Is Iraq better or worse??

Sand

Glad we got that one straightened out

All of the rest of your post was.....not accurate - as an example, your dismissal of Irish protestants as not being significant despite forming 20% of the islands population and 10% of the Free State/Republics is telling of your lack of information, or your politics.

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

If that was accurate then how is it that Al Sistani can tell the coalition when they will hold elections?

The rest of your post is a rant not worth responding to.

You havent even slightly dealt with the issue that youre writing off Iraq due to its current difficulties in establishing itself, much as critics of the Irish state wrote it off because of its difficulties as it established itself. They were wrong, and I believe that in 10 years time you will be shown to be wrong as well.

AmenToThat

Sand wrote:

All of the rest of your post was.....not accurate - as an example, your dismissal of Irish protestants as not being significant despite forming 20% of the islands population and 10% of the Free State/Republics is telling of your lack of information, or your politics.

We are dealing with the Republic so the figure of 20% is not relevent to this particular discussion.

As for the 10% which was prodestant..............by and large they were in the same parties (those who took part in politics) as their catholic counterparts.
This contrasts greatly with the population of Iraq which has divided along ethnic lines a fact underlined in the recent elections and so again your point is not relevent to this particualar discussion.
As such I would say that it is your facts that are not accurate and which show up your limited understanding of the issues under discussion on this thread.

Sand wrote:

If that was accurate then how is it that Al Sistani can tell the coalition when they will hold elections?

Because Sistani has forced the Americans to hold elections you view this as evidence that America has no imput on how the future of Iraq is shaped?

Sand wrote:

The rest of your post is a rant not worth responding to.

In your opinion, although some might think it was a way of getting out of answering the questions possed as you dont have the answers or worse still know that your answers dont stand up to close examination.

Sand wrote:

You havent even slightly dealt with the issue that youre writing off Iraq due to its current difficulties in establishing itself.

Where did I write off Iraq?
I was simply pointing out that Iraq is a far more complexe issue to resolve because of its centrality to world affairs than Ireland of the 1920's.
If we cant agree on that fact fair enough Iv explained my position and now intend to get back on topic.

SkepticOne

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.

Berlusconi probably doesn't want details of irresponsible bargains with the kidnappers to emerge.

The Corinthian

SkepticOne wrote:

Berlusconi probably doesn't want details of irresponsible bargains with the kidnappers to emerge.

How would that be obfuscated by his foreign minister making those comments rather than him?

pete

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.

Why's that?

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has said the car carrying an Italian agent killed by US fire had stopped immediately a light flashed.
His statement contradicts US accounts of the incident in Iraq in which Nicola Calipari was shot taking freed hostage Giuliana Sgrena to Baghdad airport.

Mr Berlusconi said the US must accept responsibility to restore relations.

...

Speaking to the Italian Senate, Mr Berlusconi said: "Only a frank and reciprocal recognition of eventual responsibility is the condition for closure of the incident, which was so irrational and caused so much sorrow."

The prime minister said the US military had authorised the Italian journey to the airport.

An agent travelling in the car with Mr Calipari had given an account of events which conflicted with the version given by the US military, he added.

"A light was flashed at the vehicle from 10m away," Mr Berlusconi said. "The driver at this point stopped the car immediately and at the same time there was gunfire for about 10 or 15 seconds.

"A few shots reached the vehicle and another one reached and killed Mr Calipari," he said.

"This reconstruction of events has been made according to what has been witnessed by another agent who was with Mr Calipari and does not coincide totally with what has been communicated so far by the US authorities."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4333839.stm

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Why's that?

Because he took his time about it and only did so after one of his coalition partners did so.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Because he took his time about it and only did so after one of his coalition partners did so.

And?

edited to elaborate: Well, yes. We know that. Yes, we know he took his time and only did so after his FM's statement. That much is obvious.

I'm just curious as to what you found interesting about the case yesterday, and what you think his motives were for his statement today. Was he testing the waters first? Was he trying to not piss off GWB? etc

shotamoose

Moriarty wrote:

.. 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!

The crude death rate tends to be higher in countries with much larger populations of elderly people - like Ireland and the UK. The fact is, the Lancet study showed that people were fifty-eight more times more likely to die from violence in the period after the war than in the period beforehand. In total, around 100,000 (at least, probably) more people lost their lives than would have if pre-invasion trends had continued. Serious question (not just to Moriarty, but also to anyone who isn't banned indefinitely): is this a price worth paying? If so, how many dead Iraqis is too many?

Lancet paper is here.

pete

shotamoose wrote:

The crude death rate tends to be higher in countries with much larger populations of elderly people - like Ireland and the UK. The fact is, the Lancet study showed that people were fifty-eight more times more likely to die from violence in the period after the war than in the period beforehand. In total, around 100,000 (at least, probably) more people lost their lives than would have if pre-invasion trends had continued. Serious question (not just to Moriarty, but also to anyone who isn't banned indefinitely): is this a price worth paying? If so, how many dead Iraqis is too many?

Lancet paper is here.

The important thing is those 100,000 died happy and free from oppression.

bbblueyes

AmenToThat wrote:

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

Any other countries want to join in?? I'm sure the American soldiers are tired of policing countries thousands of miles from home. Countries keep bailing out and leaving just a handful of countries to try and keep it from destroying itself. We'd all like this to be over with. After their failure with Vietnam, I'm sure the Americans don't like their boys getting killed on foreign soil.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I'm just curious as to what you found interesting about the case yesterday, and what you think his motives were for his statement today. Was he testing the waters first? Was he trying to not piss off GWB? etc

I think the theory that he used Fini to test the waters is not a bad one, however Italian politics are not so straightforward and I might suggest another.

