| Author |
Message |
    
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 170
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 8:58 am: | 
|
cjc,
I would refine sbenois' assessment by giving an A for the miliatry invasion and an F for the follow-up nation-building. Remember, we had "the end of major combat operations" over a year ago. And Paul Wolfowitz once told a congressional committee that the war would pay for itself because Iraqi oil production would be back to 100% within six months of our take over.
The U.S. military crushed the Iraqi government with ease. Our leaders, however, vastly underestimated the difficulty of creating a new Iraqi government. Hence the quagmire.
|
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 382
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Another mistake often made is to assume that democracy in Iraq will be like democracy in the west. It very well may not be.
True.
Bobkat,
I made previous refernce to this earlier on.
The election "Sistani's Triumph," and suggests that the government that comes out of Sunday's poll will be closer to the Iranian model than the American system.
"One difference between Khomeini and Sistani is that Khomeini would actually meet with Westerners, including female Western reporters. Sistani won't even meet with Ambassador Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
"In April, the New York Times reported: 'Ayatollah Sistani's supporters want Islam to govern such matters as family law, divorce and women's rights.'
This could prove very interesting if the Iraqi's implement Islam as a basis in structuring a new government.
How will Sistani welcome Condi if he doesn't recognize women in power? |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7428
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Phenix, like Milton Berle I steal most of my good material.  |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
bobkat,
You left out this Vietnam parallel (from salon.com):
quote:"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
"Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
"by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times -- Sept. 4, 1967
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
"According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
"The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
"A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.
"The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government."
The courage of the Iraqi citizens is undeniable, and to be lauded. But there's still a long way to go before their country is stable. And the U.S. will continue to bear almost the entire burden in terms of lives and money to bring about that stability. Will it be worth the costs, and will it justify misleading a nation into war with phony claims of WMD? No one knows yet. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
I think Iraqis will bear the burden in lives, actually, as they have done for some time now. And given the percentage of GDP Iraq will have to devote to reconstruction versus the US, they'll be ahead on that score too. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
absolutely. I meant the U.S. burden in terms of the "coalition."
And the degree to which the Iraqi people have security, food, power, fuel, and - ultimately - opportunity, will determine whether they believe the war was justified. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2901
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Somehow, the words of Winston Churchill seem appropriate at this time.
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
--Winston Churchill, November 10, 1942, after the British defeat of the German Afrika Korps in Egypt
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3064
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
The Vietnam parallel doesn't seem possible, as a regime of terror doesn't seem real popular in Iraq right now, whereas the Viet Cong -- supplied as they were via China -- held out aromantic (and failed) political model of communism. |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 173
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Come on, cjc, you're just trolling, right? It was the South Vietnamese government that was corrupt and the North Vietnamese who had the support of the people.
Each side had its superpower sponsors. And the communist model was no more or less failed than the colonial/imperialist model that we were carrying on.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3066
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Bottomline, I wasn't trolling. The North Vietnamese were certainly offering at least a brighter, more humane picture than Al Qada or Saddam ever did. Let's ignore the slaughter though when they finally seized power. And who's the superpower supporting the insurgents? I mean superpower, not regional power.
The Vietnam parallel, much as some on this board and Democrats in Congress hope for, will not materialize in Iraq. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1990
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:14 pm: |
|
Who wants a bona fide Vietnam-type situation to materialize? |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 174
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
I meant trolling about Vietnam on its own, which is what I thought you were doing. Sorry.
I agree there are no strong parallels between the Vietnam war and our current situation in Iraq, with the possible exception of the lies our government feeds us about progress.
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 699
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
A couple of thoughts. As stated before I am a VietNam vet, Feb 7, 68 incountry. that was TET 68 folks and it was a wild ride. Remember, the media said we lost because of TET, later, TET 68 was recognized as the campaign that wiped out the north vietnamese and viet cong infrastructure. They rolled the dice and lost.
Parallels are numerous. One that strikes me is the al queda tactic of killing innocent civilians, women, children, and the kidnappings, beheadings, all intended to terrorize the civilians into not taking a stand. And to make a propaganda point that the media uses to question our involvement.
In vietnam, the vc went into villages, gathered the villagers forcefully and then slit the village leaders throats, and others who were supporting americans. The atrocities they committed have never seen the full light of day from our media.
In both conflicts, these slugs realized that they can't beat us in direct military action, but thru sheer barbaric terrorism they negate the civilians and co-op the media for their purposes.
How many of you posters have looked the enemy in the eye in any conflict, and come away thinking the United States of America is the bad guy? |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7445
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Back in Vietnam days the standard arguement of supporters of the war was that a minority of dedicated communists were trying to take over the democratic people of South Vietnam.
Reflective, the VC killed many village leaders who they thought were cooperating with the US and Saigon. We countered with the Phoenix Program to assasinate pro VC leaders.
