Bush losing his grip on Iraq

[crocodile deathroll]

Chirak warned the US there would be unforseen consequences for invading Iraq and he was right.
It is hardly a shining model of law and order as the region threatens to erupt in chronic civil war.

Here is the last from the [b] BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3191137.stm)

[Tony]

Things like this were unforseen?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
Things like this were unforseen?
Yeah, pretty much. The Bushies thought that by getting rid of Saddam, the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. Those of us who tried to disabuse them of this notion were accused of being "unpatriotic".

This is borne out in the fact that the war and its aftermath are, by the government's own admission, much more expensive than we were originally told. That says to me that the post-war situation was "unforseen". What does it say to you, Tony?

[Tony]

That's funny, I heard that civil strife and violence (among other things) was a big possibility.

To say things like this were unforseen is just stupid.

This is borne out in the fact that the war and its aftermath are, by the government's own admission, much more expensive than we were originally told. That says to me that the post-war situation was "unforseen". What does it say to you, Tony?

It says to me that the government was wrong in its original estimation. (what else is new)

You people are just grasping for validation.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
That's funny, I heard that civil strife and violence (among other things) was a big possibility.

To say things like this were unforseen is just stupid.
They didn't expect to need so many troops for so long. To say this was forseen is just stupid.

Originally posted by Tony
It says to me that the government was wrong in its original estimation. (what else is new)

You people are just grasping for validation.
Well, I had my pre-war ticket validated a long time ago. Before the war started, I said the the US would win the war easily, but would have a much harder time winning the peace. The Bushies tried to sell us on this plan of going in, kicking out Saddam, and then riding off into the sunset. I think many Americans are surprised by what has happened.

Personally, my only surprise is that they haven't found weapons of mass destruction. I truly believed that they existed. I am not at all surprised by the resistance of the Iraqi people to a foreign presence who doesn't believe the same things they do and have lots of guns. Why this surprises Bush et. al. is a mystery.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tony
Things like this were unforseen?

Heck yeah they were unforeseen. Bush and Co. assumed that as soon as the shooting stopped, then peace would occur soon thereafter.

They thought that Iraq had numerous chemical and biological weapons, but they did not have any.
They thought that there would be a serious refugee problem would people fleeing the fighting, but this did not happen.
They thought there would be numerous oil well fires, but there were only a few.
They did not adequately plan for post-Saddam security, which is why there was much looting and why the daily attacks continue.
They assumed that Iraqi oil revenue would be able to provided financial support after the war, but production is so low and the equipment is in such
bad shape that it will take months and billions of dollars to sort it out.
They expected that many more of the Iraqis would support the USA, and while quite a few do, there are also quite a few who are extremely upset that their country has been invaded.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
That's funny, I heard that civil strife and violence (among other things) was a big possibility.

To say things like this were unforseen is just stupid.

People (like you, for instance) were very vocal in accusing people who stated such concerns as deliberate traitors who were trying to undermine truth, justice and the american way of life.

So, maybe it wasn't unforseen, but in fact people were abused, accused of federal crimes, told to leave the country (by citizens, not, I hope by the government, but I wonder), and in a few cases beat up in bars (I no longer have the cite, it was in Tuckwilla, Wa) for saying that there might be a problem after the war.

So, Tony, since you WERE one of the people railling at people who expressed concerns, you need to take some responsibility here. I don't know if "unforseen" was the right word, but "suppressed" certainly was.

This is borne out in the fact that the war and its aftermath are, by the government's own admission, much more expensive than we were originally told. That says to me that the post-war situation was "unforseen". What does it say to you, Tony?

It says to me that the government was wrong in its original estimation. (what else is new)

It says that they igored the (at least partially scientific) advice from experts on the subject, and in fact subjected those experts to a verbal barrage of abuse and accusation from the Attourney General, The Secy' of War, and various other places in the executive branch.

Given the obvious contempt that the present white house shows for any kind of science or scientist, even those on the fringe, I guess this isn't surprising.

You people are just grasping for validation.
You're trying to duck responsibility for your own words.

[nightwind]

Surely not unforseen, heck I even forsaw, and I'm certainly no strategist.

