Thread: Average Iraqi's life is worse now

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Then you're listening to the wrong people.

If the 'average' Iraqi's life got crappier, well, I guess we know who's screwing up the curve: the Kurds.

Kurdistan (and there is one, even if it's not officially recognized, it is FACT on the ground, right now) is a boom town. It's the most peaceful, prosperous and democratic segment of the entire Arab world. It's doing almost everything for itself, too, something the rest of Iraq cannot claim, and it's downright peaceful: no American troops have been killed there in a VERY long time.

I look at the Kurds and I think: it can STILL work.

So does Kurdistan not have problems with insurgents and internecine conflict? Or have there been attacks and it's just that they haven't responded in kind?

Originally Posted by Yirmeyahu

gunnut

What has he stolen? What "war crimes" has he committed?

Billions of dollars in contracts from the "oil for food" program. He steered these contracts to a Swiss firm that his son worked for. No ulterior motives there. He and his cronies get kickbacks from Iraq in the meantime.

War crimes? Darfur ring a bell? Hundreds of thousands of people are dying and he sat on his hands. I don't remember him lobbying the Euros and America to stop the genocide. In fact, he should have lobbied to call it a "genocide." That way the UN is forced to act by charter.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

So does Kurdistan not have problems with insurgents and internecine conflict? Or have there been attacks and it's just that they haven't responded in kind?

VERY little insurgent problem. The Peshmerga is head-and-shoulders the best Arab military, and the civil service, as has been pointed out, functions without the stratospheric levels of corruption found everywhere else in the Middle East. The Pesh keeps the radicals in a constant state of beat-down defensiveness that has them just trying to stay alive. And the civil service makes sure that the courts operate efficiently and according to something rather more advanced than haphazard and capricious tribal law, while ensuring the trash gets collected and the lights stay on.

The fact is, they're getting rich, the society is well-ordered, and Kurdistan is - while this may be hard for people to believe - becoming a tourist area, with a world-class international airport, five-star hotels and a service economy that reminded Michelin critics of Cuba in the 'Fifties.

If an Iraqi's life is worse now than under Saddam...that Iraqi is dam' sure not a Kurd.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

life is worse now than under Saddam...that Iraqi is dam' sure not a Kurd.

True but you guys went in so your now responsible for them all. Whatever happens there the U.S is on the hook for.

You probably should should just bombed the suspected WMD and Mil sites and called it a day. Way less expensive and far less of a headache.

The adminitration made three extremely bad mistakes when they decided to go in.
1. They stated there were significant WMD's.
2. They stated that the vast majority of people in Iraq would see the US as liberators.
3. They're plan for rebuilding the country sucked, if it ever really existed in any significant form.

Originally Posted by canoe

True but you guys went in so your now responsible for them all. Whatever happens there the U.S is on the hook for.

You are correct. We actually feel bad for the people there so we stuck around trying to fix them.

Originally Posted by canoe

You probably should should just bombed the suspected WMD and Mil sites and called it a day. Way less expensive and far less of a headache.

Bombing has never won a war. We had to put boots on the ground to see for ourselves whether or not there were WMD. If we had only bombed, the world would still believe Saddam has WMD 'til this day.

Originally Posted by canoe

1. They stated there were significant WMD's.

As confirmed by dozens of foreign intelligence agencies. You call them liars too?

Originally Posted by canoe

2. They stated that the vast majority of people in Iraq would see the US as liberators.

Initially. But the guy in charge usually gets all the blame. We took charge. We get all the blame. Some of them have soured.

Originally Posted by canoe

3. They're plan for rebuilding the country sucked, if it ever really existed in any significant form.

We have a great plan to rebuild the country. Some people just don't want us to. Happy people will give credit to the guy in charge. Miserable will blame the guy in charge. Guess what the scumbags in Iraq want?

gunnut,

You are correct. We actually feel bad for the people there so we stuck around trying to fix them.

it wasn't a question of "feeling bad", fixing the mistakes was part and parcel of our plan of "draining the swamp of extremism in the middle east", which was our way of winning the War on Terror.