Friction and differences have repeatedly come up between Forza Italia and Alleanza Natzionale, over the years. Since its days as MSI, Alleanza Natzionale has managed to quietly purge itself of the old neo-Fascist guard, however it’s ideological roots are still essentially founded in Fascism (as with the Rifondazione Comunista is with Communism) and thus leads it to a natural tendency to mistrust America (ironically for much the same reasons that Socialists do).

Additionally, it’s a popular move and Fini is conscious of the fact that Berlusconi will not last forever and as Forza Italia remains little more than a political vehicle for him, this would place Alleanza Natzionale in a position to take over as the principle centre right party.

As such, I might suggest that another distinct possibility is that Fini effectively set the tone for Italy’s demands on the US by speaking out first, Berlusconi (who would most likely have been far more conciliatory) was then forced to back up his foreign minister.

AmenToThat

bbblueyes wrote:

Any other countries want to join in?? I'm sure the American soldiers are tired of policing countries thousands of miles from home. Countries keep bailing out and leaving just a handful of countries to try and keep it from destroying itself. We'd all like this to be over with. After their failure with Vietnam, I'm sure the Americans don't like their boys getting killed on foreign soil.

Thats tough **** Im afraid.
It was America's decision to go to war.
Most right minded people around the world apposed it, so to expect them to put their lives in the line for something they dont believe in is madness.

My point is that the Americans are behaving like fascist in Iraq and if they are the ones training and equiping the 'new Iraq' then how on earth is it supposed to develope into a democracy.
By that I mean a country where human rights are respected and turture, government sanctioned murder are unneceptable and private armies (20,000 private 'security guards' ie mercenaries) are outlawed.

bonkey

bbblueyes wrote:

Any other countries want to join in?? I'm sure the American soldiers are tired of policing countries thousands of miles from home. Countries keep bailing out and leaving just a handful of countries to try and keep it from destroying itself. We'd all like this to be over with. After their failure with Vietnam, I'm sure the Americans don't like their boys getting killed on foreign soil.

Wasn't this the logic originally used by many to explain why the war was a bad idea.

Moriarty

shotamoose wrote:

Serious question (not just to Moriarty, but also to anyone who isn't banned indefinitely): is this a price worth paying? If so, how many dead Iraqis is too many?

I can't tell you right now whether it is a price worth paying. If in ten years time Iraq is building a stable democracy then I'd probably say it was worth it.

I don't think you can put down a specific figure on deaths where up until then it would have been worth it but after that person died it wasn't. It depends on whether something good comes out of all the crap that got these people killed. I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to tell right now whether Iraq will be a better place in ten years than it is now or was pre-invasion.

I'm also of the opinion that what's going on in Iraq had to have happened to a greater or lesser extent at some point in the future if it didn't happen now, before it could become a stable country people are happy to live in. The ethnic and religious undercurrents would have had to have been dealt with at some point - all that was keeping it from boiling over up until now was a tyrannical government and that's no solution.

shotamoose

Moriarty wrote:

I don't think you can put down a specific figure on deaths where up until then it would have been worth it but after that person died it wasn't.

You don't have to be specific. Just a ball-park figure. C'mon, humour me. How many is too many? Half a mil? Because even if the violence dies down to, oh, about half the present rate, that's about what the total would be after about ten years.

I can't tell you right now whether it is a price worth paying. If in ten years time Iraq is building a stable democracy then I'd probably say it was worth it ... I'm of the opinion that it's impossible to tell right now whether Iraq will be a better place in ten years than it is now or was pre-invasion.

I can kind of see your point, it just seems like it's a very high price to pay and the people who are paying it didn't have a choice in the matter - not that they had much of a choice about things under Saddam either. I mean, if the US (or China, for example) suddenly announced that they would quite like to invade some other country labouring under a dictatorship, that it would probably cost some 100,000-200,000 innocent people their lives and untold thousands of others their limbs and/or livelihoods, and that they had no idea whether it would actually be a better place after ten years, you're saying that you would be all in favour?

I'm also of the opinion that what's going on in Iraq had to have happened to a greater or lesser extent at some point in the future if it didn't happen now, before it could become a stable country people are happy to live in. The ethnic and religious undercurrents would have had to have been dealt with at some point - all that was keeping it from boiling over up until now was a tyrannical government and that's no solution.

Bearing in mind that the bulk of those estimated by the Lancet to have died from violence in Iraq after the war seem to have died at the hands of coalition forces and not due to ethnic or religious 'undercurrents', I don't see how you can say that it 'had to happen'.

Moriarty

shotamoose wrote:

You don't have to be specific. Just a ball-park figure. C'mon, humour me. How many is too many? Half a mil? Because even if the violence dies down to, oh, about half the present rate, that's about what the total would be after about ten years.

I can't give you a figure because I don't know. It's not because I don't want to say figures like half a million or a million, it's because I simply can't tell at this point in time. Only when it's all over would I be able to tell you whether however many died was too many.

shotamoose wrote:

I can kind of see your point, it just seems like it's a very high price to pay and the people who are paying it didn't have a choice in the matter - not that they had much of a choice about things under Saddam either. I mean, if the US (or China, for example) suddenly announced that they would quite like to invade some other country labouring under a dictatorship, that it would probably cost some 100,000-200,000 innocent people their lives and untold thousands of others their limbs and/or livelihoods, and that they had no idea whether it would actually be a better place after ten years, you're saying that you would be all in favour?