I do think that sometimes we assume that all cultures, people, etc, think and act as we do. And that is just not the case.

The U.S. will have to maintain a presence for years, if not, I certainly believe in just a short time, it would be back in the hands of Saddam.

[Skeptic]

Heck yeah they were unforeseen. Bush and Co. assumed that as soon as the shooting stopped, then peace would occur soon thereafter.

No, they didn't. The idea that there will be terrorist attacks in Iraq, and that it would be hard to establish a stable government, was rather obvious from the start.

What IS forseen, however, is that every time something like this happen there is going to be general gnashing of teeth from those who were against the war, claiming it was all "forseen". The problem is that these "forecasts" tend to be of the same amazing specificity and helpfulness of Sylvia Browne's claims.

Chiraq would have been a bit more impressive if he had said something more specific than "the war would have unforseen consequences", which means nothing more than "some surprising stuff, I don't know what, will happen." (Gee, really???)

Of course, it was far easier to forsee that Saddam would have continued with his 10,000-20,000 or so butchered Iraqis per year if he remained in power. The point is, the war in Iraq was not justified because it was easy or profitable--it was justified because removing Saddam Hussein was necessary.

They did not adequately plan for post-Saddam security, which is why there was much looting and why the daily attacks continue.
They assumed that Iraqi oil revenue would be able to provided financial support after the war, but production is so low and the equipment is in such bad shape that it will take months and billions of dollars to sort it out.

Yes, amazingly enough, things are harder than expected in Iraq--as the usually are in war. So? What we have here is a comparison between what is at least a relative, if imperfect, good (US rebuilding of Iraq) to what is horrendously evil (Saddam Hussein's dictatorship).

To compare, it took ten years, more or less, to rebuild Europe--and contain the communist menace that threathened to overrun it--after WWII. This was a lot longer, and it proved a lot harder, than people expected. Does that mean WWII wasn't justified? Of course not.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[What IS forseen, however, is that every time something like this happen there is going to be general gnashing of teeth from those who were against the war, claiming it was all "forseen". The problem is that these "forecasts" tend to be of the same amazing specificity and helpfulness of Sylvia Browne's claims.

Really?

That's a serious accusation.

Care to provide some evidence?

I will agree that it was obvious that the post-war would be big trouble.

I don't agree that comparing it to WWII is in any way appropriate, since in WWII most of the people "freed" by the west agreed that they were "freed", and were not particularly unhappy about it.

I do think that the administration either misjudged the extent of the post-war problem or understated it. I don't claim to know if it was a failure of wisdom or ethics, because I don't know which it was.

[ssibal]

You forget the fact that foreign fighters are supposedly pouring into Iraq just to cause trouble for the U.S.. I am wondering how many attacks are from angry Iraqis and how many are from angry foreigners.

[dsm]

Does it matter? Either way, it's something that should've been foreseen as a possibility and planned for in the execution of the war. :rolleyes:

[CapelDodger]

Surely the situation on the ground means we can all agree on two things:

1) Those things that were foreseen were inadequately prepared for.

2) Those things that were unforeseen have not been adequately responded to.

With the bomb today the old regime sends out another message - they're still there and they can get to anybody. The US is already complaining about a lack of intel from the population; get ready to cope with less. It's like a drunkard's walk - some days things get worse, the other days things don't get better. And the Bush Administration is flailing around.

But plenty of contracts have been awarded. Seems a bit meaningless at the moment, doesn't it?

From Skeptic:
Chiraq would have been a bit more impressive if he had said something more specific than "the war would have unforseen consequences", which means nothing more than "some surprising stuff, I don't know what, will happen." (Gee, really???)
Well yeah, gee really. There's no evidence that the White House showed any appreciation of this. They seem to have been left completely at sea because the three lines their analysts gave them (I'm assuming about three different scenarios) don't cover the reality.

:wink8:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, they didn't. The idea that there will be terrorist attacks in Iraq, and that it would be hard to establish a stable government, was rather obvious from the start.

