Yes, you’re right. I got too upset. Should have edited down, my fault for posting in haste.
Sam, my apologies for the personal angles, that was not proper and was uncalled for. I can only say my reading of you minimizing the problems pushed a button as the obvious personal concerns on this issue are in my mind. However, that is not a good excuse for lacing into you.
On the other, on the substance, the message stands.
The day my country decides to help the US and send troops to Iraq (the day will never come), I will march on the streets, and I will not be alone.
Bush, you broke it, you own it. I don’t see a reason for non-coalition soldiers getting killed in a war that non-coalition countries didn’t want.
Opinion polls are very nice and all, but I find this business risk analysis more relevant to the problem at hand:
Kroll Report Reveals Long and Difficult Path to Stability
Now if I can just scrape up the $5,800 required to see the whole report, I shall be able to invest my billions in Iraqi oil futures with complete confidence. :dubious:
Maybe he was playing. What, you never climbed onto your roof when you were a kid?
What the hell is wrong with the world when the reaction to a child being shot is “Well, he shouldn’t be on the roof”??
Gee, Coll… After parsing through that flame-fest of a message, it turns out that you didn’t actually disagree with a whole lot of what I said. Basically, your accusation is that I’m ‘spinning’ the data to sound more rosy than it is. But you don’t dispute the basic facts. At this moment, 76% of Iraqis want the U.S. to stay, at least until an interim or permanent government is set up.
So why didn’t you level some of your patented vitriol at the other posters who were painting a much more biased description of total chaos and a hostile population screaming for the U.S. to leave? Oh yeah… Because you’re biased.
Oops. Sorry about that. I was using my wife’s computer, and didn’t realize she was logged in. That last message was obviously from me.
Biased? Or simply more knowledgable? You do know where he lives, and what he does, and who he talks to, by now, don’t you? Between the two of you, whose views and judgments are therefore more likely to be connected to reality?
You also don’t (can’t) actually deny what he said about spinning the data to say that Iraqis love having the US troops there. That, as he pointed out, is a conclusion not derived from fact, even the “facts” you yourself are presenting.
Eolbo:“But its a lost debate, its done and you have made Iraq your responsibility”
(Looking down McNamara’s, er, Rumsfeld’s list of the Coalition of the Willing) Lessee… Australia … yep, there you are. Sorry, mate, it’s your responsibility too. What are we going to do about it?
John Mace, damn straight, good post, that covers it IMHO.
I did NOT say the Iraqis loved having the troops there. I said they were ecstatic about being liberated, but now they are wary, and they do NOT want to be permanently occupied. Can’t you guys read? I even pointed to a study showing that 94% of Iraqis are NOT happy with the way reconstruction and security is going. I even said I had my doubts about the U.S.'s ability to win the peace.
This is why Collounsbury’s post was so perplexing. It’s one thing to disagree with the tone of my post, or to say that I am over-stating some thing. It’s another to launch into a hate-filled message spewing vitriol, such as he did, while essentially agreeing about the fundamental facts.
What I was arguing with was the notion that Iraq is full of hostile people who hate the U.S. and want them gone immediately. This is just not the case. The reality is that it is a country full of people happy that Saddam is gone, but wary of the future. The U.S. is still in a position where the ‘peace’ has not been won - or lost. It is a period of flux.
I am curious: do you have a shred of evidence that the average Iraqi is “ecstatic” about the US invasion?
All your poll shows that most Iraqis don’t want instant withdrawl, hardly surprising given the likely anarchy that will result. At the same time the polls show that most Iraqis are deeply unhappy with the quality of governance provided by the US. Only the most blinkered ideologue would interpret this as good news for the occupiers.
There’s a lot of grey area between “Saddam is gone? Bah, I loved him! Fuck America!” and “Saddam is gone? Yay, I hated him! I love America!” You’ve set up a false dichotomy. The enemy (America) of an Iraqi’s enemy (Saddam) is not necessarily a friend.
Put it another way – I wish Bush were not president. I think the country would be better off if he had diddly squat for power, and the world would be a much better place in general. If, however, a race of powerful aliens swept in, removed Bush and installed someone more to my liking, would that make me “ecstatic”? Not on your life. I’d be in that gray area I mentioned earlier – happy Bush is gone (assuming he wasn’t killed – I don’t wish that on anybody), but pissed at the invaders nonetheless.
Question for the UN supporters here. Why would that body be any better at dealing with the situation on the ground in Iraq than the US? Would Iraqi opposition forces be any less likely to take pot shots at UN peacekeepers than at US troops? And I’m totally discounting weather world opinion toward the US would improve or not, just strictly dealing with the issue of getting the job at hand done: rebuiling the basic infrastructure and setting up a new government.
No, YOU set up this false dichotomy. The attitude I’m portraying is more like, “Hey, thanks for getting rid of that vicious bastard Saddam. We really appreciate it. Now fix the stuff you broke, help us get on our feet, and then go home, please. And geez, you had better not turn out to be another exploitative regime like Saddam’s was, or we’re going to get really freakin’ angry.”
I tend to think so, because the US troops are, very often if not always, going to be seen as the forces of invaders and imperialists, with no particular plans to leave unless convinced to do so. The UN troops are far more likely to be seen as peacekeepers helping out until the locals get themselves organized.
But we won’t find out until the next Democratic administration, will we? We may not even have the British troops there much longer, depending on Blair’s career life expectancy.
