[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/0...-one-spot.html

http://goodnewsfromthefront.com/

Fascinating stuff. Now can someone post some left wing propaganda to even out the views?

[vmarks]

Actually, everything from those two links is factual. Not propaganda.

Of course, there's plenty of left-wing propaganda available to post if you please- but the original poster who started this thread asked that you kindly refrain.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Fascinating stuff. Now can someone post some left wing propaganda to even out the views?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7044

Iraq's marshlands show renewed signs of life

* 17:00 21 February 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Will Knight, Washington, DC

The Mesopotamian marshlands of southern Iraq - a rich centre of biodiversity devastated by damming and draining under Saddam Hussein - are showing renewed signs of life.

However, the most important area for continued recovery - the northwest Al-Hawizeh marsh - faces a new threat as the Iranian government plans to build a dyke on its border with Iraq, diverting water away from recovering land.

[Spliffdaddy]

The peacenik liberals certainly acted like we expected them to.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Uhm, there IS a civil war going on in Iraq. And it doesn't look like the government of national unity will ever see the light of day now.

Uhm, there IS NO civil war going on in Iraq. Just about every news outlet I can find from the BBC to CNN is discussing the fear of this possibility. No one is claiming they're currently in a state of civil war. Really Troll, you sitting around hoping for civil war?

I personally never doubted that the US Army would trounce the Iraqi army just by the way. Considering you spend more on guns than the next 10 nations in the world put together, you should jolly well be able to beat puny little Iraq with both hands tied behind your back!

Considering we're expected to jump in to assist every sniveling little white flag holding nation on earth, it's a darn good thing we're this heavily armed.

As for the services argument, for me the glass is 99/100ths empty.

That's all I've been saying this entire time. Nothing worth accomplishing occured with naysaying, pessimism, and paralysis through fear. So while you're welcome to your pessimism, the rest of us are going to see if we can make things a little better. I hope we don't drip blood on your LaZboy or your little fruitbowl of bon-bons while we work.

[black bear theory]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/part9.html

10 STEPS TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF IRAQI WOMEN

1. The Coalition is working to ensure that women play an important role in all parts of the government.
2. Three Iraqi women who are members of the new Governing Council are fully engaged in promoting the involvement of women in Iraq's future.
3. An esteemed former female Iraqi judge in the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of laws, legal practices, and the legal profession in Iraq for ways to increase equality and participation of women.
4. The Ministry of Interior conducted an assessment of the former Iraqi Police Force in early April. This resulted in a requirement to target recruitment of women and their inclusion in training offered at all academies. The program will become a reality August 15 when the recruiting drive begins with women as one of the groups targeted for selection.
5. The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has adopted a policy of equal access to services and benefits for all those eligible, and this policy will ultimately expand services as well as quality to larger numbers of Iraqis including women.
6. Iraqi women will have a role in the development of democracy and civil society. A senior administration official from the CPA Democracy and Governance team is conducting outreach activities to involve Iraqi women.
7. The Coalition team has held numerous meetings with Iraqi women from all walks of life to hear their concerns and to listen to their ideas for the future development of democracy in their country. In addition, the CPA has met with various women's groups and with international organizations regarding their ideas and efforts to meet the needs of Iraqi women.
8. The Coalition helped a group of Iraqi women conduct a conference July 9 that included workshops on the constitution and democracy, legal reform, education, health and social affairs, and economic and employment issues. More than 70 women attended, the majority of whom were Iraqi women experts in such fields as law, academia, medicine, and business.
9. Quotas restricting the entry of women into certain university courses have been raised or lifted altogether.
10. Iraqi women's organizations are being created to expand opportunities for women to improve their lives and those of their families.

[dcmacdaddy]

Between FY2003 and FY2005 Halliburton's revenue rose 25% with a $3.15B change in Net Income and an over 400% increase in working capital. If it weren't for all the good things they were doing for the people of Iraq the wouldn't be making this kind of money. Good for Halliburton is good for the people of Iraq.

[Kevin]

dc are you going for the troll of the month award?

[black bear theory]

President George W. Bush meets with Iraqi physicians and Dr. Khudair Abbas, the Iraqi Interim Minister of Health, in the Roosevelt Room Monday, Dec. 15, 2003. Dr. Abbas is sitting at the President's right. The President and the visiting physicians discussed the improvements being made to Iraq's health system, including the establishing of a $950 million health care budget for 2004. Saddam Hussein's regime provided $16 million for the Ministry of Health in 2002, a 90 percent reduction from a decade earlier.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20031215.html

Facts About the New Iraqi Healthcare System

Dr. Khudair Abbas, the Iraqi Interim Minister of Health, and six other physicians from Iraq, met with President Bush today to discuss recent improvements in the Iraqi healthcare system. The doctors described to the President the dedicated efforts of Iraqi healthcare professionals, and the invaluable support the Iraqi medical system is receiving from the international community. Improvements in Iraq's health services include:

* President George W. Bush meets with Iraqi physicians and Dr. Khudair Abbas, the Iraqi Interim Minister of Health, in the Roosevelt Room Monday, Dec. 15, 2003. Dr. Abbas is sitting at the President's right. The President and the visiting physicians discussed the improvements being made to Iraq's health system, including the establishing of a $950 million health care budget for 2004. Saddam Hussein's regime provided $16 million for the Ministry of Health in 2002, a 90 percent reduction from a decade earlier. White House photo by Eric DraperThe entire country is at pre-war capabilities for providing health care -- 240 Iraqi hospitals and more than 1,200 primary health clinics are operating, offering basic healthcare services for the Iraqi people.

* Doctors' salaries have increased to between $120 a month and $180 a month, in comparison to $20 a month before the war. There are roughly 22,000 physicians affiliated with the Ministry of Health, and about 35,000 nurses and nursing assistants.

* The Ministry has 100,000 healthcare professionals and staff. More than 80 percent are women.

* Iraq's 2004 budget for health care is $950 million. Saddam Hussein's regime provided only $16 million for the Ministry of Health in 2002, a 90 percent reduction from a decade earlier.

* Health care for some ethnic groups was almost nonexistent under Saddam's regime. The Ministry of Health is working to ensure that health care is available to all Iraqis regardless of ethnicity, geographic origin, gender, or religious affiliation.

* More than 30 million doses of children's vaccinations have been procured and distributed, and the Ministry has received grants to immunize the country's 4.2 million children under the age of five against preventable diseases such as polio, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, and tuberculosis.

* Routine vaccinations are now available to newborns, children, and mothers every day at Ministry of Health facilities across the country and are promoted nationally through immunization days on the 22nd of each month.

* Since May 24, the Ministry of Health has delivered more than 25,000 tons of pharmaceuticals and supplies to healthcare facilities across Iraq.

* The Ministry is responsible for 29,000 hospital beds.

* Since the liberation of Iraq, the country has not faced a major public health crisis.

* Three Facility Protective Services classes have trained over 1,300 personnel to protect health facilities.

* The Ministry of Health has completed a $1.7 million headquarters refurbishment project.

* In addition to the United States, Japan, Egypt, Korea, Turkey, Spain, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and India are providing assistance to the Ministry of Health. This assistance includes training for doctors and nurses, construction of hospitals, and donation of ambulances.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

dc are you going for the troll of the month award?

The drastic improvement in the financial bottom-line of the Halliburton Corporation in the past two years is DIRECTLY atributable to all the things going on Iraq. The OP asked for postings about positive things related to the war in Iraq.

So far, I have mentioned the vast increase in R&D funding the US military is directing towards prosthetic limb research--as a result of so many soldiers coming back from Iraq missing limbs--and the economic benefits that have accrued to the largest single contractor helping with the occupation and then re-building of Iraq.

How is any of this trollish? Are these not related to the topic posed by the OP? If not, why not?

As a reminder for you, here is what the OP posted to get this thread started. I have highlighted those areas where I think my two examples would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Please feel free to make a list of what has made the whole operation a success up to now. How it got to be a success and what it is concretely.

Accomplishments, plusses, and positives only please. Negative argumentations and oppositions are not allowed. Many threads on failures exist already, so let's respect this one.

Let's give some room to the Right to sell their point accordingly. Lefties, please behave and be honest in providing stuff supporting the claim that it was a success.

Please, make sure to expand on the idea of success with demonstrables. Proofs gathered from the web are indeed welcome. Criticizing the media as being on the Left side does not count.