What IS forseen, however, is that every time something like this happen there is going to be general gnashing of teeth from those who were against the war, claiming it was all "forseen". The problem is that these "forecasts" tend to be of the same amazing specificity and helpfulness of Sylvia Browne's claims.
No paranormal stuff involved. Simply looking at what has happened in the past and what the world is like today. It should have been obvious that establishing a stable government would be difficult, yet this obvious fact was never mentioned in the pre-war buzz. Maybe they knew it, but they sure as hell didn't talk about it. Of course, that might have detracted from public support for the war. Can't have that.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, it was far easier to forsee that Saddam would have continued with his 10,000-20,000 or so butchered Iraqis per year if he remained in power. The point is, the war in Iraq was not justified because it was easy or profitable--it was justified because removing Saddam Hussein was necessary.
Nice word, "butchered". It conveys not only death but a sense of inevitbility. That is why so many people like to use it to describe Saddam's regime. But is it true? Did he take people and put them in concentration camps then evicerate them? Hardly. He supressed groups that rebelled against his government. I don't think his actions were justified, but he didn't go into towns and kill everyone on a whim. He had a lot of people who hated him and he tried to take them out. What would you do if you had groups trying to kill you?

In any case, Saddam had been a very poor "butcher" for the last ten years or so. He had to content himself with executing a few people here and there. The US killed ten times more innocent civilians in one month than Saddam had done in the last ten years. Does that make the US "butchers"?

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, amazingly enough, things are harder than expected in Iraq--as the usually are in war. So? What we have here is a comparison between what is at least a relative, if imperfect, good (US rebuilding of Iraq) to what is horrendously evil (Saddam Hussein's dictatorship).
So here we are struggling to get things up to "almost as good as before the war". In spite of the sanctions, the country was struggling through. They couldn't afford repairs and they couldn't move forward in any way, but they still had the semblance of an infrastructure. Now they don't. Yes, we have agreed to rebuild it, but wouldn't have been much easier to rebuild it if we hadn't bombed it in the first place? Much of the problems in Iraq are of our own making.

Originally posted by Skeptic
To compare, it took ten years, more or less, to rebuild Europe--and contain the communist menace that threathened to overrun it--after WWII. This was a lot longer, and it proved a lot harder, than people expected. Does that mean WWII wasn't justified? Of course not.
Yes, it will take a long time to rebuild Iraq, just as it took a long time to rebuild Europe after WW II. But few will argue that WWII wasn't necessary. That is not true of Iraq. Most of the world helped rebuild Europe after WWII. That is not true of Iraq. The people of Europe were ultimately grateful that the Nazi threat was destroyed. That is not true of Iraq, yet. They are waiting to see if the most secular, westernized country in the Moslem world is going to continue to be that way. So am I.

[Landis]

I think the Bush administration was aware of the problems with rebuilding Iraq after the war. I think they understimated the number of Iraqi's who want us to leave and they did expect to get the oil flowing by now. In general, however, they knew it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

They did not, however, want the American public to know about the difficulties and they did a remarkably good snow job in selling us the War without spelling out the consequences. Unfortunately for Bush, the American public is beginning to wake up to the cost (both financial and physical) of this war. Everytime a single US soldier dies, it affects a community somewhere in America. As long as this mess continues to drag on, Bush's popularity will continue to plummet. The American public does not want to see daily reminders of US deaths and Billions of $ flowing to rebuild a foreign country when there is so much need right here at home.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky
Did he take people and put them in concentration camps then evicerate them? Hardly. He supressed groups that rebelled against his government. I don't think his actions were justified, but he didn't go into towns and kill everyone on a whim.


Actually, that's pretty much exactly what he did with the Kurds. Need I remind you of Halabja? You're right, he didn't have concentration camps, he just did his torturing and summary execustions in standard prisons - which makes a difference to you, apparently, but I doubt it matters to those he killed.


In any case, Saddam had been a very poor "butcher" for the last ten years or so. He had to content himself with executing a few people here and there. The US killed ten times more innocent civilians in one month than Saddam had done in the last ten years. Does that make the US "butchers"?


Depends how you want to count. What about all the people who died because Saddam abused the food for oil program, funneling massive amounts of money and resources meant for the Iraqi people to keep himself and his cronies living the high life? Is their blood not also on his hands? No, even counting only since 1991, he was a butcher. The selectivity of the numbers you choose does not change that fact, and you're an appologist for trying. There's a particular line of flawed reasoning that I'm waiting to see if you respond with...


