Last argument of the Pro War Lobby falls apart

Freelancer

After the WMD search proved to be an embarssment the argument for the war was always thrown out there. But the Iraqi people have their freedom! things are so much better than under Saddam.

Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record,

Which of course the pro war argument will always say is the tired line of the Robert Fisk's of this world until we see that these words were actually uttered by

according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

He goes further

in a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said.

For months the fear has been that the Shia's would be provoked into civil war with the insurgents coming from mainly Sunni background. Now apparently the Shia have in fact been striking back for months, through the police the secret police and hidden prisons and torture chambers.

Allawi was selected to serve as prime minister of the first interim government, before last January's first national elections. Admired in both Downing Street and the White House as a non-sectarian politician committed to strong centralised government representing all Iraqis,

What possible defence for this shambolic war can be put forward now?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html

Bloodychancer

Perhaps the real reason for it in the first place

OIL

zepp

The words since saddam has gone power vacumm come to mind. Saddam was a tyrannt he supressed all people thats why there was less before. If you think saddam was right to be in power. Maybe you support mugabe as well.

Sand

No Zepp, you misunderstand. They do not support Saddam being in power. They do not support removing Saddam from power. So they would not support Mugabe, but they would not support removing Mugabe from power either.

Freelancer

zepp wrote:

The words since saddam has gone power vacumm come to mind. Saddam was a tyrannt he supressed all people thats why there was less before. If you think saddam was right to be in power. Maybe you support mugabe as well.

And where did I say I thought Saddam was right to be in power? And the if you support this you must clearly support the other.

Remember how we were told by Rumsfeld "We will be welcomed as liberators"?

Its assinine to suggest I was pro Saddam, just someone who said the war was a mistake the US weren't making realistic plans for the occupation and the hand over of power.

The bleated mantra after the weapons of mass destruction weren't found was "the freedom of the iraqi people" after the brutal tyranny of Saddam. Now it turns out that the democratisation of the Iraq people has given them the freedom from Murder and torture under Saddam to democratic freedom to murder and kill each other.

Manic Moran

Well, I guess it's a step closer... They elected their own torturers earlier this year, and they get to elect a new batch in a couple of months. If that's not democracy, what is?

NTM

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

No Zepp, you misunderstand. They do not support Saddam being in power. They do not support removing Saddam from power.

Who said you had to remove Saddam from power?

All along the anti-war lobby (myself included) were saying removing Saddam from power will cause more problems than it solves. Guess what, we were right

Sometimes the most desired outcome (Iraq free with wonderful and peaceful democracy reigning) is simply not possible and the best thing to do is do nothing because what ever you do you make the situation worse. This was one of times. I think it has become horrifically obvious now after the complete disaster that was the Iraq "liberation".

patzer117

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct. When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same), I did so because the plan was to remove a certain evil dictator from power. It worked. What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

breandan

patzer117 wrote:

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

They clearly did its just that as in every other aspect of this war they (Britain/America) cocked up how much it would cost to run the country after the invasion and how many barrels they would be able to produce to pay for it all (production is still less than prewar levels).

As for the abuse claims by Allawi.................America and Britain have known whats going on for at least a year to eighteen months yet have untill the raid on the secret prison in Baghdad last week done nothing about it.
Surely that makes them at least partly responsible for the abuses, although judging by the video of how the British Marines treat their own maybe there standards for what constitutes abuse and torture are very very high......................

Freelancer

Gosh patzer, And I'm left with baited breath for your defence in humanities.

patzer117 wrote:

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct. When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same), I did so because the plan was to remove a certain evil dictator from power. It worked. What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

So if you go to war to replace an evil dictator who is abusing his people, and then create a system while people are suffering under the exact same circumstances, I mean thats a worthwhile endeavour.

I mean trying to separate the war and the occupation when the planned result of the war was an occupation is just daft.

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

Yes but er but american oil companies have made a fortune and there is the rub. The suggestion that america is working as one unified whole for america it Ignores the fact that the american government is driven by oil, the complexitity of the Saudi involvement in the US economy, how rewarding the war was for several oil and military companies in america. The suggestion that the American government has the best interest of the entirity of the Americans is something that would not merit discussion in even the average elks lodge.

mcgarnicle

I really don't understand how people expect Iraq to be perfect after two years of occupation. It is a massive undertaking, they have to try to completely change the order of Iraqi society. I know it is bad now but that doesn't mean that it will be bad in 5 years. Take a look at Japan, the American occupation of Japan lasted 8 years and I don't think anyone can deny that it was a success. What if the Americans had left Japan after two years?

bush doctor

The American government projects its power abroad only to protect/advance the country's own (economic) interests. With regard to furthering democracy and improving human rights they're only paying lip service as it suits their own ends.

What about Zimbabwe, Burma, Uzbekistan.........

If they're interested in 'freedom' then I'm a monkey's uncle!

Manic Moran

bush doctor wrote:

The American government projects its power abroad only to protect/advance the country's own (economic) interests. With regard to furthering democracy and improving human rights they're only paying lip service as it suits their own ends.

What about Zimbabwe, Burma, Uzbekistan.........

If they're interested in 'freedom' then I'm a monkey's uncle!

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

Back to the original topic, have a gander at http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Bearing in mind that it's probably a little biased (But hey, what 'factual' analysis of Iraq isn't?), it's interesting enough. Of note is the claim that the current death tolls are 93% less than Saddam's monthly average.

They do need to get the Iraqi security forces back under control though.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

I think very few people think otherwise in this instance. But the annoying part isn't really that, but instead that the US has these grand ideals of how people should live and conduct thier lives. Sad thing is whats on paper rarely reflects actual reality.

Originally Posted by patzer117
Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct.

Except that the reason of "removing Saddam" never really surfaced until after the attack. Before that it was WMD this and WMD that. So the reasons for going to war were in fact incorrect. Of course most people knew it was BS especially since Bush himself was said to say he would invade Iraq back in 2000 and Rumsfield telling his guys to work on hitting Iraq on 9/11.

Heres a nice timeline of the whole thing.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/index.php?

bonkey

mcgarnicle wrote:

I really don't understand how people expect Iraq to be perfect after two years of occupation.

Who has said anything about perfect? A strategy that showed promise of working would probably be enough of a good start.

What we see instead is growing unrest, growing numbers of atrocities, and the US now making noises that this growing disaster is getting "good enough" that they can start pulling out.

I know it is bad now but that doesn't mean that it will be bad in 5 years.

True. Thats no reason for anyone to suggest that one cannot evaluate progress meaningfully until that time has passed. And if we did do so, and after 5 years it was still a mess.....would you be agreeing at that point, or sugegsting that not all nations and projects are as quick or as easy or as something, and that we should wait 7 or 10 years...or however long it takes?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you basically seem to be saying "It will turn out alright if we give it enough time". Its strange that logic wasn't used before the invasion. Its even stranger that while you're saying this, the people in charge are increasingly making noises that its already time to be thinking about starting to leave.

jc

jc

jc

ferdi

In the 1870s, America began to move away from its isolationist policy which it had since the 1790s and started to take a full interest in european and world affairs again. why?

The 1870s saw the rise of entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie and J.D. Rockefeller whos business exploits gave rise to what we would today call modern capitalist democracy. The reason the states started looking beyond its own boarders was for the purpose of expanding its business markets in order to widen its growning economy. Things are no differnet today.

Why does America look towards Iraq and the Middle East? To spread Democracy and the American way of life? Yes! but Why? - In order that future markets may be secured so that the modern capitalist economy may be maintained.

There are very few, if any truely good intentions at work here. America (and the world) exist for the benifit of huge multinationals and the war on Iraq was and is nothing more than a huge business take-over.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

The war and the occupation are the same things. It would never have been possible to have the war and then just leave. The anti-war crowd (myself included) were saying this all along too, the fact that America and the UK are still in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone. It would have been a certain civil war if the Allied forces had simply removed Sadam and them just left.

patzer117 wrote:

They clearly did not go in for oil.

You seem to be slightly underestimating the importance of oil to the world economy. Basically without oil there would be no world economy.

Everything America has done in the middle east since 1945 has been directly or indirectly due to oil. Everything. There are loads of dictators around the world worse than Saddam that America pays no attention to (or even helps if it serves their interests) Also the middle east would probably be largely full of modern western style democracies if it wasn't for western meddling. Iran was a liberal (for a muslim country) democracy 50 years ago till America removed this because of threats to nationalise its oil reserves.

