Jim Lindgren agrees with me that the ILCS supports the Lancet study. He also raises some concerns about some of the numbers in Lancet study:
I find it somewhat odd that heart attack and stroke deaths are up 64% in the later period, and accidental deaths are up more than 3-fold. And live births are up 33% in the later (War & Post-War) period, even though post-War pregnancies would not lead to live births until 9 months had passed, so the rate of having children would likely have to have jumped substantially more than 33% in the last half of the later period. Further, household size jumps from 7.5 in the earlier period to 8.0 in the later period.
None of these increases seem unlikely to me. While the number of births was 33% higher the time period after the war was longer, so the birth rate only increased by 10%. For this to happen, there would only have to be a 20% increase in the last nine months and it seems that the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world. The increases in heart attacks could be caused by an increase in stress because of the war and the decline in medical services. The increase in car accidents could be caused by the breakdown in law and order and fear of crime. (For example, driving through intersections at high speed to avoid ambush by robbers.) Finally, the increase in household size seems to be an inevitable consequence of the number of births and deaths recorded.
Of course, Lindgren's suggestion that people are forgetting to mention some deaths that happened before the invasion may still be correct, indeed, the ILCS found evidence that infant deaths were being under-counted and went back to do some re-interviews.
Shannon Love claims that the ILCS disproves the Lancet study finding of a large number of deaths in Falluja. He's completely wrong. The ILCS fieldwork started in March 2004, before the heavy fighting in Falluja. It neither confirms nor denies the Lancet's findings about deaths in Falluja.
John Quiggin notes that Tim Blair has now accepted an estimate of tens of thousands Iraqis dead from the war and wonders if Blair will correct an earlier post denying that the war had killed that many. Blair, of course, declines to make the correction.
Tim Worstall wonders why more attention has not been given to the ILCS and hints that this might be due to anti-war bias in the media. However, the news about Iraq in the the report is not good: living conditions are bad, the war made them worse and killed 24,000 Iraqis in just the first year.
Household size tends to increase when houses of relatives are destroyed. This is often associated with a war
For this to happen, there would only have to be a 20% increase in the last nine months and it seems that the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world.
More likely to be seasonality; the extra six months in the post-war period are the peak birthing season in North London so I guess they are in Iraq too.
"...the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world."
Or it may have have resulted in a reduction in women's access to contraception and abortion. This would be consistent with both the general decline in medical services and the revival in islamic fundamentalism.
"Heart attack" and "stroke" may be convenient causes of death for people who were interviewed but didn't want to admit to a violent death in the family. Possibly that's what's on the death certificate too...
Isn't it quite usual for the birth rate to go up nine months after times of great danger? Or is that just an urban legend?
I have posted some thoughts on the Roberts paper at Winds of Change. Unfortunately, my draft was completed just before the ILCS report was issued, so it misses some salient points. Maybe later.
Tim Lambert, thanks for continuing to post links to serious pieces on the Roberts article.
Re. speculation on Roberts' infant mortality figures. The 95% CIs are:
Preinvasion, 29/1000, 95% CI 0-64
Postinvasion, 57/1000, 95% CI 30-85
It's not clear to me what statistical significance there is between these two numbers. I suspect it is larger than 0.05.
Tim,
Just reread my own post and checked to see that I didn't actually say or hint that the lack of coverage was due to anti-war bias. I did hint that it might be due to anti-Bush bias but that's a slightly different thing. There are plenty who don't like him, whatever their views of the war.
What originally prompted me to post was wondering exactly what I asked...where is all the coverage? If the new report contradicts The Lancet, then I would expect that to be everywhere. If the new report vindicates The Lancet, then I would expect that to be everywhere as well.
What I didn't understand was why no one was talking about it.
