Well if the population is so friendly with americans and so happy… why arent they turning in the locations of the guerrilas ? One can’t survive without a friendly population and keep attacking US troops. This might be contradictory… but its not.
Iraqi: Who do you PREFER Saddam or US… US of course. Do you like the US occupation ? NO. Did the US come to save us only ? No.
I am glad the Danish Left wingers think the Iraqi are so well off. It doesnt change the fact that Saddam took power somehow mysteriously and stayed there despite the atrocities… that the US decided that Saddam wasnt useful anymore and took him down “alone”. International Order is way more important than troublesome Iraq. We are more scared of the Bush doctrine than we ever were of Saddam.
North Koreans died by the millions of starvation... the humanitarian problem there being way worse than Iraq. I don't see bush rolling in with his "go get 'em" BS.
Well I think they are in great numbers [turning in the gurillas in and all that], but you can’t expect all troubles gone and heaven come in two and a half months. Let’s try giving it a little time, let things settle a bit before coming to any conclusion.
Apparently most Iraqis do not see the Americans (and English, Poles, Danes, Spaniards, etc.) as an enemy occupation force. At least according to the two, whom I might add had just traveled the country thoroughly, and if I remember correct at least one Baghdad poll. Do all Iraqis think the Americans came solely to save their ass? Of course not. Do I? Of course not. And so what. Beyond reproach intentions gave you critical dialogue two decades of misery. American decisiveness gave you a swift war and a chance for a new beginning.
Are you? Well I’ll take your word for it, however I have heard and read many pathetic outbursts that come very close to hoping the Iraqis did not fare well, as this would fire back on the Americans. Which fairly much summons up the opinion of the Iraqis I have talked to: It’s all good and well that you don’t like the Americans – just please do not take us hostage in your ideological battle. Which brings me to the rest of your message, which is neither here nor there – but sounds an awful lot like nothing as much as an ideological primal scream with no basis in reality.
They are turning in Saddam minions and government powerful. Not the same as spontaneous guerrila/raiders. Saddam supporters even then still hold out thru the country. By no way is it clear cut thing. Time is running and changes are too slow.
Strange that most express that they are not welcome... or are welcome to leave much sooner ? They are certainly viewed as occupation or alien presence. By the way there are no spaniards in Iraq. Saliva support only by Aznar. 200 poles and danes. Its the American and British that are the mainstay.
American dithering and politics created the conditions that kept Saddam in Power. They took the chance of a better present. Call it a Cold War relic or part of the past... it doesnt change the fact of what happened. To then claim your "saving" the country isnt too great is it ? Then while you were at it... running over the UN, world opinion and creating a way more turbulent transition than was necessary. Why and How are important no matter what Bush thinks. Swift Wars are great... always were. How is the "rebuilding" going on ? Why was it so badly planned for ? Why should US pride determine how things are run ? Why was the UN and 4 in 5 countries in the world left aside in this decision ? The sacrifices post-war are light compared to Saddam of course... but still much more than necessary. If civil war or caos ensues too it will be blood in US hands.
I would venture that denial and lack of basis in reality come way more from pro-Bushites than sloberring Bush haters like myself. Iraq might be getting better... or it might be going into caos... that doesnt change that the rest of the world is none to happy about how it was done. The occupation itself is turning sour because of how it was done. An occupation based in anything but reality:
Yeah, that’s great. Do a drive-by on your own thread. :rolleyes:
If they’re spontaneous they by definition can’t be turned in. However no terrorist live in isolation, their network is being dealt with, helped by the Iraqis. While nothing is ever a clear cut thing, Saddam has no future to offer the Iraqis, the vast majority of Iraqis (of those that not already hate Saddam, a majority by itself probably) already know that, consequentially Saddam supporters do not hold out through the country. And while time is running, I think it’s unreasable to say changes are too slow; the war is barely over – hospitals are functioning, everybody has food, capitalism is blooming, schools are opening, etc. what more could realistically be expected so soon?
Why do you persist that they are not welcome when evidence is to the contrary? That the Americans and British are the mainstay we can easily agree with. Personally I think our contribution, and that of the other European countries besides Britain’s, is too small – but surely it’s larger that you have it. A quick google gives :
2300 Poles
1700 Italians
1300 Spaniards
1000 Australians
400 Romanians
380 Danes
100 Norwegians
Not the best site, I’ve seen better counts with higher numbers and more countries included.
