Is Iraq better or worse??

Flukey

It is a bit rich that George Bush is calling for a total withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon before elections are held there while the allied troops are firmly ensconced in Iraq.

Sand

I have no idea what argument your trying to make here and would welcome a more complete explanation.

Im making an argument against the common idea that because Iraq hasnt gone from opressive dictatorship to Jeffersonian democracy in a blink of an eye that it never will, that because bombs are going off now, that they always will - and against perhaps the most ridiculous idea that Arabs cant do democracy and needed a Saddam Hussein to keep law and order.

Irelands birth was greeted with an immediate and bitter civil war, mutinies in the army, economic depression and a falling out with out most important trade partner and neighbour, all of which supported the common view that the hotheaded celtic Irish couldnt run a successful democracy, and whilst British rule mightnt have been all smiles and sunshine, it was a damn sight better than the civil war and paramilitaries roaming the land. Does this view remind you of any views on this thread?

Change is never stable, it doesnt follow a timetable and its rarely polite. The status quo in Ireland wasnt acceptable and change was required and was achieved. The status quo in Iraq was even less acceptable, change was required and it is being achieved. That doesnt mean a liberal democracy is guaranteed, but Iraq and the Iraqi have the potential to build a liberal democracy now.

People should stop trying to predict the future by looking at the present. Journalists make that mistake all the time - they give too much weight to the present, always trying to say how this event will affect the future without knowing if indeed it will be anything more than a footnote in history. The doomsayers should rein in their messages of doom, theyll look less foolish in the end.

Sparks

Sand wrote:

all of which supported the common view that the hotheaded celtic Irish couldnt run a successful democracy, and whilst British rule mightnt have been all smiles and sunshine, it was a damn sight better than the civil war and paramilitaries roaming the land.

A view which had solid economic backing right up to the early '90s, as I recall. Even today, N.Ireland has a better standard in terms of medical costs, food costs, infrastructure and so on, because of the amount of money pumped into it by the UK - so there's an economic argument that had we not fought for independence we'd be better off today.

The status quo in Ireland wasnt acceptable

To a minority of revolutionaries. I don't recall a referendum on the matter, and I do note the historical record of the popular reaction to Pearse's rising in 1916 - people spitting on him in the streets, local authorities nationwide calling for his public execution and so on. Home Rule was what was being sought, not revolution, don't forget.

People should stop trying to predict the future by looking at the present.

And yet, that's precisely what your entire post was doing, albiet indirectly.

.. so, the UK is definitively a worse country to live in because their death rate is higher than Irelands (7.91 vs 10.19 per 1,000)?
I won't mention that Iraq is lower than both, at 5.66. Oops!

I'm not sure where you're getting the 5.66 figure from. The Lancet tally came to 98,000 deaths through violence since the invasion. A quick summary of the Lancet report:

“The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000-194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.”

So after the invasion, you were FIFTY-EIGHT times more likely to be killed violently than before the invasion. Off-hand, I'd say that's an indicator that Iraq now is not better off than Iraq under Sadaam, and as you yourself said Sand, people shouldn't predict the future as they don't know how to do so...

Redleslie2

Redleslie2 wrote:

That agent who died protecting her is a bloody hero.

you know,I thought that killing was a disgracefull incident
But I fail to see where the conclusion can be drawn that the soldiers that fired on that car were targeting the italians-they didnt know-they made a horrible mistake and one of many except in this case an even bigger one from a pr point of view given who was killed.
This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

sovtek

Flukey wrote:

It is a bit rich that George Bush is calling for a total withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon before elections are held there while the allied troops are firmly ensconced in Iraq.

How (Karl) Rovian it is to publicly decry your enemy for the doing the same damn thing you are.
Ask Ann Richards.

sovtek

Earthman wrote:

This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

Oh yes blame the insurgents for trigger happy grunts.
If you recall 2-15 Iraqi civilians (per day) were being killed by US soldiers on the ground BEFORE there were any insurgents.
Remember...trigger happy soldiers first....popular resistance and suicide bombs....later.
Hence the root of the problem.

sovtek

sovtek wrote:

Oh yes blame the insurgents for trigger happy grunts.
If you recall 2-15 Iraqi civilians (per day) were being killed by US soldiers on the ground BEFORE there were any insurgents.
Remember...trigger happy soldiers first....popular resistance and suicide bombs....later.
Hence the root of the problem.