Yes, we have agreed to rebuild it, but wouldn't have been much easier to rebuild it if we hadn't bombed it in the first place? Much of the problems in Iraq are of our own making.


No, it would have been impossibe to rebuild if we hadn't bombed. Little of the damage was actually caused by bombing in the first place, but without an invasion, Saddam would be in power, and reconstruction of the damage HE did would be completely impossible. Let's be real here: virtually ALL of the problems in Iraq are of Saddam's making.


But few will argue that WWII wasn't necessary. That is not true of Iraq.


MANY people thought before WWII that it wasn't necessary to stop Germany by force, that diplomacy could work. This was completely wrong, and was demonstrated rather painfully. The fact that we acted before it became painfully clear to the entire world that Saddam could not be stopped through diplomacy does not make that any less true.


Most of the world helped rebuild Europe after WWII. That is not true of Iraq.


The United States was the only significant external source of aid for the reconstruction of western Europe. And it's not too late for Europe to step up to the plate, stop acting like spoiled children, and actually help out.


The people of Europe were ultimately grateful that the Nazi threat was destroyed. That is not true of Iraq, yet.


You're getting further and further from the truth. The Iraqis are thrilled that Saddam is gone. It's the rest of the arab world that is bitter, because they backed a losing horse and because the arab leadership is scared as hell at the prospect of real democracy in the region. They want their independence, of course, but don't think for a minute that they're not glad to see Saddam gone, and they KNOW that our invasion was the only possible way to accomplish that. Many Eurpopeans, on the other hand, seem to want to either forget this fact or pretend it doesn't matter.

[jj]

Originally posted by Landis
The American public does not want to see daily reminders of US deaths and Billions of $ flowing to rebuild a foreign country when there is so much need right here at home.

Although I think this has the potential to be a very serious fiasco, our military really is doing very well in terms of injured and killed. Let's not forget that. If, as a lot of us fear, this has 'nam potential, we're still in the first 6 months, and I hope we all learned something the last few times about things like "limited engagement" and "police actions".

(Although I despise the way the war got started, I don't blame the military for that, and I think the military has done a pretty (*(& good job here. The problem now is social and economic, and that's not what the military is for.)

The predictions that todays' bomb will make the resistance worse is, I think, misbegotten. People may clam up in the short term, but it's a present reminder of what's even worse...

[dsm]

Originally posted by jj
The problem now is social and economic, and that's not what the military is for.

Does Rumsfeld agree with that statement? :eek:

[Shinytop]

Shortly after the war I read where the military was scrambling to find translaters to help train Iraqi police. To me that is a clear example of how badly prepared the government was for the mission. How could it be a surprise to find we needed translaters?

[jj]

Originally posted by dsm


Does Rumsfeld agree with that statement? :eek:

I wouldn't doubt it, but I don't know, not having discussed it with him or having seen our glorious press ask him that question in any effective fashion, either.

Your point?

(Btw, saying that the problem is social and economic does not mean that one might be withdrawing troops. That would make the problem social, enconomic, and chaotic. Hardly an improvement, that.)

[jj]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Shortly after the war I read where the military was scrambling to find translaters to help train Iraqi police. To me that is a clear example of how badly prepared the government was for the mission. How could it be a surprise to find we needed translaters?

This after they dumped a bunch of translators who got told on despite the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Well, so it goes. I know it was translators who were involved, but I don't frankly know what language they spoke, so it's not clear this is germane.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what he did with the Kurds. Need I remind you of Halabja? You're right, he didn't have concentration camps, he just did his torturing and summary execustions in standard prisons - which makes a difference to you, apparently, but I doubt it matters to those he killed.


Umm. When did he do this and how many did he kill? :confused:


Depends how you want to count. What about all the people who died because Saddam abused the food for oil program, funneling massive amounts of money and resources meant for the Iraqi people to keep himself and his cronies living the high life? Is their blood not also on his hands? No, even counting only since 1991, he was a butcher. The selectivity of the numbers you choose does not change that fact, and you're an appologist for trying. There's a particular line of flawed reasoning that I'm waiting to see if you respond with...