It serves the west to keep the area weak and under control. The reason they do this is oil. Always has been

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it

Every mugger works in his own best interests. I don't see that as a reason not to blame them for injuries caused to their victoms.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

the US now making noises that this growing disaster is getting "good enough" that they can start pulling out.

Which just might lead to 'What are we going to do with all these tanks and planes now ?'
- Well theres no point in just bringing them home.

Zombrex

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

True but not every country goes to war at the drop of a hat to further those interests.

Manic Moran wrote:

Back to the original topic, have a gander at http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Skimmed throught that and there seems to be a few wild assumptions used to back up the idea that Iraq would be 93% worse now under Saddam.

w66w66

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

Different factions in America supported the war for various different reasons, nationalism included. But the main architects of the war, the neocons, are internationalists at heart and have little time for the ideals of nationalism and nationhood. For them the ideology always comes before the country. Not surprising then that many Neocons are former Marxists.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

So if you go to war to replace an evil dictator who is abusing his people, and then create a system while people are suffering under the exact same circumstances, I mean thats a worthwhile endeavour.

I mean trying to separate the war and the occupation when the planned result of the war was an occupation is just daft.

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power. They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

J.R.HARTLEY

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power. They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

what about the fact that they lied to go to war, their reasons were not to remove sadam but to find the wmds, it only emerged later that their sole purpose was to effect regime change. their is not a proper regime their at the moment, so the occupation is not seperate, it would be if simply removing the dictator was the point, howver regime change includes replacing with a stable alternative

FTA69

Well the invasion of Iraq subsequently led to the botched occupation, and the latter would not have occurred had the US not invaded Iraq. As someone said earlier on, the best thing to do would have been nothing at all. Liberation can not be introduced into a country through torturous prisons, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the deliberate use of horrific chemical weapons and the subsequent occupation of the country by two armies well versed in repression. It is up to the Iraqi people to free themselves from any dictatorship, because as we have seen in recent years, the invasion approach was fundamentally flawed.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power.

Thats not the reason they went to war, thats not even the reason they claimed to be going to war. They claimed this dictator was planning to build and held weapons of mass destrution which he was going to use on the west.

They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

Yeah they are. You think that going in and invading and the moment that the giant statute of Saddam falls down, it's a completely different kettle of fish. Rumsfield said they'd be greeted as libirators. Invading a country without a clear idea of what will be required once the invasion is completed means the two are intriniscally linked.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though.

Well I mean there was no way they were going to not over throw Saddam, they had massive superior military strength. To judge the entire campaign a success because they managed to do this one thing is missing the larger picture. To say they did over throw Saddam successfully and anything that comes after the fall of Saddam is a different issue all together is ridiculous.

Ignoring the damage actually done during the war, the war lead directly to the occupation. The are one and the same on going event. Everyone knew all along that the war would have to lead to an occupation, you don't just remove a government like Saddams leave and expect everything to be fine. It would have been impossible to have had a war to over throw Saddam and not end up right where we are now.

patzer117

Wicknight wrote:

Well I mean there was no way they were going to not over throw Saddam, they had massive superior military strength. To judge the entire campaign a success because they managed to do this one thing is missing the larger picture. To say they did over throw Saddam successfully and anything that comes after the fall of Saddam is a different issue all together is ridiculous.

Ignoring the damage actually done during the war, the war lead directly to the occupation. The are one and the same on going event. Everyone knew all along that the war would have to lead to an occupation, you don't just remove a government like Saddams leave and expect everything to be fine. It would have been impossible to have had a war to over throw Saddam and not end up right where we are now.

First of all I am not judging the entire campaign as a success. I am stating the reasons I supported the war. What I believe, and I'm repeating myself at this stage, is that they got into the correct position, where I would have liked them to be, by removing Saddam, then they threw it away by making stupid mistakes - like Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorus, by allowing the insurgents gain too much power in the Sunni triangle etc.

The idea that it wasn't possible to overthrow and end up where we are today is rather shocking. I don't think many people expected it to get this bad, and certainly there was a large chance it would go otherwise. Just because it didn't doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

First of all I am not judging the entire campaign as a success. I am stating the reasons I supported the war. What I believe, and I'm repeating myself at this stage, is that they got into the correct position, where I would have liked them to be, by removing Saddam, then they threw it away by making stupid mistakes - like Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorus, by allowing the insurgents gain too much power in the Sunni triangle etc.

One could happily argue that the entire campaign was fought with an indiscriminate indifference to human life, and events such as Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorous are just another in a long line of criminal indifference to the Iraq people, which started with sanctions and carried on with such events as the bombing of convoys carrying channel four journalists, indiscriminate civilian casualties, an unwilliness to even try to guess the numbers of civilian casulaties, and the alledged accidental bombing of al jaazera in bagdhad. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

The idea that it wasn't possible to overthrow and end up where we are today is rather shocking.

I'd rather suggest that the US's arrogance and indifference to human life as displayed in afganistan and in the build up the war meant that this was never going to go any other way.

I don't think many people expected it to get this bad,

The name, "Robert Fisk" keeps coming to mind for some reason. As do the ten's of millions who voted with their feet to oppose the war. I think most of them knew it was going to get this bad, thats why they opposed the war.

and certainly there was a large chance it would go otherwise. Just because it didn't doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried.

Ah sure lads, it's all gone pear shaped, and the Iraq people are no better than when they were under Saddam, but sure at least we tried.....

Spending billions, killing tens of thousands to end up exactly where you started from (from the Iraq's point of view) and you're giving the invasion an "A" for effort?

If the invasion when planned didn't consider the likely outcome of the the occupation then the invasion failed.

Manic Moran

From what I've seen, if nobody else on the planet is better off for the whole endeavour (No WMDs, increased incentive to target America, cash expense and loss of lives), the Iraqi people are. The January election was a city-wide three-day party in Mosul, and people weren't shy about waving, smiling and showing their purple fingers. (Which made no sense at the time, we only found out what that was all about the next day) If there was only one day that made our whole endeavour feel worthwhile, that was it. There is a series of adverts currently running on the TV in the US by 'theotheriraq.org', which near as I can tell is predominantly Iraqi Kurds basically saying 'thank you America', I guess to counter all the negative publicity.

I find myself largely in agreement with Patzer. It was a good idea, which was executed in a less-than-stellar fashion. Bush could probably have done a better pre-invasion job with the international community (though there are arguments that he could never have achieved much better than he did), and the disbanding of the Iraqi security forces by Bremer was..um.. questionable to say the least. There were a couple of other decisions made for political expediency: Sometimes doing the proper thing is unpopular, and doing something to acceed to political pressure just makes things worse in the long run.

NTM

breandan

Manic Moran wrote:

From what I've seen, if nobody else on the planet is better off for the whole endeavour (No WMDs, increased incentive to target America, cash expense and loss of lives), the Iraqi people are. The January election was a city-wide three-day party in Mosul, and people weren't shy about waving, smiling and showing their purple fingers.

Simply not true. There may well have been widespread happiness in the Kurd Sunni section of Mosul however the Arab Sunni and Turkomen Sunni regions of the city are basically war zones where practically where practically no one voted in the January elections.

Manic Moran wrote:

(Which made no sense at the time, we only found out what that was all about the next day) If there was only one day that made our whole endeavour feel worthwhile, that was it. There is a series of adverts currently running on the TV in the US by 'theotheriraq.org', which near as I can tell is predominantly Iraqi Kurds basically saying 'thank you America', I guess to counter all the negative publicity.

Would be grand if the Kurds represented the whole Iraqi population.
Unfortunately they only represent 20%. The other 80% including the majority Shi'ites who suffered most under Saddams tyrany are in no mood for 'thank you Americas' but judging by your above comments they dont really count. Let us also not forget that since the first gulf war the Iraqi Kurds have been basically running their own affairs anyways so this idea that it was the invasion of Iraq this time round that has lead to their freedom is not the whole picture. What the second war has led to is Kurd troops being used in Sunni Arab areas such as the disaster that has been Fallujah as well as in the disputed oil rich city of Kirkuk which has only mad the secterian issues within the country even more pronounced.

Victor

patzer117 wrote:

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct.

Be careful not to confuse the broad range of (potential) reasons one could use for invading with the actual decision.