Oh I'm not denying that they were trigger happy before, they clearly were, they're just trigger crazy now,how many did that last suicide bomb kill again,over a hundred?How many of the dead were Iraqi's?
Like I was just pointing out the obvious,they didnt shout kill that italian scum or anything when they were fireing, they just made their now understandable but undeniably wreckless triggerhappy choice first and asked questions later.

SkepticOne

Are the Iraqis better off? Not really important to me. I never believed that the war fundamentally was about improving the lot of the Iraqis but rather that it was about securing a source of cheap oil. In this the Americans have largely failed.

If the Americans sat down and really thought about their interests logically the war would probably not have happened. Instead they were influenced by ideologically driven Neoconservatives who were obsessed with Iraq. They were also misled by exiled Iraqis who told them that there would be flowers thown at them by the multitude when they invaded. Of course Saddam was hated by most Iraqis but the Americans did not take into consideration how ground down by fear the majority was. They also did not take into consideration that there were substantial groups who did very well indeed under Saddam despite the suffering of the majority and who stood to lose by any form of change, particularly democratic change. It was not, after all, popularity that that got these groups into their comfortable position in the first place but intimidation. The Americans did not fully take into consideration that these groups, knowing nothing else, would continue such with tactics in an attempt to regain their former privilaged positions.

I did not particularly care about the Iraqis before the war so I don't see any real reason to care about them now but I think they would probably be worse off if Saddam and his psychopathic sons continued in power. It may be worse at this particular point in time but there is at least a possibility of something better though the Americans are not doing enough to deal with the former Baathists, fanatics and common criminals that make up the insurgency. Iraq can only proceed with something better when these elements are properly dealt with.

Sand

A view which had solid economic backing right up to the early '90s, as I recall. Even today, N.Ireland has a better standard in terms of medical costs, food costs, infrastructure and so on, because of the amount of money pumped into it by the UK - so there's an economic argument that had we not fought for independence we'd be better off today.

Bad economic government wasnt/isnt a state of affairs unique to Ireland. Socialist views were widespread and it took a lot of time for them to be wholly discredited and for government to stop treating business as some sort of enemy which much be taxed into the ground for the crime of generating employment and investment out of their control.

To a minority of revolutionaries. I don't recall a referendum on the matter, and I do note the historical record of the popular reaction to Pearse's rising in 1916 - people spitting on him in the streets, local authorities nationwide calling for his public execution and so on. Home Rule was what was being sought, not revolution, don't forget.

And by 1918 it was unnacceptable to the majority of voters as exspressed by who they elected..... See what I mean about dont predict the future as simply being a continuation of the present?

And yet, that's precisely what your entire post was doing, albiet indirectly.

How? Am I the one predicting that Iraq will never have a peaceful stable democracy because its currently fighting insurgents now?

I dont know how Iraq will turn out. Ill tell you one thing, in 10 years, it wont be the same as it is now. Im hopeful because theyve agreed a basic constitution, theyve held elections that were far more successful than the doomsayers predicted, the Sunni political leaders have decided to come in from the cold and the Kurds and the Shias seem ready to accept that, theres noises that the more secular insurgent factions are looking for a political settlement with the Iraqi government and the insurgency, whilst it is currently fighting hard, cannot sustain itself forever. The potential for an Iraqi democracy is there, but its up the Iraqis themselves more than anyone what they do with that potential. And yes, that means Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam when that wasnt even slightly possible.

Sand

they just made their now understandable but undeniably wreckless triggerhappy choice first and asked questions later.

From my understanding of what happened, the reckless decision was the one to drive hell for leather at a checkpoint. Soliders tend to assume some car racing at them instead of slowing down is a threat, especially when the enemy uses a lot of suicide car bombers.

Moriarty

Sparks wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting the 5.66 figure from. The Lancet tally came to 98,000 deaths through violence since the invasion. A quick summary of the Lancet report:

So after the invasion, you were FIFTY-EIGHT times more likely to be killed violently than before the invasion. Off-hand, I'd say that's an indicator that Iraq now is not better off than Iraq under Sadaam, and as you yourself said Sand, people shouldn't predict the future as they don't know how to do so...

