The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated

[Drunken Master]

Re: Brief moments of Clarity?

DM you must really be drunk when you post, as you seem to have brief moments of amazing clarity then you lapse..

First your solution was impractical and would wreak further havoc.

Firing Rumsfeld and his cohorts will cause havoc? Wow. They really are the masters of the universe.

I don't know what the figures are, but I do believe that Iraqi's are dying at a rate of 2.5X higher.

But then you draw the conclusion that this is a direct result of the Occupiers neglect. That is not necessarily the case. It's a combination of a number of things.

Yes indeed, it is a combination of things - including neglect and incompetence. And I'm far from the first one to draw that conclusion.

 

[slowandeasy]

Re: Re: Brief moments of Clarity?

Firing Rumsfeld and his cohorts will cause havoc? Wow. They really are the masters of the universe.



Yes indeed, it is a combination of things - including neglect and incompetence. And I'm far from the first one to draw that conclusion.

Ok... it's a combination of a number of things including neglect and incompetence...

I surely hope that when Judy Sgro gets back to the cabinet, she will work out something for Iraq Strippers, SPs and MPA to get easy access to working visas in Canada.

 

[onthebottom]

Ah, I suspected the blackberry was the culprit. Not that I was going to let it slide.

I'm not suggesting firing politicians - there was an election, and that's that. Just the militaro-crats like Rumsfeld who were responsible for pushing the US into the war.

Put it this way - not only are most of the people responsible for the botched occupation still running the show, but those who have left have been rewarded! Paul Bremmer gets a medal! What kind of message does this send to the people running Iraq now?

Let's say I did take that admin job. Does this scenario make any sense?

DM: Hey OTB, remember that shipment that had to be in Sacremento by Tuesday or else the company was going to lose 2 million dollars in penalties?

OTB: Yes......

DM: Well, I sent it to Pakistan instead. Apparently Osama has it now.

OTB: Oh. I see.

DM: Yeah.

OTB: I'm very disappointed in you.

DM: I know.

OTB: Here's a raise and a promotion.

DM: Great! I'll get right on that shipment that needs to go to Portland by tommorrow - just let me have a few drinks first....

I don't know that I'd be handing out medals, unless they had to do with Afghanistan.

What I found curious was that when asked for a suggested course of action you focused in Washington - I don't think that will impact the events on the ground in Iraq. If you were put in charge - what would you do.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I see more than one solution posted here from the anti-bush league. (and so would you, if you looked). Let’s separate the two ideas shall we, anti-bush and pro-stick-it-out verses cut-loss-run.

I’m a bush-basher, no doubt about it. Before engaging here, I was pro stick-it-out. Why? One main reason, I felt the country left unto itself, would escalate the level of global terrorism (my main concern). I spent the last 36 hours thinking over my position. I read a bunch, looking for info on the real situation in Iraq, not just the vanilla version that Canadian Press and CNN push. Finally, I came to the undesirable conclusion (and please believe me, I tried to push my point of view hard into stick-with-it camp) that the military solution is the only solution in Iraq, if the US is to stay the course. There is no political solution. This will lead to more genocide, (yes, same will occur if they pull out). The difference is that in the military solution, the US will have a hand in the genocide. This consequence will be like pouring naptha gas on the Islam extremist movement everywhere. I finally concluded this is the bigger of the two problems we all face.

If we compare the two outcomes in terms of US interests (staying the course verses cut and run), the escalation of islamic extremism world wide is a larger negative, than having Iraq fall into the chaos of self-rule. The cut and run solution is the more detrimental of the two for US corporate interests, because by staying the course, there is the ongoing business of war, and the billions that flow due to the business. However the counter point, is that US security weakens on a broader scale, along with those of France, UK, Asia etc (Pakistan for one) , in the equation, due to the large boost of cannon fodder to international terrorism and its recruitment etc etc. resulting from the US hand in genocide in the M.E. region.

This is simply ‘a point of view’. Like all points of view, it can be changed. I am open to any light that can be shed. But for now I have to side with this point of view, because that’s the outcome I see for the future, based on current reality. Bush has come and Bush will go. Islamic extremism will be here for decades. What the US does in Iraq now (in the next year), will largely determine/affect the course of that destiny.

Thanks for that, I think you can come to either conclusion (stay and fight it out or cut and run) depending on what factors you emphasize. I tend to think if we cut and run that it will have a Somalia effect of convincing terrorists that if they fight hard enough we'll give up and leave. I don't think there is ANY chance W will do that, he's a stubborn guy when he's running for reelection - now that he's in for 4 with never having to face the voters again in his life he's going to do what he wants and that's stay and fight. Doesn't mean it's right, just what's going to happen IMHO.

I tend to think if we can find ways to kill the insurgents faster, get the Iraqi's in the fight and seal off the boarders with Syria and Iran this thing could be won. A successful election in two weeks could take some of the air out of the insurgents sails - far from a sure thing but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

I don't really care what's good for corporate America on this, how much it costs or how long it takes, I think winning is everything here.

I have a very good friend who is a Republican and a Palestinian. His strong view is cut-and-run is the only answer. He keeps telling me that when they look at us they see the British.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

My guess is that the US population will send a firm message on the midterm elections to the Republican party.
There is a good chance for anti-war candidates to gain some ground. This trend will set the tone for 08 and will let either an antiwar candidate a la Dean or a moderate a la McCain come to the forefront.
Either way there will be a lot of public pressure on ending the "Iraq Experience".

Either way, IMHO this will be over soon.

A few posts back someone mentioned that Canadians call their politicians liars.True, they do, but do they hold them accountable?
I will watch with great interest the fallout of the sponsorship scandal.
Let's see if this will go to the top and if the buck will stop there?