When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same)

So you mean they should have invaded, destroyed the domestic power, create a power vacuum and walk away? Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power.

But it you remove one dictator, surely you should remove all the dictators? But who decides who is a dictator? How do we prioritise the list?

Eventually, when we have removed all the dictators, we are ourselves, dictators

Manic Moran

Would be grand if the Kurds represented the whole Iraqi population.
Unfortunately they only represent 20%.

True. I'm just pointing out that not everything is doom and gloom.

What I found a little odd were the small villages further South (Balad area) which were both Shia and Sunni (complete with both mosques). Never any trouble between the two co-habiting groups. The overriding impression being that farmers didn't care who ran the country, as long as they got a good price for their vegetables in the local market. Presumably then, most of the trouble occurs in the urban areas. (I know, small sample size, not necessarily representative of the rest of the country)

NTM

patzer117

Victor wrote:

So you mean they should have invaded, destroyed the domestic power, create a power vacuum and walk away? Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

But it you remove one dictator, surely you should remove all the dictators? But who decides who is a dictator? How do we prioritise the list?

Thanks victor, i believe i've clarified my position on that twice now. Just read the posts above :rolleyes:
As a matter of fact I would love to remove all evil dictators from power! I only wish I got to decide.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

The idea that it wasn't possible to overthrow and end up where we are today is rather shocking.

It is not shocking it is entirely following history ... Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 91 etc

This is what happens when another country occupies a foreign country by force. There is no getting away from that. Abuses are inevititable, accidental death is inevitable, soldiers running amok is inevitable.

The perfect occupation you are suggesting should have happened doesn't exist. This is the reality. Everyone who was against the war knew this would happen, and they told everyone. Despite what people like FOX.news were saying people were not marching because of support for Saddam, or even because of the few month war. They were marching to stop exactly this from happening. American soldiers abusing Iraqi was predicted before the photos came out. A decent into near civil war was predicted before the current situation. The pro-war crowd just ignored these as pointless "dooms day" senarios. Yet this is what happened.

It is astonishing that you can say the justification for war was there, and what came after was the mistake. What came after was the natural conclusion of the war. There is no way around that. It must be taken part and parcel. It has happened in every major conflict the US has ever been involved in. It would have been astonishing if it hadn't also happened in Iraq.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Thanks victor, i believe i've clarified my position on that twice now. Just read the posts above :rolleyes:

No you've stated your opinion over and over again, people have pointed out the flaw in the logic in your position and you've blithely ignored them. You cannot seperate a supporting of the invasion, while condemnation of the occupation. Whats that old Billy Hicks line?

(re the first gulf war) "I found myself in an odd position, I was for the war, but aganist the troops."

As a matter of fact I would love to remove all evil dictators from power! I only wish I got to decide.

Thats great but doesn't change these facts.

A) your reasons for the war aren't the reasons why the war was fought, or even the reasons we were told the war was being fought.

theres little point in fighting and supporting a war to remove a dictator, yet to botch the follow to such a degree that two years later the situation on the ground means its just as bad as it was when he was in charge.

Okay so maybe you're broadly in favour of the "concept" of removing a dictator from power, you just can't find any aspect of the act of of removing him from power that you can support.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

As a matter of fact I would love to remove all evil dictators from power! I only wish I got to decide.

I think if America actually managed to stop supporting current dicators that would be a start ... :rolleyes:

patzer117

Ok, I'm going to go out here and fully state my position on why I think George Bush went to war and what I think he hoped to achieve.

The main reasons given by people on this thread and previously for Georgie going to war were:
1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
2. To remove Saddam from power
3. To secure peace in the middle east.
4. Oil
5. The unmentioned but often touted point of finishing Daddy's business.
6. Iraq had connections with Al Qaeida

Of these I believe just two are legitimate - clearly numbers two and three. I don't know if anyone else thinks these are legitimate reasons for the invasion, by the sounds of it some people don't.

As for 1. I personally believe George Bush had a good idea that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I do believe however that he believed there was a real and present threat to the security of the middle east at the time, especially Egypt. With the intelligence evidence pointing towards there being no WMDs but Saddam obstructing the UN weapons inspectors from visiting all the sites, delaying their journeys and changing the times of inspections, Bush was able to create a climate of fear. Doing this was wrong. But I genuinely believe Bush felt that Saddam posed a threat and while not of WMDs, the fact that he was trying to hide something meant Bush could play the fear card and get away with it. He clearly hasn't gotten away with it and it was a damn awful thing to do. Similarly this is the position with point 6. He tried to convinve the public of it, but failed. Nobody in Ireland was taken in, not even gullable ol' me. But i felt the benefit outweighed the cost.

However, he did invade for reasons two and three coupled with the threat he felt from reason 1. This was morally dubious, as the right decisions if made for the wrong reasons might be the wrong decisions. I thought the decision to remove Saddam from power was the right decision. I believe the invasion was carried out systematically and effectively though personally I had not the great insight into looking at the occupation plans for Iraq which were simply classified at the time, and unavailable for public scrutiny. My support for the war was for the invasion and the occupation (though not in its current form clearly), though I could not properly judge what would happen when the occupation began. I thought if done properly this invasion could help secure peace in the middle east, in much the same way as the occupation of Afghanistan was succesful - peaceful in most places and the removal of a repressive regime in place of a democracy.

In hindsight I may have been optimistic about the chances of success for the occupation, but even now I would not call it a complete failure. I put the question out: which would you prefer: to live a slave or to die free? Many Iraqis are unfortunately getting the latter, but in the same circumstances I would choose the latter. Living in a democracy hoping for peace is in my opinion better than living in a repressive dictatorship.


Ok so they are my reasons for supporting the war. I don't see how the current situation has made the last arguement of the pro-war lobby to fall apart. In my opinion my reasons are still intact, if slightly weak around the knees. In saying that people expected the occupation to be like this they somehow with their expert knowledge defied Iraqi social commentators at the time, and the post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement of the invasion in my opinion does not hold.

If the Americans had put in a different plan for the occupation (which they very well could have - none of us saw the occupation plans beforehand), would people still not have supported the invasion? If Iraq was a thriving democracy right now, in much the same way as Japan is now, would you freelancer, wicknight, victor and everyone else, would you be standing up here right now condemning the decision to go to war still? Or would you have sticked by your guns and said it was the wrong decision even though it turned out to be great for Iraq.

I'm sticking to my guns because I am principled. Yes i think the Americans made a balls of it, but No I do not accept that, because of this, my reasons for supporting the war go out the window.

I hope that explains a few things. And sorry for the long post. And please go easy on me.

Patzer

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

If the Americans had put in a different plan for the occupation

If America had a plan for occupation, any plan, it would have been a start...

patzer117 wrote:

If Iraq was a thriving democracy right now

But it isn't, and it never was going to be. THere was not plan possible that would have made that so, only very wishfull thinking on the part of Bush and Blair.

patzer117 wrote:

would you freelancer, wicknight, victor and everyone else, would you be standing up here right now condemning the decision to go to war still?

I condemned the decision to go to war for a number of reasons

1 - It was clear at the time that the evidence for WMD was weak and probably wrong. It was also clear that this fear was being used to steam roll through an excuse to invade. There was no reason why Iraq had to be invaded then and there.
This turned out to be correct.

2 - It was clear at the time that Bush had no idea what he was doing, or a plan to safely secure Iraq after the war. The entire occupation plan seemed to be based on a ridiculous "open arms" theory that completely ignored the realities of Iraqi social and political environment.
This turned out to be correct

3 - It was clear at the time that the war was going to result in huge levels of collatoral damage. This was unexcusable when there was not real justification for going to war in the first place.
This turned out to be correct

4 - It was clear at the time that a pre-emptive strike war was both morally and legally wrong for a modern western democracy to carry out. This was always correct

And finally, the most important point...

5 - It was clear at the time ,because of the reasons above, that the British and American governments and military were completely untrustworthy and unqualified to handle an operation like this. It was always going to be a mess, and a mess it is. This turned out to be correct

The idea that it was just bad luck, or bad planning at the final stage, that lead to this current situation, the idea that the anti-war campaign shouldn't be saying "I told you so" because it could not have been predicted that this would happen, is nonsense. This was exactly what everyone knew was most likely to happen. Everyone except Bush and Blair it seems.

patzer117 wrote:

Or would you have sticked by your guns and said it was the wrong decision even though it turned out to be great for Iraq.

