Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Ok, but did you get my point about the "strong race up north?" In that way there is "race".

The "illusion" is that race is something genetic, and thus somethig that we can not change. So the only solution people are willing to accept is to destroy the race they do not like.

In reality, it is a matter of culture and upbringing. Something that is not easy to change, but not impossible either. Though sometimes I wonder when even intelligent people have such a hard time seeing it.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The "illusion" is that race is something genetic, and thus somethig that we can not change. So the only solution people are willing to accept is to destroy the race they do not like.

In reality, it is a matter of culture and upbringing. Something that is not easy to change, but not impossible either. Though sometimes I wonder when even intelligent people have such a hard time seeing it.

You seem to be agreeing with me more now, though I'm not sure if IRex will...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You seem to be agreeing with me more now, though I'm not sure if IRex will...

Race is an intellectual construct, not a physical reality. I think that is what IR is basically saying as well.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Race is an intellectual construct, not a physical reality. I think that is what IR is basically saying as well.

Well, in that case I would not place myself at either extreme of both. I think there is a certain physicality to it, as I exampled in my north tribe metaphor...

[Lief Erikson]

I'm going to respond to most of your post tomorrow, for it's very late at night for my time zone. But I wanted to respond to this part of your post right now.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Fair enough. But I would like to see someone from your side of the fence explain exactly how the needs of Iraqis are going to be protected.

Here's a quote from a BBC article submitted on their website yesterday:

Originally Posted by BBC News

A joint operation to improve security in Baghdad is bringing results, American and Iraqi officials say.
There has been a dramatic drop in violence in areas of the capital where house-to-house searches have been conducted, the officials say.

An Iraqi general has told the BBC he believed the securing of Baghdad was now not so far away.

But he also called on the Iraqi government to persuade militias to give up their weapons.

The Americans and the Iraqi government have put thousands of extra troops on the streets to wage this battle against insurgents, sectarian forces, and what they openly call death squads and violent criminals.

In the present phase of the operation they are working their way through the districts most prone to violence, cordoning them, searching house-to-house for illegally held weapons and preparing to hand over these areas to the police.

This battle of Baghdad, America's ambassador to Iraq says, will determine the future of the country.

Perhaps part of the answer to your question is right there in yesterday's news.

[The Gaffer]

Lief, thanks once again for a measured discussion. Lang may yer lum reek! I'm going to pick up just a couple of these points.

You know your history, so you shouldn't need to be reminded that the vast majority of Saddam's crimes were committed in the 1980s, when we were happy to support him. I know there's no statute of limitations on genocide, but it seems absolutely clear that any sense of "bringing Saddam to justice" or "freeing the Iraqi people" took second place, far behind "what suits our interests just now". That's one of the many reasons that the claim of a moral basis for the war just sticks in my throat.

(If you're interested, many people on the Left DID support the war, particularly the far left, precisely for this reason. The much-reviled Guardian [www.guardian.co.uk], the most left-wing mainstream paper in the UK, ran several commentators throughout who thought that it was worth it to see Saddam banged up.)

On the "everyone slags each other off, they're all the same" question, while I am sure you are right, in general terms, it is important not to be blinded to the propaganda in this particular case. There are countless examples, from Colin Powell's (remember him?) "WMD" photos, accepted uncritically by a fawning media, to the Jessica Lynch saga. The government and media collaborated in generating this propaganda specifically aimed at manipulating our beliefs about the war. It seems to have worked.

On the predictions front, I agree no-one was perfect, but I am amazed that you don't see that the anti-war groups got far, far nearer the mark than the pro-war groups. Which predictions, specifically, did the pro-war groups get right?

Money. Let me trace this logic. One country bombs the bejasus out of another country and therefore feels that it has a moral imperative to be compensated? An interesting service industry. Do you see how this kind of "morality" is slightly repugnant to the most of the world?

An example: I read a personal account from an Iraqi (woman) whose brother's engineering company bid to the CPA to repair a damaged bridge for around $300k. The contract was awarded to a US company for $5m.