If there is success, it has to be demonstrable. So just do that.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Uhm, there IS NO civil war going on in Iraq.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that!

From dictionary.com: Civil War - "A war between factions or regions of the same country." I'll bet every news site you read reported that 500 people have died in sectarian violence in Iraq in the last 10 days alone. They probably showed photos of armed Mahdi Army members patrolling the streets, bombed out buildings and cars. Please, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq for months. You just don't want to recognise it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's all I've been saying this entire time. Nothing worth accomplishing occured with naysaying, pessimism, and paralysis through fear. So while you're welcome to your pessimism, the rest of us are going to see if we can make things a little better. I hope we don't drip blood on your LaZboy or your little fruitbowl of bon-bons while we work.

The ironic thing is that a few years back, all you Republicans were advocating sitting in your LaZboys and letting the rest of world sort its own problems out. Quite an about face to suddenly base your entire world view on precisely the opposite view to your traditional isolationism.

What I really think is a sad consequence of the Bush Admin is the polarisation of views that has resulted. I think that is a result of the Bush binary logic. Bush supporters have bought into the Admin's world view of everything being black or white, with us or against us etc. Most of the people on the planet are in fact neither in the black camp or the white camp nor are they 100% with you or against you. Most of the world falls into the grey area in the middle that by refusing to acknowledge, you're incapable of understanding.

This response of your is an example of that. If I'm not on your side, then I must be isolationist, pessimistic and paralysed. I must be pro-Saddam, pro terrorism etc. The truth is, I'm still in favour of the US getting involved in and solving international problems. I wish you would be dedicated to this task and intervene in countries like the DRC and Somalia and East Timor. Always have been. I think the world is a global village and we ignore that to our detriment. My criticism of Iraq is NOT that a corrupt and ruthless dictator was taken out, my problem is with the WAY in which he was taken out. More grey which makes it more difficult for Bush supporters to understand me.

The Iraq intervention 1) lacks legitimacy because it was illegal under international law, lacked international support and the WMD excuse was proven to be a ruse and 2) it was incompetently conducted by an Administration that couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery. What should have happened was that international law was followed such that an international force intervened after justice had been followed and that force drew on the collective experience of the body with the most experience in peace-keeping and nation building to competently implement a good plan to fix Iraq.

The point is that we are criticising the WAY in which the operation was conducted, not the fact that it was conducted at all. So, I agree nothing has been achieved by being pessimistic, but nothing has also been achieved by marching headlong and all alone without a good plan into a confrontation. Just being optimistic isn't enough.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The drastic improvement in the financial bottom-line of the Halliburton Corporation in the past two years is DIRECTLY atributable to all the things going on Iraq. The OP asked for postings about positive things related to the war in Iraq.

Please DC, you aren't fooling anyone.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Please DC, you aren't fooling anyone.

Kev, I am not trying to fool anyone. If you think my examples are incorrect would you mind pointing out where or how they are incorrect and do not answer the request posed in the OP? Thanks!

[Kevin]

The topic is about good things happening in Iraq. Not good things happening to Haliburton, which you know is you just being a troll.

Quit the act, no one is buying it. Now scoot.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The topic is about good things happening in Iraq. Not good things happening to Haliburton, which you know is you just being a troll.

Quit the act, no one is buying it. Now scoot.

Hmm, I think I need to re-post this as you must have missed this earlier. My examples DO fit in with what was asked of us in the OP.

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Please feel free to make a list of what has made the whole operation a success up to now. How it got to be a success and what it is concretely.

Accomplishments, plusses, and positives only please. Negative argumentations and oppositions are not allowed. Many threads on failures exist already, so let's respect this one.

Let's give some room to the Right to sell their point accordingly. Lefties, please behave and be honest in providing stuff supporting the claim that it was a success.

Please, make sure to expand on the idea of success with demonstrables. Proofs gathered from the web are indeed welcome. Criticizing the media as being on the Left side does not count.

If there is success, it has to be demonstrable. So just do that.

You don't think our soldiers losing limbs, sometimes several, in battle had anything to do with making the whole operation a success up to now"? I certainly do. They made great sacrifices for the freedom of the Iraqi people.
"You don't think the Hallibruton corporation and their work in re-building Iraq's infrastructure had anything to do with making "the whole operation a success up to now"? I certainly do.

[Kevin]

[tie]

Kevin, a major goal of the Iraq war was to help Halliburton's bottom line. You need to get back in step with Bush on this. You're either with us or against us; and if you don't believe in Halliburton then you must not believe in America.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahahaha!

Kevin, you truly must be one of the most annoying people I've ever met.

If you'd stop trying to pretend you're The Self-Elected Moderator for the World® every once and a while, it might be bearable... but nope. The amount of time it must take to personally patrol and supervise every thread on these forums boggles my mind. Do you work?! Eat?!? Enjoy time out with friends?! It's pretty insane.

*shrug*

Some people's kids.

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Yeah, keep telling yourself that!

From dictionary.com: Civil War - "A war between factions or regions of the same country." I'll bet every news site you read reported that 500 people have died in sectarian violence in Iraq in the last 10 days alone. They probably showed photos of armed Mahdi Army members patrolling the streets, bombed out buildings and cars. Please, there's been a civil war going on in Iraq for months. You just don't want to recognise it.

...and just about every news outlet I can find is not calling this a Civil War. You may want it to be so, that way you can rest easily at night saying "I told you so", but the truth is few are calling it more than what it is. Random acts of terrorists acting in desperation to derail what they see as the most dangerous weapon of all, democracy. This does not convince me we're doing the wrong thing. It's convincing me we're doing the right thing. No one said it was going to be clean, perfect, and surgical like a microwave meal. We may expect this, but then we might also be kind of spoiled living in such favorable conditions.

The ironic thing is that a few years back, all you Republicans were advocating sitting in your LaZboys and letting the rest of world sort its own problems out. Quite an about face to suddenly base your entire world view on precisely the opposite view to your traditional isolationism.

Traditional isolationism. You haven't a clue what you're talking about with all due respect. The Republican Party hasn't been "truly isolationist" since it relented and went to war against Germany.

What I really think is a sad consequence of the Bush Admin is the polarisation of views that has resulted.

The most passionate, low-blow politiking and polarization I've seen has come from the left shortly after Bush's electoral victory. They've not yet MovedOn.

I think that is a result of the Bush binary logic. Bush supporters have bought into the Admin's world view of everything being black or white, with us or against us etc. Most of the people on the planet are in fact neither in the black camp or the white camp nor are they 100% with you or against you. Most of the world falls into the grey area in the middle that by refusing to acknowledge, you're incapable of understanding.

No I understand grey. Grey is what we were when we were attacked. Inability to make a decision and stand by it. Grey leads to convolution of ideals, senseless compromise, lack of leadership, confusion, what-ifs, and paralysis through fear. Grey causes complacency and with failed actions of history we shrug our shoulders because it's just all so complex and impossible to wrap our minds around. Grey is what causes people not to see anything at all. You can indict me for being black and white, all the while painting a political party with a brush that apparently only has those two colors.

This response of your is an example of that. If I'm not on your side, then I must be isolationist, pessimistic and paralysed.

Up until now, completely void of any ideas of your own, what was I supposed to think? It's not enough to sit back and say; "this failed", "they're doing this wrong", "Bush sucks poo", and "you're just a bushee". At some point you must be able to offer an ideal of your own. The reason why things are polarized is because we're no longer discussing ideals, we're lodging indictments from a tommy-gun of pessimism, negativity, and partisan nonsense. Enough is enough. Either present an ideal of your own or plead ignorance. If you were moving from one house to another and everyone else was doing all the lifting while you sat back saying; "Hey, watch out for that door jam" and "why are you carrying that chair that way?" etc... how long do you think this would go on before someone would say; "Shut up already, at least we're moving furniture here!"

I must be pro-Saddam, pro terrorism etc. The truth is, I'm still in favour of the US getting involved in and solving international problems. I wish you would be dedicated to this task and intervene in countries like the DRC and Somalia and East Timor. Always have been. I think the world is a global village and we ignore that to our detriment. My criticism of Iraq is NOT that a corrupt and ruthless dictator was taken out, my problem is with the WAY in which he was taken out. More grey which makes it more difficult for Bush supporters to understand me.