But thats the point ... the decision was never and could never have been great for Iraq. That would have taken a miricle.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Ok, I'm going to go out here and fully state my position on why I think George Bush went to war and what I think he hoped to achieve.

The main reasons given by people on this thread and previously for Georgie going to war were:
1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction
2. To remove Saddam from power
3. To secure peace in the middle east.
4. Oil
5. The unmentioned but often touted point of finishing Daddy's business.
6. Iraq had connections with Al Qaeida

Of these I believe just two are legitimate - clearly numbers two and three. I don't know if anyone else thinks these are legitimate reasons for the invasion, by the sounds of it some people don't.

Well and thats nice and all but the major argument by most is that Oil is the reason, claiming that every other one isn't "legimate" without going into the course work of why you think this isn't honest on your part.

Lets try and clarify, do you believe all these reasons or some of them, you've disparged the reason for oil, so I'd like to know where you stand on the rest of them?

As for 1. I personally believe George Bush had a good idea that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

So you think decieving his country, the UN, his army and his party, and er everyone is acceptable?

I do believe however that he believed there was a real and present threat to the security of the middle east at the time, especially Egypt.

And thats based on?

With the intelligence evidence pointing towards there being no WMDs but Saddam obstructing the UN weapons inspectors from visiting all the sites, delaying their journeys and changing the times of inspections, Bush was able to create a climate of fear. Doing this was wrong. But I genuinely believe Bush felt that Saddam posed a threat and while not of WMDs, the fact that he was trying to hide something meant Bush could play the fear card and get away with it. He clearly hasn't gotten away with it and it was a damn awful thing to do.

I'm completely lost now, Bush was lying but because Saddam was lying that makes Bush's actions okay?

Similarly this is the position with point 6. He tried to convinve the public of it, but failed. Nobody in Ireland was taken in, not even gullable ol' me. But i felt the benefit outweighed the cost.

And again as has been pointed out, for the iraq people theres been no benefit.

However, he did invade for reasons two and three coupled with the threat he felt from reason 1.

I notice you're still not admiting oil was a factor. Its funny you're admitting they lied and misleaded you, evidence points to reason four being the real reason for the war, you're just ignoring it.

This was morally dubious, as the right decisions if made for the wrong reasons might be the wrong decisions. I thought the decision to remove Saddam from power was the right decision. I believe the invasion was carried out systematically and effectively though personally I had not the great insight into looking at the occupation plans for Iraq which were simply classified at the time, and unavailable for public scrutiny.

That argument is frankly horsecrap. Thousands of columnists, activists, and politicians, predicted this situation, claiming "we weren't to know" doesn't work. The US publically announced their expectation for the Iraq reaction would be joyous. Claiming that the US mismanaged the occupation and we cannot know their plan ignores the fact that their arrogance exposed their expectation of how things would go.

My support for the war was for the invasion and the occupation (though not in its current form clearly), though I could not properly judge what would happen when the occupation began. I thought if done properly this invasion could help secure peace in the middle east, in much the same way as the occupation of Afghanistan was succesful - peaceful in most places and the removal of a repressive regime in place of a democracy.

I'm sorry that what in the what now? Afghanistan is disneyland? Religious extremists rule, election workers and woman are still shot for defying the extremists, suicide bombers and military assaults on US troops are common place, the reason you don't hear it reported on mainstream Media is most journalists cannot roam freely in Kabul, never mind the countryside. Opium production is on the rise......Jesus wept, anyone who calls Afghanistan as successful........

In hindsight I may have been optimistic about the chances of success for the occupation, but even now I would not call it a complete failure.

Two years on the Prime Minister hand picked by the US declares the situation as as bad as under Saddam, and you're not calling it a complete failure?

I put the question out: which would you prefer: to live a slave or to die free?

Thats pithy. Doesn't change the fact that they're still dying, being tortured, murdered, in fact in under Saddam woman had more rights and freedom, random religious groups assault women in the streets in Iraq are commonplace, and yet you think they're more free?

Many Iraqis are unfortunately getting the latter, but in the same circumstances I would choose the latter. Living in a democracy hoping for peace is in my opinion better than living in a repressive dictatorship.

And as pointed out by the former US lead prime minister all that has changed is the person who is repressing you.

Ok so they are my reasons for supporting the war. I don't see how the current situation has made the last arguement of the pro-war lobby to fall apart.

If the Iraqi people are suffering under the exact same circumstances of random violence secret police hidden prisons and torture and secret arrests that they endured under Saddam, the suggestion that the Iraqi's are enjoying more freedom is planly BS.

If the Americans had put in a different plan for the occupation (which they very well could have - none of us saw the occupation plans beforehand), would people still not have supported the invasion? If Iraq was a thriving democracy right now, in much the same way as Japan is now, would you freelancer, wicknight, victor and everyone else, would you be standing up here right now condemning the decision to go to war still?

So bascially if they'd have done things differently, before during and after the invasion would we have a point? Maybe. But they didn't and therefore we have a point.

Or would you have sticked by your guns and said it was the wrong decision even though it turned out to be great for Iraq.

Thats an infantile argument. Basically "Well if I'd have been right you'd have been wrong". The people who were aganist the war were warning about the situation since before the war. Suggesting a "woulda coulda shoulda" defence doesn't change the fact we're right. Suggesting that if things could have been different you'd been right doesn't change the fact that we're right.

I hope that explains a few things. And sorry for the long post. And please go easy on me.

Patzer

Be gentle with me.......

Manic Moran

4 - It was clear at the time that a pre-emptive strike war was both morally and legally wrong for a modern western democracy to carry out

Jus ad bellum conceeds that nations may strike pre-emptively if there's a good enough reason. 1967 is probably the most famous recent example. (This isn't an argument that the Iraq invasion was a justifiable pre-emptive strike, just that the concept that any pre-emptive strike is always 'illegitimate' is a false one)

I do believe, however, that the Iraqis are more 'free' than they used to be. Simply the fact that there are political parties complaining about the Iraqi forces' brutality indicates a level of freedom that they did not have prior to that. Their life is almost certainly a lot more chaotic in the cities, what with the bombings that keep happening, but they do have a lot more freedom of speech. I've seen some town council meetings where freedom of expression is rather enthusiastically embraced in a manner I have a hard time believing existed in the Saddam era. It's actually rather fascinating to watch people tentatively act upon the new realisation that they can have an independent voice.
Upon being asked if he was going to vote, one Iraqi Intervention Force officer responded "I will vote, my men will vote, and I will then spend the rest of the day making sure my countrymen are safe as they vote." This was not a comment to a reporter, just to a soldier.

The general standard of living is improving as well. Battered Toyotas are being exchanged for Opels and BMWs. Schools are being refurbished and re-equipped. Almost everyone seems to have electricity 24 hours. (What people don't realise is that when the central grid goes down, they have community-purchased generators that take over). Doctors have more medicines available than they used to, new water sources are appearing, even the road infrastructure is improving. Saddam evidently disliked the South of the country so much that Highway 1 was a 50-mile dirt strip from the Euphrates North, this has now been completed and what was a four-hour leg is now doable in under an hour.

There is more good going on over there than makes the news. As one Army officer over there put it last month, "If I got my Iraq news from the media, I'd be depressed too."

Frankly, if the Iraqi government can get its security forces under sufficient control that it gains the proper respect of the population, I think that the situation is still salvageable. The whole 'should the US have gone in' argument at this point is pretty moot. The argument should now be 'Well, these are the cards we have, where do we go from here?'


NTM

Freelancer

I do believe, however, that the Iraqis are more 'free' than they used to be. Simply the fact that there are political parties complaining about the Iraqi forces' brutality indicates a level of freedom that they did not have prior to that. Their life is almost certainly a lot more chaotic in the cities, what with the bombings that keep happening, but they do have a lot more freedom of speech. I've seen some town council meetings where freedom of expression is rather enthusiastically embraced in a manner I have a hard time believing existed in the Saddam era. It's actually rather fascinating to watch people tentatively act upon the new realisation that they can have an independent voice.

You've seen? Personnally first hand or on tv? If its first hand can you enlighten us to what capacity you were in to be able to witness this?