Vietnam was a war where we won all the battles, but lost the war because we didn't recognize that many, maybe most, of the people of South Vietnam supported Uncle Ho. The hearts and minds thing again.
I honestly don't know how many Iraqis support the insurgents. However, insurgents and terrorists can't operate unless the local population either supports them or is freigtened out of their minds by them.
|
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7446
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
I don't think we view the Iraqis as inferior or sub human. However, as the insurgency grew our tactics changed from selective retaliation and patroling in Humvees to calling in air strikes in urban areas and patroling in M1A1 tanks and Strykers. Both tactics lead to what the Army calls collateral damage, that creates more insurgents and terrorists.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 798
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
 |
mary gallagher
Citizen
Username: Bushwhacked
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Here's another parallel to Vietnam.
We left that country -- that whole area in fact -- poisoned by chemical weapons (Agent Orange) and strewn with landmines that continue to kill and maim innocent civilians.
And now, for the second time, we have littered Iraq with Depleted Uranium that will sicken and kill them and deform their children for thousands of years (even longer possibly than the necons intend to stay). Sure we did it on a smaller scale in the first Gulf War but it is especially hypocritical to have turned the country into a radioactive waste dump when we were ostensibly going in after nuclear weapons, among other WMD.
There's plenty of blame to go around on this one. Clinton also used DU in the Balkans.
The following article focuses on the effect on US soldiers but the harm has to be even more severe on those who live there.
Heads Roll At The Veterans Administration: Mushrooming Depleted Uranium (DU) Scandal Blamed
By Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner
Jan 28, 2005, 10:42
January 24, 2005 -- The Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter today charged that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions (DU) in the Iraq War.
Writing in the Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, Executive Director of the Veterans For Constitutional Law Center in New York, stated that "The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret’s naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.”
Bernklau continued "This malady [from uranium munitions], that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."
He added that "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1, of them, 11,000 are now dead. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of “Disabled Vets” means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems. (Author’s note: The "Disabled" rate for the wars of the last century was 5%, and 10% in Viet Nam.)
Bernklau added "The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000. He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, [it] ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!"
"Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that “Gulf Era Veterans” now on medical disability since 1991, numbers 518,739 Veterans," said Berklau.
"The long-term effects have revealed that DU [uranium oxide] is a virtual death sentence," stated Berklau. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as 'spectacular … and a matter of concern.'”
When asked if the main purpose for using it was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.”
Mr. Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. A follow-up article will strive to obtain a response from Mr. Principi or from the VA.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Wow... I have not seen that issue mentioned anywhere recently, but it sounds like a potentially massive problem. And the irony factor is off the charts. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Vanity Fair had a great article on the use of DU in weapons late last year. It's weird that you have to pick up a magazine with Leonardo DiCaprio or Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover to find some good, serious investigative journalism.
Iraq is, and has been since the first Gulf War, a completely toxic land. I wouldn't even visit, much less live there. The nature of the soil there (extremely fine sand) means that you're constantly inhaling whatever toxins are there.
It's more than likely the source of the Gulf War Syndrome, although I imagine we'll see ice skating in hell before the military does any serious studies on it. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
here's a link to the Vanity Fair article:
http://www.refusingtokill.net/USGulfWar2/weaponsofself.htm |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 169
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
The 72% figure has already been cut back to 57%. How much further will it go? (Turnout is measured by the number of eligible voters, not registered voters, that punch a ballot.) |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 178
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
The 57% figure is about in line with U.S. voter turnout in recent years.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 829
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Good article on Media Mangles Iraq Vote by Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
We'll know the turnout in a few days or weeks. We won't know the significance of this election for years. But we all want instant answers, and that's what the news media gave us. Who cares if the answers are right or wrong, as long as they're fast.
And anyone who said "let's wait and see" last Sunday or Monday was roundly criticized and ridiculed as a naysayer, rooting against the Iraqi people. But it looks as though "wait and see" was the best answer after all. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Dr. WOB, why do you hate freedom?  |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
I'm an freedom-hating treasonist becuase I like to wait for official results instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions based on hearsay.
The official results have come in, and turnout was a respectable 58%, but (surprise!) not the 72% initially reported. Why does it seem that we can never trust first reports on anything?
But I suppose a better question would be - why do some of us continue to believe early reports on these stories, while criticizing those who suggest that we wait-and-see until we have reliable data?
|
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7583
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
In one Sunni province the turnout was 2%, although in another it was over 25%, but I suspect the people who voted were the Shia minority there.
The Shia religious party will have just under 50% of the seats, the Kurds just over 25%. Allawi's secular Shites will have around 13%.
It will be interesting to see if Allawi allies himself with the religious party or not and if the Kurds have enough power to have Kirkuk named as the capital of Kurdistan, thusly ticking off the Turkish government and if they don't get this if they will allie themselves with the Sunnis and vote down the constitution.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page