I understand you, but let's take a look at some of the ideas on the table at the time the decision was made to invade Iraq.
- all evidence pointed towards Iraq and Iran engaged in an arms race.
- all evidence provided by several noteworthy intelligence agencies pointed to the existence of WMD in Iraq. Some has been found. Some "in the know" have claimed where it's been moved to", etc...
- Democracy, statistically as the most successful means to ending poverty and terrorism. A region whose volatility grew exponentially in the past 12 years was beginning to thumb it's nose at International policy.
- UN policy of economic sanctions only serving to starve the Iraqi to death on the back of a ruthless dictator for nothing more than to entertain this arms race, indoctrinate hatred for the West, and build palaces.
- More resolutions
- Isolationism
- Greyness

The Iraq intervention 1) lacks legitimacy because it was illegal under international law

Wrong. What laws have we broken? Are you certain? How do you know?

lacked international support

Wrong. There are presently 28 nations participating in the American-led military coalition and those nations most vocally opposed to this action were taking handouts from the very dictator most of the International community deemed a threat. I don't see you calling for thier heads in violation of International law. It seems you're guilty of lacking some perspective as well.

and the WMD excuse was proven to be a ruse and

Wrong. I and several others have cited example after example of WMDs and the fact that they had been hidden or moved. We know for certain he had them. He threatened to use them against us and we found his own troops wearing chemical suits. Apparently, if he had none the only one aware of this fact was Saddam himself. He waited a little too long to comply. Period. Not to mention the fact that the final UN resolution called for severe consequences for non-compliance. What is your ideal of severe consequences? "you better knock it off or we'll launch another 14 Resolutions over another 12 years at you!!!"

2) it was incompetently conducted by an Administration that couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery.

Our entrance into Iraq, takeover of International airport, entrance into Baghdad, and seizure of Saddam Hussein has been hailed as one of the most effective military operations in history. Now, I assume you're talking about the complexity of nation-building and changing a nation with this level of insurgency into a democracy? How easy did you think this was going to be? How predictable do you think these conditions really are? Do you have any knowledge of military strategery at all? Somehow I don't think you're qualified to indict some of the most knowledgable men of our time as "unable to organise a pissup in a brewery." Let's take a look at some of your ideas though because as critical as you are we'd expect these to be some real ground-breaking whoppers.

What should have happened was that international law was followed

12 years and 14 Internationally drafted Resolutions enough for ya???

such that an international force intervened after justice had been followed

What justice are you talking about??? Justice had not been followed. That was the entire problem over 14 Resolutions and 12 years and the Oil for Food Scandal. The primary players to have provided the "forces" you're talking about, yet also the most vocally opposed to our actions were accepting handouts from the dictator at the time we're deeming him an International threat. Do you have an answer to this little complexity? Talk about viewing things only in black and white. With all due respect Troll this is friggin' la-la land you're talking about here.

and that force drew on the collective experience of the body with the most experience in peace-keeping

There was no peace to keep. There is no body in existence effective at peace-keeping. These are not ideas at all Troll.

and nation building to competently implement a good plan to fix Iraq.

There was no nation to build and there are massive disagreements on what constitutes a good plan to fix Iraq. The only ideas I've heard are the ones you're critical of. Still no new ideas on the table. I'm dissappointed.

The point is that we are criticising the WAY in which the operation was conducted,

With the missing ideas of your own as usual. What would I expect from someone who hasn't established they're rooted in a firm understanding of military strategery, nation-building, and International Law.

not the fact that it was conducted at all. So, I agree nothing has been achieved by being pessimistic, but nothing has also been achieved by marching headlong and all alone without a good plan into a confrontation. Just being optimistic isn't enough.

If you continue to define 12 years, 14 UN Resolutions, unprecedented monetary scandals, UN failures, US military operations unrivaled historically, and the coalition of 28 nations as the US having "marched headlong and all alone without a good plan into a confrontation", perhaps you're not to be reasoned with and it has absolutely nothing to do with political polarization, but everything to do with common sense and a grip on reality.

[aberdeenwriter]

The war in Iraq can't be understood or the reasons for it fully appreciated out of context. In the context of the current issues as well as the history and fears and goals of several of the parties involved.

But before we deal with that I'd like to address some of the posts here which have SPECIFICALLY violated the O.P.'s request to ONLY post the positives, plusses and accomplishments.

I'll ignore the trollish responses as they reflect the limited imaginations of the posters.

When someone says we should have allowed the Iraqi people to help themselves in throwing off Saddam Hussein you are suggesting that only when the people have the strength and combined will do they deserve liberty.

I'll ask you does a nation besieged by natural disaster deserve help when they are unable to help themselves? By that reasoning NO ONE deserves help, ever. Why? Because they should be able to do any good thing for themselves. And if they can't then they don't deserve it. Did the Bosnian Muslims deserve help when they were unable to stop themselves from being the victims of what is now being tried in The Hague as an attempted genocide by the Serbs? And I suppose since Europe couldn't defeat Hitler by themselves then the US should have stayed home, right? After all, they couldn't liberate themselves so that means they didn't deserve it.

Such arguments are nonsense and I hope it's the last time anyone will try to defend inaction in the face of tyranny by using such a defense. But in the fuzzy brained liberal script the next question always asked is, 'if the US was justified in helping free the Iraqi people from Saddam, why don't we set our sights on ALL the dictatorships in the world? Where does it end?

This is more of a moronic proposition than the previous one. You'll note that we didn't invade Iraq until AFTER we'd been attacked on 9/11. Maybe that should give you a clue as to why Iraq was invaded.

"But, there was no link between OBL and Saddam," you'll say. Well, this WILL NOT be a re-hash of old debates so I'll leave that part un-addressed here in lieu of the other answers to the O.P.'s O.P. ("Andy, Andy!")

As I know this will prompt lots of responses I'll await your detailed questions but until then I'll simply give a short answer to how the war in Iraq promotes or advances an idea, ideal or an agenda and/or what accomplishments, plusses and positives have come from the war.

The USA has an interest in free liberally democratic nations which are peaceful and stable and prosperous. We have taken action in Iraq toward achieving that goal.


Saddam Hussein was a reliably constant aggressor and agent of change in the region. A loose cannon who was active in every possible way he could be to foment violence and unrest in the region so he could increase his personal and national power in order to advance his personal and national and regional ambitions. His negative impact on the region as well as the big question mark of what he MIGHT have done in the future and what US resources would have to be made ready to deal with him, taking into account ANY and ALL possibilities, has been negated.


The Iraqi people have been freed. And though this is a wonderful thing, it was NOT our only reason for invading nor was it the overriding motivation behind the invasion. Once the violence subsides to a level where reconstruction can go on the Iraqi people will begin to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Literally. The infrastructure in Iraq wasn't up to date or well maintained BEFORE the invasion, even though it was functional it was due to break down and need repairs. If the Sharks and the Jets would stop their turf war long enough the people Saddam tyrannized for so long would be free to get back to work and enjoy a better standard of living that before the war. As it is going, however, the people are having to suffer through these growing pains. Growing pains they would have to suffer if they had revolted WITHOUT anyone's help and if that had happened they'd still be fighting Saddam or the same thing would have happened as happened before when Saddam was challenged. If you need a clue as to what that might be, google "Saddam trial." The US is working quietly behind the scenes to help the Iraqi people create a
sound, strong liberal democracy and to avoid the pitfalls along the way to there being a proud, strong free and prosperous nation of Iraq. But the work is in progress. If we were to stop now the insurgents would win and the prospects for the Iraqi people would be poor, indeed.


Israel. The nation of Israel has never, for ONE DAY, been out of it's Arab/Muslim neighbor's crosshairs. But even being surrounded by it's enemies Israel has never experienced the same kind of threat as an aggressive madman like Saddam. Saddam did EVERYTHING he could do to inflict violence on Israel. He launched SCUDS on them. He sent agents, FOREIGN AGENTS ( ) to various countries to get information and to perform covert operations designed to harm Israel. He was in the process of building the LARGEST CANNON the world had ever known and it was aimed at Israel. During the Gulf War the people of Israel kept gas masks with them all the time for fear that one of the SCUDS would be loaded with a chemical warhead. DID HE have WMD's or DIDN'T HE??? WAS HE going to attack Israel or WASN'T HE??? As has been pointed out over the past weeks Israel is a very small country. Tantalizingly small.