Saddam had struck big deals with Russian and French oil companies, and was clearly planning to freeze the US oil industry out once sanctions were lifted. He was also selling his oil in Euros, not US dollars, which, IMO was the final nail in his coffin as far as the US was concerned.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You know your history, so you shouldn't need to be reminded that the vast majority of Saddam's crimes were committed in the 1980s, when we were happy to support him. I know there's no statute of limitations on genocide, but it seems absolutely clear that any sense of "bringing Saddam to justice" or "freeing the Iraqi people" took second place, far behind "what suits our interests just now". That's one of the many reasons that the claim of a moral basis for the war just sticks in my throat.

I think that National Security was foremost in our minds on both occasions. When President Reagan was so strongly supporting Saddam, we needed every ally we could get to slow the Soviet Union's spreading influence.

During World War 2, we had to fight alongside Stalin against Hitler. Hitler was the greater threat to everyone at that time. In the same way, in the Cold War we needed Iraq's support. The Communists were taking over countries through coups and attacks and then Russia was stripping them of all their resources and pooling them into itself. They wanted to force their controlling, economically impoverishing, police state ideology around the world. They were one of the worst threats to our national security ever, partly because of their nuclear arsenal. They had to be stopped, and if you have to support a devil like Saddam to slow the advance of the bigger devil in Russia, sometimes that may just be what you have to do.

I agree that freeing the Iraqi people came second to our national security on both occasions, and it was not the main reason for our attacking Iraq in 2003. WMDs were. Yet the fact that we were taking such evil out of power and seeking to replace them with democracy does morally justify our national security actions.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

(If you're interested, many people on the Left DID support the war, particularly the far left, precisely for this reason. The much-reviled Guardian [www.guardian.co.uk], the most left-wing mainstream paper in the UK, ran several commentators throughout who thought that it was worth it to see Saddam banged up.)

I am interested to hear that. Do you have any idea what kind of a percentage of Democrats that might be? Not that it's important if you don't; I'm just curious .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the "everyone slags each other off, they're all the same" question, while I am sure you are right, in general terms, it is important not to be blinded to the propaganda in this particular case. There are countless examples, from Colin Powell's (remember him?) "WMD" photos, accepted uncritically by a fawning media, to the Jessica Lynch saga. The government and media collaborated in generating this propaganda specifically aimed at manipulating our beliefs about the war. It seems to have worked.

I was talking about name-calling, not falsifying of data. If the Administration falsified data to create the war, I agree with you that that would be very morally wrong. I don't believe that they falsified data, however. Though I know that considering your views on the Bush Administration, it's easy to understand your belief that they have. They may have made a mistake, however. Easy to make a mistake when Saddam was purposely dodging and being uncooperative with inspectors. Particularly since our intelligence information coming from the Middle East in general tends to be weak.

Here's one disagreeable story that came out about that just yesterday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5281052.stm

When it comes to things like the Jessica Lynch story, you know, I'm glad that that rather dramatic story was told. Uplifting things do happen in Iraq as well, such as civilians coming forward and thanking our troops, or successful missions and operations against the enemy. It's good to hear a rather glamorous story too, amidst all the muck of war.

And I don't believe for a second that hearing about things like that is making anybody think the war any less horrible than it actually is. Those sorts of sensational stories don't come out very often, and before this war, I don't think civilian populations have ever been so completely deluged in media information about how grisly war is, blow by blow, as the American population is now because of the media. Today we learn all the horrible things and we see photos of all of those things too. This has drained our morale to the utter low point it is at now, in spite of the fact that we've actually had far fewer casualties in this war than in almost any other war we've ever fought, have had major political successes in Iraq and are building up the military still to replace our troops.

The anti-war side is getting a lot of support because the media shows photos and describes in detail every incident of casualties on our side, and many media groups show none of the successes! I mean, honestly. I go to BBC News and find almost nothing from Iraq but disaster. Then I got to CNN and find stories of our people hunting down insurgents that are completely not covered at BBC. Why? Because BBC is more left wing, and CNN more right wing. But BBC doesn't give a balanced account; only one side. I'm sure there are news agencies that do the opposite, but on the right.

