Monday, August 22, 2005

The "Good News" From Iraq

Something that comes up often lately is "what about the good things happening in Iraq?" Before I comment you might want to check out this story. There is more biodiversity in Chernobyl than ever before! Of course it will be eons before humans can live there. So does this mean it was good they had a nuclear meltdown? How about a few more them.
Ok, now back to Iraq. Certainly positive developments have occurred. No doubt about it. My question is at what cost. Schools rebuilt in Iraq, Sewer systems rebuilt in Iraq. Kids get toenail clippers etc.
What is the cost of all this. Was (is) it worth the sidetracking the war on terror and Americas' priorities at home, America losing respect around the world and becoming known as a preemptive attacker. 300 billion dollars not spent on rebuilding AMERICA or used for homeland security..or the real war on terror. At least tens of thousands dead and many more than that maimed for life. Aiding terrorists in their recruiting and training. And the list goes on and on.
Certainly there was a better way to fight terrorism than this. Saddam was contained and we had the world behind us and a chance to focus on those that had harmed us and are still harming people around the world. Saddams time could have waited.
We've done all we can. Saddam is gone and they have a government. The civil war is happening wheather we are there or not. They are now in control and they are going to have to settle it among themselves. No doubt good things have happened..I still dream of how much more good might have been done with a different strategy. I blame the Pnac'ers for the fumble. There's lots of work to do elsewhere if we are going to defeat terror. Let's turn our focus there.
Here's a question that perplexes me. For years I have heard the right wing screech monkeys blather about how the government was bumbling idiots who couldn't do anything right. Name me one thing the government has done well they say. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Now suddenly we can build an entire foreign country and transform an entire culture. Is it this or can they not run the school down the street?


Blogger The Game said...

Not a real good argument here...

Things are going good...but if we would have just talked more they would have gone better...

The in the pudding..

9:50 PM, August 22, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Did i even mention talking? Now you are making up my posts!

11:00 PM, August 22, 2005  
Blogger The Donkey said...

Have you elisted to spread that freedom over Iraq like pixie dust? Why are you not there the game? Why is your life better than the other soldiers?

11:06 PM, August 22, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I have a different view on the war on terror than you do I see Iraq as the central front against terrorists. As far as this being a recruitment tool for terrorists you may be right they are being recruited to came into Iraq (some are forced to be suicide bombers which is kind of an oxymoron "forced suicide") but I dont think Islamic extremists really need anymore impetus to want to kill Americans. The goal of al queda and other extremeists groups is to kill all infedels. The jiahdists are flooding into Iraq and are being killed by the coalition forces this is a good thing. The only good terrorists is a dead one. I wonder where else could we have the opportunity to kill thousands of terrorists? I read where a General in Iraq has estimated that they have killed 50,000 insurgents (terrorists) since the fall of bagdad When and where else could we have done that? Your point about losing respect around the world is valid but I ask you what would be worse for America's respect pulling troops out tomorrow and leaving the country to the thugs who are waiting for us to leave or staying until the job is done, until the iraqis can take care of security, have a constition and have a new governement. I agree the cost is high but I believe it will have been well worth it if we can accomplish our goals which we can do if support at home does not weaken the political will of our elected officials.
I'm not sure saddams time could have waited. In a post 9/11 era I don't think we could let a state sponsor of terror fester.

I have a question for anybody who wants to answer. While people blame Bush for the war rightly or wrongly why does nobody blame saddam? Since apparently he had no WMD why didn't he let the UN look anywhere and everyehere thus avoiding the invasion? He knwew the US was serious all he had to do was prove he had no wmd which he didn't he could have maintaned his power and avoided the invasion so easily yet chose the defiant rout. I do not understyand this at all.


5:24 AM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

my comment was based on this sentence:
I still dream of how much more good might have been done with a different strategy...

Donkey, we have already gone over in other post how stupid a comment it is to say that if you are not in the army you can not have an opinion about the don't work in the white house, so don't say a word about Bush ever again...