Upon being asked if he was going to vote, one Iraqi Intervention Force officer responded "I will vote, my men will vote, and I will then spend the rest of the day making sure my countrymen are safe as they vote." This was not a comment to a reporter, just to a soldier.

And shall I post some links to the violence and low turnout of the election?

The general standard of living is improving as well. Battered Toyotas are being exchanged for Opels and BMWs. Schools are being refurbished and re-equipped. Almost everyone seems to have electricity 24 hours. (What people don't realise is that when the central grid goes down, they have community-purchased generators that take over).

Article taken today

At present Iraq has an estimated output of 4,800MW, and power black-outs for more than half-a-day are normal.

http://www.ameinfo.com/43592.html

As for these community generators what if you cannot afford or get the fuel to run them.

Along with electricity cuts and lack of fresh water, petrol shortages have been one of the main problems affecting ordinary people across Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime more than two years ago.

It is common to see queues of cars outside petrol stations, many of them taking more than two hours and at times resulting in drivers having to sleep in their cars as they wait for supplies to arrive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/06/wirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/06/ixworld.html

Doctors have more medicines available than they used to,

The doctors here work hard, and are dedicated, but resources are scarce, and things frequently feel chaotic. One afternoon when I was in the ER a man with a partially severed hand was brought in, another victim of a mortar attack. He was holding his dangling hand with his other hand; a friend in a blood-splattered white robe came in with him. Three doctors laid the injured man out on a bed, then stretched his injured arm out over a plastic garbage bin.

"Get me some anaesthetics," a doctor shouted at one of the cleaning boys. The boy dashed out of the room.

A doctor wearing blue medical scrubs, helped by another doctor, started to clean the wound. The injured man had been calm with shock, but now began to scream.

The cleaning boy came back saying there was no anaesthetic in the hospital. The injured man's friend ran outside in his blood-soaked dishdashas to find out for himself, but the doctors decided to stitch the hand back on without waiting any longer. The injured man started to wail: "Oh, imam, come and help me. Oh God."

The doctor in blue started to sweat as he tried to find the bleeding artery. The man's screams grew louder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1647937,00.html

A surgeon performing that kind of operation without anthestic in this day and age? The article is a detailed look at a Baghdad A&E. It catalogues, filthy conditions and doctors working with limited resources.

Again the doctors may have some more resources than under Saddam because hey sanctions ensured supplies couldn't get through, the above however is not acceptable two years after the invasion.

new water sources are appearing,

Water

In an effort to provide potable water to 90 percent of Iraqis, some $1.2 billion was allocated for water and sanitation-works projects. Yet the IRMO says just 66 percent of Iraqis have access to drinkable water. Further, the GAO report says that between $52 million and $200 million worth of water-sanitation projects were either inoperable or operating below capacity. Thirteen of Iraq's wastewater-treatment plants are operating at about a quarter of capacity, according to U.S. News & World Report. Experts point to looting, power shortages, and a poorly trained Iraqi staff as causes of the shortfall.

Thats from a report by a member of the Council of Foreign Relations
taken from here
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=19940

dated 11th Nov

even the road infrastructure is improving. Saddam evidently disliked the South of the country so much that Highway 1 was a 50-mile dirt strip from the Euphrates North, this has now been completed and what was a four-hour leg is now doable in under an hour.

Thats a very specific claim, where did you hear it?

There is more good going on over there than makes the news.

And we're supposed to find out whats going on in Iraq from where? The tooth fairy?

As one Army officer over there put it last month, "If I got my Iraq news from the media, I'd be depressed too."

Two points

1. Where did he say that. You quoted him.

2. Again, where does he expect us to find out about this.

Frankly, if the Iraqi government can get its security forces under sufficient control that it gains the proper respect of the population, I think that the situation is still salvageable. The whole 'should the US have gone in' argument at this point is pretty moot. The argument should now be 'Well, these are the cards we have, where do we go from here?'


NTM

As has been pointed out in the dramatic pictures of the torture prison clearly the security forces issue is becoming more of a problem than less.

As for the, "Ah we're here now" argument, many people have being saying that the US lied cheated and manipulated the situation in the build up of the war, the argument is now, these people mislead them into this, are they the best people to lead them out?

Manic Moran

You've seen? Personnally first hand or on tv? If its first hand can you enlighten us to what capacity you were in to be able to witness this?


Personally. I was present as a non-participating observer. (i.e. I sat against the wall, and tried to listen to what the interpreter was saying above all the shouting)

And shall I post some links to the violence and low turnout of the election?

I was referring to the January election, since I was around for that. I seem to recall that most news articles focused on how there was a lot less violence than expected. The other thing noticed was that after the elections, the information flow to the security forces from the population increased.

http://www.ameinfo.com/43592.html

I think that article just goes to show how atrocious the power system was three years ago, no? If it's this bad now...

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/AYearInIraq.pdf

Per article, the power output of stations in Iraq exceeded pre-war levels in October 2003. It's only been going up since.

As for these community generators what if you cannot afford or get the fuel to run them.

I don't know. I never encountered anyone who couldn't. Fuel lines are very long, though there's a healthy black market in it. Even the most atrociously primitive mud-built, no floor, two-room-home in the country seemed to have electricity from somewhere. Unless they were the nomadic type that lived in tents, of course. Ran into a few of those.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/06/wirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/06/ixworld.html

That's not new. I guess people are prioritising their fuel usage into power over vehicles. It is to be noted that insurgent attacks aren't helping the distribution situation, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1647937,00.html

A surgeon performing that kind of operation without anthestic in this day and age? The article is a detailed look at a Baghdad A&E. It catalogues, filthy conditions and doctors working with limited resources.

Again, shows you what the standard was before. I asked a GP who had just opened the only practise serving three or four towns what resources he needed. He didn't even have to look in the back before coming out with a list of basic requests. Part of that is government bureaucracy, I guess. I'd have thought that after two years, they might have started to get some form of more efficient distribution system in place.

Thats a very specific claim, where did you hear it?

I drove it. Or more accurately, I guess, I sat in the passenger seat, while someone else drove.

And we're supposed to find out whats going on in Iraq from where? The tooth fairy?

There are non-'mass media' sites out there, reporting the 'other side'. Michael Yon is probably the most famous independent reporter right now, but the problem with the majority of the rest is that they are blatantly partisan, which means that any statements are going to be tainted by association, so most people won't bother to read it. I guess Stars and Stripes might be a source for positive info, even if it is the Army rag. At least it's relatively objective, and doesn't suffer from 'Bush is God, Democrats are Evil' syndrome which a lot of more partisan sources suffer from.

Two points

1. Where did he say that. You quoted him.

http://newsbusters.org/node/328
Any chance I can be released from the requirement to support any objective statement I make with a link if I promise that if something is unsupported/opinion, I will clearly state that it is such? I had to spend fifteen minutes googling around for that, you could have just taken me at my word.

2. Again, where does he expect us to find out about this.

It's more to the point that he expects the newspapers to be more comprehensive and responsible. Not your fault, but the end result is the same.

As for the, "Ah we're here now" argument, many people have being saying that the US lied cheated and manipulated the situation in the build up of the war, the argument is now, these people mislead them into this, are they the best people to lead them out?

What does it matter? They're the people who are in charge now, and will be until 2009.

NTM

Freelancer

Manic Moran wrote:

I was in Iraq 2nd April 2004, left Feb 23rd 2005. My stomping grounds were the area around Balad (E Edge of Sunni Triangle) and Mosul

Can I ask in what capacity? You seem to get around quite a bit, you're refuting established published evidence with anecdotal evidence, it's difficult to refute someone who says "I was there I know more than you" as their only argument. Do you speak any Arabic languages?

I was referring to the January election, since I was around for that. I seem to recall that most news articles focused on how there was a lot less violence than expected. The other thing noticed was that after the elections, the information flow to the security forces from the population increased.

The bloodbath on the day of elections? There's also been no let up in violence
in the aftermath. What do you mean by information flow?

http://www.ameinfo.com/43592.html

I think that article just goes to show how atrocious the power system was three years ago, no? If it's this bad now...

Actually the article is from August 2004, so it's not from three years ago

And from the Daily start article from three weeks ago.

