Nation building in Iraq

[mikkey 0]

Saw the news about the latest massacre in Iraq and thought about how the US administration claims how much better off the Iraqis are now. Some Iraqis do not agree, from the wires:

"
THREE Iraqi Shiite Muslim leaders have blamed the United States and its security policies as the occupying power for the devastating attacks in Karbala and Baghdad.

"We put the responsibility on the occupation forces both directly and indirectly," said cleric Sayyed Ahmed Saffi, a spokesman for Iraq's most influential Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
"Until now, it is the occupation forces responsibility because they are dealing with the Iraqi police in an unsuitable way," Saffi said, without saying whether Sistani endorsed his comments.

"The existence of the occupation encourages such attacks," he added.

At least 112 people were killed and 235 wounded in Karbala in a suicide attack backed by mortar fire and bombs detonated at roadsides leading to the Shiite holy city south of Baghdad.
In the capital, at least 70 more people were killed and 321 injured when suicide bombers blew themselves up simultaneously at a mosque, while Shiites were commemorating a revered martyr.

"We put the responsibility of ensuring security in the country and of protecting sacred Shiite sites on the occupation forces because they have left our borders open to infiltrators," Grand Ayatollah Bashir Najafi said.

"In the meanwhile, these forces have spent their time pillaging the riches of Iraq," he added in a statement from the holy city of Najaf, 160km south of Baghdad, warning "the patience of Iraqis is not without limits."


Somebody remind me of Rumsi & Co's past comments how easy it will be to establish a peaceful and democratic Iraq....

There is a real risk of civil war and a real risk of Iraqis in large numbers blaming the US and joining the resistance. Catching SH did not solve the problems (another failure to understand the real issues at hand)

The problem is that the US acts without understanding the region and the culture. GWB's "white hat vs. black hat" approach is going to backfire big time. Hope the US learns quickly and reviews its approach. (Maybe by January)

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

"We put the responsibility on the occupation forces both directly and indirectly,"

Uh huh. It's our fault that people are running around killing innocent civilians. That makes sense.

I put the responsibility on the suicide bombers, their sponsors, and those Iraqi's who allow this to happen. That is exactly where it belongs, I believe.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

"We put the responsibility on the occupation forces both directly and indirectly,"

Uh huh. It's our fault that people are running around killing innocent civilians. That makes sense.

I put the responsibility on the suicide bombers, their sponsors, and those Iraqi's who allow this to happen. That is exactly where it belongs, I believe.

-
Jim

You might be right but the important point is that Iraqi religious leaders (who are very important) are starting to blame the US and that could spell big trouble....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Jimbo 0]

Actually, according to your article, they're beginning to blame the occupation. Last I checked we (the US) weren't the only ones there. Any Aussies over there?

Funny thing is, the sooner they stop with the lawlessness, and cowardice, the sooner the occupation will be over.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Gawain 0]

Troops from at least a dozen countries are there.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[slug 1]

Quote

You might be right but the important point is that Iraqi religious leaders (who are very important) are starting to blame the US and that could spell big trouble....

IMO Our troops, and the average iraqi's are in deep trouble.

The most recent blood bath involved the iraqi's from the majority religion. In a democratic system they will have a majoity of votes and be able to control the gov't. The minority players don't that.

I'm thinking a civil war and the country ends up being divided into three parts Kurds in the North, sheits sp?in the south, and the Suni's somewhere in the middle.

This probably won't happen until the US sucessfully returns Iraq back to the Iraqi's. Smae as viet nam

Time will tell

R.I.P.

[mikkey 0]

That is correct. But 80-90% are US forces and the administrative / political side is run by the Americans. Try to focus on the issue at hand. More and more civilians are bing killed, security situation is very bad, infrastructure and jobs are not being established fast enough, and now Iraqi clergy is starting to blame the occupiers. This is not looking good. This is going to be a long and bloody occupation.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[benny 0]

Quote

Troops from at least a dozen countries are there.

The vast, vast majority are from the US.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Try to focus on the issue at hand.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Try to focus on the issue at hand.

Do you mean America bashing?

[quade 4]

To be fair, Presidents from both parties have historically failed miserably almost any time they've meddled in the affairs of other countries. The ONLY exception since WWII that I can think of is . . . Clinton and Bosnia, but I credit Clark for that and it's probably too soon to tell how well that will turn out in the long run.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkydiverRick 0]

Your ability to grasp complex issues seems to be quite similar to GWB's.