Again, what are the numbers? How does he stack up to the other butchers around the world?


No, it would have been impossibe to rebuild if we hadn't bombed. Little of the damage was actually caused by bombing in the first place, but without an invasion, Saddam would be in power, and reconstruction of the damage HE did would be completely impossible. Let's be real here: virtually ALL of the problems in Iraq are of Saddam's making.


Hmmm. Weird logic here on both sides...


MANY people thought before WWII that it wasn't necessary to stop Germany by force, that diplomacy could work. This was completely wrong, and was demonstrated rather painfully. The fact that we acted before it became painfully clear to the entire world that Saddam could not be stopped through diplomacy does not make that any less true.


So, given how much you knew about Saddam before the war, how long would it have been before he rose to being a hairs breadth from dominating most of the world as Hitler did?

:rolleyes:


The United States was the only significant external source of aid for the reconstruction of western Europe. And it's not too late for Europe to step up to the plate, stop acting like spoiled children, and actually help out.


But it's more fun to watch the US slowly come to terms with admitting it might've been wrong about the war in Iraq.


You're getting further and further from the truth. The Iraqis are thrilled that Saddam is gone. It's the rest of the arab world that is bitter, because they backed a losing horse and because the arab leadership is scared as hell at the prospect of real democracy in the region. They want their independence, of course, but don't think for a minute that they're not glad to see Saddam gone, and they KNOW that our invasion was the only possible way to accomplish that. Many Eurpopeans, on the other hand, seem to want to either forget this fact or pretend it doesn't matter.


The interesting question here is will the US (or anyone) be able to transform Iraq into a democratic society for the long term?

:(

[CapelDodger]

From jj:
Although I despise the way the war got started, I don't blame the military for that, and I think the military has done a pretty (*(& good job here
The military side was handled excellently; they achieved the objectives they were given - which were extremely stretching - very professionally. To move that quickly while moving the mass of supplies necessary along communication lines that were never seriously threatened despite the speed of advance - staff work of the highest order and professionalism all the way down.

Sadly it may have been the wrong strategy, but you can't blame the military for political decisions. A slower approach would have allowed consolidation of pacified areas and an acclimatisation to the realities of Iraqi life. It would also have sounded a louder and louder bell of doom in the centre of Iraqi power. The complete collapse of all authority may not have happened. But that's got nothing to do with the military.

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From jj:

The military side was handled excellently; they achieved the objectives they were given - which were extremely stretching - very professionally. To move that quickly while moving the mass of supplies necessary along communication lines that were never seriously threatened despite the speed of advance - staff work of the highest order and professionalism all the way down.

Sadly it may have been the wrong strategy, but you can't blame the military for political decisions. A slower approach would have allowed consolidation of pacified areas and an acclimatisation to the realities of Iraqi life. It would also have sounded a louder and louder bell of doom in the centre of Iraqi power. The complete collapse of all authority may not have happened. But that's got nothing to do with the military.

Wow. Something I agree with. Must have had a good lunch. :)

[dsm]

Originally posted by jj

Your point?


The military in the field may have done a good job at what they were told to do with respect to Iraq, but the politicians above them fell down on the "big picture" thinking about what it would all mean (notably Rumsfeld).

[a_unique_person]

I think Bush should have just stuck to the partying and cocaine. He wasn't harming anyone then.

[CapelDodger]

From jj:
The predictions that todays' bomb will make the resistance worse is, I think, misbegotten. People may clam up in the short term, but it's a present reminder of what's even worse...
A reminder of any sort is more powerful than the imagination of a pious hope unexperienced. The reminder that the Iraqis received was a reminder of what they have lived under for their entire lives. Try to put yourself in their heads. To you this might be a reminder that things were terrible; to them it's a reminder of what might happen again. The US currently has nothing to offer in terms of what the future nature of Iraq will be. (The only thing they've organised quickly and efficiently is the awarding of contracts to US companies.) The Ba'athists do - "we'll be back". The only sensible option for anyone is to hunker down and look to your own back-yard. No commitment to anything.

Everything's going on around them, and that's how it's always been for them.