One SCUD armed with a good yield of WMD could take out the whole country or else weaken them enough for the combined forces of their Arab/Muslim neighbors to take them out, to finish the job expressed by Iran's Ahmadinejad, to wipe them off the map. But before that happened Israel would unquestioningly pull out it's final ace card. Nuclear Weapons against any and all of it's enemies. And then the party wouldn't stop escalating. Israel (THE LAND OF THE JOOZ!) would attack the believers of Allah and the Cartoon Rioters (x 1,000,000) would rise up to defend Islam and the rest of the world would be incapable of stopping the chain reaction. The US. Russia. China. Europe. The U.K. CANADA!!! NO ONE would escape the effects of what would happen. So, to make sure of dodging THAT pitfall, (or to prevent Israel from acting pre-emptively by taking Saddam out, causing the above cataclysm) Saddam was removed from the equation.


Saudi Arabia has the largest oil reserves in the world. But the Saudi Royal family has a tricky situation to try to maintain. On one hand, they have been generous with the wealth that oil has made possible. The Saudi people have enjoyed a standard of living that is the envy of most average middle eastern citizens. This is in exchange for the House of Saud, that ONE FAMILY, being the rulers of the nation. And of course the fact that they have so much oil wealth comes from the fact that they have a great and powerful and loyal customer, i.e., the rest of the world AND the USA. The Arab nation of Saudi Arabia has close to a 100% Muslim population. This means that many of the things the Royal family did to maintain their own power and continued wealth (forming a warm relationship with the USA, for example) did not sit well with their citizens. So, in order to maintain the profitable relationship with the USA it was also in their interests to act and appear as strongly Arab and Islamic as possible. So the Saudis encouraged the kind of activities that Egypt, for example, would not. And the Saudi government did things no other government had to do to offset their pro-America relationship. As much as we saw from the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers the proverbial chickens had come home to roost. It was time for the Royal family to pay the piper for the dance they've enjoyed all these years. They were going to have to finally choose sides.

The nation certainly did have a strong defense but how long would their government and their infrastructure stand up to the combined onslaught of terrorist attacks on their oil facilities if their citizenry rose up in revolution, if the government did not have the monetary resources and military commitment promised by their best customer, the USA? How long would the USA expect the Saudi government to hold out in opposing the Islamic forces (and other oil hungry global powers as well) without establishing order in the region? By invading Iraq the USA calmed the Saudi government that they should stay in our corner and to ease up on trying to appease the fundamental Isamists by promoting and encouraging activities which only serve to promote terrorism and solidified the vital relationship we have and have had with them these many years and NEED to have for many more years.


Iran is an Islamic state. Iraq and Iran waged war for ten years and cost billions of dollars and more than a million lives on both sides trying to achieve dominance in the region. Neither side won. The USA backed one side and that helped maintain a status quo in the region. Neither side won, neither side lost and two pains in the ass were kept occupied doing what they were going to do ANYWAY. After the shooting war ended hostilities and suspicions persisted. Like running altercations here in the P/L, just because you aren't actually doesn't mean that another fight won't break out at any time when you sense a vulnerability. Saddam Hussein knew that Iran would try to attack Iraq if it was known he was vulnerable, so he let it be known to the Iranians and to the World, that he had WMD's. Whether he did or not is not to be discussed here. It is only important that NO ONE could definitively say that he Saddam DID NOT have WMD's. No one could disprove it and so his bluff worked until the invasion. But if he DID have them and Iran tried something we would have had a new conflagration between Iran and Iraq, with 100,00's lives lost in WMD attacks. Not good.

If he DIDN'T have WMD's we'd have the likelihood of Iran conquering Iraq and then the Islamic revolution would have momentum and Islamic goals of world dominance would take on a new luster in the minds of the faithful. Terrorism. A powerful new Islamic nation comprised of Iran AND IRAQ and what neighbor of theirs would be able to resist joining them to create that long desired ISLAMIC WORLD WIDE CALIPHATE? A Caliphate that has the goal of conquering the USA and Israel. By invading Iraq we countered that possibility and made Iran have to think twice about it's plans for domination in the area and prevented a possible Nazi-like march to World War.


The OTHER neighbors of Iraq. We saw that Kuwaiit fell to Saddam. "But he was in check wasn't he?" He was able to manipulate the Oil for Food program. He was able to avoid the UN enforcing tens years of resolutions against Iraq and NO ONE was seriously doubting that he had WMD's at the time of the invasion, which shows that even with all of the actions taken to neutralize the threat of Saddam that threat could not be regarded lightly, much less disregarded. Which country was HE going to invade or threaten next? We know about his threats to Kuwaiit. Israel and Iran. Our friends the Saudis and other nations in the region could never be comfortable with a threat like Saddam sill existent. And the aforementioned scenario of Iran taking over could be reversed and we might have had a situation where IRAQ defeated IRAN! And with Iran defeated, who would or could stop Saddam? The USA would have had to mobilize against him but at a MUCH greater level of violence than we have seen since the invasion. There are several M.E. governments with whom we had relationships but they were on the down-low. Neither they nor the US were trumpeting these arrangements or cooperations but the US appreciated their assistance here and there and these relationships were being nurtured along. If Saddam had been left alone and he did something to disrupt the stability of the region and the US allowed it to happen, how much confidence would potential allies ever have in the USA? By invading Iraq those nations that WANT to resist Islamist aggression can do so knowing the US is not just providing lip service to their commitment of support. This helps prevent the spread of radical Islam.


Russia has long had a desire to control the Middle East or at least have a chair at the M.E. table. They backed Egypt for many years and helped construct the Aswan Dam. They are currently helping Iran. When you are in a bar and it's approaching closing time, you want to make sure you have SOMEONE to go home with. Egypt is no longer an option. Iran currently is. But what would the dancing have looked like if Saddam had stayed in power? Russia was going to go home with SOMEONE'S oil and remain a behind the scenes player in the M.E. with SOME nation. Which nation would have been a better fit for the Russians? Keep in mind that rebels in Chechnya have been fighting for an independent Islamic state since 1994 and there have been two wars. Might the Russians have preferred to go home with Saddam? By invading Iraq the Russians have been forced to back a more prickly partner, Iran. This arrangement poses both problems and advantages for the USA. However, by invading Iraq we announced to the world, HANDS OFF!


China. Whatever their plans might have been the Chinese have now made other arrangements in the wake of the Iraq invasion. Google China and oil and you'll see what they have done now that the US has taken the step of moving into the region in force. Those Canadian oil sand pits aren't as attractive as having your belly up to the M.E. bar. By invading Iraq we managed to divert China from attempting a greater presence in the region. See above re: HANDS OFF!


Al Qaeda. Yes, yes we all know OBL is responsible for 9/11 and OBL WAS in Afghanistan. And you all can get behind our invading Afghanistan to catch OBL. But what then? Was al Qaeda ONLY operating in Afghanistan before 9/11? No. Could al Qaeda operate without OBL's existence? Yes. Is there anyplace or any group or any nation that would be considered ABSOLUTELY NOT a place where al Qaeda would not operate? And before you answer remember that the leading state sponsoring terrorism today is Iran and they are doing business with Russia.

The SAME Russia the Mujaheddin 'defeated' in Afghanistan. The SAME Russia that the Muslim Chchen rebels are fighting against. The SAME Russia which represents an infidel nation to be conquered and dominated just as the USA is to be conquered and dominated. Al Qaeda has proven to be adaptable to any ideology or government in the short term while they provide al Qaeda what it needs to prepare the blow they intend to inflict. Remember the 9/11 hijackers who took flying lessons here in the USA? The GREAT SATAN? They prepared their attack and when the time was right they switched from friendly, nice guys that everyone seemed to like, to murderers. So, we can see they have no problem with consorting with Saddam. But what about Saddam? He called for jihad when he needed help from the Muslim people but they didn't respond to his call. So, he went about campaigning for their support. He paid the Palestinian suicide bomber families a bounty for their loved ones actions. Supporting holy jihad! He cloaked himself in other Islamic veils toward this end.

