Tom C Medara said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:"Destroyed law and order????" You gotta be kidding me! The
people in Iraq were practically living under martial law that been
since around 1980. Law and order was enforced through the use of
political terror, akin to the Stalin years in the USSR!
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Hold it. Don't get your knee jerk response up yet. Even under
dictatorship there is law and order, maybe not the one you or I
prefer but law and order is not what occurred after the US Army
moved in. As you see, law and order has still not been
established.
Quoted message said:You suggested with the "law and order" comment that the status quo
ante under Saddam was preferable. You cited a lack of "law and
order" as a criticism of the US military's efficiency. You're
right, Saddam did impose law and order throughout the land, but that
doesn't mean it was any better.
For the average citizen it was far better. Similarly life in eastern
Europe was civilized under communism even though various civil
liberties did not exist. Lawlessness, bombings, shootings and
kidnapping was not part of this reign.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:The only allowable avenue for political activity was for Sunni
Muslims via the Ba'ath party. Kurds were systematically relocated
(another version of ethnic cleansing) and Shia Arabs were killed
at far greater rates than are happening now for less legitiamte
reasons. Looting and exploitation were the primary activities of
the Ba'ath party thugs -- but, I guess "the trains ran on time" so
it was all okay.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Regardless of who you think the looters were and are, you must ask
yourself how they came to this venue. As I said, I am certain that
Mr. Rumsfeld learned in his military training at least as much as I
did about the problems involved in military victory especially in
cities. You can think of various scenarios but it looked as though
the Bushmen said, let them suffer at their own hands after the
battle was over. They sat by for weeks allowing this disaster and
influx of lawlessness and you seem to agree that it was THEM rather
than US that were at fault.
Quoted message said:Nice dodge by the way.... That anarchy broke loose after the fall of the
regime is well documented and is a valid criticism of the Bush
administration approach to the aftermath. However, no one "sat by for
weeks" while it happened either, that's just outright hyperbole. Leave off
the drama and partial truths to Mr Moore, you strike me as a bit more
reasoned than that.
If that is inaccurate maybe you can explain how the infrastructure,
power, water, sewage, transportation, libraries, museums, and many
other functions were systematically destroyed and looted. That went
on for more than two weeks until someone noticed that allowing this to
go on was the fault of the occupiers, not the Iraqi public. Looting
is a common occurrence whenever order is allowed to lapse. As I said,
I don't know what the administration was thinking, but their
disinterest in it reeks of smugness to me.
Quoted message said:I had a fairly close perspective to the immediate aftermath of the
regime downfall and no one in Washington said anything about letting
anyone suffer. That's merely an invented scenario that fits your
preconceived notions and limited knowledge of the facts. To suggest
that no one thought about imposing security in urban areas is just
absurd.
Absurd as that seems to you, it occurred and was to be expected. As I
mentioned, I learned that in military school as a high priority. Not
only that but as a member of the Corps of Engineers I learned about
extra requirements to secure utilities, bridges, roads and public
buildings. Whether they thought about it or not is not the question.
It is what they did about it. You cannot deny the result.
Quoted message said:That it peace in the streets didn't occur in the immediate hours of
the regime's demise is an unrealistic standard. It was only weeks
after when the press was questioning why "democracy" hadn't taken
root yet.
Quoted message said:It all comes from confusing reality with expectations.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Good Lord, the coutnry was run by a street gang for 30 years.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:That may be your perception but that is not the way dictators
work.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:For a group that screams repression over imagined slights to our
precious freedoms, much of the anti-war crowd seems quite content
to accept modern facism in other areas. As far as the US
destroying "most of Iraq's resources", that's just outright
hyperbole. And yes, Halliburton -- actually KBR, a subsidiary
company -- does provide a variety of services, which a quick
google search will confirm. I could also provide a few personal
testimonials as well. Of course acknowledging that would undercut
your cute little quips.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Your defense of the US destruction of Iraq amazes me as you place
the blame with Iraqis. Such a position befits only an American
zealot.
Quoted message said:Your desire to give a pass to 30 years of brutal dictatorship,
ethnic warfare, WMD use, violations of international law, and
scoffing at the vaunted UN Security council amazes me.
I do nothing of the kind. I mention that in the guise of... what was
it again? A search for WMD and then bringing democracy to Iraq we
brought on mayhem. You are the one trying to attribute a positive
assessment to the former regime. The subject at hand is an assessment
of what followed and why. Let's not try to put the horse before the
cart again as other US zealots have in defense of our destruction of
Iraq.
