Iraq - What Could Be Done Better? (Split from: Patraeus: Surge a Failure?)

[Mister Earl]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108979

Skeptigirl, I would love to pick your brain about something. Let's take the situation in Middle East as it currently is. Disregarding who was at fault for what, how do you feel about what is being done now to remedy things? What could be done better, and where?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, I would love to pick your brain about something. Let's take the situation in Middle East as it currently is. Disregarding who was at fault for what, how do you feel about what is being done now to remedy things? What could be done better, and where?
The real underlying problem here, the one the US mainstream media continues to ignore began with the unemployment, use of crony contractors, importing cheap labor when the Iraqis were unemployed, corruption, focusing on oil exports rather than infrastructure, having Prince Brenner establish by decree laws in Iraq that favored corporate control of resources and outlawing labor unions, our military not addressing cultural and other problems in the military's approach, and making it clear to the Iraqis by building permanent bases and by our past actions that we were not leaving.

Everything focussed on by our media and our politicians is related to the military and the Iraqi government. You cannot expect people who are miserable to be on your side. You cannot set the kinds of examples we set and expect people to trust you.

And people who have no jobs, no infrastructure, no education for their kids, no medical care, are not going to have security. We know from our experience in Vietnam the kinds of things we are doing in Iraq to enforce the peace only serve to alienate the population and without the support of the population, how do you expect them to reform their society?

Now it is so far gone, in such a mess, the only thing that can be done is to make some kind of effort to show a complete reversal in priorities. I don't know that such a change, if it is even possible, can overcome the power struggle now going on between the different factions. The conditions we created allowed these factions to develop strength. But without a complete reversal of priorities, we will never succeed and we might as well just leave and let chaos rein and settle by natural means. Either that or divide the country up into smaller groups and hope power wars do not ensue.

Give these people work building hospitals, schools, infrastructure. Get people who know the language and culture involved. Quit making night raids in people's homes taking away family members to jails. Kick the foreign contractors out unless there is no Iraqi option. Enforce laws against private security firms, make it clear you will not tolerate belligerent behavior and shooting of unarmed civilians. Stop tolerating Maliki's corruption.

The list is longer than this, but these are the kinds of priorities Bushco and the NeoCons just don't get. Or they don't care. Their friends are getting rich. They are basking in their facade of power. They don't understand the concept of human rights and how pivotal it is to peace.

[SezMe]

Skeptigirl, I would love to pick your brain about something.

[sidetrack by request]
Mister Earl, this should be the occassion of a new thread. It is an inappropriate derail here.

[Elind]

I doubt many non-Bush apologists fail to see that I very clearly answered it and you continue with this avoidance approach.
......

This has already been asked of you by Mister Earl, more concisely, but I've also been thinking I need to ask the same question for some time, but I wasn't sure if it was worth the effort.

You spend enough time on this research, impressively so I admit, that one could be forgiven to think you were paid to do so. You might be surprised to know that I, and many others, actually agree with many of your assessments of the Bush administration failures.

For what it's worth, in my mind it comes down to their simplistic belief that Iraq had a society that was close to being a civil society and really they were just like us "yearning for that God given freedom" that all all good Christians, like the Bushes, believe in.

So much for assessments of the past, which is what you appear obsessed with.

Now, we have a situation that we got drug in (as the cat would say).

What is your assessment of the present and what the future course should be, and what the likely results of your suggestions would be (I note that you are very good at describing what the present might have been had we all stayed at home)? I'm sure you are not so naive as to think everything will go poof back to where we started, so how about hearing your predictions of the future if you were the boss?

Also, while were at it, I recognize your attention to Iraq, but where do you stand on Afghanistan too?

ETA

I see that you attempted to answer M Earl while I was typing my question, or I didn't refresh.

However most of what you attempt to describe as what should be done is being done in terms of improving the lives of Iraqis; it's just that they are such a primitive tribal society with such a long history of thievery and mayhem that it takes a lot longer than any civilized society can grasp.

I note that you do say "But without a complete reversal of priorities, we will never succeed and we might as well just leave and let chaos rein and settle by natural means. Either that or divide the country up into smaller groups and hope power wars do not ensue".

So, I'll restate my question and ask what do you mean by complete reversal of policies? I'm afraid I don't understand since the only logical answer seems to be that reversal is to tell them to go screw themselves (which they will), and leave tomorrow.

As to dividing up the country into smaller groups, that would be fine by me, as long as we agree to bomb Iran when they start to pick them off one by one.

[Skeptic Ginger]

SezMe has asked this be taken to a new thread, Elind. My answer did include what we should do now, not just what we should have done sooner. It will just be harder to do the longer we wait.

I am not paid for my political convictions. They were shaped early in my life when I traveled in Central America and saw first hand what the real situation was compared to the media version I had seen at home. The era I grew up in also played a role.

Much of what we are doing in Afghanistan is the same. There are many differences and additional things that need to be addressed because it is a country run by warlords. But to get an idea, however, of the things we are not doing that we should be, this Independent Lens film, MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/film.html) gives an excellent and very tragic example.When the United States invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001, Afghan hopes were high that democracy would bring enormous progress for Afghan women in the arena of health and education. But as of 2006 one of their most fundamental rights— adequate health care—has not been met.

In MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN, Afghan American filmmaker Sedika Mojadidi journeys to the heart of this medical tragedy by following her father's return to Afghanistan to battle one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. Dr. Qudrat Mojadidi is an OB/GYN who was forced by political pressures to emigrate from Afghanistan to the U.S. in 1972. In 2003, nearly two years after the Taliban’s fall, he is invited by the U.S. government to help rehabilitate the largest women’s hospital in the country, Rabia Balkhi, now under U.S. sponsorship with a newly re-named Laura Bush Maternity Ward. He returns to his homeland with great hopes that with U.S. funding, he can help set in motion the large-scale changes necessary to stem the epidemic of maternal mortality in the country.

But when Dr. Mojadidi arrives at the Laura Bush Maternity Ward in Kabul, a city still plagued with danger and unrest, he finds deplorable conditions, with limited supplies and unsanitary facilities. As he tries to bring hope to the ward and make the best of archaic equipment and an untrained staff, the film introduces the women behind the statistics and exposes how the U.S. government's Department of Health and Human Services has impacted Afghan lives, particularly in terms of the devastating epidemic of maternal mortality.

After several months, Dr. Mojadidi leaves the hopeless conditions at Rabia Balkhi in frustration. Despite his disillusionment, he continues to search for ways to make a difference in his homeland. Two years later, he returns to Afghanistan, this time with Shuhada, an Afghan-led non-governmental organization that runs hospitals, schools and shelters in the rural Jaghori district and throughout central Afghanistan.....

...He encounters patients who will test his ability to make a difference, but also finds that despite their lack of financial and human resources, Shuhada has an encouraging vision for change based on education and prevention.... One might conclude it was just a Bush publicity stunt and a means of funneling some money to some cronies to build that Laura Bush Maternity Ward. And an underfunded NGO is making a difference where the billions the US is investing is just being siphoned off by corruption and cronies and corporate entities.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This has already been asked of you by Mister Earl, more concisely, but I've also been thinking I need to ask the same question for some time, but I wasn't sure if it was worth the effort.

You spend enough time on this research, impressively so I admit, that one could be forgiven to think you were paid to do so. You might be surprised to know that I, and many others, actually agree with many of your assessments of the Bush administration failures.

For what it's worth, in my mind it comes down to their simplistic belief that Iraq had a society that was close to being a civil society and really they were just like us "yearning for that God given freedom" that all all good Christians, like the Bushes, believe in.

So much for assessments of the past, which is what you appear obsessed with.

Now, we have a situation that we got drug in (as the cat would say).

What is your assessment of the present and what the future course should be, and what the likely results of your suggestions would be (I note that you are very good at describing what the present might have been had we all stayed at home)? I'm sure you are not so naive as to think everything will go poof back to where we started, so how about hearing your predictions of the future if you were the boss?

Also, while were at it, I recognize your attention to Iraq, but where do you stand on Afghanistan too?

ETA

I see that you attempted to answer M Earl while I was typing my question, or I didn't refresh.

However most of what you attempt to describe as what should be done is being done in terms of improving the lives of Iraqis; it's just that they are such a primitive tribal society with such a long history of thievery and mayhem that it takes a lot longer than any civilized society can grasp.

I note that you do say "But without a complete reversal of priorities, we will never succeed and we might as well just leave and let chaos rein and settle by natural means. Either that or divide the country up into smaller groups and hope power wars do not ensue".

So, I'll restate my question and ask what do you mean by complete reversal of policies? I'm afraid I don't understand since the only logical answer seems to be that reversal is to tell them to go screw themselves (which they will), and leave tomorrow.

As to dividing up the country into smaller groups, that would be fine by me, as long as we agree to bomb Iran when they start to pick them off one by one.

SezMe has asked this be taken to a new thread, Elind. My answer did include what we should do now, not just what we should have done sooner. It will just be harder to do the longer we wait.

I am not paid for my political convictions. They were shaped early in my life when I traveled in Central America and saw first hand what the real situation was compared to the media version I had seen at home. The era I grew up in also played a role.

Much of what we are doing in Afghanistan is the same. There are many differences and additional things that need to be addressed because it is a country run by warlords. But to get an idea, however, of the things we are not doing that we should be, this Independent Lens film, MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/film.html) gives an excellent and very tragic example.When the United States invaded Afghanistan in October of 2001, Afghan hopes were high that democracy would bring enormous progress for Afghan women in the arena of health and education. But as of 2006 one of their most fundamental rights— adequate health care—has not been met.

In MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN, Afghan American filmmaker Sedika Mojadidi journeys to the heart of this medical tragedy by following her father's return to Afghanistan to battle one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world. Dr. Qudrat Mojadidi is an OB/GYN who was forced by political pressures to emigrate from Afghanistan to the U.S. in 1972. In 2003, nearly two years after the Taliban’s fall, he is invited by the U.S. government to help rehabilitate the largest women’s hospital in the country, Rabia Balkhi, now under U.S. sponsorship with a newly re-named Laura Bush Maternity Ward. He returns to his homeland with great hopes that with U.S. funding, he can help set in motion the large-scale changes necessary to stem the epidemic of maternal mortality in the country.

But when Dr. Mojadidi arrives at the Laura Bush Maternity Ward in Kabul, a city still plagued with danger and unrest, he finds deplorable conditions, with limited supplies and unsanitary facilities. As he tries to bring hope to the ward and make the best of archaic equipment and an untrained staff, the film introduces the women behind the statistics and exposes how the U.S. government's Department of Health and Human Services has impacted Afghan lives, particularly in terms of the devastating epidemic of maternal mortality.

After several months, Dr. Mojadidi leaves the hopeless conditions at Rabia Balkhi in frustration. Despite his disillusionment, he continues to search for ways to make a difference in his homeland. Two years later, he returns to Afghanistan, this time with Shuhada, an Afghan-led non-governmental organization that runs hospitals, schools and shelters in the rural Jaghori district and throughout central Afghanistan.....

...He encounters patients who will test his ability to make a difference, but also finds that despite their lack of financial and human resources, Shuhada has an encouraging vision for change based on education and prevention.... One might conclude it was just a Bush publicity stunt and a means of funneling some money to some cronies to build that Laura Bush Maternity Ward. And an underfunded NGO is making a difference where the billions the US is investing is just being siphoned off by corruption and cronies and corporate entities.

[Pardalis]

I don't know if this is really on topic, but I don't understand that al-Sadr fellow. What does he want exactly? Aren't Shiites the majority?

Since he's the main problem for stability presently, shouldn't he have been dealt with (diplomatically that is) from the very beginning? Looks to me that the present situation was a disaster waiting to happen.

[JoeEllison]

Let's take the situation in Middle East as it currently is. Disregarding who was at fault for what, how do you feel about what is being done now to remedy things? What could be done better, and where?
:D

Here's step #1: STOP DISREGARDING THE PAST!!!!!

I think Americans have a particular difficulty with this idea, seeing as how our country is less than 300 years old.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know if this is really on topic, but I don't understand that al-Sadr fellow. What does he want exactly? Aren't Shiites the majority?

Since he's the main problem for stability presently, shouldn't he have been dealt with (diplomatically that is) from the very beginning? Looks to me that the present situation was a disaster waiting to happen.It's the usual power struggle. Men think they have to be on top. ;)

Kidding. He wants in on the money and power. Maliki isn't sharing. I'm not sure why that confuses you.

[Pardalis]

It's the usual power struggle. Men think they have to be on top. ;)

Kidding. He wants in on the money and power. Maliki isn't sharing. I'm not sure why that confuses you.

I think you're right, at this point it becomes solely an Iraqi problem. I don't see what the US army is going to accomplish, besides getting more entangled and generate more violence, even if unintentionally.

I guess the dream of a stable Iraq is a chimera, at least in the foreseeable future.

ETA: but they should have seen the Sadr problem coming.

[JoeEllison]

It's the usual power struggle. Men think they have to be on top. ;)

Kidding. He wants in on the money and power. Maliki isn't sharing. I'm not sure why that confuses you.

What's interesting is that al-Sadr seems to be in charge of the "real" Iraqi army... and maybe he's the one we should be talking to.

[Elind]

SezMe has asked this be taken to a new thread, Elind. My answer did include what we should do now, not just what we should have done sooner. It will just be harder to do the longer we wait.