7:56 AM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger Average Joe said...

Donkey, this whole why don't you enlist nonsense is just over the top. I am in the Army and that doesn't mean my opinion counts more or less. No one would dare make that claim. For example, if I told you that my unit B Battery 1/320th FA from the 101st Airborne Dvision served in Mosul Iraq for 18 months would you listen to me? WOuld my opinion carry more weight? Would it even matter to you? What if I told you about the friend I lost. Would that change your opinion? Stop being so dumb.

10:32 AM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger Average Joe said...

Ron, You are just plain wrong. Using the method to downgrade the progress is armchair quarterbacking at its worse. I can just imagine you pouring mustard over your T-Shirt and saying "It could've been done so much better".

Face the facts, the Iraqi people are better off today than they were under Saddam. It is indisputable, and don't wuote the draft constitution yet either. Do you know how many years it took our founding fathers to develop a system they liked? The Iraqis have the benefit of our knowledge but the process won't come easy. In the meantime, providing schools, fresh water, clean housing, and national defense aren't the actions of a brutal occupier. Constantly I hear about our evil occupation and how we're stealing oil and it's a bloodbath. If we are so awful why are we doing anything good? Why are we building a school? Why are we providing fresh water? Why even bother.

Good is good, even if you don't agree with the method.

10:37 AM, August 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out Dahr Jamil's diary. He is one of the few unembedded reporters in Iraq. Been there most of the time for 8 months. Robert Fisk is another one (British) who has spent a lot of time there. Jamahl was at the Veterans for Peace convention in Dallas. In the link below he quotes quite a bit of what Iraq war veterans there said. There was another article I read about books written by Iraq veterans. One said what hurt the most was having CNN report a duck in a drain? as a news story, while the soldier's deaths in Iraq went across the bottom of the screen in that little ribbon.

Another outlet is the Sydney Herald. They posted a really horrible story that I read yesterday about the daily beheadings in Haditha.

Things in the Green Zone, which is the only place Americans see, are going fairly well. Things elsewhere are pretty much a nightmare. AND, as I mentioned yesterday in a story by Robert Fisk, the morgue number in Baghdad was the highest ever. Over 1100 in one months. Many with their hands tied, their eyes taped, and a bullet in their heads. You can search for that yourself -- Baghdad morgue July.

I used to read "Riverbend" the Baghdad girl blogger, but she has not posted since July 15th. Which makes me concerned for here. She does not concur with your rosy assessment. Almost no one does who has actually been anywhere in the country other than the Green Zone. 73 soldiers, I think it was, died in July.

Being delusional must be a happy way to live.

11:40 AM, August 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, Saddam DID let the inspectors look anywhere and everywhere. The inspectors wanted more time, but Bush/Cheney wanted war for Halliburton. Can anyone imagine BUSH letting someone search OUR country and his home??!!Now we have 4 permanent bases there and are building 10 more. All by Halliburton, of course. When I think of what we could have done with the hundreds of billions, perhaps more than a trillion that will be spent there!!!
As I said before in another post. Anyone who knew anything knew this war would be a huge mistake. 1000 military personnel -- among then the late great Col. Hackworth and Mideast specialist Gen. Zinni among them signed a letter to Bush before the war advising against it. Bush's own father thought it was a mistake. Zinni said 'its funny all the generals see it one way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another. We are about to unleash something we will rue the day we ever started.'
I recommend you do a search for Zinni and some of his speeches. He voted for Bush in 2000.
Turns out, Saddam was the one who told the truth about the WMD's. There were no terrorists in Iraq (other than Saddam) until we went there. Before the war, I remember hearing one Mideast specialist say within a year, we were going to wish we had someone very like Saddam back in power again. He was SECULAR, for God's sake!! Which was one of the reasons we supported him and shored him up. NOW the Constitution will be more based on Shia law. Women will be more repressed. As one female professor at a university there said, 'as long as you were apolitical, you had it pretty good under Saddam.'
We had a civil war here, too, in case no one remembers.
Did anyone catch Keith Olberman's exposure of another Limbaugh lie?? And then Limbaugh tried to get rid of the evidence that he did lie.