Electricity

Roughly $4.4 billion has been spent to boost Iraq's electricity production, yielding mixed results. According to the U.S. State Department, power generation, currently at 4,600 megawatts, has only recently exceeded the prewar level of 4,400 megawatts. That's still shy of the 6,000 megawatt objective stated by the Coalition Provisional Authority in September 2003. Nationwide, Iraqis on average have power for just half the day. Security forms a large part of this problem, too: a July 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office found that USAID nixed two electricity-generating projects in March 2004 because of the increased security costs of a separate electricity project. Several other power-generation projects have been cancelled or delayed. Barton says a better solution would have been to hand out 500 generators.

As for these community generators what if you cannot afford or get the fuel to run them.

I don't know. I never encountered anyone who couldn't. Fuel lines are very long, though there's a healthy black market in it. Even the most atrociously primitive mud-built, no floor, two-room-home in the country seemed to have electricity from somewhere. Unless they were the nomadic type that lived in tents, of course. Ran into a few of those.

You seemed to get out alot among ordinary Iraqs. Did you have Guards?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/06/wirq06.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/06/ixworld.html

That's not new. I guess people are prioritising their fuel usage into power over vehicles. It is to be noted that insurgent attacks aren't helping the distribution situation, of course.

And again that's an anecdotal rebuttal of a statement of facts, there's no evidence to suggest that what you state is happening is true. If they need to spend two days Queuing to get fuel for a car for two days, does not suggest the situation is in a place that people can get easy access for fuel to run a community generator.

Again, shows you what the standard was before. I asked a GP who had just opened the only practise serving three or four towns what resources he needed. He didn't even have to look in the back before coming out with a list of basic requests. Part of that is government bureaucracy, I guess. I'd have thought that after two years, they might have started to get some form of more efficient distribution system in place.

And again, why were you asking this GP?

I don't want to sound rude but check the date of the story it was published in the passed two weeks. Suggesting this is all ancient history and the situation has changed since then simply isn't true.

You offer anecdotal evidence that is six months out of date to re-butt an article written by someone there right now, according to that article, earlier in November of 2005 Iraq hospitals in the middle of Baghdad had no basic supplies like anesthetic.

I drove it. Or more accurately, I guess, I rode, while someone else drove.

Well again I have your word on this. I'll let it go, I mean since roman times getting a road network to ensure quick troop movements would be a occupation forces priority.

There are non-'mass media' sites out there, reporting the 'other side'. Michael Yon is probably the most famous independent reporter right now, but the problem with the majority of the rest is that they are blatantly partisan, which means that any statements are going to be tainted by association, so most people won't bother to read it. I guess Stars and Stripes might be a source for positive info, even if it is the Army rag.

Whats that line from "Full Metal Jacket"

Editor of Stars and Stripes to his staff;

"Damn it we report two stories, operations that lead to an enemy kill, and GIs donating half their pay to buy gooks bubblegum and medicine."

Come on suggesting that there are better sources to get a clearer picture of Iraq, and when asked to come up with them you come up with the US army's inhouse propaganda rag is pretty funny.

http://newsbusters.org/node/328

The front page of that site features a cartoon where it suggests that Arab an cameraman was colluding on a bombing.

Hilariously it claims to be exposing the liberal bias in the US media.

It's more to the point that he expects the newspapers to be more comprehensive and responsible. Not your fault, but the end result is the same.

Its ridiculous to suggest that in a month where a secret Iraqi security force prison is found, the Iraqi Prime Minister says that the situation is as bad as it was under Saddam, and dozens die in multiple suicide bomb blasts, to suggest the media isn't portraying the positive stories. The negative stories are too massive to ignore. And you're complaining that the media aren't reporting what? The massively improved medical situation, a journalist reported on the conditions in a Baghdad hospital, if the medical situation was improving he'd have been able to write a "better" story, he wrote an honest story on his experience. The situation dictates the tone of the articles, not the journalists.

What does it matter? They're the people who are in charge now, and will be until 2009.

NTM

Well fingers cross Cheney will be impeached. This is an infantile argument, we're here lets get stuck in ignore the lies that got us here, ignore the incompetence the arrogance, and knuckle down, they got us into this mess, what evidence do you have to suggest they have the competence to get them out?

Manic Moran

Can I ask in what capacity? You seem to get around quite a bit, you're refuting established published evidence with anecdotal evidence, it's difficult to refute someone who says "I was there I know more than you" as their only argument. Do you speak any Arabic languages?

Sadly, my knowledge of Arabic stops somewhere around the level of "No thank you, I do not want any more tea." I required an interpreter.

I'm a US Army line officer. My job was basically to go out and about, multi-functional role combined of security, training the Iraqi security forces and basically helping the local civilians out as I could.

I suggest that you treat my comments simply as another source of information, to be treated and evaluated accordingly. Yes, it's a lot harder to back up what I say, and yes, a lot of it is subjective. But it would be just as wrong to discount my observations as it would be for me to claim they are gospel.

The bloodbath on the day of elections? There's also been no let up in violence in the aftermath.

What bloodbath? I realise I tended to be focused on the area I was in at that point and time, but I made sure to check the news sites when I could just to see what was being reported elsewhere. However, just to be sure, I've spent the last ten minutes searching the BBC archives for the bloodbath report. Haven't found it. I thought I'd check the October (more recent) elections, the bloodbath consisted of three soldiers killed.

What do you mean by information flow?
Tips from the populace. Things like "Go to the market, look for a Blue Kadett. There are bombs in the back" sort of thing

Actually the article is from August 2004, so it's not from three years ago

I meant that the power situation was atrocious before the war, saying it's not fantastic now doesn't mean that there hasn't been an improvement.

And from the Daily start article from three weeks ago.

Per the government article I posted: "While total electric power output continued to climb, it was distributed in a new way. Under the old regime, the outlying regions were required to send power to Baghdad which enjoyed electricity nearly 24 hours per day. But the smaller cities such as Basra had power only a couple of hours each day. Now power is more evenly shared, even if Baghdadis may feel they have less hours of power than they enjoyed in the past.
Power is also growing at a time when demand is spiking due to booming sales of electric appliances from refrigerators to air conditioners to satellite televisions since Iraq’s central controls and trade isolation has ended."

i.e. People are now buying electrical goodies faster than they can build powerplants to supply them.

The comment about satellite televisions is particularly telling. The locals have what I might consider an interesting set of priorities. Mud dwellings routinely sport satellite dishes. I recall one house I was treated to a showing of a DVD of arabic dancing. I was susprised by the DVD player in this humble farmhouse, although upon reflection, I guess I shouldn't have been.

You seemed to get out alot among ordinary Iraqs.

Yes, it was my job. Unannounced, unscheduled, low-level visits usually.

Did you have Guards?

Sortof. Some of the lads were always on watch, even if the others were playing with the kids or helping locals or inside having a meal/chat/tea with me. We were all armed, of course. This certainly didn't seem to deter the locals from voicing grievances, if you're going to throw the intimidation card out. Humorous aside, one town demanded that we build them a football stadium. We're there going "Hang on a second.. don't you want a school, or clinic or something?" "No, we want a place to play football" "You're daft. You're getting a school"

And again that's an anecdotal rebuttal of a statement of facts, there's no evidence to suggest that what you state is happening is true. If they need to spend two days Queuing to get fuel for a car for two days, does not suggest the situation is in a place that people can get easy access for fuel to run a community generator.

No, it doesn't. But the fact remains that in my experience, this hasn't stopped them from doing it.

And again, why were you asking this GP?

Part of my job, again. It was deemed a good idea to find out what he wanted as a priority before we went and gave him stuff.

I don't want to sound rude but check the date of the story it was published in the passed two weeks. Suggesting this is all ancient history and the situation has changed since then simply isn't true.

I meant that the long fuel queues were not news. I have footage from early this year of that situation. That the MSM you read only reported it now doesn't mean it wasn't happening before.

You offer anecdotal evidence that is six months out of date to re-butt an article written by someone there right now.

Not a rebuttal. A statement of perspective.

Come on suggesting that there are better sources to get a clearer picture of Iraq, and when asked to come up with them you come up with the US army's inhouse propaganda rag is pretty funny.

I advocate it as an easily accessed alternative. Unfortunately, CNN/BBC/RTE et al really don't consider news such as "Today a new water purification system in Ali Basr was opened. This allows people in the town for the first time in twenty years to drink water which is not sourced directly from the Tigris river by way of dirt canals. Cases of dystentry (Or whatever you get from drinking untreated water) are expected to drop 90%" MSM focuses almost exclusively on things that go wrong. Bombs, shortages, et al. To get a balanced picture, look at something that focuses almost exclusively on things that go right, and balance the two sources out. Your information is only as good as your source.