It is a very high price.

In principle I support a policy of military intervention into states like pre-invasion Iraq, when other routes have been exhausted. I think that, properly done, international military intervention into a number of countries around the world could bring a lot of people out of long term misery and oppression.

The problem is that post-war Iraq has been very poorly managed by the US administration. They tried to do it fast and on the cheap, which has backfired quite spectacularly. A lot of people have died who didn't have to. Any support for military intervention that there may have been before Iraq has withered away.

In the end, you have to weigh up the possibility of a strong democractic state emerging that will last the test of time and bring long term benefits to it's population against what price you're willing to pay now for one of many possible outcomes, some of which could be even worse than it was originally. It's a gamble that many say is too high to take and I understand where they're coming from, but I personally don't agree with them.

shotamoose wrote:

Bearing in mind that the bulk of those estimated by the Lancet to have died from violence in Iraq after the war seem to have died at the hands of coalition forces and not due to ethnic or religious 'undercurrents', I don't see how you can say that it 'had to happen'.

I probably should have emphasised "to a greater or lesser extent" more in my last post. It certainly didn't need to escalate to the level of violence that's currently going on in Iraq, but I don't think a totally peaceful resolution was possible either.

Victor

Moriarty wrote:

.. 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!

Lies, damn lies, statistics. Death rates depend largely on the age profile of the country. The UK has an older population, i.e. more old people. Old people have the inconvenient habit of dying. :rolleyes:

Redleslie2 wrote:

That agent who died protecting her is a bloody hero.

Indeed. Unfortunately most heroes are dead.

AmenToThat

bbblueyes wrote:

Any other countries want to join in?? I'm sure the American soldiers are tired of policing countries thousands of miles from home. Countries keep bailing out and leaving just a handful of countries to try and keep it from destroying itself. We'd all like this to be over with. After their failure with Vietnam, I'm sure the Americans don't like their boys getting killed on foreign soil.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1521584,00.html

THE body of an Iraqi man, who this week confessed on television to staging insurgent attacks, was returned to his family yesterday after he was tortured to death in custody, his father claimed.
Khalid Jouli said that the body of his son, Qahtan, was delivered to the family home in the Sunni town of Samarra by commando units from the Interior Ministry.
He had been arrested for his suspected involvement in attacks against Iraqi security forces, to which he confessed on Terror in the Grip of Justice, a nightly show on the state-run al-Iraqiya station that features the confessions of insurgent suspects.
The show is popular but has raised concerns among human rights groups about the manner in which confessions are obtained. Several suspects have appeared with bruised faces.
“My son was killed after he was tortured by the Interior Ministry commandos,” Mr Jouli said. “They killed him to cover up the lies they broadcast on the al-Iraqiya channel that my son killed many people, including Iraqi army officers.”
The report comes amid mounting concern about the behaviour of the Iraqi security forces being trained by America. In its annual report released last week, the US State Department accused the security forces of torture, rape and illegal detentions.


As I have repeatedly said the Iraq forces are being trained using American techniques and ideologies .
This country will be no 'democracy'.

bbblueyes

But my point was why can't someone else train them? The act of going to war is done, we need to get over it and do what we can now to help Iraq. We can't go back and do over. We can't just the leave the country alone now that it's unstable. I understand that America is the one training Iraq and that all this torture crap is continuing. My question is why can't any other countries step in? I don't mean that in any sarcasm, I just want to know, where is everybody else?

The Corinthian

bbblueyes wrote:

But my point was why can't someone else train them? The act of going to war is done, we need to get over it and do what we can now to help Iraq. We can't go back and do over. We can't just the leave the country alone now that it's unstable. I understand that America is the one training Iraq and that all this torture crap is continuing. My question is why can't any other countries step in? I don't mean that in any sarcasm, I just want to know, where is everybody else?

Two reasons; it would but our introducing citizens in the line of fire of a situation that was not only not of our choosing, but also that we actually opposed to, to begin with. Secondly it would encourage future unilateral actions, thus legitimising a doctrine of ‘might is right’ over consensus and cooperation - practically speaking, we don’t want to have to hear what you’re saying applied to Iran, Syria or anywhere else in a year or two.

ozhawk66

AmenToThat wrote:

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.

This whole post is prime fodder as a good example of being on the wrong side of history. Your generalizations of America and it's fighting finest is one of basic ignorance, fueled by leftist dogma.

ozhawk66

March 11, 2005
A Look Back
Turning points since September 11.

I know that things are going pretty well in America's efforts in the Middle East when Fareed Zakaria, who was a sharp critic over the last two years, now assures us that events are working out in Iraq — just about, he tells us, like he saw all along. Joseph Nye intones that at last Bush came around to his very own idea of "soft power," while Jackson Diehl gushes that Bush was sort of right all along — to nods of approval even from Daniel Schorr.


Even former Clinton National Security Council member Nancy Soderberg recently lamented to Jon Stewart, "It's scary for Democrats, I have to say." And then she added, "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us....There's always hope that this might not work."

This newfound turnabout follows the successful election and its aftershocks in the region. Before then, it had become a sort of D.C.-insider parlor game to look back at the conflict in the aftermath of September 11 and catalogue our mistakes.