Oh, fiddlesticks. It's all very murky, but I agree with you that one must never be blinded by one-sided accounts of what's happening. Wherever the propaganda is coming from. I guess that's one of the reasons why I read both CNN and BBC, regularly.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the predictions front, I agree no-one was perfect, but I am amazed that you don't see that the anti-war groups got far, far nearer the mark than the pro-war groups. Which predictions, specifically, did the pro-war groups get right?

Most of the predictions regarding the war against Saddam Hussein. I didn't hear people on the right or the left predict an insurgency of the kind of scale and organization we're struggling against now, though maybe you have. The war against Saddam was swift, whereas the left said it would be long. We didn't have to bomb out hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians like the left said we would, but were able to use surgical precision, like the right claimed we'd be able to. Many, many Iraqi units stood down and gave up their arms without a fight when we confronted them, just as predicted and as our military enabled them. We primarily bombed and attacked Saddam's Republican Guard, the most evil and loyal of his men- again, predicted surgical precision.

The main incorrect pro-war prediction that I recall was that we'd find WMDs. Though I must confess, I didn't so closely examine the pre-war predictions on either side as I probably should have, so I can't give you a fully educated response.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Money. Let me trace this logic. One country bombs the bejasus out of another country and therefore feels that it has a moral imperative to be compensated? An interesting service industry. Do you see how this kind of "morality" is slightly repugnant to the most of the world?

If we're the main ones paying for the reconstruction (and we most certainly are), why shouldn't our companies also make some profits? It's not like we're stripping Iraq of their resources; they still are profiting from the exchange. But the United States and our coalition are the ones spending blood and cash on Iraq's behalf. Much of the rest of the world is content to stand around and watch. If they're going to be spectators, since when are we obligated to give them free popcorn? They aren't helping Iraq at all.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

An example: I read a personal account from an Iraqi (woman) whose brother's engineering company bid to the CPA to repair a damaged bridge for around $300k. The contract was awarded to a US company for $5m.

I can't comment on individual stories. It may be completely true or it may not be, and if it is true it may not be a common occurrence. Those are the problems I have with that kind of information. I bet that both sides have plenty of individual stories to pull out and show around.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Saddam had struck big deals with Russian and French oil companies, and was clearly planning to freeze the US oil industry out once sanctions were lifted.

I know about the France, Russia and Germany deals, but what do you mean as regards him hurting the US oil industry? How could he have hurt us, and how do you know he would have?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Exactly Lizra.

Hopefully we'll figure it out eventually when, after all we've done, terrorism still continues.

Yes, but will terrorism dominate?

Originally Posted by Lizra

I agree with The Gaffer! Reality seems to be far more complex and dark than the conservative fantasy in this situation...wake up and vote smart people. It's about doing the smartest thing, not winning or losing......

Nonsense. Of course reality is far more complex to think about, but I hold up that it has been said of Ronald Reagan that he thought deep and figured out problems with relatively simple solutions.

Voting for any party is not going to accomplish CRAP unless that party is willing to be serious about the world's threats, and the Demobrats are about as likely to do that as Princess Diana is rising from the grave.

No matter how bad the Republicans are right now, and I say pretty imcompetent-the Democrats are going to toast this country in a bath of Marxist politics. Hillary wanted to make buying your own health care insurance a criminal offense, as in, you go to jail. Yeah, she might be the Dems Candidate.

The Demobrats just feel burned because dear Prince Albert II didn't get to be prezzy.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Yes, but will terrorism dominate?



Nonsense. Of course reality is far more complex to think about, but I hold up that it has been said of Ronald Reagan that he thought deep and figured out problems with relatively simple solutions.

Voting for any party is not going to accomplish CRAP unless that party is willing to be serious about the world's threats, and the Demobrats are about as likely to do that as Princess Diana is rising from the grave.