Irish, British, Iraqi. If you can find an offical rate for 2004 that disagrees with those figures, I'd like to see too.

Irish people were stastically a number of times more likely to be killed in terrorist attacks in 1974 when Dublin and Monaghan were bombed. Reaching conclusions on long-term sucess or failure based on such snapshot statistics is flawed.

My understanding of what happened to the Italians was that a US patrol on the airport road weren't told to expect a car driving at high speed to the airport, even though US command in the area had told the Italians that everyone was informed. It sounds like a communications fúckup that cost one person their life and got another one fairly seriously injured.

Redleslie2

Earthman wrote:

you know,I thought that killing was a disgracefull incident
But I fail to see where the conclusion can be drawn that the soldiers that fired on that car were targeting the italians-they didnt know-they made a horrible mistake and one of many except in this case an even bigger one from a pr point of view given who was killed.
This looks to me like an indirect sucess for the insurgents in that they've carbombed and suicide bombed enough Iraqi and coalition check points at this stage to make those manning them very warey and very trigger happy when an unknown car comes up to them.

During the burst of gunfire that killed him and left her with wounds to a lung, the 56-year-old correspondent said a warning from her kidnappers that the Americans would try to kill her came back to haunt her.

"I immediately thought of what my kidnappers had told me. They said they were committed to releasing me, but that I had to be careful 'because there are Americans who don't want you to go back'," she wrote.

"Nicola Calipari was seated at my side. The driver had spoken twice to the embassy and to Italy that we were on our way to the airport that I knew was saturated with American troops, we were less than a kilometre they told me... ... when... I remember there was shooting."

I wouldn't be surprised if the soldiers on the ground were fed some false information so that a convenient accident could occur.

Moriarty

lmfao

Yeah, whatever redleslie.

Redleslie2

On the other hand, the benefits of having her murdered could easily be outweighed by a hostile reaction by the Italian public and government.

Redleslie2

Wounded journalist suggests she was targeted

Lmao? I'll take Ms.Sgrena's analysis of the incident a little bit more seriously than some anonymous interweb adolescent's anyday.

Moriarty

But of course you would, that's what makes it all so funny.

Redleslie2

Man dies performing act of heroism. Hilarious isn't it everyone.

Moriarty

No, the hilarious part is the dreaming up of a vast conspiracy to shoot dead some random journalist you no doubt have a soft spot for just because she fights the power writing for her communist journal. IT'S ALL PART OF THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY TO KEEP LEFTIST THINKING DOWN DAMNIT, CAN'T YOU READ BETWEEN THE FRIKIN LINES!?

That's the funny part. That yourself, and people like you, will use anything to further your political cause.

That she was injured and a man killed is the sad and unfortunate reality.

bonkey

Could you two stop the bickering please?

The Corinthian

Moriarty wrote:

No, the hilarious part is the dreaming up of a vast conspiracy to shoot dead some random journalist you no doubt have a soft spot for just because she fights the power writing for her communist journal.

Sgrena’s own credentials are from Italy’s looney left so her account of what occurred should have taken with some level of cynicism. After all, killing her on the way to the airport would have been politically the worst thing the Americans could have done if all they were attempting to do was discourage the practice of negotiating with insurgents. If they were going to do that, they should have done so prior to her release into Italian hands.

Of course it may still be part of a conspiracy and there may also be information that we are not yet privy to, but that’s unlikely. Chances are it was simply another in a long line of screw-ups on the part of some trigger-happy eighteen-year-old redneck marines - except this time they shot a white guy, so we all got to hear about it.

Or as Napoleon Bonaparte once said; "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Could you two stop the bickering please?

Bicker? Moi? I'm just wondering what Moriarty is doing in this forum as I've observed that most of his posts here are smarmy trolls and personal attacks like the rubbish above which have nothing to do with anything, least of all the topic. TC and I got threatened with bans for far less.

For any of the pro-war lot to accuse anybody else of conspiracy nuttery when they accept and regurgitate any old lies and made up history that come out of the white house/downing street is a bit cheeky really.

Moriarty

Redleslie2 wrote:

.. like the rubbish above which have nothing to do with anything, least of all the topic.