As one used to using all the tools available to him to get his way, Saddam could be charming and in various ways he sent charming messages and signals to OBL to enlist OBL's assistance (or maybe to prevent Iraq's becoming a target of al Qaeda violence sometime down the road...building relationships takes time, you know!) by letting it be known to OBL that Iraq might be a resource for al Qaeda or a safe haven just as long as al Qaeda was not unleashed upon Iraq. 'My brother and I against my cousin.' If Iran was an Islamic enemy, it would be helpful to have an Islamic friend who he could benefit from in al Qaeda. Like Pixar and Disney. There were any number of joint projects they could have conceived together that neither one could have accomplished on their own. OBL had access to different supplies and resources than Saddam. Al Qaeda has different contacts and networks and ways of operating than Saddam. Working together might have been only a short term expedient for either side (until they decided to turn on each other) but until they reached that stage in the relationship they could have caused worldwide chaos and given OBL one MORE place to hide out and enjoy R&R. By invading Iraq we removed Iraq as a safe haven and reduced it's usefulness to al Qaeda except as a crucible.



If that isn't enough for you we'll whip out these:

The WoT. Oil. Islam. Western Allies. On the fence nations. The US military. The military defense industry. The U.N. Religion. World Peace. Third World development. Alternative fuels. The environment.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

...and just about every news outlet I can find is not calling this a Civil War.

Do you need some news agency to tell you when there's a civil war going on? What do you expect them to say? At 7h12 today, civil war broke out in Iraq? The press is talking about "sectarian violence' - i.e. violence between sects. What was that definition of civil war again? It was terrorism when insurgents were attacking collaborators with the occupation - policemen etc. What you have now is something completely different - sects fighting each other - shias vs. sunnis vs. kurds. "Sectarian violence" that is claiming around 50 lives a day. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it. I don't think you can possibly say that the situation right now isn't worse than the Administration expected. Saying Bush critics were wrong to forecast civil war is at worst ignorant; at best a bit premature.

19 shias killed yesterday in 'sectarian violence'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4768846.stm

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No I understand grey. Grey is what we were when we were attacked. Inability to make a decision and stand by it. Grey leads to convolution of ideals, senseless compromise, lack of leadership, confusion, what-ifs, and paralysis through fear. Grey causes complacency and with failed actions of history we shrug our shoulders because it's just all so complex and impossible to wrap our minds around. Grey is what causes people not to see anything at all. You can indict me for being black and white, all the while painting a political party with a brush that apparently only has those two colors.

This is a real classic. I need to save this somewhere! This is precisely why the Bush Administration is seeing its ass in every single thing it's taken on. Nothing in this world is black or white. Trying to shoehorn human events into one or other binary is to mischaracterise human interaction and nature itself and perforce your reaction will be inappropriate and unsuccesful. My point was that you aren't able to even understand WHAT the criticism of Bush's actions is. There are myriad opions out there and you systematically ignore all but two of them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Up until now, completely void of any ideas of your own

LOL - Kevin thinks I have too many of my own opinions and you don't think I have enough!

The rest of your post is a tedious rehash of things we've discussed ad nauseum. I've posted plenty of ideas on how to deal with terrorism, what it's causes are etc. Dredge up one of those discussions and perhaps I'll explain yet again what I think. We've also heard your crackpot theories about Iraq's WMD (every bit of evidence you've shown has been rebutted) and I'm tired of arguing against your conflation of 25 years into 1 (we know he had them != we know he had them in 2003 / the UN making assumptions about what Iraq might have retained != they knew he had WMD). We've dealt with the fact that the US is part of the UN and the sanctions against Iraq were the US's idea and very badly enforced by the US. We've dealt with the fact that it isn't up to individual members of the UN to decide when resolutions are broken and when how to enforce them. And we've dealt with why the war was illegal under international law. I don't propose to deal with those again.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

12 years and 14 Internationally drafted Resolutions enough for ya???

Are you proposing invading Israel?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

What justice are you talking about??? Justice had not been followed. That was the entire problem over 14 Resolutions and 12 years and the Oil for Food Scandal.

Ah yes, your favourite retort - but, but the UN is corrupt. Revelation of revelations! The UN is corrupt. Every frickin administration from the stationery department of a medium sized company to the biggest governments on the planet is corrupt. The OFFP had a loss rate of less than 1% of the aid that was distributed. The suggestion that corruption and the resistance to the invasion of Iraq are linked is just plain ridiculous. It would mean your arguing that the $1Bn that went missing through the programme was enough to bribe most of the countries on the planet (and most of the people on the planet) into being against the war and showing that people who received contracts through the programme were in a position to affect foreign policy. None of which you are able to show.

Your other problem is that you refuse to recognise what the UN is - UNITED NATIONS. That means the US is the UN.

For 12 of those 13 years of inaction you talk about, the US was the primary player in everything that went on. It's not like you constantly resisted the inaction by the rest of the world. The amount Saddam obtained through the OFFP pale in comparison with the amounts that the American government purposefully allowed Saddam to obtain through smuggling. The US government stated in so many words that Saddam's smuggling was in the US national interest. Through THAT action, Saddam got cash not medicines and food. About $20bn of cash. On top of that, US officials in Iraq stole more in 1 flight carrying cash from Baghdad to Kurdistan after the war than went missing through corruption in the OFFP over 15 years! So, yes there was corruption in the UN. That was never the issue. The issue was what the motivations of governments were in resisting the US and suggesting that they were bribed with less than $1Bn is as ridiculous as stating that WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion.

The UN process was highly effective. It got Saddam out of Kuwait, the OFFP was the most succesful humanitarian intervention in history, the process destroyed Iraq's WMD and it failed to authorise an invasion that had been motivated on spurious grounds. For the rest of the world, the Iraq war has shown us what a great thing the UN is. It would be better if it had the military might to enforce its resolutions for example by preventing the US from illegally invading, but it's the best we have right now.

Btw, coalition of "nations" - what a joke! Why do you think they had to use the word "nations" in the first place? You're alone in Iraq even with however many of those nations are still supporting you. You aren't sharing any significant amount of costs or losses with anyone.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

When someone says we should have allowed the Iraqi people to help themselves in throwing off Saddam Hussein you are suggesting that only when the people have the strength and combined will do they deserve liberty.

Yes, that is exactly what *I* would suggest.

The United States didn't get established until the citizens of the colonies had "the strength and combined will" to throw off the shackles of tyranny imposed by the British. So, if, we in the US didn't get our liberty without fighting for it from a home-grown movement, why should we expect that other countries can get liberty with fighting for it from a home-grown movement?

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Accomplishments, plusses, and positives only please. Negative argumentations and oppositions are not allowed.

So in other words live in denial.

[swrate]

Well now, India, and other nations realize the US hegemony is out of hand.

Maybe, we globally, shall search faster and find solutions in ecology and sell less pollution causing machines, because petrol's price keeps rising.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yes, that is exactly what *I* would suggest.

The United States didn't get established until the citizens of the colonies had "the strength and combined will" to throw off the shackles of tyranny imposed by the British. So, if, we in the US didn't get our liberty without fighting for it from a home-grown movement, why should we expect that other countries can get liberty with fighting for it from a home-grown movement?

I'd say it goes one step further than that. Many say (and I'm not necessarily endorsing this opinion) that until the citizens of a country (or enough of them) have got to the point where they are in the streets taking on the leadership, they haven't started to think about what kind of society they want after they've ousted the dictator. They haven't amongst them established what will come thereafter. They haven't started to develop shadow power structures that are ready to take over. So making a country work after foreigners have decapitated a country is that much more difficult than it is when a popular movement has removed its leaders.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Yes, that is exactly what *I* would suggest.

The United States didn't get established until the citizens of the colonies had "the strength and combined will" to throw off the shackles of tyranny imposed by the British. So, if, we in the US didn't get our liberty without fighting for it from a home-grown movement, why should we expect that other countries can get liberty with fighting for it from a home-grown movement?

You're on a slippery slope there, dcmacdaddy. A slippery slope.

I'll ask you does a nation besieged by natural disaster deserve help when they are unable to help themselves? By that reasoning NO ONE deserves help, ever. Why? Because they should be able to do any good thing for themselves. And if they can't then they don't deserve it. Did the Bosnian Muslims deserve help when they were unable to stop themselves from being the victims of what is now being tried in The Hague as an attempted genocide by the Serbs? And I suppose since Europe couldn't defeat Hitler by themselves then the US should have stayed home, right? After all, they couldn't liberate themselves so that means they didn't deserve it.

When the Katrina disaster hit the US Gulf region last September (2005) I recall a great deal of news attention being given to the fact that other nations had come to our aid in that crisis.