Well, not to be a broken record, but again the only statistically significant finding in the Lancet study was that between 8,000 and 194,000 more people died during the time period after the war than the comparable period before. If you didn't know that, then you probably didn't know there had been a war.
living conditions are bad, the war made them worse
Can't remember a war that didn't make things worse in the short run. OTOH, $20 billion in reconstruction will probably help, not mention freedom (Iraqis bought about a million satellite dishes, cars, and generators with their new freedom) and a democratically elected gov't (elected gov't vs. Saddam: which would YOU prefer?). But this study doesn't really address pre-war conditions, so I assume Lambert's basing this on the remarks of one of the authors rather than any empirical data.
Dave,
$20 billion is a drop in the bucket of the infrastructure needs of a country of 25,000,000 - even if the bulk of that money wasn't being spent on security for the reconstruction workers or corruptly diverted via bribes and rigged bidding.
John Quiggin (http://johnquiggin.com) is an Australian economist who, amongst other things, is on the board of the Queensland electricity regulator. He describes the $1 billion ear-marked for reconstruction of Iraq's power grid as laughable - pointing out that it'd pay for one medium-sized power plant, maybe.
Tim W, one reason I misread your report as pro-war, and hence endorsing a low estimate, is that your puzzlement about the absence of comment seemed premature, and still does.
The UNDP report came out last week, and the first major press coverage was the Times report, on Friday, I think. I got an email alert about it from Jack Strocchi on Saturday, and Tim Lambert responded shortly after that. Even allowing for the speeding up of blogtime, that seems pretty fast to me.
Tim:
I'm not sure I'd agree with your assessment that the ILCS vindicates and supports the findings from the Lancet study. My disagreement isn't based on criticism of the Lancet study, rather it stems from a lack of evidence of similar results and conclusions for the two studies.
I do agree that the Lancet extrapolated death toll from war related violence is roughly equivalent to the 24,000 figure derived from the ILCS. However, the Lancet study attributed the majority of these war related deaths to coalition forces, and in particular, coalition air strikes. The ILCS disagrees with this finding in one key aspect, and otherwise does not appear to provide the necessary death subset statistical data to corroborate the Lancet's breakdown of war-related deaths.
The ILCS found that 12% of the war-related deaths (I see you had it as 18% at John Quiggin's site, which seems to be an inadvertent misreading of the figure on your part) were children under the age of 18 years. This means that the ILCS found that less than 3,000 Iraqi children died from all war-related violence (insurgent as well as coalition caused). On the other hand, the Lancet extrapolates approximately 12,000 deaths of Iraqi children, and these are all from coalition air strikes. Even taking into consideration the shorter time frame of the ILCS, I think it's obvious that there is a considerable discrepancy between it and the Lancet, in relation to this important death subset.
As others have pointed out, the ILCS war-related death toll is intended to capture not only civilian deaths, but combatant deaths as well. Page 55 of the report confirms this:
"The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that have raised controversy. The ILCS data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths."
The Lancet study recorded no deaths for Iraqi military personnel during the invasion. I think D Squared made a good point some time ago, when he stated that the Lancet questionnaire likely precluded soldiers from being counted, by virtue of them being away from the households in the immediate prelude to invasion.
However, the ILCS survey questionnaire is worded differently, and includes " missing " along with known deaths. I suspect the vast majority of Iraqi soldiers had homes, whether living with parents or wives and children while on leave. I believe it would be quite possible that soldiers who never made it home, or others who were known to have died, would be included in the ILCS war-related death toll, because it seems the ILCS was looking to capture such deaths for statistical purposes.
To sum up my overall point, while the two extrapolated war-related death figures may be similar, it's very possible that their compositions are not. We know the figures for children killed are significantly different. We don't know how many deaths the ILCS attributed to Iraqi military forces, but we know the Lancet attributed none. We also don't know how many of the 24,000 ILCS figure are insurgents killed, or deaths caused by insurgents.
It's my view that one has to look beyond the surface correlation between the two studies in relation to the total death estimate. If the key death subsets I mention above are not somewhat compatible from study to study, I think this poses a problem for the reliability of results for one, or both studies. To put this another way, I don't see these death subsets as being interchangeable or somehow " balancing each other off " from study to study, to allow a final reconciling of similar overall totals.
