Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree that this is a significant acheivement, but it pales in comparison with the harm done. The sad fact is that ordinary Iraqis had more freedom under Saddam. The situation there is still far worse than it was before we invaded.

During many wars that have been fought, there have been dark times. If at each dark time we pulled out, we'd almost never win a war.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't try to delegate the blame. They held those beliefs because the Bush Administration faked the intelligence

I have seen no evidence that this is true, and neither do I believe it is.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

and bullied them into taking a course which had been decided well in advance.

Sounds to me like politicians are just following the currents of anti-war public opinion if they're saying that now.

I've heard that right after 9/11, President Bush wanted to go after Iraq, and Tony Blair argued him out of it. So my view is that the intelligence the Administration was receiving about Iraq indicated that they were a threat through their links to terrorism and their WMD production from early on. If you want to see a conspiracy in the Administration though, you can do that.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

For example when the UN weapons inspectors reported that Iraq didn't have WMDs, the Bush admin's response was to besmirch the character of Hans Blix.

The weapons inspectors never reported that there weren't WMDs in Iraq, as I remember. They said they couldn't tell and that the Iraqi government wasn't being open enough. Hans Blix wanted more time though, and he was not given that time. That's where the friction between him and the US was created. I'm sure there was political mudslinging against him for that. There often is mudslinging in politics. Ugly and annoying and coming from all sides against whoever they object to, but that's the way it is. Not that the way it is doesn't stink .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Iraq was invaded because 9/11 had given the neocons the opportunity they wanted to kick Saddam's backside and put all that redundant military gear to work for good old big business. All the subsequent justifications have been proven empty: no WMDs, we've increased terrorism not defeated it (and created the ideal training ground to boot), civil society has all but collapsed, people are worse off than they were under Saddam,

I agree that our enemies have used the war as a propoganda tool and have done a good job at that. They also are doing a huge amount of damage to Iraq, as you say. I have heard President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld say again and again though, in their speeches, that it would be a long war and a very difficult process.

The people who were saying that there would be huge collapse of infrastructure and civilian casualties in Iraq were talking about our war with Saddam. They were saying that when we attack Saddam, we will pulverize all the country's infrastructure and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. That did not happen. We killed a minimal number of civilians when we attacked and opened opportunities for the Iraqi troops such that many of them were able to stand down. We then targetted Saddam's Republican Guard directly. The initial invasion was very well strategized and flawlessly executed, although Democrats and many anti-war generals had said it would be a total mess with hundreds of thousands of deaths and complete destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. They were completely wrong because they didn't understand how technology had improved since the Persian Gulf War, and the pro-war folk were shown to be right.

When President Bush declared victory in Iraq, he was correct in doing so. We had defeated Saddam Hussein and most of his forces. They were our only opponents of that moment. The insurgency was born later on, and they were largely a new enemy born partly from the civilian population and partly from foreign combatants, and funded and equipped by anti-US terrorist groups and Iran and Syria. When the insurgency attacked us, the dire predictions (or some of them) were fulfilled. But none of those people making the dire predictions linked them to an insurgency that I recall. Rather, they said we would do that to Iraq ourselves in our military campaign to oust Saddam, and they were wrong.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

and now we're reduced to justifying it by saying that we can't leave because that will only make things worse

Both anti-war and pro-war predictions have turned out to be false.

The people of Iraq celebrated when we invaded their land, rejoicing to be free from Saddam. They wanted freedom and we came to give it to them. We have sought to free an abused people from oppression. Because of the way they were treated and the fact that we sacrificed much on their behalf, our efforts were justified. Our invasion is morally justified, for our intentions have been noble from the beginning. But being morally in the right isn't a guarantee that it'll be easy. Al'Qaeda in Iraq is attacking the country and tearing apart the good that has been done. The Iraqis are willing to pay a price for their freedom though, just as we did in the Revolutionary War. We must help them, as they are under our protection.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

). The only justification/explanation which holds any water based on the observed evidence is the "kick his ass, grab the gas" one.

Since when has that one held up?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I mostly agree. I'll qualify that by saying that a morally unjust war (as I believe it is) remains morally unjust and there may be an imperative to rescind those immoral actions as a priority.

Why do you say the war was morally unjust? Our effort to help the Iraqi people find democracy and to save them from a brutal regime was certainly morally upright. The fact that it is attacked by another savage force doesn't make our actions less moral. It only speaks about the insurgency's actions.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That would be separate from a utilitarian concern regarding the consequences of pulling out and might override them, depending on one's view. Personally, I am unsure of what the right balance is here.