[CapelDodger]

from dsm:
The military in the field may have done a good job at what they were told to do with respect to Iraq, but the politicians above them fell down on the "big picture" thinking about what it would all mean (notably Rumsfeld).
Any sightings of Rumsfeld recently? Used to be I'd flinch whenever I switched to CNN because he'd be there ...

[Tony]

So, Tony, since you WERE one of the people railling at people who expressed concerns, you need to take some responsibility here. I don't know if "unforseen" was the right word, but "suppressed" certainly was.

This is just B.S.

I never "railed" at anyone for expressing concerns.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by jj


This after they dumped a bunch of translators who got told on despite the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

Well, so it goes. I know it was translators who were involved, but I don't frankly know what language they spoke, so it's not clear this is germane.

Dumb move to get rid of them. After all, how will they learn the Iraqi phrase for "You've got a pretty mouth..."

[fhios]

Originally posted by Tony
Things like this were unforseen?

Well, if Bush forsaw waging a war without an endgame and thus running the risk of a ceasless loss of American lives, then and only then did he get what he expected. Are you saying that he's some murderous freak, then?

[Tony]

Originally posted by fhios


Well, if Bush forsaw waging a war without an endgame and thus running the risk of a ceasless loss of American lives, then and only then did he get what he expected.

What does this have to do with the article posted?

Again, you are just grasping for validation.

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From jj:

A reminder of any sort is more powerful than the imagination of a pious hope unexperienced. The reminder that the Iraqis received was a reminder of what they have lived under for their entire lives. Try to put yourself in their heads. To you this might be a reminder that things were terrible; to them it's a reminder of what might happen again. The US currently has nothing to offer in terms of what the future nature of Iraq will be. (The only thing they've organised quickly and efficiently is the awarding of contracts to US companies.) The Ba'athists do - "we'll be back". The only sensible option for anyone is to hunker down and look to your own back-yard. No commitment to anything.

Everything's going on around them, and that's how it's always been for them.

Indeed, I agree to a point, however, there is also the anger that will come about, I think, because of the slowly penetrating idea that "it doesn't have to be this way'.

Hopelessness can sometimes be UNlearned, too.

[jj]

Originally posted by dsm


The military in the field may have done a good job at what they were told to do with respect to Iraq, but the politicians above them fell down on the "big picture" thinking about what it would all mean (notably Rumsfeld).

Not sure I can lay the blame all on Rumsfeld...

It seemed epidemic to me, if not pandemic.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tricky

They didn't expect to need so many troops for so long. To say this was forseen is just stupid.


So you agree with me, religious violence and civil strife were not unforseen.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from dsm:

Any sightings of Rumsfeld recently? Used to be I'd flinch whenever I switched to CNN because he'd be there ...

Yes, he is becoming very conspicuous by his absense, even with the N Korea situation. One would think with the current tension with N Korea his arguments for preemtive action would be shouted from the roof tops. Now he is hardly game to show his face.

I think what would if not unforseen would not be surprising that Rumsfield will resign for either so called "health" or "family" reasons in the same vein as Alastaire Campbell.

CDR

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
So you agree with me, religious violence and civil strife were not unforseen.
Unforseen by Bush. Not unforseen by intelligent people.

Show me where Bush planned for this, and I'll accept your objection.

[fhios]

Originally posted by Tony


What does this have to do with the article posted?

Again, you are just grasping for validation.

It states that for the current state of the war to be FORESEEN, Bush would've had to want to end our country up in a military FAILURE. Given that that is unlikely, even in the case of out unelected President, we can assume him to have gotten himself in this mire without expecting it. Also: don't talk like a shrink. It's bad enough when the idiots in that field do it. Each American death justifies a concern over that death, and my concern for a list of dead possibly destined to be several times longer than our current list of casualties justifies at least indicating some of the reasons to doubt the moral and/or practical correctness of the war.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Tricky

Unforseen by Bush. Not unforseen by intelligent people.

Show me where Bush planned for this, and I'll accept your objection.

Bush was foreseeing only rose petals being thrown at the US troops, music played in the streets and oil flowing freely down the pipelines after his pals at Halliburton put out all the oil well fires, what a bonanza!.
The reality is the oil well fires were no where near as bad as expected, but sabotage of the pipelines were a lot worse. A big problem for Halliburton.