Without much appreciation that error is the stuff of war, that by any historical benchmark the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was nothing short of miraculous, that our ongoing assessments of success and failure changed hourly within the fluid 24-hour newscycle, or that acrimonious hindsight was often used to save face about earlier wrongheaded pronouncements, we continued to tally up the "I told you so's."

Lapses were, of course, numerous and easy to spot from our armchairs in America the morning after — laxity in securing borders and arms depots and reforming the Iraqi army, a too-prominent televised American profile from the Green Zone, tardiness in elections, too large and plodding an interim American bureaucracy, slowness in dispersing allotted aid, the April pullback from Fallujah, and so on. Add in Abu Ghraib, plus Syria's and Iran's agents and subsidies, and the reconstruction proved more difficult than the three-week victory might otherwise have presaged.

Many erstwhile supporters from the boomer generation — one that is more utopian and therapeutic than practical and tragic — simply bailed on the entire enterprise. They would not return until the successful elections on January 30 and the amazing aftershocks throughout the Middle East convinced them that their continued hypercriticism might leave them on the very wrong side of history.

Lost in all this self-examination and lamentation was any appreciation for the extraordinary things that went right — often against overwhelming odds and in the face of sharp criticism and mistrust. In the past, I have cited the ostracism of Yasser Arafat and the withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia — both controversial at the time — as key events that began to change the calculus of the Middle East in our favor. But there were other developments that are likewise scarcely mentioned today that have made all the difference between sure failure and our present achievement.

We were attacked on September 11. A mere 26 days later on October 7, the United States had already struck back in a fashion that would topple the Taliban in a mere six weeks. Few militaries now or in the past, without any advanced planning and in less than a month, could pull off an invasion of a country of 26 million, and 8,000 miles away.

Pakistan was a de facto belligerent. Due to skilful and often desperate diplomacy the United States was able to tip it just enough to offer us border assistance rather than hostility — an amazing feat of salesmanship given its status as a nuclear and radically Islamic nation on the brink of war with democratic India.

Calls — before the Afghan war and during the so-called "quagmire" of weeks 4-5 — for a "coalition government" to include the "moderate Taliban" were rightly rejected as lunatic, as was the notion of a postbellum "all-Islamic peacekeeping force."

In the lead-up to Iraq, obtaining Senate approval for the invasion was critical — unlike the situation in Serbia when Bill Clinton neither sought nor obtained congressional sanction. Thus the Senate on its own cited 23 causes of action, well beyond the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and thus established bipartisan agreement on several grounds for removing Saddam.

Going to the U.N. in late 2002 was no mistake either — both for the principled reason that resolutions to be legitimate, need to be enforced, and for the more practical purpose of putting everyone's cards on the table. That debate led to reexamination of the U.N., revealing in turn both the corruption of the once august body — everything from Oil-for-Food to the inaction on Darfur — and just how far Europe had really diverged from the United States. These were disappointments to be sure, but necessary to clear the air so there were no illusions about Iraq. Does anyone believe that our present appraisals of both Europe and the U.N. are now more naïve or wrong than they were before September 11?

Calls for a massive invasion force along the lines of the first Gulf War were rightly resisted. It made no sense to place half the combat strength of the United States in a narrow, vulnerable and pre-announced corridor in Kuwait. Given the fact the Iraqis were not quite hostiles or friends, but something in between like the Italians of World War II after the invasion of Sicily, a light, rapid force was preferable to a massive conventional armada.

Likewise, it was probably wise to ignore demands for a much larger subsequent occupation army, which would not only have created too high an infidel profile, but led to an intolerable imbalance in the ratio of support to combat troops. What we wished to avoid was the "light at the end of the tunnel" syndrome, reminiscent of the 500,000 Americans in Vietnam and a ten-pound Saigon-style American telephone book during 1967 that made the country no more safe than in 1973 when there were only a few thousand air troops involved. Constant requests for more manpower are often ipso facto proof that either strategy or generalship is wanting.

The absence of the U.N. during the elections was positive. However tragic the circumstances of its exit, the United States was free to use its own carrots and sticks leading up to January 30 to ensure successful voting — without Jimmy Carter, the Europeans, or the blue helmets appeasing the forces who wished to destroy democracy. Most international bureaucrats either would have called for full Sunni participation or, in West Bank fashion, assured the world that a coerced election was in fact fair.

However dire were the threats of the autocracies of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and despite their long-proven record of harboring terrorists of all sorts, the administration always talked in a larger strategic context of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Thus rather than seeing the events that led to September 11 in a narrow frame of bin Laden alone, strategists rightly diagnosed the pathology of something far more insidious and of a much longer pedigree: a deep-seated anti-Americanism that transcended September 11 and was explicable in terms of who were, rather than what we did. We ignored, in other words, Bill Clinton's post 9/11 apologies for everything from slavery to General Sherman and his most recent praise of the murderous Iranian mullahcracy, as well as cheap shots like "taking our eye off bin Laden."