As I see it, the moral issue comes first. We've got to protect Iraq to the maximum of our ability until there is no chance at all left for our efforts, even if that costs us dear. And then if it comes to that, we must do all we can to compensate the remnants for our failure.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Now you're in danger of doing that conflation thing: which enemies? which war?? what is the purpose of this war? is it that Terror thing again?

I'm going to keep using those words because they do have real meaning and they are true. They can be abused when they're applied to all situations and people as though it's all the same thing, when often there are strong differences between different groups and conflicts. I do my best to use them only where I see them as justified.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Another pre-2003 prediction comes true: Iran is the only winner, no matter what happens.

Unless we refuse to pull out.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But it is not clear to me that US foreign policy should dictate the morality of war.

I don't think I really understand what you mean by this. I agree that morality can't be determined by any Administration. Rather, it's a question of whether or not their actions correspond to a morality that already exists. Is that what you mean?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It's not just about good and evil, it's about the shameless use of the rhetoric of war, terror, freedom etc, and the senseless conflation of complex issues into simplistic slogans to bolster a flawed policy.

I agree that this sometimes happens. Sometimes those words are used very accurately, I think, for many of those we fight against want to see a totalitarian Islamic Empire spread throughout the world. They detest democracy and attack civilians to inspire fear so that they can achieve their objectives. That's terrorism. So often I've seen those words well used, but then I agree that I've also seen them used in cases where I don't think they should be. For example, I right now have very real doubts as to whether or not the US is right in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist group. They are certainly not as bad as Al'Qaeda. Yet even if they are terrorists, is it right to call them so? For doing so basically blacklists them and alienates us further from the Muslim world. Applying labels like that is essentially saying that these people are evil. And sometimes that label is justly applied, but other times it may do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Anyone who questioned the war was branded a traitor.

More political mudslinging. Ugly, I agree, and downright mean. That has come from both sides; let's be fair.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

They faked the evidence on WMD to frighten Congress. The Bush administration has done everything it can to manipulate people's beliefs about the situation in the process of doing lasting damage to the state of the world.

I've never seen any evidence to support this.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I'm glad we can hold almost polar opposite views and still discuss it civilly. I know I tend to use rather blunt language at times...

Sometimes I fear my language is too blunt too . Sometimes I take care to edit afterward, for that reason.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

We can agree on this. At the moment, however, it's not at all clear to me that the Coalition troops are succeeding at all at protecting ordinary Iraqis.

Even if there's only one police officer in the country and no one else who's upholding the law and trying to protect democracy, that's better than none. A poor defense is better than no defense.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

During many wars that have been fought, there have been dark times. If at each dark time we pulled out, we'd almost never win a war.

Here's what I would regard as a good example of dangerous generalisations. You said that Bush was right to declare victory, so which war are we fighting now?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I've heard that right after 9/11, President Bush wanted to go after Iraq, and Tony Blair argued him out of it. So my view is that the intelligence the Administration was receiving about Iraq indicated that they were a threat through their links to terrorism and their WMD production from early on.

Let's be clear: at no point has any evidence been brought to light linking Iraq with 9/11, never mind "right after 9/11". The fact that Bush's reaction was "let's get Saddam" reveals to me that they already wanted to attack Iraq for other reasons. It is a matter of record that the Administration was not overly concerned with al-Quaida or terrorism generally prior to 9/11.

It is manifestly clear to me that his Administration's public justifications of the Iraq war have been post hoc rationalisations.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The people who were saying that there would be huge collapse of infrastructure and civilian casualties in Iraq were talking about our war with Saddam.

A point of information: we were talking about the war and its consequences, including a civil war within Iraq. War, as you seem to acknowledge, is a messy business. People don't just die from bullets; they also die from disease, hunger and lawlessness. A study in The Lancet (leading medical journal) estimated that 100,000 Iraqis died as a result of our military operations in the year following the invasion. The country's infrastructure heas yet to recover to its pre-2003 (delapidated) state. I'm afraid that you have bought the "surgical precision" myth that the military has been peddling since Gulf War I.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Why do you say the war was morally unjust?

Sorry if I have not made this clear in the past! Briefly, there was no threat from Iraq, IMO, so no moral case there. One might go to war to free an oppressed people, but that was never proffered as a casus belli at the time because they knew that the US/UK public would not buy it. And anyway, the end doesn't justify the means. Not only have lots of people died, but it is highly questionable whether it works. Many historians have warned of this, but been branded traitors.