The front page of that site features a cartoon where it suggests that Arab an cameraman was colluding on a bombing.

Hilariously it claims to be exposing the liberal bias in the US media.

I make no statements on the political leanings of the site. You asked for proof that the Army officer made his statement, I provided same. Being late for work as I was, I didn't have time to spend another 10 minutes looking for a more politically acceptable source for the same information.

The negative stories are too massive to ignore.

They are indeed, I grant you. The problem is that the smaller stories also exist, and they are being 'edged out' in the grand ratings war. Hence you have a disproportionate effect.

The situation dictates the tone of the articles, not the journalists.

Well, yes and no. There are long and heated arguments on various web fora over what editors like to have their journalists report on, and what goes into the papers. They certainly don't 'manufacture' news, but I think it would be naive to think there isn't some picking and choosing going on. American papers are particularly bad for that sort of thing (either side of the spectrum), you're fortunate that you're spared a lot of that in Europe.

Whilst my basis for comparison is now averaging a year old, I could see a difference between the overall tone of the news and overall tone of where I happened to be. I see no reason to believe that this has changed since.


Well fingers cross Cheney will be impeached. This is an infantile argument, we're here lets get stuck in ignore the lies that got us here, ignore the incompetence the arrogance, and knuckle down, they got us into this mess, what evidence do you have to suggest they have the competence to get them out?

I don't have any evidence at all. I don't even claim that they do. But regardless, they're the people in charge.

NTM

RedPlanet

"news" like this perhaps:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ca72216-6179-11da-8470-0000779e2340.html

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote:

"news" like this perhaps:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3ca72216-6179-11da-8470-0000779e2340.html

From the report: "The articles are basically truthful"

A little off-putting, and I'd personally rather they hadn't done it, but it's all part of the publicity fight, I guess. Got to get your side out as well as the other side.

NTM

Victor

patzer117, do I know you?

How did Iraq threaten Egypt?

Regarding peace in the "Middle East", oddly enough, going to war is a very risky means of achieving this. Aside from the immediate hostilities and their aftermath, there is the risk of creating a rump Iraq (or 3 rump Iraqs) which could be prey for their neighbours, what with Iraq having been at war or engaged in operations short of with all save Jordan (which has been a dysfunctional enough relationship) over the last 17-25 years.

Manic Moran wrote:

The argument should now be 'Well, these are the cards we have, where do we go from here?'

This is convenient, especially when the dealer is playing in a high stakes game.

Gurgle

Victor wrote:

Regarding peace in the "Middle East", oddly enough, going to war is a very risky means of achieving this.

Its a bit like fighting terrorism with an operation called 'Shock and Awe'.;)

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

A little off-putting, and I'd personally rather they hadn't done it, but it's all part of the publicity fight, I guess. Got to get your side out as well as the other side.
NTM

Now why would there be such a need for a "publicity fight" in a country where you'd be "greeted as liberators" ?

Freelancer

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm a US Army line officer. My job was basically to go out and about, multi-functional role combined of security, training the Iraqi security forces and basically helping the local civilians out as I could.

I suggest that you treat my comments simply as another source of information, to be treated and evaluated accordingly. Yes, it's a lot harder to back up what I say, and yes, a lot of it is subjective. But it would be just as wrong to discount my observations as it would be for me to claim they are gospel.

Well I have no way of verifying what you say is true. I am not calling you a liar, or claiming that any of what you say is true, but with respect, who am I to believe and give more weight to; The Former Prime Minister of Iraqi, published in one of the most highly regarded english language Sunday Broadsheets? Or someone anonymously posting on an internet form, who says he was in Iraq?

What bloodbath? I thought I'd check the October (more recent) elections, the bloodbath consisted of three soldiers killed.

The deadliest attack was when a man with explosives strapped to his body blew himself up in the queue at a polling station in east Baghdad, killing six people, an official said.

Another suicide bomber killed four people at a voting centre in the Sadr City slums. A suicide bomb also killed five people in a bus carrying voters south of Baghdad, Polish military in the area said.

30 people were killed during the January election
http://www.dawn.com/2005/01/31/top12.htm

As for the October Elections I'll admit I'm struggling to find a specific example, perhaps that's because

Violence has increased since the January 2005 elections. October 2005 was the fourth-bloodiest month on record for U.S. troops; August 2005 ranked fifth. And President Bush warns that the violence will likely get worse in the coming months.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5203

What do you mean by information flow?
Tips from the populace. Things like "Go to the market, look for a Blue Kadett. There are bombs in the back" sort of thing

And again, and I don't want to sound flippant, the above is unsubstantiated. So either the quality of the tips you say the security forces was very poor, (judging by the increasing severity of casualties and increased attacks by insurgents over the months following the election) or what you say may not be true.

Power is also growing at a time when demand is spiking due to booming sales of electric appliances from refrigerators to air conditioners to satellite televisions since Iraq’s central controls and trade isolation has ended."

i.e. People are now buying electrical goodies faster than they can build powerplants to supply them.

But that doesn't change the fact that what you said doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation. Iraq's don't have power all of the time. The article says theres a shortfall in the Occupation forces ambition of around 1,500 megawatts. You claimed Iraq's generally have power all of the time, this article seems to suggest that that isnt the reality.

The comment about satellite televisions is particularly telling. The locals have what I might consider an interesting set of priorities. Mud dwellings routinely sport satellite dishes. I recall one house I was treated to a showing of a DVD of arabic dancing. I was susprised by the DVD player in this humble farmhouse, although upon reflection, I guess I shouldn't have been.

Not really reports from Turkish Kurdistan seem to say the same thing. They don't trust the government controlled Turkish media, and get their news from the Kurdish run tv station transmitting from Belgium.

You seemed to get out alot among ordinary Iraqs.

Yes, it was my job. Unannounced, unscheduled, low-level visits usually.

Visits or Raids? I merely ask because a google search doesn't provide much info about such visits. Again reports about new recruits to the Iraqi security services hiding their identity to protect their families from reprisals, I have to wonder how keen Iraqi's would be to have US troops in their house for tea and DVDs.

Did you have Guards?

Sortof. Some of the lads were always on watch, even if the others were playing with the kids or helping locals or inside having a meal/chat/tea with me. We were all armed, of course. This certainly didn't seem to deter the locals from voicing grievances, if you're going to throw the intimidation card out. Humorous aside, one town demanded that we build them a football stadium. We're there going "Hang on a second.. don't you want a school, or clinic or something?" "No, we want a place to play football" "You're daft. You're getting a school"

Were you born in America? I just ask because the colloquiums you use "lads" and "daft" are more English or Irish.

And again that's an anecdotal rebuttal of a statement of facts, there's no evidence to suggest that what you state is happening is true. If they need to spend two days Queuing to get fuel for a car for two days, does not suggest the situation is in a place that people can get easy access for fuel to run a community generator.

No, it doesn't. But the fact remains that in my experience, this hasn't stopped them from doing it.

I meant that the long fuel queues were not news. I have footage from early this year of that situation. That the MSM you read only reported it now doesn't mean it wasn't happening before.

I was actually referring to the Guardian Hospital story being published this month, and your anecdote about the GP comes from over six months ago.

You offer anecdotal evidence that is six months out of date to re-butt an article written by someone there right now.

Not a rebuttal. A statement of perspective.

And I'm sorry not to sound rude, but you claim the medical situation is much improved I present an article written this month which states that a Baghdad hospital hasn't got basic supplies, and you offer unsubstantiated anecdotes that this isn't true picture of the situation. Which should I give more credence to?

I advocate it as an easily accessed alternative. Unfortunately, CNN/BBC/RTE et al really don't consider news such as "Today a new water purification system in Ali Basr was opened. This allows people in the town for the first time in twenty years to drink water which is not sourced directly from the Tigris river by way of dirt canals. Cases of dystentry (Or whatever you get from drinking untreated water) are expected to drop 90%" MSM focuses almost exclusively on things that go wrong. Bombs, shortages, et al. To get a balanced picture, look at something that focuses almost exclusively on things that go right, and balance the two sources out. Your information is only as good as your source.