11:53 AM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

average must make a good point when no one can dispute anything you said...

and if we went to war for oil...then I am really pissed because he have gotten very little oil and I have to pay $2.70 a gallon for gas...

3:23 PM, August 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

annaonymous if its true that saddam let inspectors in why did Hans Blix (certainly no hawk) on January 30, 2003 say that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, thus violating UN resolution 1441? If a cop knocks on my door tonight and says I'm here to search for cocaine I would welcome him in and laugh as he aimlessly looked.

Saddam for whatever reason decided to risk invasion rather than taking the easier way out. This is why I ask people who blame Bush why they don't blame saddam who could have remained in power and averted the war if he just would have fullfilled the tennents of UN res 1441 (which passed 15-0 by the way) It make me wonder if in fact saddam did actually have something to hide??????


4:56 PM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger The Donkey said...

Average Joe

* Gender: male
* Astrological Sign: Virgo
* Industry: Banking
* Occupation: Commercial Banker
* Location: Phoenix : Arizona : United States

The Donkey does not remember meeting any Commercial bankers in the Army.

10:54 PM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger The Game said...

Can someone find the donkey's meds?
or atleast fix the pull string comming out of his seems to be stuck again...

Ron, kind of disapointed you speak highly of the donkey...

What if I say I know Deborah don't even know who that is...and that is the point.

11:27 PM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Game and Mark, I'm wondering if we are even all speaking English at this point. You seem to have completely missed the point I am trying to make in this post. We aren't even reading the same book let alone the same page. I really don't know how to make it any clearer either.

Different strategy like going after the people that attacked us.
Mark,Once we "win" the war on terror, I was wondering, who is going to be in the room for the enemy to sign the paper that ceases hostilities? Maybe someone from Iraq?
Saddam was suppose to let the inspectors in and account for his weapons of mass destruction. I don't want to look like I am defending a worthleess despot but reality is reality. He did, under pressure, let the inspectors in. WE removed them. It is hard to account for something that doesn't exist.
Joe it's not armchair quarterbacking cuz I have said it from the beginning as have many prominent Generals, military leaders and even SR. Bush himself when he gave his reasons for not continuing to Bagdad. His assesment was spot right on the money. The Iraqi people may be better off now than under Saddam but you might want to ask the Iraqi people about that. The possibility exists they may have a different idea. Or maybe there are different assessments of that in Iraq just like there is in America.

11:32 PM, August 23, 2005  
Blogger The Donkey said...

The 101st will be back in Iraq by winter. Will joe be leaving?

Can the game and mark enlist to go with him?

11:56 PM, August 23, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

obviously there will be no signing of a peace agreement in the war on terror that is why we cannot ever show weakness i.e. pulling out of iraq until it is stable. This war against terrorism will go on for generations until the civilized world shows islamic extremist that their goals cannot be met against an enemy who will never back down. Pre 9/11 we treated islamic exteremists as a law enforcement issue now it is a matter of war and national security we will no longer retreat to the law enforcement stance again (wether its a dem or a repub in office) therefore this will be a war that goes on for a very long time.

I feel Iraq is a great place to start if we can stablize that country it my give hope to other Muslims who will then see a choice between the dead end position of extremist (go blow yourself up to kill infedels) or a stable democratic government where freedom allows for peace and stability. A stable Iraq may lead to other middle eastern populations to look and say hey if they can do it so can we which I think gives hope to people who before hand had no hope and turned to terrorism. this will take generations to occur but to me it is the best way to combat an extremeism that will not bargain with infedels to find peace. the only way to end hostilities is to show future generations there is a better way and we weren't doing that while saddam was in power. That is why I see a great future for Iraq as long as we don't do what cindy Sheehan and feingold want to do pull out before the job is done.



