Are the Iraqis really better off?

[furlibusea]

The best place for this is the pit because it will probably start fight but I had to ask this.

I keep seeing people posting writing, "at least we are better than Saddam." I have a couple problems with that assumption.

First off this is not exactly a high bar. I think even Jeffrey Dalmer and Charles Manson could probably get under this bar. I don't want the litmus test for who represents my country abroad to be that they are better than Saddam Hussein. My tax dollars didn't pay his Saddam. I want those representing my country and paid for by my tax dollars to somewhat reflect the values of the country they represent. I do not think that is too high a standard, and the people at Abu Ghraib missed it by a long shot even with only the pictures that have come out.

Is the torture we have dealt worse than that of the people that kidnapped Berg. Not everything has come out but probably not. Again this is not a high bar. We know that the terrorists are monsters. Aren't we supposed to be there to route out the monsters? I am pretty sure the way to do that is not to become slightly lesser monsters.

Finally are the Iraqis better of. I am becoming less and less sure. Hammurabi's code came out of this area just under 4000 years ago.When I teach my students about Hammurabis code we look at how bruttal the punnishments are but I explain that the importance was that it was written down. For the first time there was a systematic set of laws and everyone knew what it was supposed to be. This is what we took away from them. When people got tortured under Saddam usually knew what the punishment was for. Now it seems we grab anyone on the street and arrest them. Under the Saddam they mostly could count on water and gas and unless they said something against the regiem or lost a soccer game they pretty much could go on about their business. They have Guerilla warfare in many of their major cities and shrines and mosques that have been standing for hundreds of years are at risk. Is that the Democracy we want to import?

I do think the world will eventually be better off without Saddam Hussein, and I am pretty sure that if we just leave now we will create a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions. I don't know the answer but I wish we would just quit digging.

[Bryan Ekers]

They will be, eventually.

Personally, I think the best bet us for the U.S. to import vast quantities of coca-cola, blue jeans, home video games and other elements of cultural imperialism, all to addict the younger Iraqi generation and make them too decadent to think about war.

[Sam Stone]

They are already much better off than they were under Saddam. Wages are rising, imports are through the roof, construction is booming, people are buying satellite dishes at a phenomenal rate, electricity and safe water are now way past pre-war levels, the schools have been de-Baathified, and most importantly the people don't have to live in perpetual fear of Saddam's thugs.

Assuming things continue to improve, in a few years Iraq will be unrecognizable compared to the cowed, poor nation it had been under Saddam.

[griffen2]

I think the question will be impossible to answer for at least another couple of years. If we manage to set up an Iraqi Government successfully then the odds are that the country will eventually be better off. If the country slides into religious theocracy, however, the reverse could easily be true.

[griffen2]

Got cites for any of those claims, Sam? All I hear about are masses of dead civilians and polls showing that the populace, on the whole, can't see much of a qualitative difference between us and the dictator we replaced.

[Master Wang-Ka]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

They are already much better off than they were under Saddam.

Sam, I hate to question a man's word, but I have seen news stories that directly contradict much of what you are saying. Do you have cites?

Wages are rising,

For American workers and Iraqi employees of American firms and the American regime, yes, wages are rising. They have to. You have to pay a guy a lot to risk getting shot at. Local businesses, from what I understand, are kind of screwed, for a variety of reasons having to do with supply, economic flux, and trying to do business in a war zone. But perhaps I am wrong.

imports are through the roof,

Well, yes. The country can't support itself, or grow enough food, or much of anything right now. Imports are way up. The question should, perhaps, be "how are they paying for all this?" But perhaps I am wrong.

construction is booming,

Well, yes. Considering how much of the country is utterly FUBAR, construction is kind of necessary, unless you know how to set up housekeeping in a pile of rubble. I was under the impression that much of the construction was very much of the "mom and pop" variety, though -- a family rebuilding their property, as opposed to professional construction firms rebuilding the infrastructure. But perhaps I am wrong.

people are buying satellite dishes at a phenomenal rate,

Really? News to me. I was under the impression the average Iraqi was as poor as a church mouse, particularly since their economy's kind of screwed and the unemployment rate is reported to be quite insane -- one of the contributing factors to the violence. Perhaps satellite dishes are just really, really cheap there. Or perhaps I am wrong.

electricity and safe water are now way past pre-war levels,

Everywhere? Or in American-controlled zones? Or perhaps in your bathroom? From what I hear, there are STILL places waiting for electricity and safe water, particularly where the rebels are pretty much in control.

the schools have been de-Baathified,

...and the police forces have been re-Baathified, according to CBS News, due to the shortage of qualified people who are willing to get shot at and bombed. But perhaps I am wrong.

and most importantly the people don't have to live in perpetual fear of Saddam's thugs.