We also rejected the communis opinio of the CIA and "experts" such as "Anonymous" or Richard Clarke. Instead, the administration rightly listened to a much deeper wisdom promulgated by the likes of Fouad Ajami, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, and Amir Taheri. Their correct view was that failed autocrats deflected popular outrage onto Americans in state-censored media, often through a devil's bargain with Islamicists. The latter were given subsidies or freedom of action to whip up hatred of us — in exchange for keeping their terrorists distant from a royal family, Saddam Hussein, Assad dynasty, Iranian theocracy, or their kindred spirits in the other Arab dictatorships. This larger American embrace of a radical and systematic political solution was the most debated of all the decisions of this war — and the most critical — since democratic reform alone led to the only antidote to the entire Arab cycle of failure.

pt I

ozhawk66

pt II


There have been other crossroads that proved historic as well — the promotion of good transitional figures like Hamid Karzai and Ayad Allawi, the demolition of the Sadr militia, the determination to retake Fallujah, the trust and confidence given Ayatollah Sistani, the resolve not to postpone the January election, the careful cultivation of the British, Australians, Italians, and Eastern Europeans, and the simultaneous efforts to steer the stalwart Sharon in a fashion that would enhance Palestinian reformers. No one gave in to shrill calls to set a timetable for withdrawal, trisect the country, or bring the entrenched Sunni status quo of Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Jordan into the reconstruction.

The Middle East is in flux, as the autocracies in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia reel from the earthquakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Like it or not, this is not the time for half-measures, but rather the hour for a uniform American policy that promotes democratic reform and thus predicates our aid, weapons, friendship — almost everything — on the degree to which Middle Eastern societies are free.

How odd that conservatives, usually derided for their multicultural insensitivity and blinkered approach to the world abroad, had far more confidence in the Arab street than did liberals at home and Euro elites who patronized Arabs as nice "others" who were "different" rather than oppressed by murderous thugs in the manner of former Russians, Hungarians, Bosnians, and Afghans.

Every time the United States the last quarter century had acted boldly — its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras, instantaneous support for a reunified Germany, extension of NATO, preference for Yeltsin instead of Gorbachev, Gulf War I, bombing of Milosevic, support for Sharon's fence, withdrawal from Gaza and decapitation of the Hamas killer elite, taking out the Taliban and Saddam-good things have ensued. In contrast, on every occasion that we have temporized — abject withdrawal from Lebanon, appeasement of Arafat at Oslo, a decade of inaction in the Balkans, paralysis in Rwanda, sloth in the face of terrorist attacks, not going to Baghdad in 1991 — corpses pile up and the United States became either less secure or less respected or both.

So it is also in this present war, in which our unheralded successes far outweigh our notorious mistakes. A number of books right now in galleys are going to look very, very silly, as they forecast American defeat, a failed Middle East, and the wages of not listening to their far smarter recommendations of using the U.N. more, listening to Europe, or bringing back the Clinton A-Team.

America's daring, not its support for the familiar — but ultimately unstable and corrupt — status quo, explains why less than three years after September 11, the Middle East is a world away from where it was on the first day of the war. And that is a very good thing indeed.



— Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Hobbes

Your not supposed to post an article without having a comment on it.

I will say this it is wrong. A lot of its content has been rebutted in this very forum. Looks like a typical neocon proproganda piece.

ozhawk66

Hobbes wrote:

Your not supposed to post an article without having a comment on it.

I will say this it is wrong. A lot of its content has been rebutted in this very forum. Looks like a typical neocon proproganda piece.

A lot has been rebutted? Can you be specific? (I am new here). I would describe this piece as incredibly accurate - not propaganda.

Also, this guy is no "neocon". He's a lifelong Democrat.

Hobbes

ozhawk66 wrote:

A lot has been rebutted? Can you be specific? (I am new here). I would describe this piece as incredibly accurate - not propaganda.

Use the search engine. Or for that matter read up more on what is being talked about. I have a little time to kill, I'm not overly pressed to supply links this time unless you absolutly can't find them in previous posts or google.

This newfound turnabout follows the successful election and its aftershocks in the region.

Success based on what? There was a high *percentage* turn out however if you go looking into the figures it wasn't that high at all.

Add to that...
- intrim government spreading a rumour that peoples food rations would be cut off if people didn't vote.
- Voting stations not told of thier location until on the day and moved without notice as well as not opening on time and some closing early.
- The voting system meant you couldn't tell who you were voting for. You were pretty much voting based on what race you were.
- The majority did vote because they believed they were voting on removing the US from Iraq.

But even after the voting the government is falling apart.
(reference). Which means another general election within the same year.

Not to mention the fact that there are *rumours* in iraq and reported that the CIA are actually supplying the insurgents with weapons. Mainly because they aren't happy with who won.

that by any historical benchmark the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein was nothing short of miraculous,

Except that the taliban are still around and still hold parts of Afghanistan, not that it matters as the warlords are just as bad as them. As for Saddam, the point for war wasn't to remove Saddam it was over the WMD that didn't exist.

Even so the problem wasn't one man, it was a whole system. One the US seems to be ignoring. For example a lot of Saddams party were kept on in their own jobs after they *liberated* Iraq.

He goes on about how great things are in Iraq. He fails to mention the new laws put in place that allow non-Iraq businesses to rape Iraq of its resources (not just oil), or numerous deaths on a day to day basis, kidnappings, tortures and even Children being kept in Abu Garib.

Pakistan was a de facto belligerent. Due to skilful and often desperate diplomacy the United States was able to tip it just enough to offer us border assistance rather than hostility

What he fails to mention in that deal was that Bush agreed to allow Pakistan to not take any action against OBL if he was found in thier country.

Going to the U.N. in late 2002 was no mistake either

Going to the UN with bogus intel to ask to green light a war which they didn't. Then shown all along that the US was in fact wrong. Bush had been watching too much of "Eleven Days" and thinking he would get the same thing again getting Powell to show mock slides of non-existant chemical factories.