My point was that there actually is a limit to how much WE can do when local people are either incapable or unwilling. There is one solution that would work better and that is to make them a colony and kill anyone who object to how things should be done.

I am not paid for my political convictions. They were shaped early in my life when I traveled in Central America and saw first hand what the real situation was compared to the media version I had seen at home. The era I grew up in also played a role.

Sorry, I should have added a smilie. I was being facetious; I thought humorously.:blush:

Much of what we are doing in Afghanistan is the same. There are many differences and additional things that need to be addressed because it is a country run by warlords.

Yes, and unless we kill them too it will stay that way.:(

But to get an idea, however, of the things we are not doing that we should be, this Independent Lens film, MOTHERLAND AFGHANISTAN (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/motherlandafghanistan/film.html) gives an excellent and very tragic example. One might conclude it was just a Bush publicity stunt and a means of funneling some money to some cronies to build that Laura Bush Maternity Ward. And an underfunded NGO is making a difference where the billions the US is investing is just being siphoned off by corruption and cronies and corporate entities.

Lots of Americans have made lots of money off wars, and not just by making guns, but we still have a reasonably civil society a few hundred years later. I think the point is that truly primitive tribal societies (the operative word is tribal) can't do that and never will as long as one respects their traditions to the extent that it is their traditions that leave them where they are.

You cannot bring up anecdotes of one example and put the blame on those who really thought they were trying to help. The mistake was that they thought they were dealing with people who thought like themselves. What could work better would be to simply tell, force, people to do what is best for themselves according to our experience, but we know where that could lead, and probably would.

However we could speculate that there is one example, at least, in the world that would probably be 20 countries by now, some just like Afghanistan, if it had not been for British colonization along with suppresion and repression and teaching the tribalists how to run a nation. India perhaps?

Unfortunately those days are over. Perhaps we should just let them all continue to kill each other, islolate them and let them starve, and pick up the pieces later if any are left.

[Pardalis]

Maybe the US should focus on taking AQ out, and let Sadr and the Iraqi government settle the rest themselves? Surely both don't want AQ in their country, and probably the Sunni are getting fed up with them also.

[davefoc]

...

You spend enough time on this research, impressively so I admit, that one could be forgiven to think you were paid to do so. You might be surprised to know that I, and many others, actually agree with many of your assessments of the Bush administration failures.

I appreciated this comment twice. One, I too, admire skeptigirl's analysis and research and I appreciated that you would attempt to find common ground.



For what it's worth, in my mind it comes down to their simplistic belief that Iraq had a society that was close to being a civil society and really they were just like us "yearning for that God given freedom" that all all good Christians, like the Bushes, believe in.

While there is something to what you say here, I think the situation is less clear. The failures in Iraq are far from only the problems with the Iraqi civil institutions and culture. The Bush administration for the first several critical years of the occupation made stupendous errors that were not due completely to simple failure to understand the nature of Iraq. The Bush administration viewed the Iraq war as a job provider for partisans and as a grand pork trough to enrich its corporate buddies. The narcissism of Bush and the staggering hubris of the American Iraqi occupation leadership during this time are major factors that are a big part of the reason that Iraq is the failed state that it is today. Any blame applied to the Iraqis about the chaos that envelopes their country today without acknowledging the major role that Bushco's greed, corruption and incompetence played is just not accurate.

The decisions and actions of the Bush administration with regards to the early occupation are so horrifically bad that at times it is hard to believe that chaos was not the goal all along. Young highly unqualified but politically connected people were given high ranking jobs, qualified individuals were shunted aside, overtures from the Iraqi military to reorganize themselves and take over policing duties were ignored and 500,000 Iraqi soldiers were summarily dismissed and left jobless, massive reconstruction contracts were let that bypassed Iraqis in favor of foreign workers leaving even more Iraqis unemployed, American military leaders with great experience were pushed aside when their judgments didn't square with Rumsfeld's, the torture and mistreatment of prisoners was almost guaranteed because of top level Bushco decisions that would have hugely damaging impact on American credibility, incompetents like Rumsfeld were kept in place long after their vast string of failures was apparent to almost everybody, the ill-conceived de-baathification plan was implemented even when it was obvious that it was robbing Iraq of many of the important technocrats most needed for their rebuilding, etc.

You might find problems with Iraqi culture or civil structures but it is the American people and their chosen leader that bears an enormous responsibility for the mess that is Iraq today. Are Americans really that different from Iraqis when a president like Bush can be reelected?

I think it is reasonable to consider what might have happened if only an averagely competent American administration had run the occupation of Iraq. Is it possible that the people who felt that the invasion was in net justified could have been right? Would the results of the war been so much better than what has ensued that the benefits of the war would have outweighed the problems? No one will ever know. Based on what I know today and what I believe was knowable then I would not have favored the war but I can easily imagine that things might have gone much better than they did and the war might have been widely viewed as a success.

As it stands today if the Democrats take power the Republicans will blame them for the mess that is Iraq because they withdrew American forces just before the great victory was about to be achieved and if by some miracle the Republicans find themselves in power again they will prolong the war until the whole country is so pissed at them that they will be kicked out and then when the Democrats finally end it the Republicans will blame them for getting out just before the great victory was to be achieved.

Unless McCain pulls a Nixon on the country and just bombs away until a peace treaty can be signed, declares victory and gets the US out while the Iraqis are left to suffer the chaos that the Americans have left them with.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't know if this is really on topic, but I don't understand that al-Sadr fellow. What does he want exactly? Aren't Shiites the majority?

Since he's the main problem for stability presently, shouldn't he have been dealt with (diplomatically that is) from the very beginning? Looks to me that the present situation was a disaster waiting to happen.
He is one of the many leaders of various Shia factions who thinks that this is his chance to make a power grab. He's playing this game for all he is worth, trying to come out on top of the dogpile.

The Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani and he are not exactly best of friends, though they are both Shia. Likewise, the leadership fo SCIRI and Al Sadr are at odds about who ought to be the top Shia dog. Consider Clinton and Obama and their campaign race for the nom.

Now, multiply by fifty.

That is how bitter the infighting is within the Shia faction. And I'll add that they are not shy about using force and blood to win.

Four years ago, this month, I was dealing with supporting the efforts that had to handle the daily operations of hard fighting Shia from the Mahdi Army, and their operations against the Coalition (Bremmer was still in Iraq at the time) in Sadr City, and any Sunni who they saw as in the way.

It's four years later, and all I see in the news is the same crap, different day.

Mister Early, you wanted to know what we could do better?

Not be pussies. I am speaking politically in this regard.

That is what could have been done better from day one. Either go large, or go home. Yes, doing so would be ugly, but the past four years of what has been done is plenty ugly, thanks. Two million refugees from Iraq? That's insane. That is for my money the grossest sign of failure of the entire operation. A few hundred thousand Iraqis dead since Saddam ran for cover? Ugly as well.

The decision not to drop Sadr's sorry ass in August of 2003 is one that failed to come to grips with reality in Iraq. Trying to be nice while you are establishing who the biggest dog in the pound is stands as failure to recongize that one broke into the pound.

The opportunities in in April, May and June of 2004, and August of that year, were all not taken. Sdar has since been behind a lot of blood letting, particularly in central Iraq.

To answer your question,

What can be done better now?

Two things.

GTFO and let them kill one another until they are tired of it.

or

Get sincere about selling the war to the American public and getting the entire nation behind it. That is not a trivial matter, but it is necessary as a consequence of the American Way of War.

General Batiste was not the only officer or soldier who returned and was left with the distinct impression that America was not at war, the Army and the Armed Services were at war, while America went shopping. (Not sure who first coined that phrase, but it fits well enough.)

That, sir, is the core problem, and goes back to

Go big, or go home.

DR

[Cylinder]

Sadr wants Islamic theocracy in the mold of (and probably controlled by) Iran. Sadr is not the power broker for the Shia population of Iraq - Ayatollah Sistani is. Mookie doesn't control the Iraqi Army. Sadr's support is limited mainly to the Shia slums in Baghdad, Najaf and Basra.

I propose that those suggesting the JAM should be tasked with sorting out the Sunni problem don't understand exactly what they are proposing.

[Darth Rotor]

It's the usual power struggle. Men think they have to be on top. ;)
Smart men use leverage however it is best applied. ;)

DR

[Cylinder]

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq] Hundreds flee fight in Shiite stronghold[/quote]

Hundreds of people fled fighting in Baghdad's Shiite militia stronghold Monday as U.S. and Iraqi forces increased pressure on anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who faces an ultimatum to either disband his Mahdi Army or give up politics.

Al-Sadr's aides said he would only dismantle the powerful militia if ordered by top Shiite clerics — who have remained silent throughout the increasingly dangerous showdown.

Although al-Sadr holds considerable influence through the Mahdi fighters — estimated at up to 60,000 — political exile for his movement would shatter his dream of becoming the major power broker among the country's Shiite majority.

Gunbattles raged around the sprawling Sadr City district that serves as the Baghdad nerve center of the Mahdi militia, which has been under siege since last week by about 1,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Hopefully that article helps illustrate Sadr's position within Iraq.

[Elind]

I appreciated this comment twice. One, I too, admire skeptigirl's analysis and research and I appreciated that you would attempt to find common ground.

:blush:

You might find problems with Iraqi culture or civil structures but it is the American people and their chosen leader that bears an enormous responsibility for the mess that is Iraq today. Are Americans really that different from Iraqis when a president like Bush can be reelected?

Excuse the cuts. I was trying to find a core theme that was relevant.

Yes Americans are that different; and so are Europeans (aside from their differences with Americans). You cannot equate stupidity, in electing Bush, twice, (or thrice) with malicious self interest. If you did we would have Republican sniping at Democrat convention, and v.v., with more than words.

We have a sense of national identity in spite of our differences. Iraqis have only a sense of what piece of their wealth they can control, or steal, at the expense of a very specific group of others who think exactly the same way.

I'm biased admittedly, because I have seen first hand how the Iraqi hordes behaved in Kuwait, and I've known some Iraqis and I've heard many other Arab opinions of them (even as they kid themselves about the differences), but the best simple illustration that I remember from some 30 years ago was that Basra was "The Armpit of the Gulf".

The bottom line is that Iraqis have always had a reputation of thieving SOBs even amongst other Arabs, and they have proven that in spades.

I don't think we can fault naive Americans for thinking better of them, but we can fault our recent administration for thinking they belonged in the 21st century.

But enough of this racism stuff...:boxedin:

[Skeptic Ginger]

My point was that there actually is a limit to how much WE can do when local people are either incapable or unwilling. There is one solution that would work better and that is to make them a colony and kill anyone who object to how things should be done.But why are you sure this is the underlying cause of the failures? This is the image conveyed by our mainstream media. That would be the same media that rarely if ever examines the issues in depth and in any kind of factual way. The news media is in the business of selling a commodity. They are not in the primary business of providing information. The information provided is based on low production costs, as long as it sells.


...Lots of Americans have made lots of money off wars, and not just by making guns, but we still have a reasonably civil society a few hundred years later. I think the point is that truly primitive tribal societies (the operative word is tribal) can't do that and never will as long as one respects their traditions to the extent that it is their traditions that leave them where they are.Profiteering of the military industrial complex and its affect on war aside, you underestimate the extent Bush has taken cronyism and the negative impact that has had on this particular fiasco.

And while there is a part here played by tribal culture, and I will be the first to say, "screw them, liberate the women", one cannot put the entire failure on the stereotyped image that there are no modern populations within these countries. Iraq was not the tribal country to the extent Afghanistan is and within both countries are large numbers of educated rational modern thinking people.

You cannot bring up anecdotes of one example and put the blame on those who really thought they were trying to help. The mistake was that they thought they were dealing with people who thought like themselves. What could work better would be to simply tell, force, people to do what is best for themselves according to our experience, but we know where that could lead, and probably would.What anecdotes are you referring to? And who do you mean by "they"?

And as far as not educating the Bush insiders regarding Iraqi and Middle Eastern culture, bull! That information was out there. I was aware of it. People informed the administration about it. The Bush NeoCons didn't want to hear anything which contradicted their fantasy version of reality. They still don't. Why do you think so many military leaders have retired? They presented objections to Bush's view, Bush just replaced them. This is hardly a secret. That is one fact that has been covered by the mainstream media. Of course if you believe they all left for "personal reasons" then I can see how you missed it.

However we could speculate that there is one example, at least, in the world that would probably be 20 countries by now, some just like Afghanistan, if it had not been for British colonization along with suppresion and repression and teaching the tribalists how to run a nation. India perhaps?

Unfortunately those days are over. Perhaps we should just let them all continue to kill each other, islolate them and let them starve, and pick up the pieces later if any are left.Bad analogy. No need to go that far back in time either. The US has a more recent history of supporting right wing dictators at the expense of human rights. The idea we have a monopoly on modern life and we are dealing with backward peoples ignores the fact there are more than enough educated modern people within these countries. It's a very bigoted view.

Allow me to describe a different scenario. Yes there are a lot of "tribal" cultures, and the people who still treat women as the property of men, pride themselves on revenge killing, cut off heads in front of cameras, and fly planes into buildings, have a serious problem. It is them, not us, I agree with you there.

The problem is that scenario is the only one we see on TV. We don't see the 'normal people' that live 'normal' lives in every country in the world. And because we don't see them, we don't realize they exist and are perfectly capable of running their own affairs.