Well, actually, considering that some of the rebels or insurgents or terrorists or whatever ARE former Saddam thugs, it seems to me that there's still plenty of fear to go around. But when they get tired of fearing former Saddam thugs, they can fear American thugs, instead, watching Al-Jazeera's continuing coverage of American atrocities in Iraq on their fine new TV sets, running on all that crackly new electricity, and with signals provided by shiny new satellite dishes. Or perhaps I am wrong.

Assuming things continue to improve, in a few years Iraq will be unrecognizable compared to the cowed, poor nation it had been under Saddam.

Define "improve," bud. Am I wrong about all this stuff, or are you? A cite would be useful. Several cites would be even better.

[borax]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

electricity and safe water are now way past pre-war levels,

By and large the greatest thing the Iraqi's have experienced has been the lifting of the sanctions. We wouldn't LET them manufacture chlorine to sanitize their drinking water. That was not Sadaam's doing. The same can probably be said for a lot of things you mentioned.

Try some comparisons that go back to pre-sanction standards of living and I don't think you will even come close.

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

and most importantly the people don't have to live in perpetual fear of Saddam's thugs.

Now they just live in fear of terrorists blowing them up, and american thugs shooting at them.

Life isn't definitely isn't better for the nearly 10,000 innocent civilian Iraqis that have been killed by coalition forces.

[Shayna]

You might be interested in some first-hand information from an Iraqi aid worker we have right here on the Straight Dope. He posted a thread in MPSIMS a while ago, but people seemed to be more interested in arguing about who's right and who's wrong than to ask a guy who's really there and not pandering to the media or a political party, so it pretty much sank like a stone.

Ask the Aid Worker in Iraq

Based on what he had to say, with a grain of salt applied to what we hear in the media, I'd say some Iraqis are better off now, some feel no change and some are much worse off, which is exactly as should be expected. We can't be everywhere at once and things don't just happen overnight. I agree with him, though, that I'd rather see the UN step in and take over the rebuilding. It feels like for every step forward we take, we take two steps back.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by Shayna

I agree with him, though, that I'd rather see the UN step in and take over the rebuilding.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the UN could, or even would, do a better job?

For example, what UN troops will be sent to maintain security? The Germans? Belgians? Russians? Or maybe the crack troops of Security Council member Benin?

Under UN management, would the oil $ benefit the Iraqi people, or the French, with Kofi Annan taking a cut?

In other words, what good has the UN done for anybody lately?

[Shayna]

milroyj, do you ever bother to read links and really try to absorb the contents, or are you content to just fling a bunch of partisan bullshit out of your ass?

Originally Posted by madmonk28

(bolding mine)

I think Iraqis would be much more comfortable with a UN intervention than this US effort. If the US had built a coalition with UN support, I think the resistance would get less support or passive compliance from the community.

He's there, doing the work. Where is your comfy ass, huh?

[SPOOFE]

I agree with him, though, that I'd rather see the UN step in and take over the rebuilding.

Just like the Oil For Food program, eh?

In any case, it's hard to judge right now. On the one hand, there's no longer state-sponsored terrorism, murder, or rape going on. An Iraqi couple can now get married without having to worry about Saddam Jr. raping and murdering the bride and groom.

On the other hand, there's probably an increase in rogue terrorism that are trying their goddamnedest to make the situation look worse than it really is. Of course, the US gets the blame for the leftover Baathists causing trouble. Because, y'know, the US is supposed to be omniscient...

Frankly, I think it's just silly to try to compare things NOW. Sure, that's how politics works - if it's not Good immediately and instantly, then dagnammit, SOMEBODY must've screwed up, right? - but, well, Bush has said repeatedly that things will take a long time to settle down. But we just forget that part... far more convenient to screech "He lied, he lied!"

Another thing that makes it hard to judge is the simple nature of the media. All claims of liberal or conservative bias aside, the media wants to go where things are happening. Which means we probably get a disproportionate level of bad news, in the name of driving up ratings as CNN or MSNBC or FoxNews or whoever tries to snag up the larger piece of the Nielson Pie.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by SPOOFE

Just like the Oil For Food program, eh?

