The real people to blame!!

**Commando** · 23 Apr 07,, 11:04

Why blame the USA for the post war problems. Yes they started the war which was intended too remove Saddam from power. They didn't say we will ensure peace forever after the war.

The real people too blame are those in charge of the militias, parties, factions etc etc etc. Sheik's. Whoever is in charge needs too be blamed and not the USA.

The USA liberated Iraq. Now the backwards leaders of the opposing parties are turning their own country into rubble.

So who should realistically be too blame?

Want too hear your thoughts, you all know where i stand?

**Shek** · 23 Apr 07,, 13:29

As the saying goes, mothers always tell their kids to "leave a place at least the same, if not better off than what you found it like."

Well, applying that to Iraq, we failed to replace security with security. In doing so, we created a power vacuum that has been filled with all the players you mentioned.

Thus, while the US is not the sole entity to blame, there is blame to be placed on the US. To state that we did our share and now its all the Iraqis fault is to ignore the fact that security is the basic underpinning of any civilised society. Without that fundamental building block, what can reasonably follow?

**Ray** · 23 Apr 07,, 20:16

A very astute and honest observation, to say the least.

**Shamus** · 23 Apr 07,, 21:56

Originally Posted by Shek

As the saying goes, mothers always tell their kids to "leave a place at least the same, if not better off than what you found it like."

Well, applying that to Iraq, we failed to replace security with security. In doing so, we created a power vacuum that has been filled with all the players you mentioned.

Thus, while the US is not the sole entity to blame, there is blame to be placed on the US. To state that we did our share and now its all the Iraqis fault is to ignore the fact that security is the basic underpinning of any civilised society. Without that fundamental building block, what can reasonably follow?

Chaos.......By the way Shek,anyone ever tell you...you are a tough act to follow?

**~~Galley~~** · 24 Apr 07,, 05:22

Well if it isn’t the US then it must be global warming!
But ya I don't think that I can blame the US for not helping with their new government right after they got them to the stage of a new government.

**Grim** · 24 Apr 07,, 13:08

If security is the basic underpinning of any civilized society then would war and chaos be a civilized societies main from of entertainment? ( for some, after sex of course

) It seems to me the more we think of our self as civilized the more we are in denial of the instinctual subconscious motives for many of our actions. Look at children, many toddlers bite when angry, out of instinct having never been taught to do so. My point being by nature we are a violent breed. Some people who consider themselves very civilized are responsible for rivers of blood. Aside from that, logically one man's security is another man's fear. With these things in mind I have to wonder if we are not shooting our selves in the foot with this whole civilization experiment. As much as I love a big BOOM I'd say civilization is a bust if the nukes fly. So much of civilization strikes me as unnatural and bazaar. While it has brought us great prosperity, I wonder if we have achieved this with the perversion of our true nature? Such are some of my thoughts on the subject of who is to blame in Iraq. Many will disagree with me, still I am persuaded our instincts are more powerful then we care to admit and the true face of man is one many don't have the courage to look in the eye.

**Shek** · 24 Apr 07,, 13:22

Stating the security is the basic underpinning of any civilized society is 100% recognizing the nature of man as someone who is capable of unleashing violence. Without security, then we are reduced to fearing the intentions of our fellow man, and thus we devote more time and energy to securing ourselves and family, and then there is no civilized society to speak of. So, far from denying some of our inner nature, such a statement actually reinforces it.

**Herodotus** · 24 Apr 07,, 23:25

Who should we blame? There is much blame on the US for what it unleashed and for not preventing the civil strife that inevitably follows the collapse of a government. There is also much blame on the INC (Chalabi) for not presenting a clear and coherent alternative plan for governance after the fall of Saddam. We can blame the Shiites as well and Sistani for rejecting Bremer's caucuses plan for elections, and instead forcing a direct vote which served only to further alienate and isolate the Sunnis. Blame Bremer for not standing up to Sistani and Sadr. Blame Bush for starting the whole thing, blame Saddam for running his country into the ground and stoking ethnic and religious strife for decades. Maybe it's no one's fault, maybe this is just a natural course of events that had to happen eventually. But whatever and whoever is at fault it is it is a mess now and it could be better; so how do you fix it?

**Grim** · 25 Apr 07,, 02:35

Originally Posted by Shek

Stating the security is the basic underpinning of any civilized society is 100% recognizing the nature of man as someone who is capable of unleashing violence. Without security, then we are reduced to fearing the intentions of our fellow man, and thus we devote more time and energy to securing ourselves and family, and then there is no civilized society to speak of. So, far from denying some of our inner nature, such a statement actually reinforces it.

Sir,
Some of what you say is true, But it seems to me to be destined to failure because one mans security is another mans fear. Which is much of the problem in Iraq.