No matter how bad the Republicans are right now, and I say pretty imcompetent-the Democrats are going to toast this country in a bath of Marxist politics. Hillary wanted to make buying your own health care insurance a criminal offense, as in, you go to jail. Yeah, she might be the Dems Candidate.

The Demobrats just feel burned because dear Prince Albert II didn't get to be prezzy.

Ronald Reagon! Oh Barf!!! Barfy barf barf barf and puke.....there. World politics needs world input...not strong arm tactics from out of date/touch Uncle Sam....via GI Joe.
And since you mentioned it....The insurance system as it stands now (private) ABSOLUTELY sucks....but you probably don't have to deal with them as much as I do...of course, my handicapped daughter's "state run" medicaide is even worse! Her chiropractor treats her for free rather than involve himself with the clunky, funky, sucky state system so many Pubs are fond off...anything to keep money in the pockets of the have's....pawn the have not's needs on the "private sector" or the *state*.......Ronald Regan!!

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is one of the great strengths of our enemy, and this also is one of the great strengths of our current American president. Under all the terrible pressure of his office, did you see how fast his hair turned gray? Just about . . . instantly.

It wasn't the terrorists so much as the Demobrats...

[BeardofPants]

[hectorberlioz]

Some very nice pictures from Iraq:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ind...&Itemid=55#yvC

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Let's be clear about the question at hand.
You've been asked why you define Iraq as a success, and you've answered in 4 points.

But the inescapable truth is that however much it would be alot 'nicer' to define success in new, 2008 terms, the reality is that the benchmarks for success were set not today, but in 2002 and 2003. That's the way the world works my friend.

Allow me to revise: we are on a continuing scale of successes both military and political. The larger victory is still far and away, requiring that we (US/IRAQ) halt Iranian import of weapons to Sadr and other insurgent groups, among other things.

In so far as Iraq was in a quagmire 2004-2007, our current progress can be defined as success because of all the points I previously posted. We are on top of the situation.

To get out of that quagmire:

1) An overcoming of Al-Qaeda In Iraq by our military forces, resulting in
2) a decrease of violence
3) The people, Imams and other clerics and other groups side with the US/Iraqi forces, and not Al Qaeda in order to achieve their pursuit of peace and/or opportunities for work and a living.
4) The Maliki government begins to meet objectives.

So yes, the overall objectives HAVE changed from 2002 and 2003. But things went badly and we had to get out of said quagmire. President Bush's "surge" has worked, as was acknowledged by most prominent Democrat leaders.

I'm defining this as a success on the above criteria for our present concerns in Iraq. The WMDs issue has little to do with anything at this point.

And because of the continuing better news coming from Iraq, we must stay there to insure it stays that way. We need to stay until Iran [is neutralized] and Syria stop their inflow of weapons to insurgents.

The United States of America (along with mainly the UK) invaded Iraq in March 2003 on the pretense that Saddam Hussein's Baathist Iraq had WMD's and that he was likely to use them in the near future.
In addition to this, the Bush Administration argued that the following were also goals:
- Freeing the Iraqi people from a tyrant.
- Spreading democracy in the Middle East.

Thus, we have three important benchmarks to see success in Iraq.
1. The WMD's must be found, and must be shown to have been available for use.
2. The tyranny in Iraq must be removed.
3. Democracy must spread as an effect of the invasion of Iraq.


Today in 2008 we see:
1. No WMD's, not today, not yesterday, not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago.
2. The people of Iraq were freed from Saddam Hussein, but as so many news stories from Iraq, and interviews with Iraqis in Iraq show, the tyranny of Saddam Hussein has been replaced with a multiple of new tyranny's.
Tyranny of fear, Tyranny of Al Qaeda, Tyranny of suicide bombings, Tyranny of house-to-house inspections by U.S. forces, Tyranny of Freedom of Movement, Tyranny of Deprivation of the Basic Necessities of a Society: Lack of water, Lack of electricity, Lack of food, etc.
3. The last one is a no-brainer. Democracy is in the Middle East is as futile as ever. Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc, etc.