The fact that this was newsworthy suggests that the USA usually DOESN'T need help from other countries when we suffer a natural disaster. I may not have all the facts but the principle and the point remain unassailable. There are all kinds of help we offer the world which we DON'T, ourselves, need because we can do it ourselves.

Should THAT be the criterion by which we decide to offer foreign aid? Only to those nations in need where WE have needed help?

That would mean VERY LITTLE foreign aid at all!!!

Before our entry into WWII we had Lend/Lease. After WWII we had the Marshall Plan.

Giving help ONLY to those who are in need of help ONLY where the US has been shown to be needy...would that be called "The dcmacdaddy sugar teat?" Indeed, it would mean no suger at all!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by swrate

Well now, India, and other nations realize the US hegemony is out of hand.

Maybe, we globally, shall search faster and find solutions in ecology and sell less pollution causing machines, because petrol's price keeps rising.

Can you please respect the terms of the O.P.?

It's remarkable how frequently the Fuzzy brained liberals must be reminded to follow the rules.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

Do you need some news agency to tell you when there's a civil war going on? What do you expect them to say? At 7h12 today, civil war broke out in Iraq? The press is talking about "sectarian violence' - i.e. violence between sects. What was that definition of civil war again? It was terrorism when insurgents were attacking collaborators with the occupation - policemen etc. What you have now is something completely different - sects fighting each other - shias vs. sunnis vs. kurds. "Sectarian violence" that is claiming around 50 lives a day. It doesn't really matter what you want to call it. I don't think you can possibly say that the situation right now isn't worse than the Administration expected. Saying Bush critics were wrong to forecast civil war is at worst ignorant; at best a bit premature.

A. I didn't say this.
B. You're calling civil war. I disagree. So, this would be the FIRST time shias vs sunnis vs kurds has occurrred? Remember any mass graves, genocide, etc???
C. of course the situation is worse right now. Progress often requires difficulties and complications. You expected everything to be immediately better??? To say this is not only premature, but wholly ignorant.

19 shias killed yesterday in 'sectarian violence'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4768846.stm

Yes, people are dying.

This is a real classic. I need to save this somewhere! This is precisely why the Bush Administration is seeing its ass in every single thing it's taken on.

Everything except elections ironically.

Nothing in this world is black or white.

Right and yet you're still expected to make decisions.

Trying to shoehorn human events into one or other binary is to mischaracterise human interaction and nature itself and perforce your reaction will be inappropriate and unsuccesful.

Your proposal of status quo is also void of understanding human nature, interaction and your inaction was inappropriate, created a humanitarian nightmare the likes of which 6 more years of "civil war" could not equal, and wholly unsuccessful.

My point was that you aren't able to even understand WHAT the criticism of Bush's actions is. There are myriad opions out there and you systematically ignore all but two of them.
LOL - Kevin thinks I have too many of my own opinions and you don't think I have enough!

I've not only exhaustively addressed all angles of scrutiny regarding this Administrations' actions, I've in fact agreed with a few of them. I don't know or care what Kevin thinks. I asked you and as usual, I find myself sorely dissappointed with your lack of substantive data on why you're somehow qualified to discuss military strategy and foreign affairs.

The rest of your post is a tedious rehash of things we've discussed ad nauseum.

Give me a new argument then. Lets discuss something unique. The only criticisms I'm seeing are offered by the same people, lodged against the same people, using the same lack of information, and lack of understanding the Geopolitical volatility of our globe. The lions-share of the arguments you present about the difficulty, complexity, and cost of the cause are all the same arguments given you by the Administration you critique.

I've posted plenty of ideas on how to deal with terrorism, what it's causes are etc.

Yep and they stop remarkably at "understanding terrorism". At some point "understanding" is complete and action is necessary. This is traditionally where your ideas run severely short. You've shown some ability to point out problems, but not really anything substantive to change the condition. You're right, we've talked about this ad nauseum and yet the same points continue to come up. Why do you continue to make them, get called out on it, then refer me to other posts. Your shade of grey leads to intellectual laziness, complacency, and delusions of grandeur as pointed out time and again with no rebuttal.

Dredge up one of those discussions and perhaps I'll explain yet again what I think. We've also heard your crackpot theories about Iraq's WMD (every bit of evidence you've shown has been rebutted) and I'm tired of arguing against your conflation of 25 years into 1 (we know he had them != we know he had them in 2003 / the UN making assumptions about what Iraq might have retained != they knew he had WMD).

Of course you don't want to discuss this anymore. Entirely inconvenient points to address. Your continuous claim of NO WMDs, ILLEGAL WAR, and IT'S A QUAGMIRE have been beaten down so badly they just don't even make sense anymore. Really though, keep repeating yourself and at some point maybe they'll be fashionable again.

We've dealt with the fact that the US is part of the UN and the sanctions against Iraq were the US's idea and very badly enforced by the US.

Right and we've discussed why the amount of grey included in this convoluted an organization leads to complacency, failed compromise, naysaying, corruption, and paralysis through fear to inaction leading to economic sanctions serving only to starve the Iraqi poor to death for no goal, no mission, no peace, no nation and no reason at all other than to line the pockets of a few on the backs of the many. I didn't see you providing daily updates on body counts due to starvation under this dictatorial regime my humanitarian friend. Why not?

We've dealt with the fact that it isn't up to individual members of the UN to decide when resolutions are broken and when how to enforce them. And we've dealt with why the war was illegal under international law. I don't propose to deal with those again.

Of course not. That would be because you can't establish proof law was broken. In your grey world of fairness it seems the US is guilty until proven innocent. Worse, you're not willing to give us a few years to find out.

Are you proposing invading Israel?

No, the Palestinians already have. The Iranians already have. The Syrians already have. The Iraqi's already had. Would you like to continue on??? The nation that birthed the UN organization you're praising has vetoed all, but a handful of these. How many vetoed Resolutions were there regarding Iraq again???

Ah yes, your favourite retort - but, but the UN is corrupt. Revelation of revelations! The UN is corrupt. Every frickin administration from the stationery department of a medium sized company to the biggest governments on the planet is corrupt. The OFFP had a loss rate of less than 1% of the aid that was distributed.

Yes, and yet we're still expected to operate with common sense on a global scale.

The suggestion that corruption and the resistance to the invasion of Iraq are linked is just plain ridiculous.

Is it? Would you help your company's opposition take your boss' job??? This is precisely what I'm talking about. The fact that you can't see how some nations may have had a problem with the removal of their meal ticket wreaks of ignorance.

It would mean your arguing that the $1Bn that went missing through the programme was enough to bribe most of the countries on the planet (and most of the people on the planet) into being against the war and showing that people who received contracts through the programme were in a position to affect foreign policy.

A. People that received the contracts were in a monetary position to influence foreign policy.
B. The exposure of this scandal was far more risk and a much larger bargaining chip than the actual money could've ever been.

None of which you are able to show.

But I thought it was wholly acceptable to establish negatives as fact?

Your other problem is that you refuse to recognise what the UN is - UNITED NATIONS. That means the US is the UN.

I'm wholly aware of our position in the UN and the importance of our contribution. I believe the Institution is too grey today, too convoluted, and repeatedly wrought with paralysis through fear and personal gain.

For 12 of those 13 years of inaction you talk about, the US was the primary player in everything that went on. It's not like you constantly resisted the inaction by the rest of the world. The amount Saddam obtained through the OFFP pale in comparison with the amounts that the American government purposefully allowed Saddam to obtain through smuggling. The US government stated in so many words that Saddam's smuggling was in the US national interest. Through THAT action, Saddam got cash not medicines and food. About $20bn of cash. On top of that, US officials in Iraq stole more in 1 flight carrying cash from Baghdad to Kurdistan after the war than went missing through corruption in the OFFP over 15 years! So, yes there was corruption in the UN. That was never the issue. The issue was what the motivations of governments were in resisting the US and suggesting that they were bribed with less than $1Bn is as ridiculous as stating that WMD have been found in Iraq since the invasion.

None of which you're able to show.

The UN process was highly effective. It got Saddam out of Kuwait,

No, the US got Saddam out of Iraq and the International community was lodging the same indictments against US imperialism then, that they are today. Our decision to concede the activity, liberate Kuwait, then bail out prematurely is precisely why we find an Iraqi hesitant to stand behind us today.