Have you got any numbers on that? Was the graft a few hundred million, or does it rise above the 10% figure reported for the coalition's reconstruction efforts?

[milroyj]

Shayna quoting madmonk28:

I think Iraqis would be much more comfortable with a UN intervention than this US effort. If the US had built a coalition with UN support, I think the resistance would get less support or passive compliance from the community.

.

But the US didn't, so where does that leave us now? You think that turning over the rebuilding to the UN would be better, so offer some evidence that it would.

What country or countries troops are going to maintain security?

Who is going to provide the money?

Who is going to provide the technical resources necessary?

Facts please, not just vague speculation that "the UN would be better."

[Shayna]

Fuck off, milroy, I don't have to provide you "facts." The OP asked for an OPINION. It is my OPINION, based on my reading of the situation from the media and from a fellow poster who is there and can see first-hand what the reaction to U.S. troops is, that

I think the UN should have a predominate role. I don't think the UN is a magic bullet, but it would give the occupation a legitimacy that I think is lacking in the eyes of many Iraqis. So I think we need more troops, but from a variety of countries and all wearing UN blue. I think the bulk of these troops would necessarily come from the US. IMHO, this is why the insurgence attacked the UN, because they understood that as long as they can frame the conflict as between them and the US they can rely on some support from communities.

You don't like my OPINION, feel free to fuck right off. I don't owe you any further explanation than that.

[milroyj]

Shayna, quoting a person unknown:

I think the UN should have a predominate role. I don't think the UN is a magic bullet, but it would give the occupation a legitimacy that I think is lacking in the eyes of many Iraqis. So I think we need more troops, but from a variety of countries and all wearing UN blue. I think the bulk of these troops would necessarily come from the US.

And therein lies the rub. Iraq should be turned over to UN control, but the bulk of the troops should necessarily come from the US? WTF?

What about the rest of the members of the Security Council? Why shouldn't France and Russia step up to the plate? Or China, with a military force (males age 15-49 fit for military service) of 206 million?

BTW, do you have any arguments to make on your own, or do you just parrot other posters?

[griffen2]

At the moment the invasion looks like a botched land grab. Involving the U.N. would help dispel fears that this whole jolly excursion was merely intended to extablish U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The U.N. has no standing army so all soldiers must come from member countries. The majority of troops should be U.S. troops because this whole fucking mess is Bush's fault and he has no right to demand that the children of countries that were against the war (or, at least, not as enthusiastic as he was) should spill blood for his fucked up fools errand. At this point, frankly, he should be on his fucking knees begging for U.N. involvement.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by griffen2

At the moment the invasion looks like a botched land grab. Involving the U.N. would help dispel fears that this whole jolly excursion was merely intended to extablish U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. The U.N. has no standing army so all soldiers must come from member countries. The majority of troops should be U.S. troops because this whole fucking mess is Bush's fault and he has no right to demand that the children of countries that were against the war (or, at least, not as enthusiastic as he was) should spill blood for his fucked up fools errand. At this point, frankly, he should be on his fucking knees begging for U.N. involvement.

A botched land grap? Please pay attention. What on Earth would we want with that sandpit?

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by milroyj

A botched land grap? Please pay attention. What on Earth would we want with that sandpit?

Um, oil?

Robin

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Um, oil?

Robin

I know it won't be forthcoming, but evidence?

[griffen2]

Originally Posted by milroyj

A botched land grap? Please pay attention. What on Earth would we want with that sandpit?

Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. You know damn well how important that "sandpit" is both materially and strategically.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by griffen2

Oh, don't be so fucking obtuse. You know damn well how important that "sandpit" is both materially and strategically.

Then give evidence that we are engaged in a "land-grab" for oil.

[griffen2]

I know it won't be forthcoming, but evidence?

Evidence of what? That there's plenty of Oil in Iraq or that that was the Bush administrations ulterior motive for the invasion? Assuming you're asking for the latter, well, since I don't have a direct psychic portal into George Bush's head I cannot corroborate the assertion but...

Authors note: While, at this point I know milroyj has stopped reading, I will continue for the benefit of those in the peanut gallery as yet unswayed by his impressive rhetorical acumen.

...by a process of elimination we are left with oil as a likely motive.

We know we didn't invade for WMD's because, well, there aren't any (the odd decade year old Sarin shell not withstanding)

We know we didn't invade because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 because of the complete paucity of evidence for such a suspicion.