 

[langeweile]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050116/2005-01-16T173023Z_01_GEO655222_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.html

 

[langeweile]

You already saw the fall out - the Liberals only have a minority government. BTW who says US Congressman and Senators are any more accountable than Canadian politicians. Incumbancy in non-term limited jobs is amongst the highest in the world in American politics - you trying to tell me this is because American polititians are more honest than anyone else.


bbk

I am not sure where you see me imply this?

A few posts back some guy was implying that Canadians somehow, hold their own politicians to a higher standard.
I can't say i have seen much evidence of this, that's why i have refered to the scandal.
I hope there is going to be a bit more beef than that. I for once want to know, how much Martin and Chretien knew about it?
Chretien is due to testify this month.

Martin even if he didn't knew about the ad agencies(I give him that benefit), at least he has hown incompetence, by not knowing where a substantial part of his money went, while he was minister of finnace.

I have never implied that US politicians are more honest. IMHO power corrupts and I wish their would be a term limit in the US.
Less goverment is always better than more.

 

[slowandeasy]

I am very sure Martin knew about the ad agencies - after all the original idea was approved by the government. What he didn't know was that not all the money went to ads and hence the scandal. Some of Martin's critics seem to think that Finance Minister needs to know where every last penny is spent, I think our Finance Ministers have better things to do.

This is a Chretien scandal and just simply good ole fashioned Quebec buddy buddy politics - but good luck in getting Chretien to say anything.


bbk

I agree with you BBK. I would hope that the Finance Minister has better things to do.

slow waits for the effects to wear off before he can type again

I was amused when some politicians seemed to expect to ask Martin about $10 that was spent in 1999 on meals for the MP from SW buttfuck!!!!...

What I was disturbed about was when he was asked how much government money was spent on his Shipping Company and he missed by a factor of 10. I think that he had said $10million and the figure was $160 million. Now that caused me some concern..

 

[langeweile]

I was also surprised at that but it should be noted that while Martin didn't formally give control to his sons until after the leadership convention, the reality is that his sons have been running the Company since 1989. In addition the conflict of interest rule require that Martin not be involved in any meeting where Canada Steamship was brought up and all indications show that he did just that, so not being that informed on Canada Steamship policy - might be a good thing. I think it is important to note that nobody has said the reasons for the granting the money was any less important than the money granted to those snow mobile builders. Again Quebec politics as usual - BTW this kind of politics is not limited to the Liberals - Mulroney of the PCs paved the way.


bbk

BTW this kind of politics knows no boundaries or nationality...IMHO

 

[Mcluhan]

From inside Iraq..

Iraq violence spreads to 'safe' areas

Gunmen are now setting up their own checkpoints on most roads leading out of Baghdad....

....The number of attacks across the country now averages 80 a day, the same level as last spring when the US occupation was facing its greatest challenge, trying to head off armed uprisings in Sunni and Shia areas....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1392871,00.html

 

[yychobbyist]

Makes you wonder how much violence there'll be on election day.

 

[danmand]

Well, if the location of the polling stations have to be kept secret for fear of attacks, I would not show up.

 

[danmand]

In the Galapagos Islands, the finches have beaks that .....Oh, never mind.

 

[Mcluhan]

....and you would be a wimp. Somethings are so important that you should standup for what you believe. If it was me I would vote - mind I most likely be armed to the teeth, but I would vote.
bbk

Would I stand up in front of a snipers bullet to vote? Let me think about that.. (a quarter second passes)..No.

One thing I found interesting, there could be between 1 mil and 4 ex-pats voting.

 

[yychobbyist]

Any society where you need to be armed to the teeth to vote has some serious farking problems. Any society which would allow you to vote while armed to the teeth has even bigger problems.

 

[danmand]

Would anybody else be willing to make a contribution towards buying a ticket to Iraq for BB, so he can show his heroism appropriately?

Please give generously.

 

[danmand]

Gee Danny boy - Are you being a silly fart once again? You would have to get me Iraq citizenship for that to happen and I'm not planning on leaving the greatest country in the world.

I hear they are looking for people to guard the polling stations.

Please.

 

[yychobbyist]

I didn't say they didn't have problems but if I was getting a real vote for the first time, there would be no way in hell some asshat is going to chase me off that vote and if they tried they would regret it. To stay home would be wimpy and not respect what was at stake.

For you to imply that a first time democracy like Iraq, isn't a real democracy because of the potential for violence is just wrong. Hell you can't even get thru an election in Jamacia without a body count.


bbk

Be that as it may, I would be willing to bet that your average Iraqi would rather wake up in bed next to his wife and make breakfast for his kids than be blown to bits while voting the day before.

I'm not implying that Iraq isn't a real democracy because of a potential for violence. I'm just saying that a society where you're allowed to take a weapon to a polling station is a pretty fucked up place. Moreover, any society where there is violence during elections also has its issues.

If asked outright, I wouldn't imply that Iraq isnt' a real democracy because of violence, I'd say it wasn't going to be a real democracy for a few generations because I don't think real democracies can be forced on anyone, I think they're a product of a historical evolution. I also think forcing a state to become a democracy when there is no history of it does nothing but fuel any existing problems.

 

[mrpolarbear]

The US military is so far advanced and the potential enemy *Syria* is relatively weak, the war could be won without having to be based in IRAQ.

If there is evidence that Syria supports the insurgency, an attack on those targets, should be warranted.

isnt that what they said about Iraq in the begining.WEAK

 

[yychobbyist]

Actually no. During the runup to the first Gulf War I remember an article in Time mag. that said that Iraq was the third largest standing army in the world.



bbk

I remember a great cartoon in the Calgary Herald during the first Iraq war where there was a soldier standing at a sign that said "Welcome to Iraq, Home of the World's 3rd largest army". The "3rd" was crossed out and replaced by 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th which were also crossed out.