Btw, coalition of "nations" - what a joke! Why do you think they had to use the word "nations" in the first place? You're alone in Iraq even with however many of those nations are still supporting you. You aren't sharing any significant amount of costs or losses with anyone.

US foreign policy as critiqued predictably by one not in the US. You wonder why I put such little faith in an International community of disgruntled, disenfranchised, white-flag carrying nations, useful for nothing more than parliament bickering and inactivity waiting for the US to clean up your mess. It's a heavy crown we wear and this level of naysaying, complacency, pessimism, and paralysis through fear is precisely the mentality that will have your government entirely dependent upon our prosperity in the future. When it comes to liberating a people, surgical military strategy, technology, resource, and democracy-building I'm afraid there's no better people to have at the wheel. You can thank us later.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

I'd say it goes one step further than that. Many say (and I'm not necessarily endorsing this opinion) that until the citizens of a country (or enough of them) have got to the point where they are in the streets taking on the leadership, they haven't started to think about what kind of society they want after they've ousted the dictator. They haven't amongst them established what will come thereafter. They haven't started to develop shadow power structures that are ready to take over. So making a country work after foreigners have decapitated a country is that much more difficult than it is when a popular movement has removed its leaders.

Exactly. If people are in the streets demanding their freedoms then they have shown to themselves and others they have some willing to make sacrifices to achieve their goals. Look what happened in the Ukraine last year, or in the former Czechoslovakia (either the Prague Spring or the Velvet Revolution). Peopl who WANT freedom are willing to fight for it. It can't be given to a country whose citizens don't want it or are not ready for it.

Oh, and before anyone tries to make a claim I am being racist because the Iraqis are Muslim their are numerous Christian countries in the former Eastern Bloc that have not fought for their freedom yet so this is not somehow a case of Muslims not being fundamentally suited to democracy or able to handle democracy.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast
Please feel free to make a list of what has made the whole operation a success up to now. How it got to be a success and what it is concretely.

Accomplishments, plusses, and positives only please. Negative argumentations and oppositions are not allowed. Many threads on failures exist already, so let's respect this one.

Let's give some room to the Right to sell their point accordingly. Lefties, please behave and be honest in providing stuff supporting the claim that it was a success.

Please, make sure to expand on the idea of success with demonstrables. Proofs gathered from the web are indeed welcome. Criticizing the media as being on the Left side does not count.

If there is success, it has to be demonstrable. So just do that.

Tell you what, I'll go to a thread, take issue with one of the posters, then violate the request of the OP. THEN, when I bring up an opposing point I'll continue violating the terms of the thread but instead of debating the person I'm taking issue with I'll just talk to those who agree with me.

Nice!

The dcmacdaddy insurgent guerilla urban assault debate strategy?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Tell you what, I'll go to a thread, take issue with one of the posters, then violate the request of the OP. THEN, when I bring up an opposing point I'll continue violating the terms of the thread but instead of debating the person I'm taking issue with I'll just talk to those who agree with me.

Nice!

The dcmacdaddy insurgent guerilla urban assault debate strategy?

Umm, my name is mentioned in here but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Why did you mention my name when replying to Pendergast's original post?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The peacenik liberals certainly acted like we expected them to.

i think most people are accustomed to having debates on this board - intellegent or otherwise - so having a thread that restricts people having a right to express an opinion - essentially creating a puff piece - is contrary to the spirit of the forums. that being said...

i posted four things that surely are benefits to the iraqi people and iraq as a whole, per the OP's request to contribute to this thread. and i got nary an 'amen' or a 'hallelujah'.

surely people must think that the schools, healthcare, women's rights and the environmental improvements are signs of success?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Umm, my name is mentioned in here but I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Why did you mention my name when replying to Pendergast's original post?

I won't insult your usually fine sense of perception and insight to answer that question and will give you a few more minutes to focus on the posts and the flow and put the pieces together.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Iraqi people are no longer living in fear and dying under his brutal regime.

greg

If I use George Bush's assessment (which is probably on the low side), that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded and "freed" the Iraqi people - that equates to about 833 per month. (He gave those numbers several months ago so I would speculate, given the recent sectarian violence and just general violence since then the numbers are actually higher). To put that in perspective, our population is about 12 size that of Iraq, we would have 10,000 people killed in random acts of violence each month if the tables were reversed.

It is estimated, that through wars and his gulags Hussein is responsible for around 1 million Iraqi deaths. He was in power for 22 years which averages out to around 3600 deaths a month for 22 years.

Under American occupation there is a 4 times less chance of being killed than under Hussein. Clearly a benefit of our occupation.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

i think most people are accustomed to having debates on this board - intellegent or otherwise - so having a thread that restricts people having a right to express an opinion - essentially creating a puff piece - is contrary to the spirit of the forums. that being said...

i posted four things that surely are benefits to the iraqi people and iraq as a whole, per the OP's request to contribute to this thread. and i got nary an 'amen' or a 'hallelujah'.

surely people must think that the schools, healthcare, women's rights and the environmental improvements are signs of success?

Some people only want to bash Bush. They couldn't care less about Iraq, per se. There are tremendous things going on in Iraq and there are many, many good reasons and advantages and plusses involved in the decision to invade.


This is not to say that there are no costs, no pain, no mistakes or no disappointments. There are. But every glass is half full when it is half empty. And I commend you, BBT, as well as the other liberal posters for your ability to be objective enough to find some good things to post here and I applaud Pendergast for creating such a fine thread!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

If I use George Bush's assessment (which is probably on the low side), that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded and "freed" the Iraqi people - that equates to about 833 per month. (He gave those numbers several months ago so I would speculate, given the recent sectarian violence and just general violence since then the numbers are actually higher). To put that in perspective, our population is about 12 size that of Iraq, we would have 10,000 people killed in random acts of violence each month if the tables were reversed.

It is estimated, that through wars and his gulags Hussein is responsible for around 1 million Iraqi deaths. He was in power for 22 years which averages out to around 3600 deaths a month for 22 years.

Under American occupation there is a 4 times less chance of being killed than under Hussein. Clearly a benefit of our occupation.

Was "TOOL TIME" your favorite TV show?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

If I use George Bush's assessment (which is probably on the low side), that about 30,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded and "freed" the Iraqi people - that equates to about 833 per month. (He gave those numbers several months ago so I would speculate, given the recent sectarian violence and just general violence since then the numbers are actually higher). To put that in perspective, our population is about 12 size that of Iraq, we would have 10,000 people killed in random acts of violence each month if the tables were reversed.

It is estimated, that through wars and his gulags Hussein is responsible for around 1 million Iraqi deaths. He was in power for 22 years which averages out to around 3600 deaths a month for 22 years.

Under American occupation there is a 4 times less chance of being killed than under Hussein. Clearly a benefit of our occupation.

Hahaha, I like your method of deduction.

I'll just point out that averaging "Hussein Deaths" out over 22 years may be a statistical error, since the two major wars Iraq was involved in during that time (Iran, Gulf) probably slant the data.

greg

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie

Kevin, a major goal of the Iraq war was to help Halliburton's bottom line. You need to get back in step with Bush on this. You're either with us or against us; and if you don't believe in Halliburton then you must not believe in America.

tie got any proof to back up said baseless accusations (Hint, don't even try, I know you don't)

You zealots are funny.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Between FY2003 and FY2005 Halliburton's revenue rose 25% with a $3.15B change in Net Income and an over 400% increase in working capital. If it weren't for all the good things they were doing for the people of Iraq the wouldn't be making this kind of money. Good for Halliburton is good for the people of Iraq.

I agree. This is certainly part of the plusses that this war has brought. To paraphrase some guy heard elsewhere: "there is opportunity in disasters". Basically, working on improving some people's situation is bound to create benefits for many, especially in a capitalistic system. The end result is however, difficult to determine unless the beneficiaries can speak up about it to manifest their appreciation. But if this leads to a civil war...

As to whether there is a civil war in Iraq or not, I will not venture in defining a civil war, and interfere with a healthy presentation of the positives coming out of this operation. However, a civil war can be a "good" thing if it leads a population to rgain control of their country. Now, how does that apply to Iraq, is bound for another debate.

There are clearly, has some demonstrated, plusses to the actual work done in Iraq. I also understand that although some people are able to provide links, it is possible that if those references are outdated, the actual benefits may be mitigated. I encourage everyone to bring he most recent updates, if that is feasable.