We know we didn't invade because of Saddam's links with Al-Qaida for the same reason.

We know we didn't invade to save the poor, benighted Iraqi people because we shat all over the Iraqi people for the twelve years prior to the war.

Why on earth did we invade?

Oil? Anyone?

Yeah, I know, it's unproveable but, frankly, at this stage asking for proof is akin to asking for a cite to a scientific report proving the existence of love or freedom as physical entities. We're pretty sure they both exist but we'd be buggered if we tried to prove it scientifically.

Anyway, even if Bush's heart is pure as the driven snow and this whole jolly misadventure was conducted through entirely honourable motives, the international illegitimacy of this invasion still gives it the appearance of a land grab, whether it is or not. Involving the U.N. would dispel this perception and consequently can only aid us.

[Reeder]

You are the biggest asshole on this board.

And that's saying a lot.

[milroyj]

Originally Posted by Reeder

You are the biggest asshole on this board.

And that's saying a lot.

How?

[rjung]

IIRC, the whole "the UN Food-For-Oil Program was a corrupted scheme to make France rich" allegation remains unproven. The only evidence we've got for that whole bruhaha are the claims of one Mr. Chalibi, who last I saw was now being accused by the Bush Administration of being a deep-cover Iranian agent who was handing out false information. I don't think anyone has actually seen the documents that are supposed to "prove" the corruption, much less certified their authenticity.

Do the UN-bashers really want to hang their hats on this one?

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by milroyj

How?

Practice. Practice. Practice.

[World Eater]

Are the Americans any better off?

Wasn't that the justification for this war?

[jjimm]

Originally Posted by milroyj

Then give evidence that we are engaged in a "land-grab" for oil.

Oil, and strategic importance. Yet again I find myself having to post this due to the short memory or unwillingness of certain posters to take the PNAC's plans into account. Please note the signatories:

January 26, 1998

...if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy...

Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber

My emphasis.

[Estilicon]

Originally Posted by milroyj

Shayna, quoting a person unknown:



And therein lies the rub. Iraq should be turned over to UN control, but the bulk of the troops should necessarily come from the US? WTF?

What about the rest of the members of the Security Council? Why shouldn't France and Russia step up to the plate? Or China, with a military force (males age 15-49 fit for military service) of 206 million?

BTW, do you have any arguments to make on your own, or do you just parrot other posters?

In my opininion it is fair that the U.S.A. provides the bulk of the troops because of a little known fact...

FRANCE, CHINA AND RUSSIA DIDN'T ILEGALLY INVADE IRAK

You break the dishes...

Because of that you'll provide most of the bullets and most of the dead. But U.N. intervention will give a legitimacy to the ocuppation.-

[kanicbird]

We wouldn't LET them manufacture chlorine to sanitize their drinking water.

I am a bit confused here. They live in a desert, if you drill a well you have a much better chance of hitting oil then water. Most of their water, as I understand it, comes from de-salination plants which work from either reverse osmosis or distilation, both of with remove any pathogens. Why would chlorine be needed at all, except for chemical weapons that is.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

I am a bit confused here. They live in a desert, if you drill a well you have a much better chance of hitting oil then water. Most of their water, as I understand it, comes from de-salination plants which work from either reverse osmosis or distilation, both of with remove any pathogens. Why would chlorine be needed at all, except for chemical weapons that is.

My guess is you have never looked at a map of Iraq.

Ever heard of the Tigris river?

Have any idea where it flows?

The Euphrates?

[Reeder]

Why are so many of the Bushco supporters so stupid?

No need for chlorine...geez.

[Reeder]

Here's a map. Notice where the majority of the bid cities are?

You reckon the should just drink the river water without chlorinating it?

Idiot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-map_base2.gif

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Reeder

Why are so many of the Bushco supporters so stupid?

You don't have the authority to call a rock stupid, much less another human being.

[Reeder]

Originally Posted by Brutus

You don't have the authority to call a rock stupid, much less another human being.

I hate to break it to you..but rocks aren't stupid.

That is a human frailty.

[Balduran]

Originally Posted by jjimm

Oil, and strategic importance. Yet again I find myself having to post this due to the short memory or unwillingness of certain posters to take the PNAC's plans into account. Please note the signatories:My emphasis.

... a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil

A concern for securty of the world's oil supply is not the same as a land grab. They didn't imply anywhere that they wanted it for themselves.