That debate led to reexamination of the U.N., revealing in turn both the corruption of the once august body — everything from Oil-for-Food

Again the Oil for food always brought but he fails to mention that the US was also taking kickbacks from that as well. In Haliburton (Chenys cashcow) was one of the major offenders which incidently only recently pulled out of Iran (conducting business with an embargo'ed country through a loophole), not because of any ethical reason but because it got made public.

Constant requests for more manpower are often ipso facto proof that either strategy or generalship is wanting.

If I recall correctly Bush was the one calling for the large numbers. Even so the US is now stretched in Iraq to do anything of any serious consequence in any other part of the world. So much so they withdrew troops from the Tsunami aid. The coalition of the willing have mostly all pulled out of Iraq.

The absence of the U.N. during the elections was positive.

Actually the UN were there however were not allowed monitor the election on the day.

the administration always talked in a larger strategic context of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

The administration could give a toss about it. Saddam was a US friend until he made a boo-boo (thanks to a US diplomat) and even the Taliban were getting support by the US and would of continued to do so if it wasn't for public pressure in the US. Even so Bush has lost all credibility going on about the evil of Saddam when in fact he is currently fully supporting Islam Karimov who is famous for boiling people alive who he didn't like (and arresting those who demanded justice about it).

a deep-seated anti-Americanism that transcended September 11 and was explicable in terms of who were, rather than what we did

Actually the feelings for America were at thier highest after 9/11 (moreso in France), it dropped rapidly after his famous "If you are not with us you are against us" speech.

There have been other crossroads that proved historic as well — the promotion of good transitional figures like Hamid Karzai and Ayad Allawi,...

You have one puppet dictator who has no real power and you have another who wasn't voted in to begin with and help set up a secret police in Iraq using Saddams own secret police as recruits. He is also referred to as "Washintons puppet" in Iraq.

the demolition of the Sadr militia,

They are still around.

the determination to retake Fallujah,

With reports of chemical weapons (WMD) used in the area.

the resolve not to postpone the January election,

It wasn't postponed because of the US. There were huge demonstrations in Iraq demanding an election so that the people could have a say. A lot honestly believed they were voting to get the Americans out of the country.


the careful cultivation of the British, Australians, Italians, and Eastern Europeans,

Who have almost all pulled out of Iraq.

and the simultaneous efforts to steer the stalwart Sharon in a fashion that would enhance Palestinian reformers.

I find this comical. Israel (Sharon) steal more land, build a wall then offer to give some of the land they stole back and they hail it as a breakthrough.

No one gave in to shrill calls to set a timetable for withdrawal, trisect the country

The US has built three huge military bases in Iraq. They are not planning to withdraw for a long time to come.

rather than oppressed by murderous thugs in the manner of former Russians, Hungarians, Bosnians, and Afghans.

and Americans. America has just as much to blame for the mess in the middle East as any of the other countries mentioned.

its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras,

One a previous puppet of the US paid for by the CIA and the other.. I cannot believe that he is actually listing that as a good thing. Did he not read about the Iran-Contra affair at all (which actually lead to the death of Americans)?

support for Sharon's fence..taking out the taliban

The US didn't support the fence at all. As for taking out the taliban, they are still there.

So it is also in this present war, in which our unheralded successes far outweigh our notorious mistakes.

Yet in that whole article he doesn't list any. Here is a sobering thought for you as well. Iraq compared to Vietnam - First four years, entire war.

.... The article is nothing but a neocon puff piece. It also uses the standard tactic of arguing. In that don't address the issues but cite off non-related stuff as proof that things are getting better (Eg. Norigia.. ffs).

bonkey

ozhawk66 wrote:

This whole post is prime fodder as a good example of being on the wrong side of history. Your generalizations of America and it's fighting finest is one of basic ignorance, fueled by leftist dogma.

Well argued.

You put those points across very well, and truly showed all of us mis-informed skeptics why we're all completely wrong.

Bravo, sir. Bravo. A finer, more rationally-argued post has not been seen here in many a year.

jc

bonkey

ozhawk66 wrote:

I would describe this piece as incredibly accurate - not propaganda.

I started reading teh piece...and then I came to the bit where he quotes an interview with Jon Stewart as an indication of which way the wind is blowing.

For those who may not be aware, Jon Stewart does a show called The Daily Show. It is a joint project between CNN and....can you guess....Comedy Central. Its primary focus is political satire, and while Jon Stewart is highly respected, he makes no bones about his show being primarily a comedy show about current affairs as opposed to being a current affairs show which uses comedy.

Yes folx...an ex-Clinton Administrator, whilst giving an interview (which I saw) on a comedy show, made this comment which VDH considers a solid enough source to back up his arguments about which way the wind is blowing, and which ozhawk would have us believe is in no way propagandist, but is "incredibly accurate".

Factually, it most certainly is accurate. Balanced? Lacking Spin?

Well...lets see...include the qualification of the person making the comment, but not those of who it was made to, nor the setting (a comedy show) in which it was made...I think we can stop right there. The author has already nailed his intentions clearly to the mast.

jc

ozhawk66

Hobbes wrote:

Use the search engine. Or for that matter read up more on what is being talked about. I have a little time to kill, I'm not overly pressed to supply links this time unless you absolutly can't find them in previous posts or google.

Trust me, I can google. Thanx for the patronizing manor, though. But you will eventually be "pressed" to supply links/facts.


This newfound turnabout follows the successful election and its aftershocks in the region.