The Lancet extrapolates approximately 24,000 violent deaths of non-combatant civilians at the hands of coalition forces alone. The Lancet authors created the perception, both in the study and in interviews, that coalition air strikes were responsible for more violent deaths than any other cause. Defenders of the study have often furthered this perception. If the ILCS numbers do not support this, then I see this a major problem for the Lancet study, not a vindication of it.
How exactly did the UN study define "war-related" deaths? Did it explicitly exclude deaths from disease or other factors secondary to the war?
How exactly did the UN study define "war-related" deaths? Did it explicitly exclude deaths from disease or other factors secondary to the war?
"$20 billion in reconstruction will probably help"
Might you be referring to the $20 billion that the American Occupation Authority (aka CPA) "lost"? It's such a blessing getting rid of a brutal, and corrupt dictator - unless, of course, he is replaced by an even more brutal, even more corrupt foreign occupation.
"not mention freedom (Iraqis bought about a million satellite dishes, cars, and generators with their new freedom)"
Freedom = money to you? Well, why not? And WHY do you suppose Iraqis bought all those generators - maybe because a satellite dish is useless without electricity? And what use is a new car if you can't take it out of the garage for fear of being carjacked? Is THAT freedom?
"and a democratically elected gov't (elected gov't vs. Saddam: which would YOU prefer?)"
A democratically elected government would be nice. When will we be allowed to have one?
"But this study doesn't really address pre-war conditions, so I assume Lambert's basing this on the remarks of one of the authors rather than any empirical data."
Prewar conditions have been addressed plenty by a lot of different organizations over the last decade or so.
By the way, are you telling us you have read all three hundred-some pages of the study, and know everything in it?
The study does in fact address pre-war conditions. Malnutrition, access to clean water, and sanitation all got significantly worse.
Tim,
And yet other surveys find Iraqis saying by large margins those things are better. Doesn't makes sense, unless the pre-war Saddam-era numbers (not collected under this study) were wrong, which isn't at all hard to believe considering how surprised the CPA was at the dilapidation of basic infrastructure under Saddam.
The primary purpose of this study was not to compare canditions now to pre-war conditions. It mentions them mostly in passing.
Shirin,
LOL It's not about money, they weren't allowed to buy those things under Saddam. Freedom means being able to do things like elect your own leaders and buy things you want.
A democratically elected government would be nice. When will we be allowed to have one?
Since free elections have been held (and judged free and fair by international observers), this type of counter-factual rhetoric just proves how disconnected from reality some war oppponents are. I guess when you've made up your mind, facts don't matter.
Ian,
Your point being what? Of course it's not enough; Saddam neglected infrastructure for 30 years. Can't undo that overnight -- but you couldn't even start till Saddam was thrown out. And $20 billion from U.S. taxpayers is a hell of a good start.
Tim,
LOL That UNDP clean water comparison (p 25, UNDP citation p176) is from 1990! Did you really believe access to clean water in urban areas fell from 95% to 60% overnight?
Yes, I agree conditions were better in 1990, but that has nothing to do with the 2003 war.
Oops wrong citation. That's what I get for skipping to the end. Anyway, the report itself seems to attribute much of the drop to lack of electricity for boiling water, which has a lot to with the power grid no longer serving Baghdad to the detriment of other areas.
Shirin is not an Iraqi. He's just some dweeb pretending to be one so his nonsensical rants from obviously secondary sources will get attention.
dubious secondary sources...
I hadn't heard the Shirin Iraqi claim before. If he's in Iraq the ISP should reflect that.
I am curious to know what his connection to the regime is. We do know some antiwar Iraqis like Riverbend are by their own admission related to diplomats for the former regime.
TallDave - it was on the other Lancet comment board that the claim was made.
Electricity production is another thing that is below pre-war levels....