As I've said, I believe the war was about getting hold of Iraq's oil. Note how the enormous contracts were all doled out to Bush's big business mates without the inconvenience of tendering. Note also how GM crops have a protected status in the Iraqi constitution. (Not sure if that's something your Revolutionary Fathers would have fought the Brits for.) If you look into the details of how things are run there, you see vast sums of US taxpayers' money being handed over to (mostly) US companies.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I see it, the moral issue comes first. We've got to protect Iraq to the maximum of our ability until there is no chance at all left for our efforts, even if that costs us dear. And then if it comes to that, we must do all we can to compensate the remnants for our failure.

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think I really understand what you mean by this. I agree that morality can't be determined by any Administration. Rather, it's a question of whether or not their actions correspond to a morality that already exists. Is that what you mean?

Kinda. What I mean is just because the US wants to undermine Iran's influence in the Middle East (too late!) doesn't mean it's morally right.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

For example, I right now have very real doubts as to whether or not the US is right in classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist group. They are certainly not as bad as Al'Qaeda. Yet even if they are terrorists, is it right to call them so? For doing so basically blacklists them and alienates us further from the Muslim world. Applying labels like that is essentially saying that these people are evil. And sometimes that label is justly applied, but other times it may do more harm than good.

Well, I'm glad that you are questioning this. Never forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Reality is shades of grey.

[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.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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

Sounds more like opinion than "news".

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Here's what I would regard as a good example of dangerous generalisations. You said that Bush was right to declare victory, so which war are we fighting now?

I see it as two different wars, because we are fighting a different enemy now. Saddam's government and power were decisively defeated, so declaring victory was warranted. We completely knocked him out. There are only a few Saddam loyalists left causing us trouble, in the insurgency. The insurgency is something new and different, a different force. War in Iraq is not over, but the war against Saddam was. The war that we were fighting at that particular time in history was over. But that wasn't the end of all war in Iraq. Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Let's be clear: at no point has any evidence been brought to light linking Iraq with 9/11, never mind "right after 9/11". The fact that Bush's reaction was "let's get Saddam" reveals to me that they already wanted to attack Iraq for other reasons. It is a matter of record that the Administration was not overly concerned with al-Quaida or terrorism generally prior to 9/11.

They did believe (or professed to believe) that Al'Qaeda was being trained in Iraq, and they also said Iraq had WMD and was funding terrorists. I personally have no doubt that he was funding terrorists, probably including Al'Qaeda. In view of their beliefs about Saddam's having WMD, it's logical they might ponder whether or not Iraq was the greater threat of the moment.
[QUOTE=The Gaffer]A point of information: we were talking about the war and its consequences, including a civil war within Iraq. War, as you seem to acknowledge, is a messy business. People don't just die from bullets; they also die from disease, hunger and lawlessness. A study in The Lancet (leading medical journal) estimated that 100,000 Iraqis died as a result of our military operations in the year following the invasion. The country's infrastructure heas yet to recover to its pre-2003 (delapidated) state. I'm afraid that you have bought the "surgical precision" myth that the military We ousted Saddam with great military precision. The aftermath, as you say, has been far uglier. The anti-war folk were saying that to defeat Saddam Hussein we'd have to level everything and everyone, though. They weren't saying the main problem would be post-war, like it has been. They were just flat-out wrong.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sorry if I have not made this clear in the past! Briefly, there was no threat from Iraq, IMO, so no moral case there. One might go to war to free an oppressed people, but that was never proffered as a casus belli at the time because they knew that the US/UK public would not buy it. And anyway, the end doesn't justify the means. Not only have lots of people died, but it is highly questionable whether it works. Many historians have warned of this, but been branded traitors.

They did speak about what Saddam was doing to his own people in order to strengthen their case for going into Iraq. I heard President Bush talk about Saddam's torture chambers, when they were trying to rally support for the war. That was not the main reason though, I agree. The main reason for war was the WMDs Iraq appeared to be trying to get, illegally.

When you say, "the end doesn't justify the means," you make me think that you would have disagreed very strongly with a certain US politician who said, "give me liberty or give me death!"

As for historians' warnings, as I said, the anti-war folk made just as many wrong predictions as the pro-war folk. And about the "traitor" exclusion, mudslinging happened on both sides and always does, in politics. Getting bitter against one political party and not every political party over that is biased.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As I've said, I believe the war was about getting hold of Iraq's oil. Note how the enormous contracts were all doled out to Bush's big business mates without the inconvenience of tendering. Note also how GM crops have a protected status in the Iraqi constitution. (Not sure if that's something your Revolutionary Fathers would have fought the Brits for.) If you look into the details of how things are run there, you see vast sums of US taxpayers' money being handed over to (mostly) US companies.

Seeing as we're the main ones paying for both the war and the reconstruction in Iraq, it's logical US companies would be primarily involved. We also had oil contracts with Iraq before the war began, so there wouldn't have been a motive there for us to attack.