1) Moot at this point.
2)You're correct, the complications have multiplied. And it is obviously the most mountainous obstacle. But that's the main mission. That's what we're fixing right now, and the results are looking better. This connects with objective #3.
3) Difference of opinion.

This quote is of course very telling. You have basically come to the point where you are defining, right here and now, that success is the Iraqi people turning away from Al Qaeda and condemning them.
That is truly remarkable. The Iraqi people had nothing in common with Al Qaeda before the invasion. None of the suicide bombers in 9/11 were Iraqis. The fundamentalist Islamic views of Al Qaeda and its violent ways of death were non-existant in Iraq, and then 5 years on after the invasion, you are characterizing it as a success that they are turning away from it.

1) Conceded.
2) True enough. Nevertheless, it is still good news that they have shunned Al Qaeda. Sad, hard lessons. As I said above, my definitions of current success are based on the fact that we were in really bad shape two years ago, and now we are on top of the situation.

The second point you make is that violence is down dramatically in Iraq. This is a very vague assertion, and I'd like it if you explained to me what you define as an acceptable amount of violence to be occurring in Iraq for you to get a good night's sleep.
Also please identify an acceptable level of Al Qaeda activity in Iraq.

The death count from 2007 and 2008 is even with or lower than in 2004 through 2006. Since 2003 was the beginning of the war and the insurgency had not yet fully launched, naturally that is the year with the lowest levels of violence save for the month of the invasion.

Acceptable level of violence: in the lower percentage points 1-9%. Of course we can't achieve that if we withdraw. Same with Al-Qaeda activity. Zero is the preferred level of activity.

In both cases, we stay there until it is manageable by Iraqi forces.

You define the 3rd point of success in Iraq that the current government of Iraq proper (bar the Kurdish government, let's not forget them!) fights a non-governmental force in Basra, and settles for a cease-fire, whilst being completely unable to oust Moqtada (that's his name, not Mophead) Al-Sadr politically from the very same government.
So here we have a governmental force and a non-governmental force fighting in a country where there is a 3rd force, the occupiers. This is happening 5 years after all major combat operations are over.
So I'm asking you, what is the acceptable level of conflict between the government and non-governmental forces in Iraq? Are you seriously suggesting that the current level of violence in Iraq is a success?

"Mophead" fits just fine.

For a general survey of what happened in Basra, this from Fred Kagan*:
*(please note that this article is from the 1st of April)

* The legitimate Government of Iraq and its legally-constituted security forces launched a security operation against illegal, foreign-backed, insurgent and criminal militias serving leaders who openly call for the defeat and humiliation of the United States and its allies in Iraq and throughout the region. We can be ambivalent about the political motivations of Maliki and his allies, but we cannot be ambivalent about the outcome of this combat between our open allies and our open enemies.

* The Sadrists and Special Groups failed to set Iraq alight despite their efforts--Iraqi forces kept the Five Cities area (Najaf, Karbala, Hillah, Diwaniyah, and Kut) under control with very little Coalition assistance; Iraqi and Coalition forces kept Baghdad under control.

* Sadr never moved to return to Iraq, ordered his forces to stop fighting without achieving anything, and further demonstrated his

dependence on (and control by) Iran.

* Maliki demonstrated a surprising and remarkable commitment to fighting Iranian-backed Special Groups, Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi (the Mahdi Army, or JAM), and even criminal elements of JAM. The Iraqi Government has loudly declared that "enforcing the law" applies to Shia areas as well as Sunni. Maliki has called Shia militias "worse than al Qaeda." These are things we've been pressing him to do for nearly two years.

* We've said all along that we did not think the ISF was ready to take care of the security situation on its own. Maliki was overconfident and overly-optimistic. But for those who keep pressing the Iraqis to "step up," here's absolute proof that they are willing. Are we willing to support them when they do what we demand? Can anyone reasonably argue that they will do better if we pull out completely?