Show me where I've been off topic in this thread. I don't think I have been. (Well, up until this unfortunate post.)

Redleslie2 wrote:

For any of the pro-war lot to accuse anybody else of conspiracy nuttery when they accept and regurgitate any old lies and made up history that come out of the white house/downing street is a bit cheeky really.

Link me to where I've ever lied or made up something on this forum. You won't find anything, because I never have.

It's great the way you're PMing me abuse now though, I really like that touch.

Please don't accuse me of lying or making stuff up (or trolling), just because you obviously don't subscribe to views that I do.

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

Irelands birth was greeted with an immediate and bitter civil war, mutinies in the army, economic depression and a falling out with out most important trade partner and neighbour, all of which supported the common view that the hotheaded celtic Irish couldnt run a successful democracy, and whilst British rule mightnt have been all smiles and sunshine, it was a damn sight better than the civil war and paramilitaries roaming the land. Does this view remind you of any views on this thread?

So your comparing the experiences 26 of 32 counties on a small island on the periphery of Europe.
Which in the 1920's had basically one culture (Irish and roman catholic) Which made up around 90% of the population of what would become the Rep of Ireland at the time.
Which (for the most part) had no outside interference.
With Iraq and the greater middle east general and Iraq in particular?

Which has the bulk of the oil reserves on the planet (Middle East) and as such is central to world affairs.
Has to apposing religions (Muslim and Jewish) and the interference of a third (Christian) through the invasion and occupation of Iraq by Britain and the US.
Has many different ethnic groupings (kurd, Arab and Persian).
Two apposing brands of the same Muslim religion (Shia and Sunni) and within each branch apposing views on how they should involve themselves with the rest of the world (secular v Sharia)

Glad we got that one straightened out..................................

AmenToThat

Another point about the new 'democratic Iraq' is that it is being moulded by America and with American tactics

So will Guantamino Bay type establishments be operated by the Iraqi's?

What about torture and murder, a favourite weapon of the Americans, will that be accaptable in the new democratic Iraq?
Recent reports comming out of Iraq would suggest that torture and corruption are already widespread so the training seems to be on schedual in that department anyways.

Any lets not forget that its those trigger happy Americans that are training the Iraqi forces.
So does that means the Iraqi's will be operating a shoot first and ask questions later policy as well as the good old fashioned smashing down of random doors in the middle of the night and terrifying the occupants before dragging away anyone of fighting age and locking them up in Abu Graib for months on end without trial.

What about the death penalty which is outlawed within the EU but is burning up the fossil fuels at a tremendous rate in the US.
Will that be part of the new democratic Iraq?

This whole process in Iraq is a sham.
It may well produce a government but a democracy based around the ideals we generally hold in Europe to be just and good?
Not a chance imho, unless of course you feel europeans should reintroduce the death penalty, shoot to kill policies, detention centres that controvene international law as well as torture and murder on a massive scale.

Redleslie2

Anyway, back on topic, can someone on the pro-fiasco side please post a list of today's victories. All I'm getting from the left wing biased media is stuff like Attacks kill Iraqi police, troops and so on.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Could you two stop the bickering please?

Apparently not.

Fair enough....I'll stop it.

Redleslie2 and Moriarty banned indefinitely.

jc

mike65

!

Mike.

pete

Italy's foreign minister has demanded the US "identify and punish" those responsible for the death of an Italian intelligence agent in Iraq.
Gianfranco Fini said the US and Italy had different versions of what happened to Nicola Calipari, who died under US fire while escorting a freed hostage.

The US says shots were fired because the vehicle was speeding and did not heed troops' warnings for it to stop.

But Mr Fini said the car was travelling at no more than 40km per hour.

Calipari had also made "all the necessary contacts" with US and Italian officials about the hostage's release and the journey to the airport, he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328551.stm

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328551.stm

It's interesting to note that this demand has come from the leader of the National Alliance party and not directly from Berlusconi or any member of his Forza Italia party.

AmenToThat

The Corinthian wrote:

It's interesting to note that this demand has come from the leader of the National Alliance party and not directly from Berlusconi or any member of his Forza Italia party.

Yes its very interesting that that noted democrat, advocate of equal opportunities and fair play for all hasnt been at the head of the national sense of outrage in Italy over the events surrounding the death of the Italian agent......