Reid,
Shirin has displayed a reasonable familiarity with Arabic.
While I don't speak the language I showed a couple of Shirin's posts to someone who does and they check out.
TallDave - a quarter of the Iraqi population were members of the Ba'athist Party. Virtually every Iraqi has ties to the Ba'athist Party or to the military (they had universal military service in Iraq) or had relatives with such ties.
However few of them were as closely connected to the regime as Saddam's former personal doctor Iyad Allawi or current Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Still those connections obviously don't count because they're telling you what you want to hear.
TallDave: "We do know some antiwar Iraqis like Riverbend are by their own admission related to diplomats for the former regime."
I've read some of Riverbend's material, and have never known her to claim/admit she was a Baathist. This sounds like the propaganda thrown at the likes of Salam Pax & Raed Jaffar.
Personally I think that Tim Lambert is an inspiring example of the ability to be an adult while small people are chewing at your knees.
Correction: That should be Raed Jarrar not Jaffar
Ian,
Baath party is not the same as "diplomat." (Iyad Allawi was also axed, literally, by Saddam's goons) Also, most Iraqis are not romantic about conditions under the former regime. Her blog is curiously absent of criticism of Saddam.
Meyrick,
No, search her blog for the word diplomat. IIRC she makes references to a childhood memory ("us children of diplomats") in her early postings. This was discussed at length around a year ago.
Tim,
Official electricity production may be slightly lower, but I think overall production is slightly higher when you include all the generators people bought after the war. New power plants are being built, something Saddam was not going to do. And again, under Saddam Baghdad was served to the detriment of other areas.
Riverbend on the elections, just as an example:
"They also say that 300 different ballot boxes from all over the country were disqualified (mainly from Mosul) because a large number of the vote ballots had "Saddam" written on them. "
Yeah.
Tim
How exactly did the UN study define "war-related" deaths? Did it explicitly exclude deaths from disease or other factors secondary to the war? This question is central to any understanding this study. If you don't know exactly what "war-related deaths" means then you can not claim this study vindicates the Lancet study.
John Q. I do mention in my post that possibility, that as there had been little MSM note taken, there would therefore be little blog note taken. I don't know whether Tim L started to look at it as a result of my email to him (he told me he would have something up on it soon) or whether he was already preparing something and my note was just a co-incidence.
But I am glad that the issue is now being discussed,whether I initiated some of that dicussion or not.
Nell, see my previous post for the wording of the question.
I think a lot of the increase in heart attack, stroke, and accident deaths could easily be due to the loss of medical services after the war; not necessarily all due to an increase in their actual incidence, but rather a decline in their treatment rate, therefore an increase in their mortality rate. Might apply to the birth rate as well, depends on how many women were using contraception beforehand and can't get it now.
It will be interesting to see where Iraq is in OIF + 5 years. It's likely US forces will be mostly gone by then, and Iraq will be sinking or swimming more or less on its own.
I think I can say we all hope things will by then be far better for Iraqis than they were under Saddam, though whether that justifies the war would still be debated.
z,
well that assumes that the increase found in the Lancet study for disease and accidents is more than statistical noise.
The only statistic that is solid is the increase in violence, and even that with an enormous margin of error.
Tim L.:
I'd be grateful if you could respond to my post, particularly the discrepancy between the 2 studies in relation to war related deaths of children, and the fact that this study seems intent on recording Iraqi regular military deaths, while the Lancet failed to record any.
Thanks
"And yet other surveys find Iraqis saying by large margins those things are better."
Dave, I suggest you learn the difference between quantifiable reality on the ground and people's responses on opinion polls.
"they weren't allowed to buy those things under Saddam."
What utter nonsense. Of course Iraqis were allowed to buy generators and automobiles under Saddam. You don't know what you are talking about.
"Freedom means being able to do things like elect your own leaders and buy things you want."