I guess Saddams steel boot had nothing to do with? Lets blame the Americans that’s so much more constructive. Anyway I, or rather the two former anti-war protagonists, are not saying what they did was “great”, but what they did “was correct” and for the best. And the UN was not left aside, it just proved itself unable to reach a decision – and thus ineffectual. As for the world opinion – what the heck is that? Anyway discussing what went before is like discussing why WWI happened; at best of historical interest. It’s there – let’s make the best of it.
Of course, security is their responsibility while they’re the occupying force.
Mistakes were made, this should come to no surprise. This is the real world after all, woefully imperfect and all that. While their ways can seem mysterious at times, I don’t expect the Americans or Bush to be omnipotent, why would you? And we could probably agree that some big mistakes were made with inadequate plans regarding the transition from war to peace. Other mistakes are made daily, this by no means the whole shebang is a failure.
This link read like a collection of one-liners. Without speaking ill of the dead, I’ll just pick one:
Also he could have warned of potential wonderful consequences if Iraq did make the transition into a peaceful democracy. The only one in the region one might add.
“This country could turn into a true and long-term democracy which would affect its neighbours in the region as a whole.
>> By the way there are no spaniards in Iraq. Saliva support only by Aznar. 200 poles and danes.
Not so. There is a Spanish brigade in control of the province of Najaf. In total, Spain has 1,300 soldiers serving in the Plus Ultra brigade, alongside some 1,100 troops from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. They are stationed in a sector of Iraq commanded by the Polish military. The Spanish army has been recruiting in those and other countries because it can’t get enough Spanish nationals to join.
During the handover ceremony of Najaf the American comander made his speech in English but the Spanish General had his speech simultaneously translated to Arabic which gained him some favorable comments from Arabic-language press. I think it is these kinds of things that American forces just do not get.
Spain has been very active and very successful in peace-keeping missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan. Probably the main reason for their success is that they are totally useless as a fighting force and just rely on developing good relations with the locals. We shall see how it goes in Iraq though.
Well if Democracy has to be put into place at gun point… what good is it ? Is it democracy at all ?
That any invasion can go wrong is obvious… its the fact that the mistakes the Bush admin have shown indicate lack of concern for a post war scenario… or at least a realistic one.
As for the UN being innefectual as an invader… fine… true… now is the US effectual as a transformer ? Nope until now. The UN wasnt made to invade countries at a whim.
I call those two Danes liars. I wonder who they’re really working for?
Their story is ridiculous, contradictory to any reputable and free media reports, and absolutely revisionist in nature.
I give them the same credibility that I would give any Murdochian (or American) news effort these days…none.
Iraq was raped, the Bush complex is covering up the damage or denying it (as per usual), and anybody that thinks a real Iraqi democracy is forthcoming needs look no further than Venezuela, Peru, or Texas to see the fascist farce the American administration has become and how truly oriented the Bush administration is towards “democracy”.
The oil is flowing, Bechtel will doubtless commit more obscene environmental crimes, and as soon as there is something exciting on Real TV, the whole thing will be forgotten… except by the Iraqis, the Venezuelans, the Peruvians, and the Afghanis… this round anyway.
Don’t worry Americans, you have plenty of radioactive ammunition left, and you can surely last a while even if the whole world has an axe to grind with you.
I remember having read something different, when troops from various wiling countries were sent to post-war Irak. Several countries participated for a very small number of troops. They were put under the local authority of a country whose participation was more important. I clearly remember several small latin-america countries’ troops being mentionned, as being placed under Spanish command (I thought to myself while reading the article “probably because they’re spanish-speakers”)
So, AFAIK, these Hondurians, Dominicans, etc…do not belong to the spanish army which would have a shortage of natives enlisting, but are actually part of their countries’ military and only under Spanish command in the same way the Spaniards themselves are under Polish command.
clairobscur, you could be right about the situation in Iraq but I do know for a fact that the Spanish army has latin American recruits because they cannot get enough Spanish ones. After a term of service in the Spanish army they are entitled to Spanish nationality and other benefits. There are quite a few Spanish-Americans in the Spanish army.
Are you sure these three channels didn’t get their statistic from the same source? In intelligence work, this is called “circular reporting,” and leads to lots of people publishing similarly-worded reports about the same thing. My only caution is that the volume of reporting does not necessarily lend that reporting any authority.
For instance, if all three got their stories from the CPA’s daily press release, then you’ve only got one source, and that source is clearly biased.
Or the Angolans, El Salvadorians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Cubans, Haitians, Dominicans, Iranians, Nicaraguans, Columbians, Hondurans, Afghans (yea, 70% of the country is in control of warlords, genius), Iraqis… do you want me to continue with our list of successful staged rebellions and supported democracies? We’re REAL good at this whole “democracy” thing!