[koz2000 1]

Also you must remember this
IF 99% of the people like you, you're doing pretty good and extremely popular.
So the 1% of people who hate us in Iraq equals to 246,833. (24,683,313 pop.) Of course we'll have some riots and disgruntals. Have you seen a mob of 40,000 against the US??

just a thought.

______________________________________________
- Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes -

[Mirage63 0]

Without getting blasted

Does anyone have and accurate estimate of how many people was S.H. killing every month before we got there?

Not the "I HATE BUSH NO MATTER WHAT", "I LOVE BUSH NO MATTER WHAT" just some r-e-a-l numbers.

I don't want to know how many people die by accidental shooting in America, how many people die in home accidents, how many innocent children/women/cammels/died in the war - how many Iraqies where being killed before the invasion. ((I also don't want to know how many people he gased)

It would help me with trying to form my own idea's.


But hey I sure like skydiving

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Without getting blasted

Does anyone have and accurate estimate of how many people was S.H. killing every month before we got there?

Not the "I HATE BUSH NO MATTER WHAT", "I LOVE BUSH NO MATTER WHAT" just some r-e-a-l numbers.

I don't want to know how many people die by accidental shooting in America, how many people die in home accidents, how many innocent children/women/cammels/died in the war - how many Iraqies where being killed before the invasion. ((I also don't want to know how many people he gased)

It would help me with trying to form my own idea's.

FAS has a summary report touching on some broad figures provided by the UN: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

You'll have to page down a bit, but figure over 3,000 Kurdish villages have been wiped out (over 200,000 people). It doesn't provide raw data that you're seeking. But it's one reference. Taking the Iran/Iraq war into account (along with everything else that has floated in the news over the years), a conservative estimate of over 1,000,000 is being kind to Saddam.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

People in the U.S. might be: too afraid of the government to riot in the streets, too indifferent, too reasonable to riot in the streets.

This is NOT to say that people are happy with the results. In fact, recent polling shows that a fairly large percentage of folks in the U.S. are dissatisfied with our foriegn policy and believe that the rest of the world is as well.

http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm#World%20Affairs

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

I believe Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that did kill his own people.

I believe that the Iraqi people -could- have been better off without him, but to date, the country has not embraced their own freedom and have, in fact, turned on their liberators and themselves so there is little to show for everyone's efforts so far.

How did we manage to screw this up? Not that this is a unique situation -- we almost always seem to screw this sort of thing up. Why is that?

More importantly -- knowing our historical record on doing things such as this -- why didn't we have a better plan?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,070]

>Funny thing is, the sooner they stop with the lawlessness, and
>cowardice, the sooner the occupation will be over.

Sounds like it won't be long until we've talked ourselves into believing the Shi'a are the enemy. But never fear; we have someone in custody now who's good at supressing them.

[slug 1]

Quote

How did we manage to screw this up? Not that this is a unique situation -- we almost always seem to screw this sort of thing up. Why is that?

Based on 20-20

I think Bremmer may have used poor judgement by firing the complete Iraq army and trying to start over from scratch.

The only people who don't make mistakes are the people who don't do anything. Not to be confused for a excuse for doing what we did.

More importantly -- knowing our historical record on doing things such as this -- why didn't we have a better plan?

No one wants to tell the king he's not wearing any cloth's. The three star never argues with the four star. The four star doesn't argue with Dumsfeld etc, etc.

BTW remember who helped put the last president into power in Haitia sp? 20-20 hindsight

R.I.P.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I believe Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator that did kill his own people.

I believe that the Iraqi people -could- have been better off without him, but to date, the country has not embraced their own freedom and have, in fact, turned on their liberators and themselves so there is little to show for everyone's efforts so far.

How did we manage to screw this up? Not that this is a unique situation -- we almost always seem to screw this sort of thing up. Why is that?

More importantly -- knowing our historical record on doing things such as this -- why didn't we have a better plan?

Iraq is slightly different though. In its current form, Iraq has not existed all that long. Personally, I wonder if we ever considered a redrawing of the map pre-UK days.

Our historical record is not quite as bad as you paint it, IMO, when it's the US led initiative (Japan, Germany, Italy, Grenada, Panama, Pre-NATO-Balkan). Our efforts in Vietnam, Haiti, Somalia to name some, were not so successful.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Do you mean Haiti?

From CNN.

Quote

Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned as Haiti's president February 29, 2004, won his country's first democratic election in 1990. He was ousted in a 1991 coup but restored to power when the United States sent 20,000 troops to the Caribbean nation in 1994. Aristide won a second term in 2000, the same year his party swept legislative elections. These elections, which most opposition parties boycotted and claimed to be fraudulent, fueled the current political uprising. Aristide's resignation broke a political impasse that had brought a bloody insurrection to the doors of the capital of Port-au-Prince.