* On March 30, Sadr ordered his followers to stop fighting. This decision contrasts with his 2004 decision to fight on, and his continued presence in Iran combined with this surrender results from weakness, rather than strength.

* The ISF operation did not clear Basra or destroy either Special Groups or the Mahdi Army. * But the ISF performed remarkably well, moving numerous units to Basra on short notice, establishing them in the city, engaging in hard fighting, and stopping only when Sadr caved.

* Special Groups launched concerted attacks in Baghdad and in the Five Cities area (the Shia heartland), but were repulsed by ISF forces acting almost alone in the Five Cities area and by a combination of ISF and Coalition forces in Baghdad.

Here's what Maliki has done, according to this article in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/wo...ll&oref=slogin

Maliki successfully took over Basra, Mophead al-Sadr's fort location.
Here's why dethroning Sadr is tricky:
He often backed Maliki, so obviously Maliki doesn't want to destroy that infrastructure of support. From what I've read Maliki's move has been heartening to the people in Basra and for the Iraqi Army troops.

Here's to hoping we see Mophead's complete political clout on a stake tomorrow.

Considering that a large amount of political influence used to rest on Sadr's influence, and the fact that Maliki has taken Basra and cut down Sadr's influence...the Iraqi government's uniting power to itself is succeeding. This is probably the most important story of Iraq right now, so it's not over. Which means your saying Maliki is "unable" is premature.

That is too vague for me to answer.
What exactly is progress in domestic matters? What does that encompass?
What successes can you name for the Iraqi people?
I hope of course the answer you give takes into consideration the basic human rights promoted in the United Nations Human Rights Charter.

I concede this one. This is probably going to be the toughest area to get more-than-adequate results from. But I submit this bit from the NTY Basra article:

Shaker’s floating restaurant stands as one emblem of the change since then.

Just two months ago, he said, masked men in military uniforms walked into the packed dining room and abducted a businessman at gunpoint. The man was never seen again, and the restaurant closed.

Now, however, customers who fled that evening are pressing the 34-year-old owner to stay open later at night, so they can enjoy their unaccustomed freedom from the gangs, which once banned the loud Arabic pop music now blaring from Shaker’s loudspeakers.

That was in Basra, which is the hotbed of violence right now. I imagine things are better in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.

The mission in Iraq isn't over, but violence has gone down from the worst months of 2004-06. Maliki's moves show that he is leading, as opposed to letting Sadr have his cake and eat it. I should point out that most of the news from Iraq right now is the Basra scene, and not from everywhere in Iraq. We are succeeding.

I should also note that while violence is only even with 2004 statistics, the circumstances now are different than in 2004. Insurgents who sided with Al Qaeda to earn money or because they wanted the US out have stopped joining, and our US troops are being helped by former insurgents to capture caches of weapons. So the political tide has changed against Al Qaeda and in favor of us. This is probably the most crucial element to our current successes. But it doesn't mean only that we're winning, but that Iraqis are tired and want a solution. This time they are coming to us.

That previous paragraph concedes:
Al Qaeda came to Iraq where it would not have before, and that the insurgents were Iraqis who were tired of US occupation (in addition to other sources of insurgents like Syria, Iran and Egypt).

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Sad, hard lessons.

What do you think those lessons are?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

What do you think those lessons are?

I hope also that you answer this interesting question Hector. Thanx

[Insidious Rex]

So (speaking as someone who thinks Bush is a disaster as president as well...) are your posts made simply to ridicule the administration and point out how corrupt and incompetent they have been in regards to Iraq? You wont get any arguments from me with that opinion but you’ve sure spent an awful lot of energy condemning the easily condemnable without listing what it is you think should be done instead. I mean we can scream about WMD’s all day in an attempt to find the five people still left in the world who still believe fervently they exist or existed but is there really a point? And don’t confuse poor hector with a Bush yahoo so much as hes the main resident conservative apologist here and has to speak to the party line no matter how unfortunate a position it puts him in.

