on Turkey for violation of human rights against the Kurds.
The war against Iran was blessed and supported from the US. In fact during that period the chemical weapons that later Saddam used on the Kurds were given to Iraq as an aid against the fondamentalism of Iran.
As for the invasion in Kuweit, i am sorry but from testimonies of US officials of that period USA is not totally innocent. In fact they are saying that the Iraqie regime has brought to the Foreign office their plan to invade and conquest Kuweit. And guess what the ranking officers there said? That they did not want to meddle in any endoarabian dispute, and Iraq was eligible to do as it saw fit. Because it was a dispute and there were many diplomatic discussions between Kuweit and Iraq before the invasion. Was that a trick in order to lure Iraq in a trap and more specifically Saddam Husein? I don't know but it certainly sounds like this. And if it is true then it too lame for the USA administration to endanger and practically kill so many people for the discharging of one.
Another interesting link for the situation in Iraq is this Postwar tremors deepens fissure in Iraq which in a summary shows that the coallition forces will have to deal with more problems in the near future in addition to the ones they face now. Sorry to say this but it looks like US administration seeded winds and now harvests typhoons. And the worst of all the immediate participants never had a chance to say their opinion. Too bad for the innocent victims, we will shed some crocodile tears say a couple of words about the nobility of the cause they died for, and then go home, have a cup of coffee and plan the next move to establish the global domination of USA. Ironic but true

 

Minor note on the invasion of Kuwait:
It was iirc a stance of an official in Bush's administration (that was: before Maggie Thatcher talked some determination into Bush Sr.) to say: "Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it's just a gas station, who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?" (look here for more on this.) So to say, the initial US outrage was ... limited.

The official, as well as Saddam, both overlooked that over almost half a century it has been a principle of british foreign policy to divide the oil in the region to avoid a concentration of power. And that was the primary reason for Gulf War I and why Saddam was not allowed to keep Kuwait.
And, even then the very neocons who led the US into the second war on Iraq promoted an invasion - for the same reason: They even then believed in the "transformation" nonsense (they should have known - it also didn't work in Lebanon 1982 when Sharon tried something remarkably similar). Only difference: Then the neocons were still a minority and Bush Sr. overruled them when they demanded to march on to Baghdad as he knew that then allied, that is, arab support would collapse. Now that they are much more dominant their concerted effort made the second Iraq war possible.

[ September 30, 2003, 14:51: Message edited by: Ragusa ]