I think this only serves to bolster my point that even though we have good intentions, meddling in the affairs of other countries isn't all that good of an idea. We almost always have to eventually deal with the leaders years later, it just gets more messy and the cycle begins again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[slug 1]

Hi Quade

Quote

Do you mean Haiti?

Yep thats the place! sorry about the spelling
From CNN.

Quote

Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who resigned as Haiti's president February 29, 2004, won his country's first democratic election in 1990. He was ousted in a 1991 coup but restored to power when the United States sent 20,000 troops to the Caribbean nation in 1994. Aristide won a second term in 2000, the same year his party swept legislative elections. These elections, which most opposition parties boycotted and claimed to be fraudulent, fueled the current political uprising. Aristide's resignation broke a political impasse that had brought a bloody insurrection to the doors of the capital of Port-au-Prince.

I think this only serves to bolster my point that even though we have good intentions, meddling in the affairs of other countries isn't all that good of an idea. We almost always have to eventually deal with the leaders years later, it just gets more messy and the cycle begins again.

>>

I remember before we helped the guy back on the island there was some discussion about his questionable background.

I guess the country has a long history of Bad old boys being in charge the earliest I recall was Papa doc who maybe died of old age then he was replaced by son Baby doc who left on short notice then the military then the pres then the military then we help the pres get back in 1994. But the long cycle of corruption and brutality was never broken. The french knew it, we knew it and the UN knew it.

On CNN there was a "expert" that said we were going to do something in 2000 about the election process but Jimmy Carter stepped in and the election was claimed a success. also something about the UN was only concerned about the humanitarian problem (food & water) and not the political mess or human rights issues.

BTW we worked with a guy in the mid 60's from haiti who was a political refugee.

I guess the planning for the long term solution for Haiti wasn't well enough coordinated with with the U.N. That what concerns me about Iraq not only was the short term plan lacking I see us declaring a victory, leaveing and the place returning to it's ethnic boundaries after a lot of bad stuff happening.

R.I.P.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Iraq is slightly different though. In its current form, Iraq has not existed all that long. Personally, I wonder if we ever considered a redrawing of the map pre-UK days.

Now you are really asking for trouble.

"Small" issues like "Kurdistan" and the effect this will have on claims for territory from Turkey and Iran will "pop" up.

Issues around the borders with Iran in the south, etc. etc. You end up with Tribal controlled areas with resulting faction wars and instability (a little like Afghanistan). This will not just affect Iraq but also Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and the Golf States.

That is like putting a light to a powder keg. And the Powder keg holds something like 70% of the worlds oil reserves.

Woooha - hold on to your seats and tune in to "mayhem in the middle east". Gawain you really ARE a follower of GWB's school of "foreign policy made simple"....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Gawain 0]

The issues you cite with Turkey, Iran, and Gulf states will exist regardless of how the map is drawn. These issues have existed before Iraq was invaded. Turkey and Iran both have to deal with "extremists" seeking a Kurdistan.

Iraq was a forced into its current shape, with little regard to the tribal and religious considerations. In fact, in light of what happened to Czechoslovakia after the collapse of the USSR, it's quite a valid question. You could have a middle-east version of Croatia, Bosnia, etc.

Since Iraq was formed, it has always been governed by a strict, ruthless style of government. It has never had any real democratic traditions. I was simply asking the question--not, as you say (with little tact) following the GWB foreign policy made simple. If I were a blind follower, I would not acknowledge the very issues you brought up, nor would I have even asked the question.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

Iraq is slightly different though. In its current form, Iraq has not existed all that long. Personally, I wonder if we ever considered a redrawing of the map pre-UK days.

Now you are really asking for trouble.

"Small" issues like "Kurdistan" and the effect this will have on claims for territory from Turkey and Iran will "pop" up.

Issues around the borders with Iran in the south, etc. etc. You end up with Tribal controlled areas with resulting faction wars and instability (a little like Afghanistan). This will not just affect Iraq but also Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and the Golf States.

That is like putting a light to a powder keg. And the Powder keg holds something like 70% of the worlds oil reserves.

Woooha - hold on to your seats and tune in to "mayhem in the middle east". Gawain you really ARE a follower of GWB's school of "foreign policy made simple"....

Sounds like the domino theory used to justify Viet
Nam. History will tell the truth.

Lets just continue to support our troops in the field and their familes and continue to support them after they return home.
R.I.P.