Add to the that the way the US intervenes in countries' affairs around the world. We have traditionally supported any corrupt government that allows corporate exploitation of resources. We pay off a few corrupt officials, give them military aid and turn our backs on the majority of people in those countries while the corrupt governments rule by terrorism and oppression. That is blamed on the governments we are propping up as if it wasn't our doing.

We pay lip service to human rights abuses in countries like China, while the House majority leader, Tom Delay, rakes in millions in deals assuring sweatshops in Saipan can continue to exploit Chinese women laborers who were lured there with promises of jobs in the US. The women cannot leave and live in fenced compounds. It has been alleged they are forced into the sex trade as well, and if they become pregnant, they have the option of an abortion or being left without any means of support, with no way to return to China.

Tom DeLay,----- DEFENDER OF SWEATSHOPS (http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/04news.html)

You can also find this information reported extensively by Bill Moyers and harped on incessantly by Al Frankin for years. For years and years I've known about this. Did you know about it?

There was an attempt to pass a law affording worker's rights to these people. DeLay single handedly blocked the legislation by not allowing the bill to come before Congress for a vote.

It was on this model that Brenner dictated the new laws of the Iraqi government in the first year. And Maliki, elected or not, was put in the position to be elected by Bushco. He fit the model and has not been a disappointment in that respect. He oppresses the opposition, he's corrupt, and assures the foreign oil companies get the lion's share of the profit on oil resources.

You cannot simply ignore all this and blame everything on backward tribal people who are incapable of creating a civilized society. How are the educated modern people supposed to exert themselves when we've created conditions for thugs to thrive and most of those educated modern people are fleeing the county?

[Skeptic Ginger]

:blush:



Excuse the cuts. I was trying to find a core theme that was relevant.

Yes Americans are that different; and so are Europeans (aside from their differences with Americans). You cannot equate stupidity, in electing Bush, twice, (or thrice) with malicious self interest. If you did we would have Republican sniping at Democrat convention, and v.v., with more than words.

We have a sense of national identity in spite of our differences. Iraqis have only a sense of what piece of their wealth they can control, or steal, at the expense of a very specific group of others who think exactly the same way.

I'm biased admittedly, because I have seen first hand how the Iraqi hordes behaved in Kuwait, and I've known some Iraqis and I've heard many other Arab opinions of them (even as they kid themselves about the differences), but the best simple illustration that I remember from some 30 years ago was that Basra was "The Armpit of the Gulf".

The bottom line is that Iraqis have always had a reputation of thieving SOBs even amongst other Arabs, and they have proven that in spades.

I don't think we can fault naive Americans for thinking better of them, but we can fault our recent administration for thinking they belonged in the 21st century.

But enough of this racism stuff...:boxedin:Some truth, I will give you. But you saw a single slice and you judge an entire population, as well as ignoring the part played by our specific actions in not rebuilding infrastructure including jobs, education, and health care, while we clearly showed an interest in military bases and oil resources.

And you confuse Bushco incompetence with naivety. That I will not give you.

[davefoc]

Thank you for your reply Elind.

I think there is much to what you said, but I think that I may not have made my point well.

Of course, Americans and Europeans have countries which have more of a unified sense of nationhood than the Iraqis.

But, I would not want to be around in the US if such an amazingly incompetent occupation was imposed on us as the Bush administration imposed on the Iraqis. The massive looting that took place in Iraq has been repeated on local levels many times in the US, but there was always civil and political authorities in place that were expected by everybody to eventually restore order.

Now replay one of those American civil disturbances but with the civil and political authorities replaced with a foreign occupier consisting of almost no personnel that spoke English and run by a corrupt and incompetent administration like Bush's has been. Do you have any doubts that the massive civil unrest would exacerbate the enormous divisions within the US? Can anybody reliably predict the full ramifications of months of out of control lawlessness? One thing for certain is that the massive displacement of people seen in Iraq would occur in the US. People living in ethically mixed neighborhoods would be savaged. Private armed militias would be established everywhere. Armories all over the country would be looted putting powerful weapons in the hands of all sorts of individuals.

Seeing the Iraqis as all that different than the Americans in light of a view to what would happen if Americans were subjected to the same situation as the Iraqis have been, IMHO, suggests that the differences between the two peoples are not as great as you suggest.

[richardm]

How about forgetting what Iraq looks like now and subdividing it closer to what it looked like Pre-WWI when the British conglomerated it into one lump. That is, divided on the ethnic/religions grounds that they're all fighting about now.

Or would that just make things worse? It didn't seem to work out so well in Ireland or India, although they're both quite settled now.

[egslim]

A unified Iraq with Western-style democracy just is as likely as a democratic Austria-Hungary was. Dictatorships can keep nations together that under a democracy would fall apart.

Currently the different factions are fighting eachother and the US, shifting alliances, etc, all with the single purpose of coming out on top themselves. To pacify Iraq requires either draconian measures on the part of the US (concentration camps, brutal repression) or a bloody civil war to let the Iraqis sort it out themselves.

The first would be devastating to democracy in the US, and its standing in the world. The second would probably be the least worst option. The current US presence in Iraq is too expensive to maintain indefinately.

[Cincinnatus]

What's interesting is that al-Sadr seems to be in charge of the "real" Iraqi army... and maybe he's the one we should be talking to.

The Iraqi shia see it like this, during saddams oppersive reign Maliki seeked exile while Al sadr stayed and roughed it out even though Saddam's gunmen killed his father. Therefore, the Shia don't see Maliki as a real Iraqi, they see Al-sadr as a real Iraqi. Thus, the shia see Maliki as nothing more than a paper tiger in charge of a puppet government.

So why are we messing with Maliki when Sadr has the juice?

[Elind]

So why are we messing with Maliki when Sadr has the juice?

Because Sadr doesn't have all the juice, and he hasn't been elected (note the frequent references here to past support by the US for dictators) and because Sadr is a goon leading goons who will continue their local genocide. The last thing Sadr wants now is for the USA to lead, because then he will really have to show what he is.

[Elind]

But, I would not want to be around in the US if such an amazingly incompetent occupation was imposed on us as the Bush administration imposed on the Iraqis. The massive looting that took place in Iraq has been repeated on local levels many times in the US, but there was always civil and political authorities in place that were expected by everybody to eventually restore order.

The fact that that was not anticipated better and controlled (with twice as many troops as were available) is because the Iraqis were considered more advanced than they are. Bush and Co. actually thought they would work together and didn't need to have guns pointed at them to do so. The looting that took place in Iraq has NOT been repeated in the US. There is no point in going into detail on those comparisons.

Now replay one of those American civil disturbances but with the civil and political authorities replaced with a foreign occupier consisting of almost no personnel that spoke English and run by a corrupt and incompetent administration like Bush's has been.

Any Arab with any education and a hole in the wall store speaks English, which is why I was never able to learn much Arabic in my years there. You can be sure that professionals in government did.

Do you have any doubts that the massive civil unrest would exacerbate the enormous divisions within the US? Can anybody reliably predict the full ramifications of months of out of control lawlessness?

You are right in that it is perfectly predictable that when you take away the police the rats come out to play, and otherwise non rats say, what the hell, and join in. Perfectly predictable.


One thing for certain is that the massive displacement of people seen in Iraq would occur in the US. People living in ethically mixed neighborhoods would be savaged. Private armed militias would be established everywhere. Armories all over the country would be looted putting powerful weapons in the hands of all sorts of individuals.

Only in some of our true "ghettos". The difference in the USA is that, immigrants included, do not have a tradition of extended "tribal" families. OK, we have the Irish types and the jewish fundie types and so on, but for the most part they don't have a tradition of killing their neighbors for reasons of pride or honor.

Seeing the Iraqis as all that different than the Americans in light of a view to what would happen if Americans were subjected to the same situation as the Iraqis have been, IMHO, suggests that the differences between the two peoples are not as great as you suggest.

You confuse the differences between "people" and between "cultures". It is the latter that gives the former the justification to do what they do, good or bad.

I suggest there are big differences in the cultures.

[Elind]

Some truth, I will give you. But you saw a single slice and you judge an entire population, as well as ignoring the part played by our specific actions in not rebuilding infrastructure including jobs, education, and health care, while we clearly showed an interest in military bases and oil resources.

And you confuse Bushco incompetence with naivety. That I will not give you.

I saw no "slice", I saw a nation of looters. What they did in Kuwait was just practice for what they later did in Iraq, with the difference that in Kuwait they were actually told that certain areas and buildings were off limits. If they ignored that they were shot or hung summarily. That would have been a type of authority that they would have responded to in Iraq, but of course not one we could implement.

Yes I listen enough, reluctantly, to Bush to think that he is a naive man and from naivety follows incompetence. I don't confuse the two. Doesn't mean we don't have crooks in the USA of course, and they are hardly all in Iraq. I do however think that our pres is largely concerned with digging in the gutter. You seem to have been convinced that there is nothing BUT corruption everywhere. I know enough fellow citizens to know that is not true, or that only the crooks are in Iraq.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A unified Iraq with Western-style democracy just is as likely as a democratic Austria-Hungary was. Dictatorships can keep nations together that under a democracy would fall apart.....Are you familiar with Mohammed Mosaddeq? It might do you to read a little history about what the people in this region would be capable of if it weren't for our interference.

[Elind]

But why are you sure this is the underlying cause of the failures?

Because we all know that the USA could have been home years ago, if not for the fact that the Iraqis don't know what civil behavior is, coupled with personal experience.


This is the image conveyed by our mainstream media. That would be the same media that rarely if ever examines the issues in depth and in any kind of factual way. The news media is in the business of selling a commodity. They are not in the primary business of providing information. The information provided is based on low production costs, as long as it sells.


Often true, but on the one hand you defend the Iraqis as being unfairly portrayed by the media as villains, but you have no hesitation in accepting the same media (maybe not FOX) when they vilify the USA, and you are good at that yourself (OK, not "the USA", but you know what I mean).



Profiteering of the military industrial complex and its affect on war aside, you underestimate the extent Bush has taken cronyism and the negative impact that has had on this particular fiasco.

This sounds like a political slogan. Nothing more.

And while there is a part here played by tribal culture, and I will be the first to say, "screw them, liberate the women", one cannot put the entire failure on the stereotyped image that there are no modern populations within these countries. Iraq was not the tribal country to the extent Afghanistan is and within both countries are large numbers of educated rational modern thinking people.

But that is what Bushco thought; except that in the past that minority of "rational modern thinking people" controlled things by killing anyone who opposed them. Rational modern thinking people do not have to be ethical honest principled people.

What anecdotes are you referring to? And who do you mean by "they"?


I believe you gave an example of a failed hospital project as an example of "our" failure, whereas I saw it as an example of "their" failure and our naivety thinking that "they" could just be rational thinking people if given a little help.


And as far as not educating the Bush insiders regarding Iraqi and Middle Eastern culture, bull! That information was out there. I was aware of it. People informed the administration about it. The Bush NeoCons didn't want to hear anything which contradicted their fantasy version of reality. They still don't.

True, but if they spoke as I did they would immediately be labeled the worst sort of racist bigots. Can't have that in the public forum.


Why do you think so many military leaders have retired? They presented objections to Bush's view, Bush just replaced them. This is hardly a secret. That is one fact that has been covered by the mainstream media. Of course if you believe they all left for "personal reasons" then I can see how you missed it.

No, most of them probably wanted more troops, but the American public doesn't so that is a non starter. Some of them probably wanted to kill certain people like Sadr long ago before he got where he is now, but that is a non starter. Most of them probably had bad words to say about Iraqis, particularly when they train them for months to be soliers and then in the first engagement they run, just like they did from Kuwait.

Bad analogy. No need to go that far back in time either. The US has a more recent history of supporting right wing dictators at the expense of human rights.

I hear that a lot; supporting dictators etc. Sometimes realpolitik dictates that you "support" one side against another, or that you attempt to control one side with incentives; the alternatives being to pretend they don't exist or invade and replace them (oops, bad idea) or commit an indirect act of agression like embargoes or blockades and thereby give them on a silver platter to our enemies, like the Russians, Chinese or Venezuelans, say. Life isn't ever as simple as you seem to think, and as the rest of you solutions sound like. As in, "if only we had spent twice as much money and been capable of controlling every penny and doing it perfectly". I have news for you, it sometimes seems we are only marginally better at doing it "your way" at home, than we are in the middle of a war in Iraq.

The idea we have a monopoly on modern life and we are dealing with backward peoples ignores the fact there are more than enough educated modern people within these countries. It's a very bigoted view.


Not enough of them and not enough of those have principles that you would admire, if you knew them. Call me a bigot if you wish. I am not bigoted in the way you think. I have no doubt you think the same of some people, for example those in the Bush administration. Are you bigoted then?


Allow me to describe a different scenario. Yes there are a lot of "tribal" cultures, and the people who still treat women as the property of men, pride themselves on revenge killing, cut off heads in front of cameras, and fly planes into buildings, have a serious problem. It is them, not us, I agree with you there.

The problem is that scenario is the only one we see on TV. We don't see the 'normal people' that live 'normal' lives in every country in the world. And because we don't see them, we don't realize they exist and are perfectly capable of running their own affairs.

And if you meet most of those people in a private setting you will find they are very hospitable, pleasant and generous to a fault. Don't admire anything they own, they likely will give it to you. I think I've said this before, but you confuse individuals with the culture and the unstated rules that must function within, whether they always like them or not.