That’s one factor in favor of the U.N. But there are many factors working against - mainly, the bureaucratic infighting and disagreements on tactics between U.N. nations that can make these peacekeeping efforts turn into little more than exercises of rule-by-committee.
Look at what the U.N. did (or didn’t do) in Rwanda. A failure that makes anything that might conceivably happen in Iraq pale in significance. 800,000 dead people, hacked to death with machetes. And why? Because the U.N. couldn’t get off its ass. It was easier to just be paralyzed into inaction due to constant bickering between U.N. nations, than to actually do something and prevent a genocide.
And they’re not doing too much better in the Congo today, are they?
No, my fact-flouting friend. You’re referring to the decision to go into Rwanda or not, and in what force, not what happened afterward. Do not dismiss the size of the problem and the member nations’ level of commitment to it when picking examples. It shouldn’t be necessary to remind you, but apprently it is: The UN consists of its member nations. It is their tool. It is not a separate entity in security matters.
Joint military operations have been commonplace throughout history. They do take some planning and coordination, yes, but that by no means invalidates them. WW2 was won by a coalition of countries with very different strategic goals, for just one example. What’s a mission to simply police, not conquer one destroyed country in comparison?
With all due respect, Sam (which is a fair amount), that’s not at all what you said when you said
That’s your emphasis added, not mine. I merely changed the bold to underline, as I tend to bold everything whenever I quote someone and didn’t want to lose your original emphasis.
Now that you’ve clarified your position, I cheerfully withdraw the accusation of a false dichotomy. However, I’m afraid I gotta echo CyberPundit’s question and ask: on what basis do you (or did you) maintain that the average Iraqi is “ecstatic” about the US presence? And reiterating your cite of “76% of Iraq wants the US to stay” isn’t going to cut it – that in no way ascribes any sort of joy to the Iraqi. In fact, my opinion is that a more likely interpretation of the 76% figure is that the average Iraqi views America’s presence right now as a necessary evil, not something they’re necessarily ecstatic about.
As ElvisL1ves pointed out, Rwanda was the decision to commit troops, not to rebuild a country. A better comparison would be the UN’s project in Cambodia. A mixed-bag of success and failure, although I would definitely say the situation is much better now than prior to the UN’s entry.
In Cambodia, the UN at least had the perception of being a neutral party. In a mixed-ethnic country like Iraq, such a perception would probably be valuable.
Yes, the Iraqis were ecstatic about being liberated. Do you doubt that? Did you read my entire message, or did you just scan it for phrases you can use to launch a diatribe? I thought I explained this fairly well, and clarified it even more in a subsequent message.
Most were probably ecstatic Sam (at least for a little while) but you know, it’s a bit like the old saying about someone who drowned in a lake with an average depth of only 6 inches. It only takes one deep point and you have a drowning point. And that’s what we have here… it only takes a small disaffected minority WITHIN Iraq to start letting residual resentment begin to fester into something far worse.
Also, the opiate of liberation (to paraphrase another analogy) is kind of like what it’s like for the poverty class of Brasil during a World Cup Soccer win. It’s wonderful for a while, it helps you forget about the daily misery of your life, but given time, that overwhelming misery rears it’s ugly head once more.
In that context, the bottom line is this… my understanding is that the current annual wage of Iraqi per year is $2,500US. Obviously, some lucky bastards are earning much more, but I would contend an awful lot are far below $2,500 per year as well. And that’s very low. I’m told that on a relative basis, Iraqi’s were much better off during the golden era in the mid-late 70’s - then the Iran-Iraq War started sending the country broke and the general GDP per capita started falling and has never crept back up again. And during the decade of sanctions, it kept sliding - even more propitiously I believe.
Hence, there’s a very deep pool of resentment - latent resentment over how things “used to be” in the 70’s compared to now.
Whatever happens, the US and British forces on the ground are real easy targets for that resentment. It doesn’t really matter if the percentage of people who are acting on that resentment is a small percentage, what counts is that the outcomes are getting huge airplay and that seems to be a real issue… it’s a version of “little guy getting even with the big guy”… and it’s not very noble, I’ll gladly concede, but may I re-iterate… that figure I quoted earlier in this thread… ie; it is generally conceded that an occupying force needs a 1:15 ratio of soldiers to civilians to thoroughly quell civil disobediance and geurilla activities.
Purely from a logistics point of view, the Brits and the Americans have far, far too few numbers on the ground to stamp out the latent hostile activities. And therein lays the problem… either they cut a deal with the Shi’ite Clerics to institute a working Iraqi Government pronto and get the hell out of Dodge City, or they cut a deal with the UN to bring in another 800,000 foreign troops from all sorts of different countries to achieve the goal of disarming and securing the country.
Because, whatever is said, decommissioning the Iraqi Army and not giving them paid jobs to move onto has been an amazingly unwise move - at least in terms of prodcuing a ready made sea of resentment amongst a huge number of men who are trained in military arms.
I don’t want to get Clintonesque, but there’s a significant difference between what you originally posted:
And what you (rather unnecessarily snarkily, it strikes me) more recently posted:
**
(This time, I did add the emphasis).
Why the prevarication?
In other news, here’s some more fuel for the fire: another poll! Rather than quote paragraphs, I’ll just link directly to a very telling image. I especially like that we now have a solid refutation to Brutus’s oft-posted “It doesn’t matter, because America doesn’t care if Bush lied about WMDs.” 3 out of every 4 polled care at least a moderate amount.