[rjung]

Yes, that's why the Bush Administration has bent over backwards to make sure every nation has a fair and equal opportunity to get hold of that Iraq oil.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

construction is booming

Poor turn of phrase, that.

Daniel

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by griffen2

Evidence of what? That there's plenty of Oil in Iraq or that that was the Bush .

We know we didn't invade for WMD's because, well, there aren't any (the odd decade year old Sarin shell not withstanding)

We know we didn't invade because of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 because of the complete paucity of evidence for such a suspicion.

We know we didn't invade because of Saddam's links with Al-Qaida

We know we didn't invade to save the poor, benighted Iraqi people because we [shat all over the Iraqi people for the twelve years prior to the war.

Why on earth did we invade?

I will point out that it is completely possible for the WMD to have been the motive- and that GWB was just wrong. Same with the rest of your brilliant 20-20 hindsight analysis.

Note that those Sanctions were UN sanction, not any unilateral US sanction. And- every single Iraqi who died from any Sanction can be layed directly on Saddams doorstep, not ours- he was the one who kept spending $$ on his army and palaces while they starved.

Chlorine? Don't make me laugh- Saddam wanted Chlorine to make chemical weapons, not purify the water. Proof? He didn't try and buy any other water pruification systems. Ozone works fine also, but they didn't use it either. Saddam wanted his people to suffer under the Sanctions so he could blame it on the USA.

Yes, the Iraqi's are better off. But as our OP mentioned- thank God Saddam set the bar so low that we could do almost anything and they'd STILL be better off.

Note that I'd still like to get the UN in there- not becuase I think they'll do all that much better of a job (less Cheny/halliburton corruption, more typical UN hapless bungling) but that the crap would fall on their heads then, not ours.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Are Iraqis better off? Well, let's judge the country by conditions for women there. Under Saddam, they had the right to vote. They could own property, go to school, get a divorce, sign a contract, etc. One of the people on the Iraq's Most Wanted deck of playing cards is a woman, a bioweapons scientist, in charge of the weapons program. Obviously, a woman could go pretty far in Saddam's Iraq.

Of course, you have to counter that with the arrests and torture, as well as the effects of the economic sanctions.

Now Saddam's secular government is gone. The people want to vote for an Islamic government based on Sharia law, in which local imams will be able to impose their interpretations of law on the populace. While America will probably see to it that women retain their right to vote, there is pretty much fuck-all we can do to stop Islamic law from being voted in.

Only one member of the 25-member governing council was a woman, and she was assassinated early on. She was not replaced with another woman. She was also not elected to be one of the 9-man rotating presidents.

There is a lot of talk about how we can never let the minority Sunni have dominion over the majority Shiites again. As if a person of one sect can't treat people of another sect fairly. But I digress. What gets me is that there is NO talk of how we can't let minority men have dominion over majority women. WTF?

Anyway, now Iraq is running rampant with insurgents, criminals, extremists, etc., and women are staying home in droves so as not to be assaulted in the streets. In newscasts, you may not see one woman in a crowd of 100 people. The ones you see are dressed in black abayas for their own protection. They did not have to wear those under Saddam's regime.

For those of use who care, it is a sad, sad event that women are going to come out of Bush's invasion worse off than they were before.

I wish the media would pay more attention to this issue, but hey.

[Desmostylus]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

I will point out that it is completely possible for the WMD to have been the motive- and that GWB was just wrong...

Note that those Sanctions were UN sanction, not any unilateral US sanction....

Chlorine? Don't make me laugh- Saddam wanted Chlorine to make chemical weapons...

Yes, the Iraqi's are better off...

blah blah blah Bush taking point lies blah blah blah.

[Cerri]

Well, I'm not Iraqi, nor am I in Iraq, so I can't really say...why don't we ask them?


http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ (this one's my favorite, because it's so hard to find anything positive to read about Iraq, and I think everyone needs hope)


http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ (there's links to many other blogs some Pro-American, some Anti, some ambivalent on the right-hand side bar, under Iraqi Blogs. There's some soldiers' blogs as well a bit further down)

[Frankenstein Monster]

Originally Posted by Cerri

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ (this one's my favorite, because it's so hard to find anything positive to read about Iraq, and I think everyone needs hope)

Thanks for posting the link, I hadn't read this one before. Don't mean to hijack this thread and even less attack Cerri. But I did "notice something". (Slight hijack follows)