We have a great plan to rebuild the country. Some people just don't want us to. Happy people will give credit to the guy in charge. Miserable will blame the guy in charge. Guess what the scumbags in Iraq want?

actually, the plan sucked (not to mention the execution of said plan, which also sucked), or else we wouldn't have changed both plan and execution thereof constantly.

our initial plan was centered around some happy-happy world where the old iraqi bureaucracy, minus large numbers of extreme b'aathists, would re-create iraqi civil society; where a certain mr. chalabi would take over the reins of the iraqi government which would also recognize israel; where religious leaders would lie quiet; and in such a situation, the strong new iraqi government would, with US technology (and firms), start pumping out oil, thereby paying for iraq's own reconstruction and at the same time lowering the price of oil in the West, which could also break OPEC.

and we'd be down to 30K troops by nov. 2003.

yeah, the plan was great....sounds great.

one of the reasons why "kurdistan", as bluesman has pointed out, is doing so well is because we didn't remove and re-make the political authorities. i think what that, and the rest of iraq, clearly demonstrates for the future is that above all, reconstruction requires a strong central authority.

unfortunately for most of iraq, the US, having necessarily removed the last odious but strong political authority, did not create a good replacement; none of the iraqi leaders are up to task, either.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Bombing has never won a war. We had to put boots on the ground to see for ourselves whether or not there were WMD. If we had only bombed, the world would still believe Saddam has WMD 'til this day.

Your assuming this war is still winnable. Personally I think after you pull out Iraq is going to turn and shank you regardless of what you do. No foreign country invaded them. You can't save a country from its own people and they 'problematic' beliefs.

As confirmed by dozens of foreign intelligence agencies. You call them liars too?

I obviously don't know enough about the US INTEL used to create the US INTEL reports but I do know they were obviously at best wrong. And people were calling them on it at the time it was presented as well. The question American people should be asking given their on the hook for all this is if they were just wrong or deliberately false.

In regards to foreign intelligence agencies. Alot of them rehash info they get from the US or other NATO allies. CISIS is a prime example they do very little (read none) intel gathering themselves, they just process everyone elses information and present it. So it stands to reason the reports they get from the US would lead them to create reports that agree with your analysts.

Initially. But the guy in charge usually gets all the blame. We took charge. We get all the blame. Some of them have soured.

I think you had the Kurds and some of the Shia at the start. Right now I think you have the Kurds. Everyone else either wants you out or wants to kill you.

We have a great plan to rebuild the country. Some people just don't want us to. Happy people will give credit to the guy in charge. Miserable will blame the guy in charge. Guess what the scumbags in Iraq want?

Disbanding the government, police and military then trying to shoe horn something together as you go doesn't seem to have worked out well. The country is bordering on all out civil war.

An ingredient of a great plan is making your acheivements realistic and accounting for the variables working against you. Then having the plan actually work.

canoe,

The question American people should be asking given their on the hook for all this is if they were just wrong or deliberately false.

now that'd be one big conspiracy...all of the spy agencies of the world, working together to advance the evil bush agenda for invading iraq!

Originally Posted by canoe

Your assuming this war is still winnable. Personally I think after you pull out Iraq is going to turn and shank you regardless of what you do. No foreign country invaded them. You can't save a country from its own people and they 'problematic' beliefs.

The war is over. We won. We won in May of 2003.

We failed at rebuilding the nation into a self sustaining democracy.

Had we left in June of 2003 and let the Iraqis fend for themselves, would you still say we lost the "war?"

Originally Posted by canoe

I obviously don't know enough about the US INTEL used to create the US INTEL reports but I do know they were obviously at best wrong. And people were calling them on it at the time it was presented as well. The question American people should be asking given their on the hook for all this is if they were just wrong or deliberately false.

We didn't have the human resources on the ground in Iraq the likes of the French, Russian, or Egyptian. Most of the on the ground information fed to us were from these people. We didn't make up anything. Spying isn't sending in 007 with a sack of cash and a license to kill. Spying is gathering a bunch of information from numerous informants and then put them together to form the big picture. They by far had better human intelligence than we ever did. We used them to verify our intel.

Originally Posted by canoe

In regards to foreign intelligence agencies. Alot of them rehash info they get from the US or other NATO allies. CISIS is a prime example they do very little (read none) intel gathering themselves, they just process everyone elses information and present it. So it stands to reason the reports they get from the US would lead them to create reports that agree with your analysts.

What about Egypt? Jordan? Are they part of NATO too and had an agenda to help Bush?

Originally Posted by canoe

I think you had the Kurds and some of the Shia at the start. Right now I think you have the Kurds. Everyone else either wants you out or wants to kill you.

Have you noticed most of the attacks now are muslim on muslim crimes? Yeah, they really want to kill us, but since they can't tell apart a bunch of Americans in BDU from the locals, they kinda bombed their own people, every day, with multiple, coordinated suicide attacks.

Originally Posted by canoe

Disbanding the government, police and military then trying to shoe horn something together as you go doesn't seem to have worked out well. The country is bordering on all out civil war.

That was dumb, I agree. We should have set up a military junta and rule by decree. It was a mistake trying to give these people democracy. I'm not being facecious.