Add to the that the way the US intervenes in countries' affairs around the world. We have traditionally supported any corrupt government that allows corporate exploitation of resources. We pay off a few corrupt officials, give them military aid and turn our backs on the majority of people in those countries while the corrupt governments rule by terrorism and oppression. That is blamed on the governments we are propping up as if it wasn't our doing.

A broad brush you paint with, but regardless if you are right or not, how do you expect us to do more for those poor people except by invading them and liberating them? Oh wait, we are trying that right now aren't we? Let's do Zimbabwe and Sudan next shall we? How about Gaza. They should all be pushovers by now don't you think? :rolleyes:

We pay lip service to human rights abuses in countries like China, while the House majority leader, Tom Delay, rakes in millions in deals assuring sweatshops in Saipan can continue to exploit Chinese women laborers who were lured there with promises of jobs in the US. The women cannot leave and live in fenced compounds. It has been alleged they are forced into the sex trade as well, and if they become pregnant, they have the option of an abortion or being left without any means of support, with no way to return to China.

And your solution to straighten out China is.....?

Tom Delay is a prick, OK. You are ranting here. That's democracy for you, we get lots of pricks elected.


It was on this model that Brenner dictated the new laws of the Iraqi government in the first year. And Maliki, elected or not, was put in the position to be elected by Bushco. He fit the model and has not been a disappointment in that respect. He oppresses the opposition, he's corrupt, and assures the foreign oil companies get the lion's share of the profit on oil resources.

But you know Iraqis exist who would be better? We elected Bush after all.

You cannot simply ignore all this and blame everything on backward tribal people who are incapable of creating a civilized society. How are the educated modern people supposed to exert themselves when we've created conditions for thugs to thrive and most of those educated modern people are fleeing the county?

No WE haven't CREATED that, we just haven't invaded enough countries yet.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw no "slice", I saw a nation of looters. What they did in Kuwait was just practice for what they later did in Iraq, with the difference that in Kuwait they were actually told that certain areas and buildings were off limits. If they ignored that they were shot or hung summarily. That would have been a type of authority that they would have responded to in Iraq, but of course not one we could implement.

Yes I listen enough, reluctantly, to Bush to think that he is a naive man and from naivety follows incompetence. I don't confuse the two. Doesn't mean we don't have crooks in the USA of course, and they are hardly all in Iraq. I do however think that our pres is largely concerned with digging in the gutter. You seem to have been convinced that there is nothing BUT corruption everywhere. I know enough fellow citizens to know that is not true, or that only the crooks are in Iraq.So the army Saddam sent in to loot Kuwait is what you judge the Iraqi people by?

Bush's corruption and cronyism is unsurpassed by any President in my lifetime. I cannot say how he compares to Presidents before Johnson.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'll try to get to the rest of your post later, Elind. Your first answer in post #30, "because we all know" is disappointing. Not sure I want to argue with someone who uses that reason as a basis for conclusions.

[Cincinnatus]

Because Sadr doesn't have all the juice, and he hasn't been elected (note the frequent references here to past support by the US for dictators) and because Sadr is a goon leading goons who will continue their local genocide. The last thing Sadr wants now is for the USA to lead, because then he will really have to show what he is.

So your saying if america decided to side with Sadr and help him get elected that would be like when America helped the Shah of Iran get elected? Thus, the proping up of yet another tyrannical dictator which will in the end turn into a liability for America? i.e. blow back?

Well then if maliki is a weak leader hated by shia and Sadr is nothing but a tyannical liability loved by shia then what Iraqi national leader can america turn to to better the political situation in Iraq inorder to meet all the required bench marks?

[egslim]

Are you familiar with Mohammed Mosaddeq? It might do you to read a little history about what the people in this region would be capable of if it weren't for our interference.
He was Iranian, that country has a national history dating back thousands of years.

It has nothing to do with the region, but some countries that can be kept together by a dictatorship fall apart if they become a democracy. Yugoslavia is another example.

As for the "Western-style democracy" part, that was illustrated by the reluctance of Iraqis to keep the Islam out of the constitution.

I think Iraq could have been kept together as an "Eastern-style democracy", with constitutional references to Islam and probably some other cultural references we're unused to in the West. If a) the country had immediately been pacified completely (go in big) and b) the existing (socialist) economic system had been maintained, with Iraqis maintaining their sources of income and being employed to rebuild the country. Instead of having their entire economic and social system overthrown, which inevitably caused chaos, and hence violence.

The problem now is that there has been so much violence between factions, that their willingness to cooperate has been severely reduced. And I doubt whether that can be undone.

[Elind]

So the army Saddam sent in to loot Kuwait is what you judge the Iraqi people by?

Bush's corruption and cronyism is unsurpassed by any President in my lifetime. I cannot say how he compares to Presidents before Johnson.

You think armies are robots controlled remotely by one man? Anyway, it was hardly just the army. Kuwait was made an Iraqi province overnight. Civilian Iraqis flooded the place stripping it of anything movable and sometimes just burning what wasn't. The going joke was that the stars on the Iraqi flag should be replaced with car tires, since there wasn't a tire left in the country on anything that couldn't be driven away, from wheelbarrows to trailers to vehicles.

[Elind]

So your saying if america decided to side with Sadr and help him get elected that would be like when America helped the Shah of Iran get elected? Thus, the proping up of yet another tyrannical dictator which will in the end turn into a liability for America? i.e. blow back?

Well then if maliki is a weak leader hated by shia and Sadr is nothing but a tyannical liability loved by shia then what Iraqi national leader can america turn to to better the political situation in Iraq inorder to meet all the required bench marks?

Comparing the Shah of Iran with Sadr is kind of like comparing Obama with JFK, the differences, not qualities, being operative here.

As to your question, I don't know. Probably there are none better. Life sucks.

[Elind]

I'll try to get to the rest of your post later, Elind. Your first answer in post #30, "because we all know" is disappointing. Not sure I want to argue with someone who uses that reason as a basis for conclusions.

Don't get too excited. You know very well that we would have brought our troops home if the Iraqis had been able to take control (without goons like Sadr) in a civilized manner. Please tell me that you are not one of those who think we are siphoning off their oil into secret tankers, and that is why we are there still.:covereyes

[proxywar]

Lmao! Wow

[Cincinnatus]

Comparing the Shah of Iran with Sadr is kind of like comparing Obama with JFK, the differences, not qualities, being operative here.

Care to explain the differences?

As to your question, I don't know. Probably there are none better. Life sucks.

I agree.

[IchabodPlain]

Lmao! Wow

You had to edit that?

[Elind]

:
Comparing the Shah of Iran with Sadr is kind of like comparing Obama with JFK, the differences, not qualities, being operative here.

Care to explain the differences?


I shouldn't have used Obama/JFK in this example. That was a momentary sarcasm given the tendency of politicians to compare themselves to icons, but the point was that:

Sadr is an Islamist thug yearning for the 14th Century and he is the exact type that the Shah of Iran was trying to overcome and bring Iran into the 21st century (20th then). The Shah played hardball, but that is the nature of their culture and hardly something that has disappeared now that the "Sadrs" are in control.

[Skeptic Ginger]

He was Iranian, that country has a national history dating back thousands of years.

It has nothing to do with the region, but some countries that can be kept together by a dictatorship fall apart if they become a democracy. Yugoslavia is another example.

As for the "Western-style democracy" part, that was illustrated by the reluctance of Iraqis to keep the Islam out of the constitution.

I think Iraq could have been kept together as an "Eastern-style democracy", with constitutional references to Islam and probably some other cultural references we're unused to in the West. If a) the country had immediately been pacified completely (go in big) and b) the existing (socialist) economic system had been maintained, with Iraqis maintaining their sources of income and being employed to rebuild the country. Instead of having their entire economic and social system overthrown, which inevitably caused chaos, and hence violence.

The problem now is that there has been so much violence between factions, that their willingness to cooperate has been severely reduced. And I doubt whether that can be undone.
You've managed to rationalize a few things here without considering all the variables. First, the point about Mosaddeq was in response to the claim "those people" were incapable of living in a democratic society. The Shia of both Iran and Iraq were the same group of people at the time of the US and Britain's overthrow of the democratically elected government.

Second, to claim that the government that would be democratically elected in Iraq would differ from ours, therefore it wouldn't be democratic is not true. It may not be the government that favors the US but it would still be democratic. So at least quit using a false claim about just what it is you think we should see happen in Iraq. You aren't looking for a democratically elected government. You are looking for a government the US wants. That is called imperialism, not democracy, don't kid yourself.

As for cooperation, seems all it is taking to get cooperation is to pay everyone involved off. That says, "it's the economy, stupid", not these deep underlying ethnic tensions that are stimulating the continued fighting. These people have no running water, a couple hours a day of electricity, no jobs, no health care, no education for their kids, and no security.

So we go in with the surge and give them a bit more security along with some night raids on their homes and a few other side effect of having security provided by an occupying army that doesn't speak you language or respect your culture. In the meantime the 'elected' officials get rich, live in the Green Zone, and mingle with the occupying army.

And look at who you all are blaming here for the lack of success. The people with no running water, a couple hours a day of electricity, no jobs, no health care, no education for their kids. :rolleyes:

[Elind]

You've managed to rationalize a few things here without considering all the variables. First, the point about Mosaddeq was in response to the claim "those people" were incapable of living in a democratic society. The Shia of both Iran and Iraq were the same group of people at the time of the US and Britain's overthrow of the democratically elected government.

What variables have you considered? If you go to Iran and call an Iranian an Arab you will get slapped with a sandal, at best.

Second, to claim that the government that would be democratically elected in Iraq would differ from ours, therefore it wouldn't be democratic is not true. Are you imagining a secular democratic government or a theocratic democratic government? Surely you realize that the second is an oxymoron and the first is about as likely in our lifetimes as flying pigs. The closest thing to democracy in an Islamic country is Turkey, and that is only because the military has periodically told the Islamist to take a hike, as they may do again.

It may not be the government that favors the US but it would still be democratic.You sound like one of those who think that all it takes for democracy is a winner take all election (I think Bush thinks so too). And why would a democratic government not "favor" the USA, outside of normal spats that happen from time to time on issues that get resolved?

So at least quit using a false claim about just what it is you think we should see happen in Iraq. You aren't looking for a democratically elected government. You are looking for a government the US wants. That is called imperialism, not democracy, don't kid yourself.And what do you think the USA actually wants that is so bad? A government that shares values, principles, laws and so on? Usually such commonality in fundamentals results in friendship. Perhaps your problem is that you don't think much of the USA?:(

As for cooperation, seems all it is taking to get cooperation is to pay everyone involved off. That says, "it's the economy, stupid", not these deep underlying ethnic tensions that are stimulating the continued fighting. These people have no running water, a couple hours a day of electricity, no jobs, no health care, no education for their kids, and no security.So what are you blaming here? Sounds like you blame both the economy and ethnic issues. Could it be that one results in the other? Which do you think might come first, and which do you think the USA created?

So we go in with the surge and give them a bit more security along with some night raids on their homes and a few other side effect of having security provided by an occupying army that doesn't speak you language or respect your culture.What form of disrespect are you referring to? Not honoring the US 2nd amendment to the nth degree; in Iraq? Night raids on "their" homes? I'm surprised you didn't add the obligatory AP quote of, "for no reason".

In the meantime the 'elected' officials get rich, live in the Green Zone, and mingle with the occupying army.Actually they were elected, but elections are a tenuous thing in your world it seems. If it doesn't result in obvious anti Americanism it can't be real to you, it seems. As to where they live, it doesn't take a genius to understand why they have to do that now, but I'll ask if there are any on this forum to explain it to you.

And look at who you all are blaming here for the lack of success. The people with no running water, a couple hours a day of electricity, no jobs, no health care, no education for their kids. :rolleyes:Seems like a lot of the parents could do with some education too, don't you think? We could also see about doing something about this welfare state mentality where people can't even carry out their own garbage.

[Elind]

Skeptigirl, did you lose track of some of your conversations?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl, did you lose track of some of your conversations?You mean why have I not answered your post yet?

Sometimes I get in one too many political threads and burnout hitting my head against the wall. I know so much about so many political events and even though that is no guarantee I don't have something new to learn, it gets very tiring posting replies to people who simply disagree and post nothing to back their opinions up.

You posted a page of opinion there, Elind. Should I post a couple more pages of supporting reasons for my conclusions and opinions just to have you blather back that "everybody knows"?


For example, you say, "The closest thing to democracy in an Islamic country is Turkey..." blah blah blah. That is simply untrue. Like it or not, the Palestinians voted for Hamas. And there is a lot of popular support for leaders we don't like so those are ignored as being a semblance of democracy. And you brushed off the fact we overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran and installed a dictator.

Your prejudice is glaring. It affects your evaluation of the facts. There is no point in discussing the fact we see things differently.

The "respect" I refer to is how to arrest one insurgent without making 10 more.

Sorry, Elind. Take a serious look at what I posted about what would make things better. Jobs, infrastructure, less corruption, and not dragging people out of their homes at night with bags over their heads and bombing their houses.

If you have suggestions, let's hear them and why you think that is what is needed. I'm not going to educate you in the lessons we didn't learn in Vietnam. You are not ready to learn those lessons here either.

[Elind]

Yes, I understand your position and I have known from your posts that you are obsessed with certain things to the point where you will make up "facts" just to support yourself. An example is you saying the Shia of Iraq and Iran being the same people. Rubbish. Persians are not Arabs and think they are insulted if called such.