Quoted message said:Do your research, Iraq isn't/wasn't being destroyed by the US, it's
being rebuilt after decades of neglect. Get facts Jobst, not
propoganda. This was one of the "cleanest" wars ever fought in the
history of mankind. More attention was paid to limiting collateral
weapons effects than at any time in history.
Is that like clean bombs? Are you denying that Iraq was destroyed
after combat ceased at least as much as during combat? I think you
need to get the facts.
Quoted message said:It wasn't perfect, but it never will be. Your suggestion that the
US employed some sort of random, wanton, and unrestrained violence
on the entire populace and it's infrastructure is just plain false.
Your unending faith in US warfare goes against revelations that
surfaced subsequently. US government distaste for Muslims seems to be
endless.
Quoted message said:Such a position befits only an anti-American zealot. For a man as
well travelled as you claim, it surprises me that you fail to
appreciate the greatness of the American experiment over the two-bit
dictatorships that cause such human suffering around the globe.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Argue the war, argue the policy -- that's fine. But don't pretend
that things were swell and wonderful in Iraq before we came along.
You are the one proposing that straw man for sake of argument.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:You are making this up as you go. Who said "things were swell and
wonderful in Iraq before we came along"? I said we destroyed law
and order with no reference to whose law or how people saw it. I
have talked to Iraqis who said they hated Saddam but at least they
could dare to be on the streets with safety and go shopping and
have a life. The way you tell it, there is no life except in the
image of what you believe is American, also known as jingoism.
Quoted message said:You indicted the US Army for the destruction of "law and order" in Iraq.
It was at a higher level than the US Army. The army doesn't make policy.
Quoted message said:The point of reference was obviously that which existed prior to the
arrival of the Army. That would be the "law and order" imposed by
the Saddam regime. I'm not gonna let you backpedal off that one so
easily. Your zeal to criticize the US military has inadvertently
put you in the camp of the "Saddam the Liberator" crowd.
You're trying hard to build a bridge to that premise but it doesn't
reach that far. Besides, I said it wasn't inadvertent.
Quoted message said:What's next, some testament about the demise of the "peace loving
Ba'athist Party"? The goal of the current administration both in
and out of Iraq is to establish law and order AND allow people to
walk the streets and have a life. It's not an easy task, as you so
readily point out. To suggest it's not a concern is just pure "hate
America first" BS. Call it "jingoism" if it swells your
anti-american sentiment, but it is possible that there are Americans
with good intentions trying to provide security, prosperity, and
democracy to the people of Iraq. The president has said as much,
and has pledged the blood and treasure of this country to make it
happen.
I have no anti American sentiment. I have a distinct anti Bush
administration sentiment. You seem to be pushing the "traitor" button
all along... consorting with the enemy and the like. That sounds a
lot like "freedom fries" to me.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Maybe you need to get your head out of the left wing rags you're
reading (SJ Merc News and SF Chronicle, IIRC) and get some
unfettered facts about life in Iraq. Perspective, Mr Brandt,
perspective. Believe it or not it's not all car bombs and prison
torture over there. It's not Des Moine, and it's dangerous, but
people don't get killed there anymore for what they say and think
-- unless they're caught by the "inurgents", that is.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>> The same is true in Afghanistan.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>> Afghanistan is a disaster. Who do you think is in charge there?
>>> Just because it isn't the Taliban, at least on the surface, it
>>> isn't what the USA claimed would be there. It seems the clock
>>> has been set back 20 years ago.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Perhaps you should read a little on the impact of the Taliban on the
culture and civic life in Afghanistan. You further display your
ignorance with comments like that. Stike to bicycle wheels. Of
course you've emerged as quite an effective troll as well.
I'm not thrilled with their concept of civil life in the least, but we
haven't brought about the changes we pursued in that war either and
what was done is falling apart.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:As I said, it appears the Taliban have been set back apiece if the
appearances are correct, but Afghanistan is not where the
administration said it is in their politics or government. The
drug trade is flourishing better than ever and the war lords are in
charge.
Quoted message said:Nice try, but just not true.
It'll take more than that to show that Afghanistan is where GWB
claimed it is and what the so called goals of our war was.
Quoted message said:It's a difficult challenge to overcome 20 years of anarchy and a
century of screwed up politics. That you indict the Bush
administration for failing to achieve a perfect democratic republic
in the span of two years is just silly. Hell, it took the US nearly
10 years to get it right and that was during a period of relative
peace. All things considered, the Afghans people are much better
off -- particularly the women who can leave their homes again. Of
course this smacks of the same argument your making about Iraq --
because the security environment is worse than before then nothing
else matters, right?
What means "perfect democratic republic"? Nothing of the kind is
emerging in Afghanistan.
Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]