Originally Posted by canoe

An ingredient of a great plan is making your acheivements realistic and accounting for the variables working against you. Then having the plan actually work.

I agree.

Originally Posted by astralis

canoe,

now that'd be one big conspiracy...all of the spy agencies of the world, working together to advance the evil bush agenda for invading iraq!

I as a general rule of thumb refuse to beleive in conspiracy theories that involve more then 3 people.

I beleive it may have been possible that the US government put pressure on US intel agencies to produce evidence that supported a war scenario. CIA is a government branch like any other just alot more arrogent, people still wana get promoted.

Originally Posted by gunnut

The war is over. We won. We won in May of 2003.

We failed at rebuilding the nation into a self sustaining democracy.

Had we left in June of 2003 and let the Iraqis fend for themselves, would you still say we lost the "war?"

The war is over and you clearly won the military on the front but winning on the civil front is debatable. Time will tell but its not looking good.

We didn't have the human resources on the ground in Iraq the likes of the French, Russian, or Egyptian. Most of the on the ground information fed to us were from these people. We didn't make up anything. Spying isn't sending in 007 with a sack of cash and a license to kill. Spying is gathering a bunch of information from numerous informants and then put them together to form the big picture. They by far had better human intelligence than we ever did. We used them to verify our intel.

You are of course correct with regards to human intelligence. You guys were deficint in that area for Iraq. You were heavily relying on communication intercepts, imagery and leaked information from Iraqi ex-pats and informants.

I haven't seen the French or Russian INTEL reports so I have no idea how they describe the situation pre-invasion but I don't recall either country supporting your intent to go to war. So either they were ignoring their own INTEL or their INTEL didn't support your own analysts.

What about Egypt? Jordan? Are they part of NATO too and had an agenda to help Bush?

They had an agenda with Saddam and not getting put on the Axis list.

Have you noticed most of the attacks now are muslim on muslim crimes? Yeah, they really want to kill us, but since they can't tell apart a bunch of Americans in BDU from the locals, they kinda bombed their own people, every day, with multiple, coordinated suicide attacks.

Your describing the internal conflicts between the various factions in Iraq. I'm not suggesting their only killing US soldiers. They have a serious bone to grind with each other as well. I'm suggesting alot of them would take advantage of the opertunity to take out US troops if they had the chance.

That was dumb, I agree. We should have set up a military junta and rule by decree. It was a mistake trying to give these people democracy. I'm not being facecious.

We are in complete agreement here. It seems to be getting more evident alot of middle eastern countries can't function in as true open democratic system. Maybe its a cultural issue? Maybe the religious organizations have too much power? I have no idea.

canoe, gunnut,

We are in complete agreement here. It seems to be getting more evident alot of middle eastern countries can't function in as true open democratic system. Maybe its a cultural issue? Maybe the religious organizations have too much power? I have no idea.

the problem here is not so much the society or the people itself, but what's needed for a functioning democracy.

a functioning democracy requires civil society, independent courts, some form of public trust, patriotism, checks and balances, a fairly strong state...aside from the work necessary in forming a government, of course.

in EVERY SINGLE CASE we have had of a successful transition from a totalitarian/dictatorial state to a democracy, these elements were present. in iraq's case, it had few of those characteristics to begin with, and what few it did have, were largely torn down with the destruction of the old government- along with other US actions during the initial occupation phase.

in short, the US left a large power vacuum, and in our fear of looking overbearing, we did not step in. what stepped in were the religious organizations and the accompanying militias.

we did not need a military junta or regime. a strong central authority does not need to be military-based. we just needed to be firmer in the beginning, have more boots on the ground, and set up a decent provisional authority. we did not.

Originally Posted by astralis

canoe, gunnut,



the problem here is not so much the society or the people itself, but what's needed for a functioning democracy.

a functioning democracy requires civil society, independent courts, some form of public trust, patriotism, checks and balances, a fairly strong state...aside from the work necessary in forming a government, of course.

in EVERY SINGLE CASE we have had of a successful transition from a totalitarian/dictatorial state to a democracy, these elements were present. in iraq's case, it had few of those characteristics to begin with, and what few it did have, were largely torn down with the destruction of the old government- along with other US actions during the initial occupation phase.

in short, the US left a large power vacuum, and in our fear of looking overbearing, we did not step in. what stepped in were the religious organizations and the accompanying militias.

we did not need a military junta or regime. a strong central authority does not need to be military-based. we just needed to be firmer in the beginning, have more boots on the ground, and set up a decent provisional authority. we did not.

That doesn't explain Lebanon, and Iran.