Saying that Gaza is a democracy because they held a winner take all election is another good example that you gloss over. If you think that is representative of OUR democracy, flaws or not, then you really do live in Lala Land.

You ridiculously suggest that because we are not "gentle" enough in arresting or killing terrorists (not "insurgents", since you conveniently apologize for Hamas and ignore that the "insurgents" ignore the votes of Iraqis).

You really ridiculously suggest that "we" just go around bombing innocent people in their houses because, presumably, they might harbor your brave insurgents.

You complain that we don't give them enough jobs, when it should be clear to them, if not you, that they have to make their own jobs just like we do and when they stop whining and killing they can do so.

Less corruption!! That's a joke coming from an expert like you. The way to stop corruption is to hang the corrupt like Saddam used to do, but then you would whine at that. What you can't fathom is that that type of business is what Iraq has always been like. It's a cultural norm, like it is in most of the Middle East. You whine about what "we" don't do, and you whine about what we do.

When I was a teenager I thought like you. So simple just to fix this or that if only we did it right, had unlimited money and everyone tried to help out at all levels and just kissed and made up. Grow up girl.

[E.J.Armstrong]

:D

Here's step #1: STOP DISREGARDING THE PAST!!!!!

I think Americans have a particular difficulty with this idea, seeing as how our country is less than 300 years old.
Hear hear.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Saying that Gaza is a democracy because they held a winner take all election is another good example that you gloss over. If you think that is representative of OUR democracy, flaws or not, then you really do live in Lala Land. Your democracy elected a torturer.

You ridiculously suggest that because we are not "gentle" enough in arresting or killing terrorists (not "insurgents", since you conveniently apologize for Hamas and ignore that the "insurgents" ignore the votes of Iraqis). It seems in your world people are guilty before they are tried and it is therefore OK to treat them as guilty before they are tried.

You really ridiculously suggest that "we" just go around bombing innocent people in their houses because, presumably, they might harbor your brave insurgents. Multitudes of innocent people have been bombed in their houses. That is a simple fact.

You complain that we don't give them enough jobs, when it should be clear to them, if not you, that they have to make their own jobs just like we do and when they stop whining and killing they can do so. You destroyed their country. You break it, you pay for it.

Less corruption!! That's a joke coming from an expert like you. The way to stop corruption is to hang the corrupt like Saddam used to do, but then you would whine at that. What you can't fathom is that that type of business is what Iraq has always been like. It's a cultural norm, like it is in most of the Middle East. You whine about what "we" don't do, and you whine about what we do. Mickey mouse characterisation.

[QUOTE]When I was a teenager I thought like you. So simple just to fix this or that if only we did it right, had unlimited money and everyone tried to help out at all levels and just kissed and made up. Grow up girl.[/QUOTE} Hurling ad homs because you lost the argument. That's not like a stroppy teenager at all.

[Elind]

Thank you for reminding me why I don't bother with your posts.

[mrbaracuda]

Thank you for reminding me why I don't bother with your posts.

It's somewhat refreshing and depressing at the same time, isn't it? :D

[E.J.Armstrong]

Thank you for reminding me why I don't bother with your posts.
I see.

1/ Elind makes a point.
2/ A poster shows that the point is wrong.
3/ Elind refuses to deal with the point.
4/ He is joined by sidekick.

Same old, same old.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Elind, your post throws in a few too many false ad homs and it suggests you would rather rant that have a discussion. I don't think I'll reply to all of your nonsense.

I believe I asked you to give your answer to the OP question rather than simply making rather racist remarks about an entire population.

...You ridiculously suggest that because we are not "gentle" enough in arresting or killing terrorists (not "insurgents", since you conveniently apologize for Hamas and ignore that the "insurgents" ignore the votes of Iraqis).

You really ridiculously suggest that "we" just go around bombing innocent people in their houses because, presumably, they might harbor your brave insurgents.

You complain that we don't give them enough jobs, when it should be clear to them, if not you, that they have to make their own jobs just like we do and when they stop whining and killing they can do so.These are false characterizations of both what I said, and of the facts.

..Less corruption!! That's a joke coming from an expert like you. The way to stop corruption is to hang the corrupt like Saddam used to do, but then you would whine at that. What you can't fathom is that that type of business is what Iraq has always been like. It's a cultural norm, like it is in most of the Middle East. You whine about what "we" don't do, and you whine about what we do.That's a rather defeatist attitude, because corruption is common we should just let Maliki rip off American taxpayers for millions.

Secret Report: Corruption is "Norm" Within Iraqi Government (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=228339)Beating back corruption is not one of the 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for Iraq and the Maliki government. But this hard-hitting report--you can practically see the authors pulling out their hair--makes a powerful though implicit case that it ought to be. The study is a damning indictment: widespread corruption within the Iraqi government undermines and discredits the U.S. mission in Iraq. And the Bush administration is doing little to stop it.



..When I was a teenager I thought like you. So simple just to fix this or that if only we did it right, had unlimited money and everyone tried to help out at all levels and just kissed and made up. Grow up girl.It would seem to me that I have a bit more knowledge about the criticisms of the Bush handling of the post Iraqi invasion than you do. You have some obvious racist biases. I think I'll take my judgment over yours unless you have anything more substantial to offer than personal biases.

[godless dave]

Disregarding who was at fault for what, how do you feel about what is being done now to remedy things? What could be done better, and where?

The number one thing that could be done better in Iraq is that US and UK troops could leave.

[Elind]

................

It would seem to me that I have a bit more knowledge about the criticisms of the Bush handling of the post Iraqi invasion than you do. You have some obvious racist biases. I think I'll take my judgment over yours unless you have anything more substantial to offer than personal biases.

You are completing the circle and bringing us back to the begining again, but that's par for this course.

I have plenty of criticism for Bush & Co. Screwups and imbecilic assumptions aplenty, and I've said so many times, but that is not the gist of your focus.

As to racist calls, that is the typical fallback for apologists for human failures. The Iraqi society has never reached civilization, ask any Arab.

You think that opinion is somehow "racist", be my guest. I'm sure you will then understand how I think you are a racist against the USA.

[godless dave]

The Iraqi society has never reached civilization, ask any Arab.

I'm pretty sure civilization started there.

[Mister Earl]

I apologize for being AWOL so long from this split-thead that was my creation. I'm reading the posts now, and will reply when needed. (I was gone for a week. Military training.)

[Mister Earl]

[sidetrack by request]
The real underlying problem here, the one the US mainstream media continues to ignore began with the unemployment, use of crony contractors, importing cheap labor when the Iraqis were unemployed, corruption, focusing on oil exports rather than infrastructure, having Prince Brenner establish by decree laws in Iraq that favored corporate control of resources and outlawing labor unions, our military not addressing cultural and other problems in the military's approach, and making it clear to the Iraqis by building permanent bases and by our past actions that we were not leaving.
My understanding is that the bases being built will be turned over to the Iraqi army, once it is rebuilt. I may be wrong here, so don't take that as fact.

Everything focussed on by our media and our politicians is related to the military and the Iraqi government. You cannot expect people who are miserable to be on your side. You cannot set the kinds of examples we set and expect people to trust you.
Fair enough. What kind of examples are you citing, for clarification?

And people who have no jobs, no infrastructure, no education for their kids, no medical care, are not going to have security. We know from our experience in Vietnam the kinds of things we are doing in Iraq to enforce the peace only serve to alienate the population and without the support of the population, how do you expect them to reform their society?
On the other hand, there are people who can now go to schools that they previously were not permitted to. New businesses are opening up that were problems before. Cell phone / IT device sales are booming. And from what I've heard from my brother, who was deployed there as I will be soon, even pet stores? Sounds odd to me, but it seems like one of the major things to do over there now that Saddam is gone is to buy pets? Sounds odd, but there it is.

Now it is so far gone, in such a mess, the only thing that can be done is to make some kind of effort to show a complete reversal in priorities. I don't know that such a change, if it is even possible, can overcome the power struggle now going on between the different factions. The conditions we created allowed these factions to develop strength. But without a complete reversal of priorities, we will never succeed and we might as well just leave and let chaos rein and settle by natural means. Either that or divide the country up into smaller groups and hope power wars do not ensue.
The Sunnis, the Shias (spelling?), and the Kurds, none of whom are too fond of the other. From my limited understanding, here is what I know of the situation: The Kurds wish to recess from Iraq and create a seperate state, "Kurdistan", and they are also attempting to claim territory from Turkey. The Sunnis are the mainstream Islamic group, being the most numerous in Islam. The more traditionalist Islamics. The Shias are also faithful Islamics, but will also pray to deceased ancestors, which the Sunnis abhor, creating the strain between them. I'm not certain what should be our stance on their three-sided struggle. We've deposed Saddam, which was a major point towards the war. Now that a government is set up, run by Iraqis, what should we do as far as the culture wars within Iraq? Should we take a more frontline approach towards Iraqi security, or should we support the Iraqis to secure their own nation?

Give these people work building hospitals, schools, infrastructure. Get people who know the language and culture involved.
No disagreement here

Quit making night raids in people's homes taking away family members to jails.
People may be questioned, but they aren't taken away to jail unless there's a viable reason for it. I'm not aware of any practice or lottery type system where random people are drug off to jail.

Kick the foreign contractors out unless there is no Iraqi option. Enforce laws against private security firms, make it clear you will not tolerate belligerent behavior and shooting of unarmed civilians.
Agreement here. Since economic rebuilding is a major factor in Iraq, having the locals do the work couldn't but help here. Unless there aren't any available. Agreement with the second statement as well, but I'm thinking you're referring to Blackwater here. As far as I know, nobody, security company or official military, would ever open fire on a group of civilians unless there was some dire threat. I know a few old Marines in Blackwater, and if they were given the order to fire on someone who wasn't a threat, would tell the person giving the order to do some very uncomfortable and likely impossible physical maneuvering.

The list is longer than this, but these are the kinds of priorities Bushco and the NeoCons just don't get. Or they don't care. Their friends are getting rich. They are basking in their facade of power. They don't understand the concept of human rights and how pivotal it is to peace.
Is there profiteering going on? I think so, absolutely. Corruption? Likely on both sides. And don't forget, Bush didn't go out and gather the pre-war intelligence himself. He has to rely on intelligence agencies and military types to tell him what's going on, and he has to base his decisions from that. Recall the state of the world at that time, dealing with the Terrorist attacks in New York, and then having your heads of intelligence tell you that this country is sponsoring terrorism, and is looking to obtain WMDs? I probably would have made the same call in the same spot.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My understanding is that the bases being built will be turned over to the Iraqi army, once it is rebuilt. I may be wrong here, so don't take that as fact.That's the party line. But if you were an Iraqi, why would you believe it? My personal opinion is it is a lie. At least for the Bush administration. Changing of the guard in DC may change the mission. The US had the specific goal of replacing the military outpost in Saudi Arabia for one elsewhere in the region. This is not a hard fact to discover, nor a difficult conclusion to draw.

Fair enough. What kind of examples are you citing, for clarification?All the Bush screwups to date, not limited to guarding the oil, not the infrastructure; supporting a corrupt regime, not taking interest in human rights or welfare; Abu Ghraib; bombing Fallujah into oblivion; living in the sheltered Green Zone while not protecting the average Iraqi from street crimes and kidnappings... Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi and ask yourself what image you would have from this?


On the other hand, there are people who can now go to schools that they previously were not permitted to. New businesses are opening up that were problems before. Cell phone / IT device sales are booming. And from what I've heard from my brother, who was deployed there as I will be soon, even pet stores? Sounds odd to me, but it seems like one of the major things to do over there now that Saddam is gone is to buy pets? Sounds odd, but there it is.This is one version of the facts on the ground. It is not the only version. There are millions of displaced refugees, if it were so safe and peechy keen, why is there still a Green Zone? Violence is down because we are paying off Sadr, not because there has been real change.

I do not profess to know the facts 100%. But I do know the description you have here is whitewashed. Let me give you some different sources of information and get back to the rest of your post later.

The Iraqi Displacement Crisis (http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679)

The Iraqi Refugee Crisis - Familiar Problems and New Challenges; Hani Mowafi, MD, MPH; Paul Spiegel, MD, MPH; JAMA. 2008;299(14):1713-1715. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/299/14/1713)

UNHRC Iraq Situation updates (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=needsassessment) - for example, Rapid Needs Assessment (RNA) of Recently-Displaced Persons in the Kurdistan Region, 11/07 (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&id=47692c272), and, statistics, 11/07 update. (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.pdf?tbl=SUBSITES&id=470387fc2)

Background on the Crisis in Iraq, Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/), not all current articles but here are a few from the same source that are:
US: Release Iraqi News Photographer - Court Ruling Ends Case Against Bilal Hussein (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/11/iraq18521.htm) but the US refuses to release him.
US/Jordan: Stop Renditions to Torture - CIA Transfer of Suspects to Jordan for Interrogation Violates International Law (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/08/usint18463.htm) We don't see this news, the Iraqis see plenty of it.

US State Department Continues to Criticize Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Detainees around the World (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/11/usint18480.htm) Again, the Iraqis see this public policy stand while personally witnessing the hypocrisy.