I just feel civilization maybe on a dead end path the way it's going. We are getting to big for our own good. Civilizations build nukes to give us security against the other civilizations and they build nukes against ours. thats all fine till some religious zealot (another product of civilization) comes along and says I got nukes too. Worship my god or die. All of a sudden our civilization has no security and if anyone launches we all dead, which is just fine with the religious zealot.

A question I don't have the answer for is, If not civilization then what would work? While it may be a little late to ask I really think it is a question worth asking. As it is what we got going on now is not good and the day will come when some idiot says worship my god or die.

**Commando** · 25 Apr 07,, 08:02

Okay since all these posts are against my views. Then what do you think about the performances of the religious leaders, such as the shia and sunni leaders, installing peace?

**Shek** · 25 Apr 07,, 11:39

Originally Posted by Commando

Okay since all these posts are against my views. Then what do you think about the performances of the religious leaders, such as the shia and sunni leaders, installing peace?

I think that Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim's performance was very good. Oh wait, we only put a brigade into Al Anbar, allowing the artist now known as AQI to setup shop in Al Anbar and then kill him in a huge car bomb attack in August 2003. Oops.

**Bigfella** · 25 Apr 07,, 13:54

You'll have to forgive me here, but the 'blame the Iraqis' argument seems to have a lot more to do with letting the Bush Administration off the hook for its failures then it does with any reasoned analysis of Iraq.

Lets recap. Iraq has never experienced democracy. Historically it has either been the centre of or a province of an Empire of some sort. More recently it was ruled as a dictatorship on behalf of the British, and then in an even more brutal way after independence. This was fine by America, Britain & the USSR, who battled over which vicious group to support in their quest for power.

Under Saddam's long reign all power, political & economic, was centralized in his person & the state he commanded. There was no independent civil society, no independent religious structures, no independent bases of economic power. Rather than evolving, society actually froze into old structures - with tribal, ethnic & religious groups providing the only shred of identity outside the overwhelming power of the state. Even here Saddam manipulated those structures to help maintain his power.

Flash forward to 2003. Saddam is gone. Yay! But what replaces him? A Coalition Provisional Authority that has already become a study in incompetence; a government that was an expression of hope, but unable to provide security or basic services; and a US military that spent 3 years pursuing the wrong strategy. As others have pointed out, security is the first & most basic precondition for any society. Having removed the only institution that provided the basis for that security (Saddam's regime), America assumed the responsibility for creating the conditions that would allow a new form of government to evolve. it has not done so.

The notion that a people who have never known representitive government; a people who have for generations been robbed of the ability to take responsibility for their own lives & government; who have spent a generation suffering as the result of a string of wars, should suddenly bring forth stable representitive government is not just absurd, it is offensive. The American colonies, with a history of local self government, still took years after their defeat of the British to set up a government.

Why should Iraqis trust a government that cannot govern? Why should they trust an America that has spent 3 years getting it wrong? (yes, I know I am over-simplifying) Why trust strangers against your own kin or co-religionists? Why risk your own life or that of your family to support people who cannot even guaranteed water or power, let alone security?

As it happens many, if not most Iraqis have continued to support the government, an act of hope & faith that shames their detractors. Personally I am amazed that there are not more Iraqis who have retreated into the apparent safety of armed tribes & religious groups. Those who have maintained the faith may finally have found an American military commander who understands their needs & can begin meet them - General Petraeus. For those who have lost faith, who the hell are we to judge them?. Far from walking a mile in their moccasins, most of us could barely take a step.

**Ray** · 25 Apr 07,, 16:05

Bigfella,

Even though there are other factors that are also responsible for the current Iraqi govt being moribund, I must compliment you, if I can take the liberty, for a very well thought out and well articulated and logical post.

**Bigfella** · 25 Apr 07,, 21:21

Originally Posted by Ray

Bigfella,

Even though there are other factors that are also responsible for the current Iraqi govt being moribund, I must compliment you, if I can take the liberty, for a very well thought out and well articulated and logical post.

Thanks Ray,

You are right, there is more to it than I have covered. Unfortunately I have a habit of going on a bit, so I sometimes fail to cover all my bases for the sake of (relative) brevity. I'll try to keep up the standard.

**~~tw-acs~~** · 27 Apr 07,, 23:28

Which countries made IRAQ???

lasusanne agreement????

Who aided Saddam into power???

Who sold him the supposed WMD???

The United States under the Bush administration invaded Iraq with false pretenses.

The United States (WE) are responsible to clean Dubya's mess.

The real people to blame is not as simple as the US or the Iraqi's; it is much more complex, this truth will only be known after a very intensive investigation of all of the matters leading up to and relating to the War in Iraq