It's far more important to have the freedom to leave your house with reasonable certainty that you will return in one piece. It is far more important to have the freedom to to send your kids to school without fearing that you will never see them again. it's far more important to have the freedom to go to sleep at night without fearing that someone will drop a one ton bomb on your house, or break down your door, storm into your house, terrorize and brutalize your family, and drag you off to be tortured - all by "mistake". It's far more important to have the freedom to drive to work, or to the grocery store, or to the doctor, or the dentist, or to visit relatives without the fear that you will be run off the road or blown away because you couldn't get out of the way of some goons in a humvee fast enough.
As for democratically electing one's own leaders, we are still waiting to see that happen.
"Since free elections have been held"
The elections that were held in January did not meet even the minimum requirements to qualify as free.
"(and judged free and fair by international observers),"
WHAT international observers? You mean the handful of people who sat in their hotel in Amman while the whole thing was going on? Please! Don't insult our intelligence.
"Saddam neglected infrastructure for 30 years."
That is a pile of processed bull food if I ever saw one. Why don't you people stop parrotting verbatim the false propaganda from the Bush administration and try learning something for yourselves.
Tim- Yes I can see the wording of the question. What I do not see is a definition of the term "war-related death". Does it explicitly exclude deaths due to factors secondary to the war?
An example- a respondant's relative died after an accident because he couldn't get to hospital due to war-related disruption. Now what if that person feels it was a "war-related death" and asked which category is appropriate- how was that handled? If the respondant didn't ask and simply answered "war-related" was that questioned further?
Mike, the ILCS asked about regular household members, so it is actually going to miss most of the soldiers who were living in barracks. The Lancet number for directly war-related child deaths is within a factor of two of the ILCS (after you allow for the different time frames). This is pretty good agreement consifering the very small sample size when you break things down this far.
TallDave: "It will be interesting to see where Iraq is in OIF + 5 years. It's likely US forces will be mostly gone by then, and Iraq will be sinking or swimming more or less on its own.
I think I can say we all hope things will by then be far better for Iraqis than they were under Saddam, though whether that justifies the war would still be debated."
Dave we can hope for all sorts of thigns including winning the lottery - it doesn't make them any more likely.
Sadly, in five years time I think Iraq (if it still exists) will probably be an even bigger mess than it is now and I suspect US forces will still be deployed there.
The US could pick up and leave Vietnam and not imperiol any of its vital national interests, the same can't be said for Iraq.
Of course, in 5 years time I also expect the defenders of the war to have shifted from "victory is imminent" to "we were stabbed in the back by the dirty liberals".
Tim:
Isn't it actually closer to a factor of 3 than 2, after compensating for the varying time frames? It also bears repeating that the ILCS figure includes deaths of children from both insurgents and coalition, while the Lancet figure is strictly from one side, and from one cause (air strikes).
In regard to the military casualties, I don't think you can ignore the fact that the ILCS may well have recorded some soldier deaths. Because this study (as far as I can tell without reading the entire thing) doesn't offer a breakdown of war related deaths, (especially civilian deaths from air strikes)I think it's premature to say the ILCS supports or vindicates the Lancet results and conclusions. As I stated in my first post, the ILCS may well offer contradictory results. We simply don't know enough about its data.
TallDave,
I remember meeting members of the US's defence industry as a child, doesn't mean I'm a member of the government or have any personal connection to that industry! Nor have I criticised on this web site (or any other) paedophiles, does that make me a paedophile?
"Baath party is not the same as "diplomat." "
"Diplomat" is not the same as "Saddam lover".
"(Iyad Allawi was also axed, literally, by Saddam's goons)"
Iyad `Allawi's lifelong history of thuggery is very well known, and he has far more than his share of Iraqi blood on his hands. He was a Ba`thist thug, he was a thug for Saddam Hussein, and after his break with Saddam's regime, he was a thug for the CIA. As a CIA asset, he was responsible for several car bombing incidents in Baghdad, one of which hit a school bus, and resulted in the deaths and injury of several school children.
"Her blog is curiously absent of criticism of Saddam."