Recent news stories from Democracy Now, last Friday (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/18/headlines#4)Suicide Bomber Kills 50 Iraqis at Funeral

At least fifty Iraqis died Thursday when a suicide bomber struck the funeral of two Sunni brothers. Both men belonged to the Awakening Council, a Sunni-led group opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Iraq. The suicide bomber walked into a tent crowded with mourners and detonated explosives strapped to his body. It was the deadliest blast in Iraq in over a month. The Los Angeles Times reports the bombing was the latest strike in an internal war among Sunni Arabs, some of whom have aligned themselves with the Americans and others with al-Qaeda in Iraq.
US Builds Wall Around Sadr City

In Baghdad, the New York Times reports, US forces have begun building a massive concrete wall partitioning part of the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City from the rest of Baghdad. US officials say they want to turn the southern quarter of Sadr City near the Green Zone into a protected enclave, secured by Iraqi and American forces.

Pentagon Report: Iraq War Is a “Major Debacle”

Meanwhile, a new study by the Pentagon’s premier military educational institute has concluded the war in Iraq has become “a major debacle” and the outcome “is in doubt” despite the so-called surge. The opening line of the report says, “Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle.” The study was released by the National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Pentagon research center.


I guess they finally did release the news photographer Thursday's news from DN (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/17/headlines#4)US Military Releases AP Photographer Held for Two Years In Iraq

In Iraq, the US military has released Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein after holding him without charge for two years. The military had once accused Hussein of being a “terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP.” Upon his release, Hussein said, “I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody.” The Committee to Protect Journalists praised the release of Hussein but condemned the US treatment of journalists. Joel Simon, the group’s executive director, said Hussein joins a growing list of journalists detained in conflict zones by the US military. Simon said, “This deplorable practice should be of concern to all journalists. It basically allows the US military to remove journalists from the field, lock them up and never be compelled to say why.” The US is still imprisoning at least two other journalists without charge. Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Jawed Ahmad, a journalist with Canada’s CTV, is at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Groups Call for Rice to Resign Over Role in Approving Torture

A group of liberal advocacy groups have launched a campaign calling for the resignation of Secretary State Condoleezza Rice after ABC News revealed Rice personally oversaw meetings where top Bush administration officials selected specific torture techniques. As part of the campaign, a new TV ad has been produced by Brave New Films.
ACLU Uncovers New Details on US Torture in Afghanistan

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced it has obtained documents from the Pentagon confirming the military’s use of unlawful interrogation methods on detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan. The documents include the first on-the-ground reports of torture in Gardez, Afghanistan to be publicly released.



This stuff (from the same ink) certainly doesn't help our image in the region.Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Has Been Good for Israel

The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv has reported that Israel’s former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly said the September 11 attacks have been good for Israel. Netanyahu said, “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq." Netanyahu then reportedly said that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.” Netanyahu’s comments came during a conference at Bar Ilan University.



Anyway, this should be enough to suggest to you there is more to the story than what Americans sitting on their couches watching CNN and Faux News are getting. I understand what the soldiers who are there might believe. They are seeing stuff first hand. But they are also among people reinforcing certain views and not out touring the country, speaking the language, aware of how they are perceived when the soldiers believe they are doing the right thing but if you were the one seeing a relative taken away in the middle of the night with a bag over their head, you may just not see it the same way.

[Elind]

I'm pretty sure civilization started there.

Didn't they call themselves Jewish back then, or are you talking of their predecessors called Neanderthals?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Didn't they call themselves Jewish back then, or are you talking of their predecessors called Neanderthals?Whoa! I thought you were a little bigoted, now I'm wondering how I underestimated that by such a wide margin.

[godless dave]

On the other hand, there are people who can now go to schools that they previously were not permitted to.

Really? Who?


Is there profiteering going on? I think so, absolutely. Corruption? Likely on both sides.

Yes but what is the US doing about it? So far, not much, other than impose a law on Iraq that US corporations are exempt from prosecution in Iraq.


And don't forget, Bush didn't go out and gather the pre-war intelligence himself. He has to rely on intelligence agencies and military types to tell him what's going on, and he has to base his decisions from that. Recall the state of the world at that time, dealing with the Terrorist attacks in New York, and then having your heads of intelligence tell you that this country is sponsoring terrorism, and is looking to obtain WMDs?

Recall also that the people under those heads contradicted those statements, and many of them resorted to going to the press when their superiors refused to listen to them. Recall also that Cheney personally went to the CIA to get Tenet to change his conclusions. Recall also that all the "military types" who said Iraq was sponsoring terrorism and was looking to obtain WMDs were not military types at all, they were civilian defense department appointees, all appointed by Bush or Rumsfeld.

[godless dave]

Didn't they call themselves Jewish back then, or are you talking of their predecessors called Neanderthals?

No, they called themselves Sumerian and Babylonian.

[Elind]

Whoa! I thought you were a little bigoted, now I'm wondering how I underestimated that by such a wide margin.

What?:boggled:

You have a problem with cavemen? I see them on TV all the time; or was it the suggestion that Arabs were Jewish once? You don't have a problem with Jews do you?

[Elind]

No, they called themselves Sumerian and Babylonian.

Oh, OK I was getting ahead of you. Then came the Jews, right? Funny, I thought they had civilization too.

[godless dave]

Oh, OK I was getting ahead of you. Then came the Jews, right?

Their civilization was a few hundred miles to the west.

Funny, I thought they had civilization too.

Did I say they didn't?

[BeAChooser]

In Iraq, the US military has released Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein after holding him without charge for two years. The military had once accused Hussein of being a “terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP.” Upon his release, Hussein said, “I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent.

Talk about taking things out of context. Of course, context is not something one should expect from DemocracyNow.

Just so everyone knows, this is a photographer who took such photos as this one ... of "insurgents" supposedly firing a mortar and small arms at US troops in Falluja in November 2004. http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaking-news-photography/works/warzone15.html . Notice that this wasn't done from a distance. This was shot close up and with the full cooperation of these "insurgents". One might almost say it looks staged.

And so do these by Bilal:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1846/763/1600/posing_insurgent_reuters2.jpg

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1846/763/1600/posing_insurgent_ap1.jpg

Along with many others which are obviously nothing more than staged propaganda shots for these so-called "insurgents".

Recall that Bilal is the one who took the photo in December of 2004 when about 30 "insurgents" using hand grenades and machine guns attacked a car carrying some low level Iraqi government employees. One man was pulled from a car and shot point blank in the head. And Bilal captured that moment because he was (according to AP) "tipped off" by the "insurgents" that there would be a "demonstration". Or perhaps the real story is that he was with the insurgents as they planned and executed the attack? Why else would he have not listed his name as the source of the photo when it was first published? Hmmmmm?

He also took a photo of an Italian hostage right after he was murdered by "insurgents". The "insurgents" posed for him over the body with their guns and face masks. Was he "tipped off" about this execution too? Invited to it? Hmmmmmm?

He was arrested when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house in Ramadi. He was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The US military stated "he has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces."

And the reason he was ordered released on April 9, 2008 is that an Iraqi judicial panal said he was covered by an Iraqi amnesty law. That isn't a declaration of his "innocence".


Quote:
Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Has Been Good for Israel

Is your attempt here to suggest Israel was behind 9/11? Because I suspect a number of those at DemocracyNow believe that. :)

[godless dave]

So he was embedded with Iraqi resistance fighters just like reporters are embedded with American soldiers.

[Darth Rotor]

So he was embedded with Iraqi resistance fighters just like reporters are embedded with American soldiers.
Just like?

Please elaborate.

DR

[Elind]

Their civilization was a few hundred miles to the west.



Did I say they didn't?

This is getting silly, quibbling over a few hundred miles a few thousand years ago. You have the certified maps?

You said Iraq had a great civilization. No, peoples who lived in that area have had several civilizations, but they didn't call themselves Iraqis. The new guys have reinvented a civilization culture all their own. (oops, scratch "civilization")

What's really funny though is how Skeptigirl thinks any of this makes me a raving racist. That is such a useful word when in a brain freeze, don't you think?:rolleyes:

[Elind]

So he was embedded with Iraqi resistance fighters just like reporters are embedded with American soldiers.

Wow! Such insight is rare here.:jaw-dropp

[Skeptic Ginger]

Talk about taking things out of context. Of course, context is not something one should expect from DemocracyNow.

Just so everyone knows, this is a photographer who took such photos as this one ... of "insurgents" supposedly firing a mortar and small arms at US troops in Falluja in November 2004. ...The photographer whose charges were dropped by the supposed sovereign Iraqi government, or do you prefer to call that claim of sovereignty a lie?

He was arrested when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house in Ramadi. Then why did the Iraqis drop the charges?

Democracy Now supports freedom of the press including freedom of the press to take pictures you don't like and freedom to report on the war without being embedded and censored by the US government. That would be the same US government that uses psyops tactics on its own citizens sending "message amplifying" retired military working for military contractors out to the press to repeat talking points about non-existent WMDs in order to get the public behind Bush's personal little mission to finish Daddy's war and show him.

Democracy requires a free press. You want our soldiers to be fighting for Iraqi democracy or Bush's personal vendetta and a lot of money for his cronies? It's a two edged sword, I think if someone is going to give up their life fighting for this country, they ought not to be doing it based on a lie.

Is your attempt here to suggest Israel was behind 9/11? Because I suspect a number of those at DemocracyNow believe that. :)This shows you have poor judgment interpreting what you are reading and you have invalid biases about Democracy Now.

Bush benefited from 9/11. That in no way says or even suggests he was behind it. And nothing I said about Netanyahu's unfortunate disgusting comment that 9/11 was good for Israel says or even suggests Israel was behind it either. But this does show how biased you are interpreting what people post.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just like?

Please elaborate.

DRAs in you don't know about the embedded US press? I'm not sure what you are asking.

I will find the other version of this story because I don't think we have been presented an accurate one by BeAChooser. Like I said, if the photographer was all that BeC claims, why were there no charges in the end? I think the US has a record of putting out versions of things that are not the truth. Does Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch ring any bells?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
What's really funny though is how Skeptigirl thinks any of this makes me a raving racist. That is such a useful word when in a brain freeze, don't you think?:rolleyes:What I based my conclusion on was your claim these were all a bunch of backward people incapable of actually governing themselves.

[BeAChooser]

The photographer whose charges were dropped by the supposed sovereign Iraqi government, or do you prefer to call that claim of sovereignty a lie?

I haven't said anything here to suggest I feel Iraq's judges lack the right to do what they did. Are you throwing out strawmen now, too?

Then why did the Iraqis drop the charges?

I told you. Didn't you read my post? Because a panel of Iraqi judges (rightly or wrongly) decided that the photographer was covered under the blanket amnesty that Iraq has offered to those on the other side of the war. The panel ruled that the new amnesty law applies to the terrorism-related accusations. Here:

http://www.pdn-pix.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003789079 "The panel, consisting of three judges and a prosecutor, has now granted Hussein amnesty on all the accusations against him and twice called for his release, according to the AP. ... snip ... The Iraqi panel ruled last week to grant Hussein amnesty on these counts under a new amnesty law."

That's not the same thing as saying he was innocent, skeptigirl ... as much as you're trying to portray it that way.

Democracy Now supports freedom of the press including freedom of the press to take pictures you don't like and freedom to report on the war without being embedded and censored by the US government.

Photographing staged propaganda photos for terrorists is not "journalism" nor an activity legitimately protected by freedom of the press. And it's so ironic that you defend these "insurgents" and their propaganda producers when the press would be the first thing shut down were they to take control of Iraq ... or the US. And probably folks like you would be the first silenced. That's the most laughable part of the left's defense of islamic terrorists "rights". :D

And nothing I said about Netanyahu's unfortunate disgusting comment that 9/11 was good for Israel says or even suggests Israel was behind it either.

But it does show a propensity on your part to take comments out of context. Tell you what ... tell us WHY Netanyahu said 9/11 was good for Israel. Also, you might like to know that he also said it was good for the US. Care to tell folks the reason he gave for saying that? Hmmmmmm? :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the other side of story from that which BeAChooser has chosen to believe. Democracy Now has reported consistently on this man and on freedom of the press (http://www.democracynow.org/search/Associated+Press+photographer+Bilal+Hussein/1), you know, one of those pillars of democracy. :rolleyes:

9/18/06 AP: Iraqi Photographer in Fifth Month of US Detention (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/18/headlines#9[/ur)Meanwhile, a leading news agency has gone public with the imprisonment of one its journalists by US troops in Iraq. The Associated Press says Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer, has been jailed for more than five months. The military says he’s a security threat—but has not filed charges or brought him before a judge. Hussein says he’s being targeted because US military leaders have been angered by his photos from Ramadi and Fallujah. The military says Hussein was arrested alongside wanted insurgents. But the AP claims that’s no sign of guilt and that Hussein was on assignment. The AP says it’s gone public after months of failed talks with US officials.

So, the AP says he was on assignment. Doesn't sound like he was some Iraqi insurgent making propaganda pictures by that account.

AP Photographer Passes Year-Mark in Jail (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/16/headlines#3)Among the prisoners is the Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein. He’s now spent more than a year in a jail. The U.S. military has held him without charge.

7/19/07 Sami Al-Haj and Bilal Hussein: Their Names Mostly Unknown in U.S., Jailed Journalists Have Spent Combined Six Years in U.S. Military Prisons Without Charge (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/19/sami_al_haj_and_bilal_hussein)We take an in-depth look at the case of two reporters whose imprisonment by U.S. forces has gone largely ignored in the corporate media. Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj has been jailed without charge at Guantanamo for the past five-and-a-half years. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has spent more than a year in a U.S. military prison in Iraq, also without charge. U.S. officials haven’t made public any evidence of wrongdoing. We speak with Rachel Morris, author of a new article detailing al-Haj’s ordeal; and Scott Horton, a lawyer specializing in international law and human rights who’s closely followed Hussein’s case.