Unforseen, especially by Bush.

[subgenius]

Foreseeability:

Whopper of the Week: Rumsfeld
Who knew Saddam's troops would "blend into the countryside"?
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, August 29, 2003, at 7:59 AM PT


"Q: Senator Kerry this morning was talking about what he described as 'the lack of candor' and 'a lack of planning,' in the post-war in particular, that is now jeopardizing life, and he went on to say in his speech, which you undoubtedly heard part of, 'I want the burden taken off the soldiers as soon as possible.' Did the administration plan properly for post-war, and are you playing catch-up now? …

"A: First, out of respect for him, I didn't hear him. I don't know what he actually said, and I don't know the context of your comments. So I'd rather set aside any reference to him. …

"Now was—did we—was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside [italics Chatterbox's] and they're still fighting their war?"

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a media availability at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio,Texas, Aug. 25, 2003.

"The dilemma that the country is facing right now, Afghanistan, is what should they do about their security situation. They have got Taliban and al Qaeda milling around, that have blended into the countryside [italics Chatterbox's], into the villages, across the borders and are ready to come back in in the event they feel they have the opportunity."

—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a town hall meeting at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Feb. 20, 2002.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087712/


I for one am totally sick of the apologists who can never admit the administration might be wrong about anything.
Its a human thing for bob's sake, to be wrong. You know to err is human....
Ignorance is not bliss. Those that don't remember history....aw screw it.

[Skeptic]

Really?

That's a serious accusation.

Care to provide some evidence?

For what? For my claim that politicians' "forecasts" are usually either pos-hoc or totally vague? Just look in today's (or any day's) paper...

Tell you what: why don't look at the newspaper of your choice and examine its report for, say, for the last month. If you find a politician's statement there which ISN'T one of these two, I'd be interested to hear about it...

I don't agree that comparing it to WWII is in any way appropriate, since in WWII most of the people "freed" by the west agreed that they were "freed", and were not particularly unhappy about it.

So are most Iraqis, as anybody who actualy lived for a week under Saddam's rule could tell you.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by dsm

Umm. When did he do this and how many did he kill? :confused:


In 1988, Saddam attacked the town of Halabja with chemical weapons including mustard gas, sarin, VX, killing around 5000 civilians and injuring around 10000 (many permanently). This was part of a larger campaing against the kurds that killed as many as 100,000 people that year.


Again, what are the numbers? How does he stack up to the other butchers around the world?


He's up there. Iran-Iraq was cost 350,000 iraqi lives and 300,000 iranian lives. His campaing against the kurds cost over 100,000 lives. His suppression of the Shia may have cost 30,000 lives. Iraq themselves claimed that 1.5 million died because of sanctions. External estimates are lower (I've seen 500,000 quoted a number of times), but since Saddam ran the food for oil program as his own personal extortion and kickback racket, syphoning off money that could have helped his people and hampering the distribution of food and medical serivices, and because his continued and deliberate noncompliance was a direct cause of the continued sanctions, I consider HIM responsible for those deaths.


So, given how much you knew about Saddam before the war, how long would it have been before he rose to being a hairs breadth from dominating most of the world as Hitler did?

:rolleyes:


That's the wrong question. The real question is how long till he attacked another neighbor, or engaged in another genocidal campaign against the kurds? How long till he got a nuclear weapon? I put that later question within ten years - but we'd never know during that time how close he was, so we'd never be "justified" and attacking was getting harder. But if he got a nuke, it's a safe bet he'd resume hostilities against the kurds, using the nuke as a threat to prevent our interference. At that point, would we risk conflict to save the kurds or, say, Kuwait?


The interesting question here is will the US (or anyone) be able to transform Iraq into a democratic society for the long term?

:(

That's possible. The Iraqis want it. It's their neighbors who are opposed. European governments SHOULD want it, but they don't seem to be acting like they care much. Or they're too cowardly to get involved for fear of failure. Or maybe they're just petty and vindictive because we didn't play by their rules, so they want to take their ball and go home. Probably some mix of the above.