vimothy

yurp
I'm shocked that people still give any credence to any polls, seeing as they are only determined by what is asked in what context to whom, to state something obvious. The reason? Well, they back up a position, which you adhere to or not. If not, there's always another poll. Polls obfuscate, even if their intention is to elucidate. Hence today, when we have two contradictory polls to argue about. Regardless.

Well, I don't think I can disagree with that.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I would say, "by anyone, within a short span of time".

Let's be honest here, it was ridiculously naive to suppose that the moment Saddam was removed, the Iraqis would happily adopt democracy and start living a normal, peaceful life growing dates and exporting oil in perfect harmony with each other. There were the same religious and ethnic faultlines you find in every country that's been stitched together out of a tribal patchwork by an outside imperial power - Saddam's mob were just keeping the lid on it all, as Soviet influence did in former Yugoslavia. Remove that lid and it all goes to hell.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Alright, look a formulation like this

the Iraqis would happily adopt democracy and start living a normal, peaceful life growing dates and exporting oil in perfect harmony with each other

is silly and beside the point. To build the basics of a functioning democratic state was not impossible, and some elements have been successful. They have the chance to erect an independent judiciary, for example. Why be so glib about that? They had a chance to foster an independent trade union movement, which has been blocked by succesive Iraqi administrations, by the Bremer occupation, by ex-Mukhabarat killers who keep bumping off trade union leaders, and partisan unions who abhor the very idea of independent unions anyway.

And this:

There were the same religious and ethnic faultlines you find in every country that's been stitched together out of a tribal patchwork by an outside imperial power - Saddam's mob were just keeping the lid on it al

is precisely the propaganda 'Saddam's mob' peddled, to very useful and successful ends, even while they were doing the very opposite. They were not keeping a lid on ethnic faultlines, they stoked these to consolidate their own narrow ethnic power base. Divide & Rule. And religious faultlines? They killed powerful religious leaders who posed any kind of threat, at least until the 90s, when they thought it expediant to import and synthesise Islam into their own State structure. Don't forget Saddam's mosques!
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
I would say, "by anyone, within a short span of time".

Let's be honest here, it was ridiculously naive to suppose that the moment Saddam was removed, the Iraqis would happily adopt democracy and start living a normal, peaceful life growing dates and exporting oil in perfect harmony with each other. There were the same religious and ethnic faultlines you find in every country that's been stitched together out of a tribal patchwork by an outside imperial power - Saddam's mob were just keeping the lid on it all, as Soviet influence did in former Yugoslavia. Remove that lid and it all goes to hell.

"With hindsight" seems a bit more accurate, IMO. Were Iraqi opposition parties saying this? Were Iraqi intellectuals? "Don't overthrow Saddam, our country is filled with murderous jihadis waiting for the opportunity to slaughter civilians in their thousands..." Seems far-fetched to me. I don't believe anyone could have predicted what has happened.

Though I could easily be wrong: perhaps someone can link to some pre-war analysis that predicted what is happening?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
There were the same religious and ethnic faultlines you find in every country that's been stitched together out of a tribal patchwork by an outside imperial power - Saddam's mob were just keeping the lid on it al

is precisely the propaganda 'Saddam's mob' peddled, to very useful and successful ends, even while they were doing the very opposite. They were not keeping a lid on ethnic faultlines, they stoked these to consolidate their own narrow ethnic power base. Divide & Rule. And religious faultlines? They killed powerful religious leaders who posed any kind of threat, at least until the 90s, when they thought it expediant to import and synthesise Islam into their own State structure. Don't forget Saddam's mosques!

Ahh, OK - I certainly didn't mean that Saddam was doing a great job of ensuring equality and harmony between the various factions; I'm well aware of the favouritism shown towards the Sunni minority, and the often murderous persecution of Shi'ites, Kurds and marsh Arabs. By 'keeping a lid on it' I just meant that the country wasn't tearing itself apart like it is now (or, at least, seems to be). I'm also well aware that Saddam's rule was a huge catalyst for this tension. But at the same time isn't it true that Iraq, as an entity as such, was created by the British as a League of Nations mandate after WWI?
 

adruu

This Is It
Yes its realism, and a prejudice against authoritarian cultures with mono-economies. Life in poor countries is brutal and violent. Pregnant women have their babies cut out of them. Men rape children. People get woken up with a bullet in their head. Is that a newsflash for you?

I am also prejudiced against neo con types that preach about democracy and elect an ex-presidents dumb kid, privatize armies, lose plane loads of cash, and fiegn compassion when they read stories about how absolutely horrible it is to live in Iraq right now.

This plan was completely unworkable from the start, and I think most people suspect that when pro-Iraq war types pretend that this wasn't forseeable know that you just wanted to see Arabs kill themselves and perpetuate a blatantly racist, suprematist, war machine fantasy about how great the blessings of your lord and savior are. God is great right?

Pick one of Reagan's adventures into South America and tell me that it provided a long term solution to the prosperity and peace of the country and its people. Ortega is president in Nicaragua if you havent noticed. Look at Mexico for fuck's sake. What sort of influence do you really think America has if a country that has provided cheap labor and goods to its nieghbors has had a completly corrupt political system, and a economy that has failed to provide for the majority of the population over its ENTIRE history.

Read a fucking defense department white paper, and then come back and tell me "no one planned for this" You couldnt get a small bank loan with this type of planning.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
This was a reply to Mr Tea by the way:

Yes it is.

So you suggest that Iraq be dissolved...into what?

You wouldn't have bad company actually. (Hint: excellent book.)
 
