Pictures of Iraq Success

#51
#51
I guess the theocratic constitution envoking Sharia is good western democracy? Considering the Iraqi constitution makes Islamic law the ultimate determining factor rather than true liberty and freedom, I'd say the perceptions we in the US have of Iraq need a swift kick in the pants.
 
#52
#52
hohenfelsvol said:
Ditto. Don't buy the watered down crap that is being fed about how things are right now. And you obviously think the world is ending over there and its not.
Click to expand...

Look guy....have you been there? Try going there and seeing firsthand before telling me not to believe what I actually saw firsthand. When you go over there and see various areas, then you can try to convince me what I saw was not what I saw.
 
#53
#53
CSpindizzy said:
Don't believe the muddled crap you've been fed.
Click to expand...

Like that I'm being fed right now?

Tell me of you years in Iraq pre and post Saddam?

To suggest the actions were the same and that only the method of consequence was different is a gross over-generalization.
 
#54
#54
Talking to the people there firsthand is far different than you sitting in your cozy chair watching FNC.

My years post Saddam? Well three trips there since Saddam was toppled....does that meet your approval?

Well the go ahead and believe what you've said on here. Clearly you lack direct knowledge and choose to believe a version lacking reality.
 
#55
#55
CSpindizzy said:
Talking to the people there firsthand is far different than you sitting in your cozy chair watching FNC.

My years post Saddam? Well three trips there since Saddam was toppled....does that meet your approval?

Well the go ahead and believe what you've said on here. Clearly you lack direct knowledge and choose to believe a version lacking reality.
Click to expand...

I haven't been there.

However, your opinions are not consistent with a vast amount of reporting coming out of Iraq over the past many years (pre and post).

You can belittle my method for forming opinions if you like. It is clearly more than you suggest but that is neither here nor there.

I've heard from many who've been there. Their assessment is different than yours. I guess their views lack reality too.
 
#56
#56
Tell me what the reporting shows. Tell me what your other contacts show? What is the assessment?
 
#57
#57
I thought all of that 'liberal' media said doom and gloom. What reporting are you saying?
 
#58
#58
CSpindizzy said:
Look guy....have you been there? Try going there and seeing firsthand before telling me not to believe what I actually saw firsthand. When you go over there and see various areas, then you can try to convince me what I saw was not what I saw.
Click to expand...

I do respect your position. Please do not get the impression I do not. I think though that it is getting better.

When were you over there and what capacity?
 
#59
#59
Here's a short list of generalizations you've made in this thread alone (paraphrasing).

Most people don't care who is doing what - they just want the status quo.

Demonstrations and free elections are virtually the same now as prior to Saddam falling - only the consequences (how you get smacked down) is different.

In the first statement you attribute a lack of mass demonstrations as evidence that people there do not care. Lack of action is not the same as not caring.

In the second assertion, you equate demonstrations in a Saddam world that were presumably punished by the regime to the ability to demonstrate currently in Iraq. Will the Maliki(sp?) government punish demonstrators today? Is a car bomb at a demonstration the same as the government taking action? Not hardly.
 
#60
#60
Our company works with NGO's contracting for political and election services. We've been involved there, Ukraine with Yushenko, and Venezuela with Chavez's opposition. We mostly deal with US politics but since 2002 we've really reached out to international politics. A former employee of ours works for NDI, the Democratic leaning group funded by the US taxpayers to influence democracy in various nations. NDI falls under the National Endowment for Democracy. There is a Dem and a GOP group we Americans support to influence a movement to western thinking.

We helped with voter registration, precinct working, canvassing, etc.
 
#61
#61
CSpindizzy said:
Our company works with NGO's contracting for political and election services. We've been involved there, Ukraine with Yushenko, and Venezuela with Chavez's opposition. We mostly deal with US politics but since 2002 we've really reached out to international politics. A former employee of ours works for NDI, the Democratic leaning group funded by the US taxpayers to influence democracy in various nations. NDI falls under the National Endowment for Democracy. There is a Dem and a GOP group we Americans support to influence a movement to western thinking.

We helped with voter registration, precinct working, canvassing, etc.
Click to expand...

Very interesting work that sounds very challenging. Am sure you have seen and experienced alot that most of us will not.
 
#62
#62
I love how you generalize my generalizations....nice try but you're a little off.