On the road to the residents’ house we passed near the coalition base in Samawa; the striking and ugly feature of this base, like any other one is, the concrete wall that surrounds it. These walls initiate a sensation of fear in the hearts and a feeling that there’s a huge block between the people and the coalition. I understand the security necessity of these walls but they still form an unpleasant sight for everyone, except this particular one. The coalition forces here invited all the kids-and their parents-in the neighborhood for a special festival, the kids were given paints and brushes and a definite area of the wall was assigned for each kid to paint on whatever he likes and to sign his painting with his/her name. I leave it for you to imagine how this hateful wall looked like after this festival. It became a fascinating huge painting that gives a feeling of brotherhood and friendship. These paintings eliminated all the psychological walls between the folks and the coalition here.

My initial response... hey, great stuff. Why can't they do more of this and less of that other thing? I'd be all for it.

Then I noticed the reading on my BS-O-Meter.

If I'm not mistaken this base is Japanese. Call me prejudiced but I would've wanted to have seen this mentioned. Also this blogger has photos of everything, why not this thing? Googling, I found no other mention of such a thing (children painting a coalition base) anywhere.

And this is not the only item in that blog that caused the needle to twitch on my BS-O-meter.

Can anybody help me prove that this story is real? I want nothing more than to believe this is real but I'm unable to do so right now.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Desmostylus

blah blah blah Bush taking point lies blah blah blah.

Insightful & well thought out rebuttal of my post. Thank you, I shall remember this in the years to come.

[World Eater]

Great, news reports all over the place about concrete evidence AQ is hitting the US this summer. (probably bullshit, but still)

The reason why you ask?

Well, they're pissed about the Iraq war.

So I'm glad someone is better off, but in the future I'd prefer it to be us.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by World Eater

Great, news reports all over the place about concrete evidence AQ is hitting the US this summer. (probably bullshit, but still)

The reason why you ask?

Well, they're pissed about the Iraq war.

So I'm glad someone is better off, but in the future I'd prefer it to be us.

Of course their real reason is they just don't like the U.S. and Israel, Iraq invasion or not.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Frankenstein Monster

Thanks for posting the link, I hadn't read this one before. Don't mean to hijack this thread and even less attack Cerri. But I did "notice something". (Slight hijack follows)


My initial response... hey, great stuff. Why can't they do more of this and less of that other thing? I'd be all for it.

Then I noticed the reading on my BS-O-Meter.

If I'm not mistaken this base is Japanese. Call me prejudiced but I would've wanted to have seen this mentioned. Also this blogger has photos of everything, why not this thing? Googling, I found no other mention of such a thing (children painting a coalition base) anywhere.

And this is not the only item in that blog that caused the needle to twitch on my BS-O-meter.

Can anybody help me prove that this story is real? I want nothing more than to believe this is real but I'm unable to do so right now.

Can't really comment on the particular story, but the blog and blogger are authentic:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~webspace/bloggers.jpg

[PatriotX]

Business Guide for Iraq
U.S. Department of Commerce
Revised March 5, 2004

V. OVERVIEW OF KEY INDUSTRY SECTORS

Water:

The Ministry of Public Works recently announced that average
daily availability of water services i n Iraq is one-hour above pre-war levels.
Over 90 percent of the urban population is thought to have access to
water, but quantities per capita are insufficient. It is estimated that 60
percent of the overall population has access to potable water. In many
neighborhoods, leaking pipes have contaminated potable water networks.
The water treatment system in Iraq consists of 218 traditional water
treatment plants and 1,191 mobile compact water treatment plants that
mainly serve rural areas. Baghdad’s water distribution system consists of
nine large dams, 18 major barrages, and 275 pump stations. The
equipment used in these pumps stations is over 20 years old.
The Ministry has plans to ensure that the 90 percent of Iraqis who
currently have access receive clean water by 2004, and that all Iraqis
have access to clean water by 2005.
The Ministry’s plan also calls for extending sewage treatment to 15
percent of the country by the end of 2004 and to 30 percent by the end of
2005. Only eleven percent of Iraqi citizens nationwide currently have
proper sewage facilities. Only half of the country's sewage treatment
plants are operational. In Baghdad, deteriorating sewage treatment
installations are unable to handle increasing flows caused by population
growth. Steps taken by the CPA and various non-government
organizations (NGOs), in cooperation with the Baghdad city water
authorities and the Army Corps of Engineers, averted an immediate water
crisis in Baghdad.
Projects aimed at improving Iraq's irrigation syste ms, potable water
availability, and wastewater treatment facilities are included within the
scope of USAID's Capital Construction contract. Bechtel is currently
working on a project to increase water capacity on the eastern side of
Baghdad, increasing flo w from 580 million liters per day to 780 million.
Work has also begun in Basrah, Diwaniyah, and Hillah on sewage
treatment plants.