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.

The Iraqi national army is our final hope for Iraq, and their numbers and training are improving all the time.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Kinda. What I mean is just because the US wants to undermine Iran's influence in the Middle East (too late!) doesn't mean it's morally right.

I agree. I think it is morally right for Iran's influence in the Middle East to be undermined, but I agree that it can't be right just because the government wants it. The government can't determine morality any more than humans can. Morality, to my view, is totally independent of human will. But that's a discussion for another thread . . .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, I'm glad that you are questioning this. Never forget that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Reality is shades of grey.

I don't believe it is gray at all. I think that it's all black and white, but because we're only human, it looks gray to us. But again, that's a discussion that gets totally off-topic from this thread .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sounds more like opinion than "news".

About the opinion that victory is not far away, I agree. About the dramatic reduction in violence in areas where the searches have been conducted, I disagree . That is more observable and less dependent on opinion, and I only brought up the quote because of that part.

[Spock]

"L.E.", thanks for putting it so clearly. It saves me angst and posting time too.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

About the opinion that victory is not far away, I agree. About the dramatic reduction in violence in areas where the searches have been conducted, I disagree . That is more observable and less dependent on opinion, and I only brought up the quote because of that part.

So as long as we continue house-to-house searches throughout Iraq for the next 20-30 years, we are fine?

What amounts to martial law is not a solution, it's a temporary bandaid. And, if history is guide, it will return to what it was as soon as we step back. That is not a solution.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't believe it is gray at all. I think that it's all black and white, but because we're only human, it looks gray to us. But again, that's a discussion that gets totally off-topic from this thread .

Luke: I can’t believe it.

Yoda: That is why you fail.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So as long as we continue house-to-house searches throughout Iraq for the next 20-30 years, we are fine?

What amounts to martial law is not a solution, it's a temporary bandaid. And, if history is guide, it will return to what it was as soon as we step back. That is not a solution.

I agree, our military operations in Iraq aren't the solution. They aren't intended to be. The Iraqi army is.

[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.

[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...

[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!!

[Spock]

Let's try to keep this moderately civil.

These two countries are 'married together' in a conflict which has similar qualities to another topic title but in fact deserves it's own topic thread, thus the split today.

I hope we can limit topic discussion to the title countries here.

[Lief Erikson]

It's all part of one broader Middle East conflict. It may be difficult to discuss only Iraq and Iran, bypassing Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and terrorism abroad because it's all the same conflict going on.

But on the subject of Iran, here's some news that just came out today:

Originally Posted by BBC News

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has inaugurated a new phase of a heavy water reactor project despite Western fears about its nuclear programme.

He said Iran posed no threat to other states, not even its "enemy" Israel.

Heavy water made at Arak will be used to cool a reactor being built that will create a plutonium by-product that could be used to make atomic warheads.

Observers say Iran's move aims to send a signal of defiance days ahead of a UN deadline to halt uranium enrichment.

The US says Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon, while Iran says it is building a reactor to supply the country with nuclear power.

After inaugurating the heavy water plant, he again said Iran would never abandon its nuclear programme, but that nuclear weapons were not its goal.

"Basically, there is no talk of nuclear weapons," he said. "There is no discussion of nuclear weapons. We are not a threat to anybody, even the Zionist regime which is a definite enemy of the people of the region."

[GreyMouser]

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.

Uh, Lief, the point about the Jessica Lynch story was that it was phoney- deliberately cooked up to be "glamorous".

[GreyMouser]

Iraqi Army News

BAGHDAD, Aug. 25 -- Armed looters ransacked an abandoned British base in southern Iraq on Friday as Iraqi soldiers guarding the camp stood by and watched, heightening concerns that Iraqi troops are still ill-equipped to take control of security from U.S.-led coalition forces.
...........
But the inability of the Iraqi soldiers to prevent widespread looting in one of the country's calmest provinces, as well as the reported mutiny of a local army brigade, left doubts about whether U.S.-led forces will be able to hand over security to the Iraqi government anytime soon.
......
Iraqi army Lt. Ali Kareem of the 4th Brigade, 10th Division, said some members of his unit began to mutiny Thursday after learning that they were being deployed to Baghdad the next day to support a security plan in the capital. He said troops in the brigade's 2nd Battalion -- mainly members of Shiite militias such as Sadr's Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigade -- started to fire guns and mortars in protest because they thought the American military was "trying to get rid of them." The situation was resolved only after the brigade commander said the protesters did not have to deploy to Baghdad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

[Spock]

Yep, a tribal people, petty, barbarous and cruel.