The attitude of people determines the success of something. If people are not actively pursuing this newly found freedom, they clearly have little to no interest in the process. Most Iraqis have never even seen or even know of what we call democracy. As long as they have a steady meal and the government is not kicking down their door, they care less. This is the same attitude as what was under Saddam. Most people did not feel a direct effect of Saddam's brutality. They went about their daily lives and cared less about politics. They separated themselves from it or risked something happening to them. This is the same now. Most Sunnis do not want to speak out against Shiite death squads for good reason. And vice versa. There are militias traveling around in official uniforms rounding up people and torturing them and/or executing them solely on the fact they are different. This occurred under Saddam, except just one group against another, not all groups against each other.

Under Saddam you saw one group and a small fraction of that group oppressing a small amount of another group. This existed in specific areas mainly in the south. Now it is a free for all. Violence erupts all over and not just from government sources. Any Iraqi with a tool or gun can turn on another. Roving gangs are 'securing' streets. It went from a police state where you knew what would get you in trouble to a gang-land in many areas where you had no clue who to trust or what to say or not say.

Let's put it this way....under Saddam fear and retribution was strictly defined. Now, there are no definitions. Violence has no bounds and everything is unexpected. Just as in Yugoslavia, you take one strong willed secular regime that forced differences to be repressed and destroy it. What happens? Those repressed differences come out in the way of religious and cultural differences and there is nothing to hold it back.
 
#63
#63
While I don't totally agree with you, I think your main point is sadly proving correct. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think we definitely underestimated how difficult it was going to be to make the Iraqis take ownership of their own independence.
 
#64
#64
Frankly if we were willing to deal with this possibility we could have handed out weapons left and right and let the Iraqis themselves take out Saddam. We could have seen the same results with less US casualties.
 
#65
#65
CSpindizzy said:
Frankly if we were willing to deal with this possibility we could have handed out weapons left and right and let the Iraqis themselves take out Saddam. We could have seen the same results with less US casualties.
Click to expand...
I am going to have to rebut this.

While Saddam's army was indeed far inferior to any Western Army, let alone American Military Force, his military still had tanks, artillery, tracked infantry vehicles, and wheeled infantry vehicles.

For the people of Iraq to have ousted the Sunni/Baathist Government, they would have had to be equipped with enough armament to compete in combat against a military that was willing to inflict infinite civilian casualties.

So, unless your idea was to pull out these Shia militias in 2002, train them at Ft. Knox, Sill, and Benning, and then send them back, with complete armament, then your rhetoric is indeed just rhetoric.
 
#66
#66
That was a joke.....I was hinting at that with saying if we were willing to deal with this sort of outcome.
 
#67
#67
My bad then. However, it we were forced to deal with this outcome, covert assassination attempts on Saddam and his sons would have been the way to go.

A Baathis would have remained in power, however, knowing that they could be the victim of an assassination plot at any time, would have definitely kept them a little more in line with our policy.
 
#68
#68
I don't see why letting the Ba'athists keep running things would have been so bad. Let them keep a tight leash but at the same time knowing we could easily dump weapons in there for guerilla actions. Perhaps unlike what Papa Bush did in 1991-92, we could have kept our promise to the Shia that any revolt would have been aided with US firepower. The people in the south were willing to raise hell. But when we renege and they get wiped out, they lose that will to fight on their own.
 
#69
#69
You and I definitely agree about the strategic implications of not following up on our promise after Desert Storm.
 
#70
#70
I think we lost quite a bit of credibility with not only the Shia in the south but with many groups around the world.

We had a perfect opportunity to make headway with a group who even gave us an in with Iranians friendly to us.

Again hindsight but it explains some resentment and the attitude we have received.
 
#71
#71
CSpindizzy said:
I don't see why letting the Ba'athists keep running things would have been so bad. Let them keep a tight leash but at the same time knowing we could easily dump weapons in there for guerilla actions. Perhaps unlike what Papa Bush did in 1991-92, we could have kept our promise to the Shia that any revolt would have been aided with US firepower. The people in the south were willing to raise hell. But when we renege and they get wiped out, they lose that will to fight on their own.
Click to expand...

wasn't it the Kurds, not the Shi'a, that Bush Sr. treated like the Vietnamese Montagnards?
 
#72
#72
Nope. Shia....we promised them aid in their revolt right at the end of the first Gulf War. They revolted, we didn't help, and tens of thousands were massacred.
 
#73
#73
oklavol said:
No one has fully explained how spending our children and our grandchildren's future and saddling them with this huge debt from the war is in the best interest of them and this country. Spending the money to create a country that will be the greatest ally the country of Iran will ever have.
Click to expand...
And in debt for what? Where's the billions that was supposed to go to Iraq and ended up missing?
 
#74
#74
It's the sound of a huge vacuum cleaner sucking up money....where's H Ross Perot when you need him?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top