The fact is for better or worse weve messed things up in Iraq. Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving. So I guess my question to you (and other people who have issue with the situation in Iraq – and, as I said, I include MYSELF in that group) is what do we do now? Hopefully your answer is not simply “get out” and let it fix itself. My thinking is the first most important step is get BUSH out of office so that someone else (anyone else!) can approach the issue with a more competant approach who hasnt bankrupted themselves reputation wise as the Bush Administration has. As to what that fix would be to be honest Im not completely sure. It should involve some sober realization as to what exactly weve gotten ourselves into and how long it will actually take to get things to a point where minimum manditory achievements have been met. But what if that means a long term presence...

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So (speaking as someone who thinks Bush is a disaster as president as well...) are your posts made simply to ridicule the administration and point out how corrupt and incompetent they have been in regards to Iraq? You wont get any arguments from me with that opinion but you’ve sure spent an awful lot of energy condemning the easily condemnable without listing what it is you think should be done instead. I mean we can scream about WMD’s all day in an attempt to find the five people still left in the world who still believe fervently they exist or existed but is there really a point? And don’t confuse poor hector with a Bush yahoo so much as hes the main resident conservative apologist here and has to speak to the party line no matter how unfortunate a position it puts him in.

The fact is for better or worse weve messed things up in Iraq. Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving. So I guess my question to you (and other people who have issue with the situation in Iraq – and, as I said, I include MYSELF in that group) is what do we do now? Hopefully your answer is not simply “get out” and let it fix itself. My thinking is the first most important step is get BUSH out of office so that someone else (anyone else!) can approach the issue with a more competant approach who hasnt bankrupted themselves reputation wise as the Bush Administration has. As to what that fix would be to be honest Im not completely sure. It should involve some sober realization as to what exactly weve gotten ourselves into and how long it will actually take to get things to a point where minimum manditory achievements have been met. But what if that means a long term presence...

If this is the essence of what you have understood from my posts I emphatically advise you to re-read them, and if that does not suffice, read them again.

You are asking me to come with solutions to problems your administration created, your country has caused, and your country is up to its knees in.
Your own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, infamously said: "If you break it, it's yours."
I just hope you realize, I hope I am making myself crystal clear, that I am not American, this is not my nation that has so unapologetically messed up.
If you really are interested in what Norway's gov't advised USA on, I suggest you get yourself a few hours of reading time and search for the words "allies", "UN", "international community", "Norway", "WMD's" and "Hans Blix" and you will find exactly what you need.
I will not be sitting here and reading that you expect me to list the numerous ways that could have averted this catastrophe.
And if you are interested in some decent alternatives that have been put forth by your fellow Americans, I suggest you look at Biden's plan for Iraq and other plans similar to it. In the end your country, the USA, are at a point where there are no good alternatives.
There are only bad alternatives, and really bad alternatives, and so whatever improvement in policy and diplomacy that can be achieved, it will not be optimal.

Getting out is a bad idea, staying is a bad idea. Your country was so emphatically warned of this before the war. I myself sat in amazement at the stupidity of the invasion and so I don't tolerate not for one nanosecond any delegating of blame to anyone but the nation's that decided to invade(!)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Personally I feel when you’ve razed your neighbors house, even if it was done by corrupt incompetent bozos acting in your name, you have SOME obligation to fix things not simply dust your hands off and say this was a mistake therefore we are leaving.

Fair point. Although if my house had been razed I don't think I'd be too happy that the razers were hanging around.

Restitution has to start with an acknowledgement of the wrong. The very first thing that has to happen is that you have to kick that murderous regime out of office. Then there must be clear statements and policy action focused on righting the wrong. There must also be accountability: those who perpetrated the wrong should be held to account. This means Bush, Bliar, but especially the likes of Rumsfeld.

The Iraq Study Group showed the way forward: regional talks involving Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, with a view to establishing a multinational peacekeeping force. This could facilitate the withdrawal of US troops.

But the disgrace of the act that has been perpetrated in Iraq will haunt the reputation of the West for many years.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

If this is the essence of what you have understood from my posts I emphatically advise you to re-read them, and if that does not suffice, read them again.