6:48 AM, August 24, 2005  
Blogger Dedanna said...

Not off topic here --

Militias on the Rise Across Iraq
Sunday, August 21, 2005

While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents have said they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.

So what's so "well done" about that?

8:15 AM, August 24, 2005  
Blogger Jim said...


You may recall that when Blix said that "Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, thus violating UN resolution 1441", he was referring to missiles which had a range beyond the distance allowed by 1441. These missiles were immediately destroyed.

It's clear that Saddam was not always acting in what most people would call a rational manner, and he didn't always act in his best interest. But he did have a certain amount of pride and surely didn't like being humiliated in front of his middle east neighbors even if it was his own fault, thus he resisted 1441 but did not totally ignore it.

The fact is (see CNN's "Dead Wrong" among others) is that the Defense Department made the case for WMDs based on the interpretation of shakey intelligence, interpretation that in every instance took the position that would most bolster the Administration's desire to oust Saddam by military force.

6:33 PM, August 26, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim: is that an admission that Bush did not lie. If the intelligence was shaky or wrong how could bush have lied? I don't know that you have ever accused bush of lying, but it is one of those accusations I've never understood. If I am taught from my first day in school that 2+2= 6 and I repeat that information I don't think I can be accused of lying. Kerry and Clinton both made statements supporting Iraq's possesion of WMD. Saddam had used chemical weapons against the kurds, so we at least know he had a history of using them. Now I am not a blind follower of Bush it would have been nice had the WMD been discovered and I think our intelligence gathering people should be held accountable, however if you read my above post on the war on terror I think it is good that we have deposed Saddam and hopefully we will be able to stabalize Iraq which will be better for the US and the volitile middle east. I just hope the people on the far left who are calling for immediate withdrawl dant get their way otherwise things will be 100% worse than before. I wish Bush would have fought the insurgency tougher at the beginning I think things would look al ot better had we killed MuQtada al Sadr early on. I do think if we put the number of US casualties in historical percpective we are doing fairly well (granted every loss of life or serious injury is tragic and I pray for all of them) if the political will at home stays strong the US can stabalize Iraq and a large number of our troops can start to come home.


8:33 AM, August 27, 2005  
Blogger Average Joe said...

One weekend a month two weeks a year. Look at that I can be a banker and a soldier at the same time YOU IDIOT! !@!@#! Man that arrogant donkey makes me angry. The Army Reserve ring a bell? The National Guard maybe? What and !@#hole. Ron, why do you support people like that, what an awful person to be associated with. Truly scum of the earth type of person.

Specialist Paul Sturino 1st Battalion 320th Field Artillery from Rice Lake Wisconsin, blew his face off in a humvee in November of 2003. SHUT YOUR F-ING MOUTH DONKEY!!! I am sooooo mad I could burst. How dare you, you just met your first commercial banker in the Army D!CK!!!!!

9:48 PM, August 27, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

average joe,
Don't worry about donkey he is insane. Thank you for your sacrifice and serving your country you are a great american


5:26 AM, August 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Average Joe

* Gender: male
* Astrological Sign: Virgo
* Industry: Banking
* Occupation: Commercial Banker
* Location: Phoenix : Arizona : United States

The Donkey does not remember meeting any Commercial bankers in the Army.

Well, Donkey, even I have to say that you need to go get those meds.

The Army employs all kinds; and if you can't think that the National Guard would use a banker every much as bit as a laborer, then you are insane.

There are other branches of the military who use people such as this.

Get a grip. Have YOU served?

12:08 PM, August 28, 2005  
Blogger Ron said...

Joe, I understand people pushing the buttons. I have a caller to the show who has the ability to enrage me just by hearing his voice now. He does a similar thing. Keeps repeating something that I have throughly discounted already. I also get really bugged by those that say those who speak out against the war are "aiding the terrorists or hate america" et al. There was a bunch of those idiots in Crawford yesterday. I find it really narrow thinking. Anyway, I feel your pain.:-)

1:19 PM, August 28, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home