Success based on what? There was a high *percentage* turn out however if you go looking into the figures it wasn't that high at all.


Success based on free elections over a deposed despot. A concept we in the free world take for granted, but those in Iraq have experienced for the 1st time, in ages.

Not a high percentage of a turnout? Define what you will accept as a legit turnout. Then show me (recent) historic examples of of peoples going to the polls for the 1st time, confronting a possible death. People like you keep telling us how bad it is in Iraq, yet the voting turnout defied the leftist/pessimist pundits, expectations.

Translation: if Iraq is so bad, why the high turnout?



Add to that...
- intrim government spreading a rumour that peoples food rations would be cut off if people didn't vote.

Prove it, just don't say it. Saying, doesn't make it so, in debate.


- Voting stations not told of thier location until on the day and moved without notice as well as not opening on time and some closing early.

Yet the legit/high voting turnout. Would you care to elaborate on the reasons why for these voting scenarios?


- The voting system meant you couldn't tell who you were voting for. You were pretty much voting based on what race you were.

This sentence is about as misguided as one can get. You obviously don't know the the circumstances, in which the 1st election was supposed to achieve.


- The majority did vote because they believed they were voting on removing the US from Iraq.

The majority did vote? I just heard you say the (voting) "figures" weren't all that high? Which is it?


But even after the voting the government is falling apart.
(reference). Which means another general election within the same year.


Falling apart? Obviously your framing the disagreements (in Iraq) as a failure in the new-found Iraq. Isn't this how democracy works? Especially in the beginnings? Debate! - work it out - win the argument etc.....?

Another general election? You obviously don't know the election schedule of '05 in Iraq.



Not to mention the fact that there are *rumours* in iraq and reported that the CIA are actually supplying the insurgents with weapons. Mainly because they aren't happy with who won.


This statement is beyond ignorant. It's sickening. You have no idea what the like of those in the CIA are doing in iraq. Think about this - your intellectually and philosophically chasing your tail, by saying the Americans are a bunch of murderers, yet the CIA is supplying "insurgents"?

Your on the far edge/fringe, of the flat side of the Earth, if you believe this sort of bilge. No wonder you believe "rumors".


Except that the taliban are still around and still hold parts of Afghanistan, not that it matters as the warlords are just as bad as them.

Still around? Where? Back it up and show me where they - the Taliban - hold power. Do it. Don't just say it.

So called 'warlords', that's a different story. At least they, the bulk of, agreed and took part in Afghan elections.


As for Saddam, the point for war wasn't to remove Saddam it was over the WMD that didn't exist.

Please......please don't try and fly this one over my head. The reasons for the ouster of Saddam's regime were many. The WMD angle was the one reason the leftists of the world, grabbed onto, too try and stop the war.

The anti-war crowd, especially in Europe, didn't get two basic concepts after 9-11.

We, as a nation, are NOT.....not, going to take the chance of another 9-11 sort of scenario, too take place. Pre-emption? Very, very few (people)considered what was going on inside in Afghanistan as a 'imminent threat'.

We found out otherwise. And we played the diplomacy game with Saddam's regime for 12+ years. No more. No more chances.....

The other concept, the anti-war crowd doesn't understand, is the eventual, proliferation and availability of WMD, via the betterment of better technology, to those who want to kill - en masse. Get it?



Even so the problem wasn't one man, it was a whole system. One the US seems to be ignoring. For example a lot of Saddam's party were kept on in their own jobs after they *liberated* Iraq.


Huh? I've not only heard the opposite, we were told in the beginning that we should have kept the bulk of Saddam's army. Wrong answer? Why? The bulk of these so called 'insurgents', are those who lost out on the 'racket' that kept them in power.....through fear.


He goes on about how great things are in Iraq. He fails to mention the new laws put in place that allow non-Iraq businesses to rape Iraq of its resources (not just oil), or numerous deaths on a day to day basis, kidnappings, tortures and even Children being kept in Abu Garib.


Nice, leftist paragraph, on your part. Now, prove what you have accused. These are your words - back em all up. Or back off.


Pakistan was a de facto belligerent. Due to skilful and often desperate diplomacy the United States was able to tip it just enough to offer us border assistance rather than hostility

What he fails to mention in that deal was that Bush agreed to allow Pakistan to not take any action against OBL if he was found in thier country.


Do you care too back up this inane claim? So far, I'm seeing a trend. You just say it, and then try and back up with leftist innuendo.


Going to the U.N. in late 2002 was no mistake either

Going to the UN with bogus intel to ask to green light a war which they didn't.

Greenlight with bogus intel? Then you must be privy too exceptional intel, that says viable WMD were NOT! shipped off to Syria.


Then shown all along that the US was in fact wrong.

The US was wrong, in fact, about what?



Bush had been watching too much of "Eleven Days" and thinking he would get the same thing again getting Powell to show mock slides of non-existant chemical factories.


Yawn. Bush and his admiration are stupid. Yet, they are ahead of the curve and keep winning elections. That sentence was right up there with the Da Vinci Code.


That debate led to reexamination of the U.N., revealing in turn both the corruption of the once august body — everything from Oil-for-Food

Again the Oil for food always brought but he fails to mention that the US was also taking kickbacks from that as well.


First off, prove the kickbacks. Now, please explain the ' Oil for food always brought' comment, on your part.

ozhawk66

First off, prove the kickbacks. Now, please explain the ' Oil for food always brought' comment, on your part.