Done. Still the same take. In fact more so. Whats your sage advise now…

You are asking me to come with solutions to problems your administration created, your country has caused, and your country is up to its knees in.

Im simply asking for whats logical: where do we go now. Clearly you have a problem with whats happened in Iraq. If it is such a concern of yours I would assume you have some vague notions of what should be done now (and what shouldnt). I mean isn’t your concern vested in the human tragedy of whats happened in Iraq? Or is your concern simply about an opportunity to berate Americans for something MOST Americans agree with you on? [comment deleted by Eärniel]

If you really are interested in what Norway's gov't advised USA on, I suggest you get yourself a few hours of reading time and search for the words "allies", "UN", "international community", "Norway", "WMD's" and "Hans Blix" and you will find exactly what you need.

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

Im not interested in official Norwegian policy on Iraq. Im simply interested in what people who post here and who have issues with what happened in Iraq think would be the best way to PROCEED from where we stand. A simple question. A none hostile question. And one fellow mooters have already started to ponder.

I will not be sitting here and reading that you expect me to list the numerous ways that could have averted this catastrophe.

The “catastrophe” is done. I never asked you to tell me how to avert it… Maybe YOU need to read MY post again… [comment deleted]

And if you are interested in some decent alternatives that have been put forth by your fellow Americans, I suggest you look at Biden's plan for Iraq and other plans similar to it.

Last I heard Biden wanted to divide Iraq up into three separate regions and pull out the troops. So are you saying that’s your assessment as well?

In the end your country, the USA, are at a point where there are no good alternatives.

We certainly agree there! But I think [comment deleted by Eärniel] that when you have no good choices you better figure out your least worst one and act on it because doing nothing will screw you even further. Which, of course, leads me back to the reason for my question which you avoided…

Getting out is a bad idea, staying is a bad idea. Your country was so emphatically warned of this before the war. I myself sat in amazement at the stupidity of the invasion and so I don't tolerate not for one nanosecond any delegating of blame to anyone but the nation's that decided to invade(!)

And please show me where I was attempting to “delegate blame” to your nation or any other nation by asking what do people think we should do…

[comment deleted by Eärniel]

The truth is that most people (EVEN here in America believe it or not!) had great disagreements with the war and how it was run. And now almost everyone thinks it was handled badly (to put it mildly). So to sit here and site nonsense about WMD’s as if its still relevant is silly when no one believes the long dead WMD argument anymore anyway. [comment deleted by Eärniel]

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Restitution has to start with an acknowledgement of the wrong. The very first thing that has to happen is that you have to kick that murderous regime out of office.

Agreed. And of course that is a guarantee now since Bush has served two terms and cannot be elected again.

There must also be accountability: those who perpetrated the wrong should be held to account. This means Bush, Bliar, but especially the likes of Rumsfeld.

To be honest I don’t k now if that is helpful as much as it might feel good. It will only muddle our government, already bogged down and limited by partisan bickering, into damaging open feuding and revenge fury on both sides. And so many important things will go ignored and so many will suffer for the sake of forcing that one issue. Its best to write them off, say good riddance and pick up the pieces as best we can. There will be decades of opportunity to write books, condemn them in the press and point out every short coming and corrupt incompetent policy position we can uncover.

And anyway I don’t really think the Iraqi people are looking for that really. They just want things to improve. Not for Bush to be jailed. For the most part, most Iraqis are of the mind whats done is done. Now PLEASE can we make things better here.

But the disgrace of the act that has been perpetrated in Iraq will haunt the reputation of the West for many years.

Yes and so many Americans are truly saddened by this fact… But all the more reason to go forward with real change and new thinking on this (and many other) matter(s). Those in power are generally wise enough to know that regime change means opportunity. Having Bush gone will go miles toward gaining back some measure of respect and influence on the international stage. But it will take years of positive diplomatic action to truly recreate the level of trust and bridges of understanding that were destroyed in the past 8 years.