The release of BBC reporter Alan Johnston earlier this month after 114 days in captivity in Gaza made headlines around the world and was hailed internationally as a victory for press freedom.

During Johnston’s nearly four months in captivity, calls for his release came from world leaders and human rights organizations alike. Over two hundred thousand people signed an online petition calling for him to be freed.

But perhaps the most poignant of Johnston’s supporters came from deep within the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Sami al-Haj, an Al Jazeera cameraman who has been jailed without charge at Guantanamo for the past five and a half years, sent a letter via his lawyer calling for Johnston’s release. He wrote: While the United States has kidnapped me and held me for years on end, this is not a lesson that Muslims should copy."

In comparison to journalist Alan Johnston, Sami al-Haj’s story of abduction has been largely ignored by the corporate media and kept out of the global spotlight. A Sudanese national, al-Haj was working as a cameraman for the Arabic TV network Al Jazeera when he was detained on December 15th, 2001 at a Pakistani town on the border with Afghanistan. After being transferred to US custody he was flown to Bagram Air Base. Six months later he was flown to Guantanamo Bay. He was been imprisoned there without charge ever since.[snip more on al-Haj]

Another journalist jailed by US forces without charge has also been largely kept outside of the spotlight. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein was detained by US forces in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006. To this day, he is still being held at a prison camp in Iraq by U.S. military officials who have neither formally charged him with a crime nor made public any evidence of wrongdoing. The U.S. military claims it is justified in continuing to imprison him merely because it considers him a security threat.

* Scott Horton. New York attorney specializing in international law and human rights. He is a contributor to Harper’s Magazine where he writes the blog No Comment. He served as chair of the International Law Committee at the New York Bar Association and is a member of the Iraqi Bar Association.

SCOTT HORTON: ... it’s a consistent pattern with detentions of journalists that occurred in Iraq, particularly two cases that I worked on indirectly, the one involving the CBS cameraman, Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, and then later the AP photographer, Bilal Hussein. In both cases, when they were detained and interrogated, the interrogators were heavily focused on the internal functionings of the news organizations they worked with, wanted to know what was going on, how they interacted, how they hired local staffers to pursue their work. So it seemed to be gathering intelligence on the media, rather than with respect to any notion of a crime or wrongdoing by these people.

...in discussing this with the military, almost every time you talk to them they have different concerns that they trot out. I investigated those concerns for about eighth months. I found virtually every specific fact that they trotted out as a basis for a concern was simply untrue. They refuse to bring charges of any kind. ...

...He was grabbed in Ramadi by a patrol. The initial announcement by the Baghdad Command was that he was caught red-handed in some sort of action. Of course, I interviewed some of the people who were involved in detaining him. They told me that was a complete lie, that they had been sent out on a mission to get him and that the instructions had come way, way, way up the chain of command, in fact, the implication being that it hadn’t been decided in Baghdad, it had been decided in the Pentagon and Washington.

And we learned that the center of decision-making had passed out of Iraq and was being taken in the Pentagon, in Washington. And in the Pentagon and Washington, unnamed senior press spokesmen, we believe an assistant secretary of defense, were telling reporters, off the record and not for attribution, that he had been found with photographs of four separate incidents of attacks on Americans at the time of the attack. And when we got to the end of the case and the trial, we discovered that was a conscious lie. Absolutely not the case. But it was reported, by the way, on CBS on continuous feed for thirty-six—excuse me, on CNN on continuous feed for thirty-six hours, as well as on FOX News. Neither of them ever corrected the false statements that were put out.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What is the impact on the journalists who are in Iraq when you have situations like this of the military just grabbing people and holding them indefinitely without charges?

SCOTT HORTON: Well, we have—I mean, we need to start with the fact that we have more than 110 journalists at this point who have been killed in Iraq. That’s twice the number who were killed in World War II. ...

But the most disturbing thing here is a tendency on the part of the US military to view these journalists as, quote, “the enemy.” And back three months ago, we actually got to see some classified operational security briefing materials that were prepared by the Department of Defense, in which they labeled journalists in a category together with al-Qaeda and drug dealers as potential enemy, to be treated and viewed as such. That leads to people being killed, by the way.

If it weren't for all the other evidence including a Downing Street Memo where Blair supposedly talked Bush out of just bombing Al Jazeera in Iraq (which they later did anyway, if I recall), then one might be inclined to see this as simply necessary actions in time of war. But what was the actual mission here? Are they trying to convert Iraqis to favor the US? No, the goal of all this is to control how the war is reported to the world, in particular, how it is reported to the US people.

So later when the US did turn this case over to Iraqi courts...Detained AP Photographer to Face Charges in Iraq (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/headlines#7)The U.S. military has decided to turn over an Associated Press photographer to an Iraqi court for criminal prosecution. The U.S. has held the journalist, Bilal Hussein, without charge for 19 months. Military officials accuse him of having links to terrorist groups operating inside Iraq. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said: “This case does not hinge on a single piece of evidence but rather a range of evidence that makes it clearer than before that Bilal Hussein is a terrorist media operative who infiltrated the AP.” AP officials have vigorously protested Hussein’s detention. The news agency conducted its own investigation and determined that Hussein had no ties to militants. Attorneys for the Associated Press say they have been denied access to Hussein and the evidence against him, making it impossible to build a defense. In 2005, the Iraqi born journalist was part of a team of AP photographers that won the Pulitzer Prize. Bilal Hussein is not the only journalist being held by the U.S. military. Al Jazeera camera man Sami Al Haj has been imprisoned at Guantanamo for over five years.

Iraqi Judiciary Calls for Release of Bilal Hussein from US Military Jail (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/10/headlines#4)In other Iraq news, an Iraqi judicial committee has called for the release of the imprisoned Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein from a US military jail. .... This week, a four-judge panel ruled Hussein falls under an amnesty law and should be released without delay. The US military has not responded to the order. ...

And then it took a few more months for the US to concede they had no evidence against this guy, which from the sounds of it they were well aware of all along.


For some examples of Democracy Now's reporting on and support of freedom of the press, you know, one of those pillars of democracy, :rolleyes: , here are a few related stories.

U.S. Drops to #53 on World Press Freedom Index List (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/24/headlines#10)Reporters Without Borders has released its fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index and it shows the level of press freedom in the United States continues to fall. In 2002 the U.S. was rated as having the seventeenth freest press—now it is ranked fifty-third. Reporters Without Borders criticized the Bush administration for using the so-called war on terrorism to crack down on press freedoms. The report also criticized the United States for jailing journalists at home and abroad. Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf remains in a San Francisco jail for refusing to hand over video to the police. Al Jazeera camerman Sami Al Haj has been locked up at Guantanamo for over four years. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held in Iraq since April. Neither Al Haj or Hussein have ever faced charges. Reporters Without Borders found that the nations with the freest press were Finland, Iceland, Ireland and the Netherlands. North Korea was rated as the worst upholder of press freedom.


134 Journalists Jailed Worldwide (http://www.democracynow.org/2006/12/8/headlines#14)The number of journalists jailed around the world has reached an all-time high. The Committee to Protect Journalists says a record one hundred thirty four journalists are currently jailed in twenty-four countries. The US government has jailed three reporters. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held for eight months in Iraq. Al Jazeera camera operator Sami al-Haj has spent five years at Guantanamo Bay. And the independent journalist Josh Wolf is in a California prison after refusing a court order to hand over video of a protest in San Francisco.


There is at least one message people should take from this, the Bush administration has made a concerted effort to control information the US public is getting. That is one of their goals. Whether you like the side of the isle Democracy Now is on or not, at least you will find real news on that station, unlike what you see in the US mainstream media.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't said anything here to suggest I feel Iraq's judges lack the right to do what they did. Are you throwing out strawmen now, too?Iraqi judges freed the man and the US continued to hold him. What straw man? You posted the US line he was a guilty man.

I told you. Didn't you read my post? Because a panel of Iraqi judges (rightly or wrongly) decided that the photographer was covered under the blanket amnesty that Iraq has offered to those on the other side of the war. The panel ruled that the new amnesty law applies to the terrorism-related accusations. Here:

http://www.pdn-pix.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003789079 "The panel, consisting of three judges and a prosecutor, has now granted Hussein amnesty on all the accusations against him and twice called for his release, according to the AP. ... snip ... The Iraqi panel ruled last week to grant Hussein amnesty on these counts under a new amnesty law."

That's not the same thing as saying he was innocent, skeptigirl ... as much as you're trying to portray it that way.I believe I am as well if not more informed on this case than you. Regardless, there are two things here. The US had no evidence, and the US has lied to the public time and time again. Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, military "message amplifiers", attacks aimed at journalists", the AP supporting this guy was a reporter, not the supposed 'infiltrator you want to believe the military claims.

Where is the evidence? It wasn't there, only a not trustworthy military claim there was evidence.

Photographing staged propaganda photos for terrorists is not "journalism" nor an activity legitimately protected by freedom of the press. And it's so ironic that you defend these "insurgents" and their propaganda producers when the press would be the first thing shut down were they to take control of Iraq ... or the US. And probably folks like you would be the first silenced. That's the most laughable part of the left's defense of islamic terrorists "rights". :DYour personal version. I posted the other version. You really don't have the case you believe you have here. Sorry.


But it does show a propensity on your part to take comments out of context. Tell you what ... tell us WHY Netanyahu said 9/11 was good for Israel. Also, you might like to know that he also said it was good for the US. Care to tell folks the reason he gave for saying that? Hmmmmmm? :DI took a comment out of context? Excuse me but what context was that?

You are brainwashed. What can I say.

[Darth Rotor]

As in you don't know about the embedded US press? I'm not sure what you are asking.
Your answer shows that.

I'll wait until the poster I was asking the question of replies.

Pat Tillman has nothing to do with it. I think a few months back we agreed that the way the Army handled that case was, in short, wrong.

DR

[BeAChooser]

So, the AP says he was on assignment. Doesn't sound like he was some Iraqi insurgent making propaganda pictures by that account.

Go look at the photos, skeptigirl, and try to convince us those are not staged propaganda photos. :D

And now you trot out a source like Juan Gonzalez and a far left attorney named Scott Horton and expect us to believe they are unbiased sources of information. You've got to be kidding. :rolleyes: Hear the who's who on Horton, folks. :)

http://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/scott-horton-and-his-truly-evil-doppelganger/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2007/12/019390.php:

Horton's real point, however, is not to push the Zenger analogy. Rather, he is a conduit for anonymous slanders of the American military. In the time-honored tradition of yellow journalism, Horton puts his own prejudices into the mouth of an anonymous source:

I have just been given an update on the handling of the Bilal Hussein case from a Pentagon source who claimed to have been briefed on the proceedings.

Got that? Horton purports to have an anonymous source inside the Pentagon, and his anonymous source "claimed to have been briefed" on the Hussein case. With that less than reassuring preamble, Horton plunges headlong into a vicious but entirely unsubstantiated libel of the U.S. military. A few samples:

The Pentagon isn’t concerned about evidence or legal arguments.

Yes, I'm sure this is just what Pentagon bigwigs said when they "briefed" Horton's "source."

The Pentagon media strategy involves leaking information as it finds convenient to “friendly new media” (this I take to be wingnut bloggers), but restricting the flow of information to traditional media.

Do you believe that Pentagon briefers said any such thing? I don't. For what it's worth, no one at the Pentagon has communicated with us, or, to my knowledge, any other "new media" outlet about the Hussein case. No "new media" source has broken any news on the case. Rather, we and others have commented on what has been available in the public record and have critiqued statements by the Associated Press and others. The U. S. military has been almost entirely silent on the case.

The U.S. military has assigned a team of five to act effectively as prosecutors in the case. The team is headed by a JAG Captain named Kelvey (or perhaps Calvey). (Says the source: “We recognize, of course, that the U.S. has no authority to prosecute a case in an Iraqi court. That’s one of the reasons that a gag order was essential.”)

Again, I don't believe that any Pentagon briefer said any such thing. This looks like another obvious lie.

The Pentagon was particularly concerned about the prospect of Bilal Hussein getting effective defense from his lawyer, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe. The judge was told to refuse to allow Bilal Hussein’s U.S. lawyer to participate in the case. The judge accepted this advice. Consequently, the U.S. military has a five-man team to press its case, but Bilal Hussein’s lawyer is silenced and not permitted to participate–and all of this has occurred as a result of U.S. Government intervention with the court.

Again, it is silly to suppose that this axe-grinding account comes from a DOD briefing. I don't have any knowledge of the Iraqi criminal justice system, but, for what it's worth, the current proceeding sounds like the equivalent of a grand jury, only performed by a judge. In our system, defense lawyers are not permitted to appear before a grand jury and have little or no role at that stage. If the same thing is true in Iraq, it is hardly a scandal.

The Pentagon is convinced that regardless of the evidence presented and the arguments made, Bilal Hussein will be convicted based on its influence wielding and pressure tactics.

No sentient being could believe that this comes from a Defense Department briefing, dutifully reported to Horton by his anonymous "source."