Last edited:

craner

Beast of Burden
I am also prejudiced against neo con types that preach about democracy and elect an ex-presidents dumb kid, privatize armies, lose plane loads of cash, and fiegn compassion when they read stories about how absolutely horrible it is to live in Iraq right now.

Gibberish.

What's the conclusion? 1. Saddam's rule was justified because it was the only way to contain the wild energies of his savage subjects or 2. the catastophic Coalition intervention was at least neutralised morally because without Saddam this brutal violence was inevitable anyway so the invading armies merely fasttracked the process.

What kind of mental chaos are you in?
 

adruu

This Is It
Quaint deflection. Saddam's rule wasnt justified in the 80's either. You can keep playing this game about Supporting Saddam vs. The Consequences of Destabilization but how long is it going to take for you to admit that your crowd didnt even bother planning. Do you need to be Kasparov to understand actions have consequences?

If there are ways of "spreading democracy" it probably requires 1) honesty (not hyped WMD) 2) planning (see clinton era state department projects on recovering failed states that were shelved) 3) money, insane amounts of money without any promises on a return of investment, and 4)multilateralism

Ultimately, your crowd isn't going to fix the world, but it will make some of the most horrible things about it worse, and then sob about it afterwards. That's the mental chaos I have to deal with.

(Newsflash #2 - Letting Bin Laden and Zawihiri live "emboldens" terrorists, so does giving witness protection to Ali Muhammed.)
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
‘Betrayed’, an article by George Packer on the Iraqi translators collaborating with the U.S. forces, was published today. Read it and weep.

By the end of 2006, there were almost two million Iraqis living as refugees outside their country—most of them in Syria and Jordan. American policy held that these Iraqis were not refugees, that they would go back to their country as soon as it was stabilized. The U.S. Embassies in Damascus and Amman continued to turn down almost all visa applications from Iraqis. So the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world remained hidden, receiving little attention other than in a few reports from organizations like Human Rights Watch and Refugees International.

Additionally, a large number of the female refugees have had to turn to prostitution to survive in that godforsaken limbo. One cannot but wonder why they don’t get as much exposure as their Iranian counterparts.

What struck me the most upon reading the article was the toxic combination of ignorance, arrogance, and malfeasance, seeming to permeat every stratum of the U.S. Army. Sure, the responsibility ultimately lies with the persons at the top, but the middlemen seem to make a pretty damn good job at making bad things worse. Anyway, I’m proud that Firas, whose brave dedication the article relates, eventually was granted asylum over here.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
This was a reply to Mr Tea by the way:

Yes it is.

So you suggest that Iraq be dissolved...into what?

You wouldn't have bad company actually. (Hint: excellent book.)

Saying that a country was founded for the wrong reasons in the first place does not equate to saying that the country, once established, should be broken up, does it? See also: Israel.

I like to remain optimistic and think that something good will come of this eventually.
It's just that, at the moment, Iraq looks like everyone's fault: Saddam and his henchmen, obviously; Reagan in the 80s for supporting Saddam; Bush Snr. for failing to support the popular uprising after the first Gulf War; Bush Jnr. and Blair for invading without any international mandate or any idea as to how to effectively rebuild the country afterwards (and all the corrupt wankers supposedly involved in the 'reconstruction' now), the Sunni insurgents trying to derail the democratic process, the Iran-sponsored Shi'ite militias sticking their oar in...the word 'mess' is scarcely adequate.
 

vimothy

yurp
I am also prejudiced against neo con types that preach about democracy and elect an ex-presidents dumb kid, privatize armies, lose plane loads of cash, and fiegn compassion when they read stories about how absolutely horrible it is to live in Iraq right now.

Does it make it easier for you to pretend that members of the US government are baby eating monsters who jump inside when people are murdered? Does Tony Blair look like he's having a great time? I think that's a pretty heartless thing to say.

This plan was completely unworkable from the start, and I think most people suspect that when pro-Iraq war types pretend that this wasn't forseeable know that you just wanted to see Arabs kill themselves and perpetuate a blatantly racist, suprematist, war machine fantasy about how great the blessings of your lord and savior are. God is great right?

God is dead.

This is an obvious no brainer: if I really am racist and blood thirsty, why do I support democratic government in Iraq? Why do I support Iraqi self-determination? Why would I not have been perfectly happy with Iraq as it was when the butcher of Bagdhad was murdering and torturing and gassing his own people? Why support intervention if my fantasy is already occuring? We could invade a more stable country, like Jordan, instead, and fuck that up!

Pick one of Reagan's adventures into South America and tell me that it provided a long term solution to the prosperity and peace of the country and its people. Ortega is president in Nicaragua if you havent noticed. Look at Mexico for fuck's sake. What sort of influence do you really think America has if a country that has provided cheap labor and goods to its nieghbors has had a completly corrupt political system, and a economy that has failed to provide for the majority of the population over its ENTIRE history.

It is not Reagan's fault that South America is in the state it is in.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I heard about the chlorine gas attacks the other day. Couldn't help thinking there was a certain sick irony in this, what with chemical weapons being classed as a 'WMD'.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
"The Middle East Forum Promoting American Interests"

Well, at least they wear theirs on their sleeve!
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Apropos of nothing in particular, but emblematic of how bad things are, this article barely made the Washington Post’s main page.

Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents in the northwestern town Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

The gunmen roamed Sunni neighborhoods in the city through the night, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician.
[...]
The hospital official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, said the victims were men between the ages of 15 and 60, and they were killed with a shot to the back of the head.

Looking awfully bleak, doesn’t it?
 
Top