I understand some of the posters opposition to this thread, as it encourages only a one sided point of view, and that can be taken as favorizing some propaganda. I do not deny the possibility. However, we also need to be careful about propaganda coming from either side. Disinformation can be quite useful a leverage to obtain power/control, but would that make it better than invading a country to impose our own values of freedom because we favor them over other models of freedom? I think not, even if there are benefits to such an action.

This exercise of a thread is useful in that it allows us to force a different point of view, develop potential empathy for our opponents and admit the weakness of some of our own argumentation. I do understand, at the same time, that people's positions are hold close to their heart, and admitting facts from either side to change one's perception can be quite a challenge.

I thank you all for having tried nevertheless.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I agree. This is certainly part of the plusses that this war has brought. To paraphrase some guy heard elsewhere: "there is opportunity in disasters". Basically, working on improving some people's situation is bound to create benefits for many, especially in a capitalistic system. The end result is however, difficult to determine unless the beneficiaries can speak up about it to manifest their appreciation. But if this leads to a civil war...

As to whether there is a civil war in Iraq or not, I will not venture in defining a civil war, and interfere with a healthy presentation of the positives coming out of this operation. However, a civil war can be a "good" thing if it leads a population to rgain control of their country. Now, how does that apply to Iraq, is bound for another debate.

There are clearly, has some demonstrated, plusses to the actual work done in Iraq. I also understand that although some people are able to provide links, it is possible that if those references are outdated, the actual benefits may be mitigated. I encourage everyone to bring he most recent updates, if that is feasable.

I understand some of the posters opposition to this thread, as it encourages only a one sided point of view, and that can be taken as favorizing some propaganda. I do not deny the possibility. However, we also need to be careful about propaganda coming from either side. Disinformation can be quite useful a leverage to obtain power/control, but would that make it better than invading a country to impose our own values of freedom because we favor them over other models of freedom? I think not, even if there are benefits to such an action.

This exercise of a thread is useful in that it allows us to force a different point of view, develop potential empathy for our opponents and admit the weakness of some of our own argumentation. I do understand, at the same time, that people's positions are hold close to their heart, and admitting facts from either side to change one's perception can be quite a challenge.

I thank you all for having tried nevertheless.

Another thought re: Halliburton.

Site Index - Products and Services

Energy Services Group

Production Optimization
Well Completions
Completion Equipment
Perforating
Multilateral Systems
Well Intervention
Intervention
Well Control
Stimulation
Acidizing
Conformance Technology
Fracturing
Sand Control
Sand Control (Sand Stabilization and Exclusion)
Reservoir Performance
Well Testing
Reservoir Performance Monitoring
Underbalanced Applications
Westport Technology Center International
Pipeline & Process Services
Pipeline & Process Services
GoFlo®
Fluids
Baroid
Drilling Fluid Systems and Products
ACCOLADE™ Drilling Fluid System
FACTANT™ Emulsifier
HYDRO-GUARD™ Inhibitive Water-Based Drilling Fluid Systems
STOP-FRAC™ Lost Circulation Materials
XLR-RATE™ ROP Enhancer
DRIL-N™ Products and Services
N-FLOW™
Completion Fluids & Filtration
Baroid Surface Solutions™
Cuttings Handling, Management and Injection
Environmental Services
Solids Control and XTRA-FLO™ Screens
Total Fluids Management®
Baroid Industrial Drilling Products
Cementing
Enventure
Drilling / Formation Evaluation
Logging and Perforating
Cased Hole Logging
Open Hole Logging
LockJar®
Downhole Video
Security DBS
Drill Bits & Downhole Tools
Energy Balanced™ Series
Sperry-Sun
Surface Data Logging (SDL)
Directional Drilling & Surveying
Measurement-While-Drilling / Logging-While-Drilling Services
Innovative Services
Multilateral Systems
Landmark Division

Solution Assets
Real Time Reservoir SolutionsSM
HalLink®
INSITE Anywhere®
Deepwater
Development Planning
G-FAST
FieldPlan®
Deepwater Well Construction
Real Time Deepwater Capabilities
SmartWell®
Subsea Solutions
GoFlo® Flow Remediation Service
Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV)
Subsurface Solutions
FullDrift® Drilling Suite
WellLife™ Cementing Service
BAT™ LWD Sonic Tool
ENVENTURE: Solid Expandable Tubular (SET™) Technology
WellDynamics
Deepwater Stimulation Vessels
Near Bit Reamer™
Deepwater Sand Control
Reservoir Description Tool (RDT™)/MRILab
Total Fluids Management®
Big Bore Completions
Surface Facilities
GVA Consultants

Copyright © 2006 Halliburton Company | Privacy Policy | Legal

What exactly is the problem with Halliburton being involved in operations in Iraq?

They are like a massive energy and reconstruction industry equivalent of "AutoZone." No matter WHAT equipment or expertise you need for the job of drilling for oil no matter where the oil might be (except that Halliburton does not actually do the drilling itself) and providing for personnel support in these locations, Halliburton does what few (or no) other companies actually do under one corporate banner. It does it very, very well.

They are not in the computer business or in the automobile business or the biotech business.

When services such as theirs is needed you need a competent company, with good management, a good track record and the ability to get the job done.

They were supremely qualified to meet the challenges of rebuilding Iraq.

After his public service Dick Cheney had the brains to choose to work with Halliburton and the ability to do a good job there as their Chairman and CEO. He could have worked for lesser qualified firms. He could have worked in less strategically important industries. He had the brains and inclination to choose as he did.

There have been other no-bid contracts in government history. The McDonald-Douglass contract to build space capsules in the 1960's comes to mind.

These things DO happen and there's no big shady dealings involved when it does.

Get over it.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Another thought re: Halliburton.

What exactly is the problem with Halliburton being involved in operations in Iraq?

(...)
Get over it.

Who said it's a problem?
The thread is about the plusses and positives of Iraq's. If Halliburton got richer because of it, how can it be a problem in the perspective of this thread?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

tie got any proof to back up said baseless accusations (Hint, don't even try, I know you don't)

Actually, I do, but I'm afraid it is classified, sorry. Just take my word for it. -GWB

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Who said it's a problem?
The thread is about the plusses and positives of Iraq's. If Halliburton got richer because of it, how can it be a problem in the perspective of this thread?

Quite right.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie

Actually, I do, but I'm afraid it is classified, sorry. Just take my word for it. -GWB

That's what I thought.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Iraqi people are no longer living in fear and dying under his brutal regime.

greg

Now they live under the fear of a new one!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by goMac

Now they live under the fear of a new one!

By the way we are BOTH OFF TOPIC!!! You fuzzies just can't self discipline, can you?

Anyway, we know who you speak for.



Hint, hint...In this regard I'd bet on the black.

[tie]

More good news for Halliburton! You have to read between the lines a bit, but unfortunately that seems to be common these days since we still haven't introduced serious censorship of the liberal media.

The highest overhead costs were found in the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts awarded to KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary formerly known as Kellogg, Brown and Root, for the reconstruction of oil facilities in Iraq.

The report did not explain why KBR’s overhead costs under those contracts were more than 10 percentage points greater than any other contractor that was audited. KBR did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the findings.

It's good to know that our VP's company isn't suffering too much. This war has been tough for a lot of people, but 55%+ overheads makes things a lot more tolerable.

Why hasn't this thread been made a sticky yet?

[Spliffdaddy]

Awe, shucks.

This is the old fashioned way to make money as an elected official.

Nowadays you just buy some real estate, change some zoning/build a bridge to it, then sell it at a multimillion dollar profit. When you get caught, you simply offer to pay a small fine and then "adjust" your congressional disclosure form.

The really old-fashioned way to make money is to simply take a $300,000 bribe. But sometimes the feds figure it out, find $90,000 cash in your freezer - and then raid your capitol hill office. Then the voters re-elect you because that's what Louisiana politics is all about.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Then the voters re-elect you because that's what Louisiana politics is all about.

Fixed.

[black bear theory]

iraq has less electricity today on average than it had since the invasion and that appears to be declining even.

Think Progress � Electricity Levels In Baghdad At Lowest Level Since U.S. Invasion



since this thread can't tolerate any negativity, i will say the iraqi's are fortunate to have any electricity at all.