So what I start reading Stars and Stripes and the missives of Abu Musab al Zarqawi to get a balanced clear picture on the ground. With respect considering the fantastic basis of US mainstream media towards your troops surely Fox would be able to produce it's Happy Iraq story once in a while if there was one.

I make no statements on the political leanings of the site. You asked for proof that the Army officer made his statement, I provided same. Being late for work as I was, I didn't have time to spend another 10 minutes looking for a more politically acceptable source for the same information.

So you admit the site is politically unacceptable?

The problem is that the smaller stories also exist, and they are being 'edged out' in the grand ratings war. Hence you have a disproportionate effect.

The problem is the situation on the ground is so bad that journalists cannot get out to report these "positive stories" It's a bit difficult to look on the happy side when your only options are the embed yourself with the Occupation forces, hide in the Green Zone, use Iraqi Stringers or Travel in an armed convoy. Just last month an Irish born journalist luckily escaped with this life, trying to report an everyday positive story an Iraq families reaction to the start of the Saddam trial. The situation dicitates the story and if the situation is so bad that they can't even begin to start to cover the stories you'd like to see in MSM, well I submit then the bad news is the story.

I don't have any evidence at all. I don't even claim that they do. But regardless, they're the people in charge.

NTM

So as a US soldier (the first one I've spoken to) Do you feel that they lied to send you to war? Do you feel they lead in an army ill equipped for the situation? Does the moratorium on photos of coffins bother you?

The suggestion that this is a fate accomplí and you just must accept the situation as it is, is just unacceptable, Clinton nearly got impeached over a blue stain surely there must be some kind of formal investigate of this matter? And perhaps replaced with people who (off the top of my head) aren't tied to companies making billions in the occupation, don't have massive links to the Saudi royal family, seem to be interested in finding Osama Bin Laden (remember him?), and I don't know have a degree of competence and clear plan?

Manic Moran

Well I have no way of verifying what you say is true.
I know, and it's a factor to consider. Then again, why would I lie?

I am not calling you a liar, or claiming that any of what you say is true, but with respect, who am I to believe and give more weight to; The Former Prime Minister of Iraqi, published in one of the most highly regarded english language Sunday Broadsheets?

Didn't your mother teach you anything about not trusting strangers with sweets and politicians? ;-)

OK, more seriously. Maybe I'm very cynical about all politicians, but I believe that whenever one opens his mouth publicly, its for a political purpose, which means that he is going to cherrypick whatever facts he needs to support his position. I think this stands true for the vast majority of politicians from Bush through Bertie down to your local town councillor. (sp?). He's not going to lie (Definition of lie, per the eternally accurate Yes, Prime Miniser: Anything which can be proven false by other sources), but at that level he is going to be making some gross generalisations.

Or someone anonymously posting on an internet form, who says he was in Iraq?
I can't argue that, though if it helps any, there are some others on this forum that know me personally and could vouch for the general veracity of my claim should they see fit to do so.

30 people were killed during the January election
http://www.dawn.com/2005/01/31/top12.htm

I stand corrected. Not a massive bloodbath, but more than I had thought.

As for the October Elections I'll admit I'm struggling to find a specific example, perhaps that's because

OK. I'm callous. I was ignoring attacks on US troops, since it's a risk they take. Attacks on civilians during the elections were minimal. I think the worst that happened is they knocked out the power that morning.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5203

And again, and I don't want to sound flippant, the above is unsubstantiated. So either the quality of the tips you say the security forces was very poor, (judging by the increasing severity of casualties and increased attacks by insurgents over the months following the election) or what you say may not be true.

To a point, anything that you might consider substantiated is simply person A (a journalist) reporting what person B is saying, but printing it in the media. In this case, I'm person B, telling you what happened in January directly. Do I have figures? No. I only have what the battalion intel officer told me. I see no reason he should have lied to me then, and I see no reason I should make it up for you now. I'd also be very careful about the fallacy of causality: That attacks have increased in severity/effectiveness does not automatically indicate that tips from the public did not also increase in number.

But that doesn't change the fact that what you said doesn't seem to reflect the reality of the situation. Iraq's don't have power all of the time. The article says theres a shortfall in the Occupation forces ambition of around 1,500 megawatts. You claimed Iraq's generally have power all of the time, this article seems to suggest that that isnt the reality.

I make no claim that they have power from the grid all the time. What I do claim is that to assume that the Iraqis spend half their time sitting in darkness with no power is wrong.
Here is an example of the wiring to a community generator in Mosul. As you can see, it's just a case of string your own wire. (the generator is housed in the little building in the front right, the lines meet up and go down a pole just out of shot).

This is obviously an undesireable state of affairs, and doubtless the ultimate goal is to make such things un-necessary. For now, however, when the lights go out, within about five minutes, they come on again, to the background noise of diesel motors.

Visits or Raids? I merely ask because a google search doesn't provide much info about such visits.

Ergo, it didn't happen? This is a prime example of what I'm saying about the media point of view being not particularly balanced. Presumably you get the impression that Americans spend all their time ramming doors with HMMWVs, shooting at people who get too close to convoys, or bodily tackling people at checkpoints.

Bearing in mind that as one of the few units that brought tanks along, our primary role was fighting. Find people who wished us harm and capture (preferable) or kill them. I personally saw two car bombs detonate, there were others in our area, people shot at us with RPGs and rifles, mortar attacks too numerous to count. Yet, despite that, easily over 90% of the interactions we had with locals were social. When we did conduct raids, I'm struggling to recall any that were not 'soft' raids. (Knock on door, tell them to the effect of 'I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'm afraid we need to search your house. Would you please call all the residents downstairs into this room?'). We did support a few hard raids, while high-speed special forces types went in, but considering the targets, they were well justifiable.

So, for example, this is me.

This is my driver

I was on leave, these are some of my NCOs

Or just stopping by


Again reports about new recruits to the Iraqi security services hiding their identity to protect their families from reprisals, I have to wonder how keen Iraqi's would be to have US troops in their house for tea and DVDs.

Definitely the first is true. A large number of the Iraqi forces we worked with covered their faces. The Iraqis not in uniform, however, seemed to welcome us with open arms. These are easily the most hospitable people I have ever met. "Oh, you parked your tank in front of my humble hut. Please come inside!" I guess that since we visited as many people as we could, the insurgents decided that there wasn't any point in trying to make examples of them all.

Were you born in America? I just ask because the colloquiums you use "lads" and "daft" are more English or Irish.

Yes. Long story. My dad's Irish, was in the US when I popped out. Moved to Ireland age five. Stayed in Europe 'till age 25. Moved to US five years ago. (ergo I am 30)

I was actually referring to the Guardian Hospital story being published this month, and your anecdote about the GP comes from over six months ago.

I think we're talking from different perspectives. You're looking at it from the point of view of someone who, I presume, has always encountered reasonably clean, reasonably well-equipped hospitals, and considers such to be the standard to be compared with. I'm looking at it from the point of view that what started out with horrendously ill-equipped, unsanitary facilities have progressed to the point of poorly-equipped, unsatisfactory facilities.

The two points of view (Newspaper, and mine) are not mutually exclusive. It depends on what your start point is.

So what I start reading Stars and Stripes and the missives of Abu Musab al Zarqawi to get a balanced clear picture on the ground.

I guess you could, though Zarqawi tends to produce more rhetoric than stories. Still though, S&S is not as propogandistic as you might initially believe. I think the powers that are have accepted that after the soldiers read their paper, they then stroll over to the internet cafe and then see what's on the BBC website. I certainly did, most of my guys did too. As a result, most of the stories of nationwide import are actually syndicated from national newspapers. The 'local' stories are done by military reporters, simply because nobody else is covering them.

By way of example, looking at today's edition, the main story is taken from the St Louis Post-Dispatch. I also see reports filed by Associated Press reporters, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and NewsDay. Look for the MidEast edition (PDF) on http://www.estripes.com

So you admit the site is politically unacceptable?
Not per se, I've not read it. It just happened to substaniate my claim that Officer A made comment X to reporter B.
I suffer from the evidently minority opinion that any medium which claims to publish news should be politically neutral. Unfortunately, when it comes to American stories, I'm not sure such things exist. I mean, when major broadsheet newspapers go about in election season saying "In the upcoming elections/referenda, this is how you should vote" (and then go down the list of every measure), I think there's a problem. I digress slightly, however.

End part 1.