Tell us, Skeptigirl ... are you sentient? :)

Oh ... and by the way ... from the above source:

But it would have taken very little research for them to discover that Scott Horton was, until January, a partner in the law firm that represents Bilal Hussein--a fact that Horton did not find it necessary to disclose to his readers.

Did you know that Skeptigirl ... since you claim to know sooooo much about this case. ;)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/122907-1.php

:D

Then Horton makes the statement that "we need to start with the fact that we have more than 110 journalists at this point who have been killed in Iraq. That’s twice the number who were killed in World War II.", implying of course that Coalition forces were responsible for their deaths. Never mind that the truth is that almost all of those died at the hands of the folks Horton keeps on defending (http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2006/killed_06/killed_06.html ). In fact, insurgents have specifically targeted them. Horton forget to mention that, didn't he? :D

Skeptigirl, you make the claim "it took a few more months for the US to concede they had no evidence against this guy." The US has conceded nothing. And the fact that an Iraqi judge conducted an investigative hearing on December 9, 2007 and referred the case to trial strongly suggests there was enough evidence presented to convince him that Bilal could be prosecuted. The Iraqi judicial committee, in April, did not say there was no evidence, only that they found the terrorism related allegations against him were subject to the amnesty law passed in February. There is huge difference between those facts and what you are trying to portray. A huge difference. :D

[Elind]

What I based my conclusion on was your claim these were all a bunch of backward people incapable of actually governing themselves.

And you have evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps you are running on faith vapors still, but there is nothing in their history (please, no thousand year + old examples) that suggests otherwise.

In this case, I wish you the best and hope you are right.

ETA, and I hope you realize that your opinion of their capabilities meshes all too well with that of the Bush administration, which I think grossly misjudged Iraqi society. Are you not treading of dangerous ground with this opinion?

[davefoc]

...

ETA, and I hope you realize that your opinion of their capabilities meshes all too well with that of the Bush administration, which I think grossly misjudged Iraqi society. Are you not treading of dangerous ground with this opinion?

You have expressed this view previously in this thread. It is of course not completely wrong. It does appear that Bushco underestimated the divisions within Iraq. It is difficult to understand how this is possible given the widespread knowledge about the divisions within the Iraqi population but it appears that they did.

Nonetheless I think your statement overestimates how much the chaos in Iraq was caused by Bush administration failures to understand the divisions and problems within Iraq and underestimates the effect of Bush administration ineptitude and corruption in Iraq.

What would have happened as a result of the LA riots if the police and army had been disbanded? Not very pretty I suspect. Now let''s suppose when the police and the military were disbanded and nobody bothered to guard the weapons caches that were all over California. It seems obvious that some kind of wide ranging, hyper violent civil disruption would have been certain and when order was finally restored how might the ever present divisions within California society been affected? Certainly, divisions between the Latino and the Black populations would have been deepened to the point where healing them would have take years. But these weren't the only racial groups that would be affected the Koreans who owned many of the shops burned out in the riot would have been a factor and as the violence of the riot became widespread the eventual involvement of all California's various ethnic groups would have been certain. There would have been mass forced migration from all of the mixed neighborhoods as people tried to find groups to form common defenses and common vengeance seeking gangs.

And now let's suppose that not only was the army disbanded but all the soldiers were immediately left without pay. And for good measure let's suppose this hypothetical occupier of California brought in crony contractors to replace the indigenous workers and create even more unemployment. And just for fun let's further suppose that this hypothetical occupier decided to use the California occupation as political tool to reward party loyalty and chose to ignore actual qualifications as a requirement for occupation managers.

It seems that the effects of this kind of civil mismanagement would produce very similar results as the ones in Iraq that you want to blame on the Iraqi lack of civilization.

[Policenaut]

I think the administration was banking on all Iraqis being so happy and grateful that Saddam was gone that they'd all hold hands and dance in peace while we shoot air cannons full of t shirts and white castle halal burgers at them.

[Elind]

Nonetheless I think your statement overestimates how much the chaos in Iraq was caused by Bush administration failures to understand the divisions and problems within Iraq and underestimates the effect of Bush administration ineptitude and corruption in Iraq.

.........................

It seems that the effects of this kind of civil mismanagement would produce very similar results as the ones in Iraq that you want to blame on the Iraqi lack of civilization.

I have no disagreement with much of what you say, although the Iraqis have now had 5 years to decide if they had a real "Iraqi" society or were just a bunch of primitives tribes that could only be held together by force.

My conclusion remains that they do not have a culture compatible with civil behavior in the 21st century. The culture needs to change, not to mention their 14th century religion, and as much as I have little respect for Bush & Co., I do believe that people are ultimately responsible for their own behavior if given the chance to take that responsibility, and they have had that chance many times over.

[Skeptic Ginger]

And your conclusion, Elind, ignores the fact we fired everyone in Baghdad, brought in foreign workers, kept our army in place so people couldn't exactly go out and rebuild the place, then the contractors left with nothing accomplished except ripping off the American taxpayer, we made labor unions illegal, we didn't even allow the Iraqi cement company to sell cement to the foreign contractors, and anyone with any education or resources fled the country.

How do you rebuild your country under the circumstances we created?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your answer shows that.

I'll wait until the poster I was asking the question of replies. Right, DR, because I am so poorly informed my answers shows I have nothing of interest to add to the conversation.

Pat Tillman has nothing to do with it. I think a few months back we agreed that the way the Army handled that case was, in short, wrong.

DRAre you really that willing to believe in your government that you close your eyes to the propaganda machine at work here? And you had the gall to call me a bimbo?

What about the staged Jessica Lynch story? What about the "message amplifiers"? Your government is lying to you, DR. Get a clue!

[Elind]

And your conclusion, Elind, ignores the fact we fired everyone in Baghdad, brought in foreign workers, kept our army in place so people couldn't exactly go out and rebuild the place, then the contractors left with nothing accomplished except ripping off the American taxpayer, we made labor unions illegal, we didn't even allow the Iraqi cement company to sell cement to the foreign contractors, and anyone with any education or resources fled the country.

How do you rebuild your country under the circumstances we created?

Childish attempted analysis of cause and effect. Anyone can play that game like you do and prove that the moon is made of cheese.

I have seen and touched what Iraqis can do, without US help or scapegoating, and I think they have a poor excuse for civil culture.

You go ahead and give them comfort and rationalizations for what they are, as I'm sure it gives you comfort too.

[godless dave]

This is getting silly, quibbling over a few hundred miles a few thousand years ago. You have the certified maps?

You said Iraq had a great civilization.

I did?

I have seen and touched what Iraqis can do, without US help or scapegoating, and I think they have a poor excuse for civil culture.


Even if that were true, so what? Why is that any of the US's problem? It's neither our responsibility nor or right to rule over people who can't govern themselves.

If US and British troops left Iraq, the people there would either figure out how to govern themselves, or they would split into several countries, or they would fight a civil war. None of those possibilities would be our problem.

[mrbaracuda]

it's so ironic that you defend these "insurgents" and their propaganda producers when the press would be the first thing shut down were they to take control of Iraq ... or the US. And probably folks like you would be the first silenced. That's the most laughable part of the left's defense of islamic terrorists "rights". :D

Tell me about it. But that's what you get when the "Islam is peace!" BS hits home. :rolleyes:
They're just peaceful freedom fighters! That they'd subjugate or most likely kill off any skeptigirls (I assume she's an atheist) that come their way does not matter! :D

[Elind]

I did?


You said: I'm pretty sure civilization started there.

You tell me what you were trying to say.


Even if that were true, so what? Why is that any of the US's problem? It's neither our responsibility nor or right to rule over people who can't govern themselves.

If US and British troops left Iraq, the people there would either figure out how to govern themselves, or they would split into several countries, or they would fight a civil war. None of those possibilities would be our problem.In principle you could be right, except that when it suits, in the abstract, many people say we do have an obligation to help other humans in many circumstances (whether one is successful or misguided, or whatever), and on the other hand we do also live on the same planet and suggesting that what happens in Iraq has no relevance to us is isolationism of the ignorant.

[godless dave]

You said: I'm pretty sure civilization started there.

You tell me what you were trying to say.

I was trying to say "I'm pretty sure civilization started there."



In principle you could be right, except that when it suits, in the abstract, many people say we do have an obligation to help other humans in many circumstances


Colonialism isn't "helping".

and on the other hand we do also live on the same planet and suggesting that what happens in Iraq has no relevance to us is isolationism of the ignorant.

I fail to see how what happens in Iraq has any relevance to the US. The leadership of al Qaeda isn't there and most of al Qaeda's recruits still seem to be coming from Sunni Muslims in Saudia Arabia, Yemen, and Africa. Iraq is even less relevant to US national security than they were when Saddam was in power.

[Gurdur]

.... My conclusion remains that they do not have a culture compatible with civil behavior in the 21st century. The culture needs to change, not to mention their 14th century religion, ...

Strangely enough, I fully agree ...... about Florida.

Carl Hiaasen would say the same too, not to mention a good few others.

[Elind]

I was trying to say "I'm pretty sure civilization started there."

OK. I'll pretend I've never heard that, this time around.




Colonialism isn't "helping".


It is if it teaches the primitives to become civilized. You can call Iraq, occupation if you like. It certainly isn't colonialism.


I fail to see how what happens in Iraq has any relevance to the US.

That's obvious.

[Elind]

Strangely enough, I fully agree ...... about Florida.

Carl Hiaasen would say the same too, not to mention a good few others.

Hey buddy:D

I wouldn't want you to think I ignore you.

[godless dave]

OK. I'll pretend I've never heard that, this time around.

????



It is if it teaches the primitives to become civilized.

That approach was tried by various European powers throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries, and was a dismal failure. Why should we repeat a mistake we already know is a mistake?



That's obvious.


So do you have any evidence that anything in Iraq is relevant to US national security? As I said, we know the al Qaeda leadership isn't there.

[Elind]

That approach was tried by various European powers throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries, and was a dismal failure. Why should we repeat a mistake we already know is a mistake?

No it wasn't a dismal failure, given that those colonies that are now genuine democracies with a rule of law are such thanks to the systems they inherited.

Name me one country that has "gone back" to tribal traditions and is a successful civil society as a result.

Zimbabwe perhaps?






So do you have any evidence that anything in Iraq is relevant to US national security? As I said, we know the al Qaeda leadership isn't there.

Yes I have plenty of evidence, in more categories that your pitiful attempt at intelligence, but we know from long ago that your education is long lost.

[godless dave]

No it wasn't a dismal failure, given that those colonies that are now genuine democracies with a rule of law are such thanks to the systems they inherited.

Name one.

Besides, what right do we have to tell other countries that democracies with a rule of law is the kind of government they must have?


Name me one country that has "gone back" to tribal traditions and is a successful civil society as a result.

The issue isn't "going back" to tribal customs. The issue is imposing rule from a foreign country as opposed to countries ruling themselves.


Yes I have plenty of evidence, in more categories that your pitiful attempt at intelligence, but we know from long ago that your education is long lost.

So in other words, no. You have no evidence that Iraq is in any way relevant to US national security.

[Darth Rotor]

Right, DR, because I am so poorly informed my answers shows I have nothing of interest to add to the conversation.
Actually, you tried to put words into my mouth with your question, and I did not want to waste time and emotion on you. I wanted to engage with godless dave to get more detail on what he was driving at. In that case, brevity didn't help.
Are you really that willing to believe in your government that you close your eyes to the propaganda machine at work here? And you had the gall to call me a bimbo?
I've got enough gall to do a damn site more, but I've knocked it off with the bimbo crap long since. Get over it. The 2006 elections is the vintage on that whine, and I think we've been able to converse in a more civil tone since then. The world can indeed wait, as has been shown by events, so I am still right, and you are still wrong, even if the people in government, the suits, are a load of lying weasels. (Which by and large, they are.)

SG, when you stop constructing strawmen for what I do or don't believe, we can move forward. Until you will put a lid on that, it's sorta tough.
What about the staged Jessica Lynch story? What about the "message amplifiers"? QUOTE]
The Jessica Lynch story was an obvious and cynical bit of media management, as her own interviews and words so clearly attested. Your point is what? :confused:

I don't think you grok what a lot of the uniformed folks felt about that story when it broke. The political pandering to the image of the female as brave soldier, the symbol of the heroic female trooper (who was in fact a supply specialist in a non linear battlefield who handled her situation as best she could, like mosts soldiers) was blatantly oversold. The media was hungry for such a story, and did a lovely job of overselling it.

Hackworth's critiques of that entire narrative ought to be required reading.
[QUOTE]Your government is lying to you, DR.
No kidding? You act as though that's news.

Get out much?
Get a clue!
Get a grip. Yelling at me won't sell your PoV. Note the words under my name.
Salted Sith Cynic

The Sith is a joke, the other two words aren't.

DR

[Elind]

Name one.

Many are possible, and clearly my comment about education was correct. Shall we start with India and work down in size?

Besides, what right do we have to tell other countries that democracies with a rule of law is the kind of government they must have?

Wow!:eye-poppi



The issue isn't "going back" to tribal customs. The issue is imposing rule from a foreign country as opposed to countries ruling themselves.


Wow!:eye-poppi


So in other words, no. You have no evidence that Iraq is in any way relevant to US national security.

World oil supplies, for starters, are relevant to every nations' national security, but that would take an education in elementary economics to appreciate.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, you tried to put words into my mouth with your question, and I did not want to waste time and emotion on you. I wanted to engage with godless dave ...
DRWhatever...