Electricity Production in Iraq Remains Below Pre-War Levels
Baghdad , May 14
by Dahr Jamail
Iraqi officials say the power supply in their country has not yet been repaired to pre-war levels.
Currently, even in the best neighbourhoods of Baghdad there is only twelve hours of electricity per day, and this only intermittently. Most areas of the city have between six and eight hours of power per 24 hours.
Baghdad resident Salam Obidy is frustrated by the unreliability of the electrical grid. "I have three hours on, and four hours off," he said. "Mostly it is completely unscheduled. Yesterday I spent all night not sleeping because it was so hot."


Not much different than

DRAFT WORKING PAPERS
Iraq Status
[size]03 1505 EST May, 04 page 24[/size]


And not in conflict with:

Business Guide for Iraq
U.S. Department of Commerce
Revised March 5, 2004

V. OVERVIEW OF KEY INDUSTRY SECTORS

Power:

In early October 2003, Iraq’s electricity production exceeded
demand for the first time in years. However, to satisfy Iraq’s peak demand
for electricity, the country will need 50 percent more generation by
summer 2004. Decades of fuel shortages and lack of regular
maintenance have severely curtailed dependable electrical supply. Postwar
looting and sabotage rendered seven of the country’s major
transmission lines inoperable. Given these needs for reconstruction,
companies may have numerous and wide-ranging opportunities in the
power sector.
The United Nations has several projects underway in Iraq, one of which is
electricity rehabilitation. In the three northern governorates (Erbil, Dohuk,
and Suleimaniya), the UN Development Program (UNDP – www.undp.org)
implemented the Electricity Network Rehabilitation Program (ENRP –
www.enrp.undp.org) to rehabilitate the electricity network across four main
sectors: generation, transmission, substations, and distribution. Through
ENRP, the UNDP has built up capacity to implement an operation of $800
million. Its work has resulted in power stability for about 380,000
households (2.7 million people). Thus far, ENRP has awarded 25
contracts worth $238 million. The ENRP provides information on current
vacancies, invitations for expression of interest, and procurement notices.
At the Iraq Donors’ Conference in Madrid, the Ministry of Electricity (MOE)
proposed construction of combined cycle power plants, transmission line
additions, completion of thermal power stations begun under the Oil for
Food Program, and training of technicians. The Minister expressed
concerns for environmental sensitivity and security for workers in the
electricity sector. The CPA is transitioning securing forces to the MOE.
Over 20 electrical facilities have been transferred.
During the week February 6 – February 11, 2004, the average peak
electricity production was 4034 MWpd. Total megawatt production for the
week was an increase of 1.0 percent over the previous week. Electricity
production Iraq-wide since November had been relatively steady.
Nine 500kV transmission lines and seven 132kV transmission lines
continue to be out of service. As of February 6, 758 MWpd of generating
capacity was on forced outage and 874 MWpd was on scheduled outage.
The Ministry returned two generators to service during the January 31 –
February 6 period.


Some are playing the number crunching game.
The 'peak production' is trumpeted while the 'average' is not.

[Frankenstein Monster]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Can't really comment on the particular story, but the blog and blogger are authentic:

http://home.hiwaay.net/~webspace/bloggers.jpg

Thanks for that link! There are indeed a few pro-American bloggers. Another one I believe is Hammorabi. I think a pro-American Iraqi is not more right or more wrong than a pro-American American saying the same things. Or necessarily less biased or more biased. But at least they tend to be more knowledgeable (not always).

A German reader, who Ali says is "anti-everything," would like to kill the Fadhils for their pro-American comments.

Idiot hothead just like those who wanted Fallujah turned into a "parking lot".

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Of course their real reason is they just don't like the U.S. and Israel, Iraq invasion or not.

Well, duh. With the Iraq war we've laid the ground work for the next generation of terrorists.

So to recap, AQ hates US, they want our destruction, Iraq war or not, but it was still a dumb move that makes a bad situation worse.