In Haliburton (Chenys cashcow) was one of the major offenders which incidently only recently pulled out of Iran (conducting business with an embargo'ed country through a loophole), not because of any ethical reason but because it got made public.


LOL.......GAG.........Please, if you can POSSIBLY prove this one, do so.

There is so much pathetic, leftist bilge in this one, it's hard too take seriously.



Constant requests for more manpower are often ipso facto proof that either strategy or generalship is wanting.

If I recall correctly Bush was the one calling for the large numbers

If you recall correctly, then you can prove it so. I know you can't.


. Even so the US is now stretched in Iraq to do anything of any serious consequence in any other part of the world.


Really? You have shown your basic ignorance, and media inspired, opinion of America's finest. Keep doing so.....


So much so they withdrew troops from the Tsunami aid. The coalition of the willing have mostly all pulled out of Iraq.


Coalition of the willing pulling out of Iraq? That shows how ignorant you are of the situation, in Iraq. I'm an American who, happens too live in Sydney. Last week, there was a major up-roar, about Australia sending an extra 400+ troops, to make up for the Danish, I think........guess what? When the Australian people were told what was going on, they accepted it.

I'd like for you too back up your 'withdrawing' from the tsunami comment, bull#$*t.



The absence of the U.N. during the elections was positive.

Actually the UN were there however were not allowed monitor the election on the day.


Please, don't try and rewrite history on me. Tell me why the UN left and weren't willing to "monitor" the election?


the administration always talked in a larger strategic context of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

The administration could give a toss about it.

Really? What possesses you too say this? Your version of reality, that hasn't taken place?


Saddam was a US friend until he made a boo-boo (thanks to a US diplomat)


LOL.....I'd love to hear your explanation, of Saddam being a US friend! Go ahead, but be very, VERY carefully on your historic description of reality.....back in the mid/late 80's.


and even the Taliban were getting support by the US and would of continued to do so if it wasn't for public pressure in the US.

Prove it. And be careful what you say and prove....in the context of pre-9-11.



Even so Bush has lost all credibility going on about the evil of Saddam when in fact he is currently fully supporting Islam Karimov who is famous for boiling people alive who he didn't like (and arresting those who demanded justice about it).


This is one of theee most IGNORANT statements I've ever heard, proposed in debate. Please, do better than equating, of the boilng of....




a deep-seated anti-Americanism that transcended September 11 and was explicable in terms of who were, rather than what we did

Actually the feelings for America were at their highest after 9/11 (moreso in France), it dropped rapidly after his famous "If you are not with us you are against us" speech.


Don't tell me how Americans felt, after 9-11. The world seemed to forget, yet, while we remembered.

Of course, this mentality with people like you, treated us with the "victim" mentality after 9-11. It's when we, as a nation, decided.........



never again. And we're not taking the chance......again. Get it?


There have been other crossroads that proved historic as well — the promotion of good transitional figures like Hamid Karzai and Ayad Allawi,...

You have one puppet dictator who has no real power and you have another who wasn't voted in to begin with and help set up a secret police in Iraq using Saddams own secret police as recruits. He is also referred to as "Washintons puppet" in Iraq.


Again, leftist dogma on your part. If what you say is true, then prove it. Just don't say it. I'm talkin this whole paragraph you typed.



the demolition of the Sadr militia,

They are still around.

Really? Since when? Give us recent examples of the populace backing up Sadr?



the determination to retake Fallujah,

With reports of chemical weapons (WMD) used in the area.


Realy? Chems in Fallujah? Where do you get this (bilge) from? Are you force-fed from your chosen media? Or, are you some sort of leftist who swallows, what he is told?

You said it, I didn't. Chem weapons? Prove it - don't sat it. It lowers your IQ in debate.


b] the resolve not to postpone the January election,[/b]

It wasn't postponed because of the US. There were huge demonstrations in Iraq demanding an election so that the people could have a say. A lot honestly believed they were voting to get the Americans out of the country.



Really? I'd love to see your links/ examples of mass Iraqi demonstrations, telling the Americans too leave. If this scene was so prevalent, please show me an example of?




the careful cultivation of the British, Australians, Italians, and Eastern Europeans,

Who have almost all pulled out of Iraq.

and the simultaneous efforts to steer the stalwart Sharon in a fashion that would enhance Palestinian reformers.

I find this comical. Israel (Sharon) steal more land, build a wall then offer to give some of the land they stole back and they hail it as a breakthrough.

No one gave in to shrill calls to set a timetable for withdrawal, trisect the country

The US has built three huge military bases in Iraq. They are not planning to withdraw for a long time to come.

rather than oppressed by murderous thugs in the manner of former Russians, Hungarians, Bosnians, and Afghans.

and Americans. America has just as much to blame for the mess in the middle East as any of the other countries mentioned.

its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras,

One a previous puppet of the US paid for by the CIA and the other.. I cannot believe that he is actually listing that as a good thing. Did he not read about the Iran-Contra affair at all (which actually lead to the death of Americans)?

support for Sharon's fence..taking out the taliban

The US didn't support the fence at all. As for taking out the taliban, they are still there.

So it is also in this present war, in which our unheralded successes far outweigh our notorious mistakes.

Yet in that whole article he doesn't list any. Here is a sobering thought for you as well. Iraq compared to Vietnam - First four years, entire war.

.... The article is nothing but a neocon puff piece. It also uses the standard tactic of arguing. In that don't address the issues but cite off non-related stuff as proof that things are getting better (Eg. Norigia.. ffs).[/QUOTE]