Well, THAT certainly proves it. Failure to criticize someone is always a sure sign of a close affiliation.
"No, search her blog for the word diplomat. IIRC she makes references to a childhood memory ("us children of diplomats") in her early postings."
Well, how can one argue with that?! Having a childhood memory of being a child of a diplomat is proof positive.
"This was discussed at length around a year ago."
He's certainly got you there, Meyrick! The fact that something has been discussed on the web definitely increases its likelihood, and if it has been discussed at length, that clinches it - case closed!
"Official electricity production may be slightly lower"
No, "official" electricity production is A LOT lower.
"but I think overall production is slightly higher when you include all the generators people bought after the war."
Wow - you really had me going there for a while. I thought you might actually be serious, but now it's obvious that you have been joking all this time.
"New power plants are being built"
Oh yeah - all that rebuilding that we keep hearing about, but never seeing. Right.
"something Saddam was not going to do."
With all due respect to your ability to see into the future, you have no idea what Saddam was or was not going to do.
"And again, under Saddam Baghdad was served to the detriment of other areas."
That is inaccurate. And of course, the situation is SO much better now that the suffering and dying is more evenly distributed under the Bush administration.
Meyrick,
No, but if you were a child of Iraqi diplomats, one might reasonably assume you had a vested interest in seeing Saddam stay in power.
Shirin,
Right, because Saddam appointed his enemies as his diplomats. He was well-known as someone who tolerated, even encouraged dissent. The rest of your statements are equally ridiculous and sadly typical.
Ian,
Why does your pessimism not surprise me? Like most leftists, you have no faith in freedom and democracy.
TallDave,
My point is that just because Riverbend has met children of diplomats in her past, doesn't mean she is one herself!
Saddam neglected infrastructure for 30 years."
That is a pile of processed bull food if I ever saw one. Why don't you people stop parrotting verbatim the false propaganda from the Bush administration and try learning something for yourselves.
I was quoting the democratically elected Iraqi gov't. Why don't you stop parroting Baathist propaganda and try thinking for yourself?
Meyrick,
No, she said "us children of diplomats," not that she met them.
TallDave,
I'm going to go by Northern Ireland's (or Ulster's) history. Iraq has a long road ahead, and by the end of it few "sides" are going to be looking rosy.
TallDave,
Oops, missed that. Point taken. Do you know how old Riverbend is? If she's in her mid 30's or older, then she would have been growing up before Saddam got into power.
TallDave
I've looked around Riverbends blog and found this
"A lot of you have been asking about my background and the reason why my English is good. I am Iraqi- born in Iraq to Iraqi parents, but was raised abroad for several years as a child. I came back in my early teens and continued studying in English in Baghdad- reading any book I could get my hands on. Most of my friends are of different ethnicities, religions and nationalities. I am bilingual. There are thousands in Iraq like me- kids of diplomats, students, ex-patriots, etc."
link
If this is the post you were thinking of, you maybe mis-interpreting it. Of course putting the "kids of diplomats" first is suspicious, but still all a bit circumstantial
Meyrick,
No, the one I remember was something like "us kids of diplomates often got thrown together."
It was an anecdote about a party or something.
Re Ulster,
It's a good point, but I'm not arguing Iraq will become Vermont, just that they'll be much better off than under Saddam.
OTOH I looked briefly and couldn't find it, so I won't rule out it was the post you found. She actually has a Wiki entry:
Riverbend is the pseudonymous author of the "Baghdad Burning" weblog, launched August 17, 2003. Riverbend's identity is carefully hidden, but the weblog entries indicate that Riverbend is young unmarried woman, from a Sunni family, living with her parents and brother in a middle class neighbourhood in the north of Baghdad. Before the US occupation she was a computer programmer and she writes in an idiomatic English reflecting her eight years of education in the U.S. The details of her life that she recounts in her weblog have led some to speculate that one or both of her parents were members of the Baath Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbend
So who knows for sure. Much like our Shirin, she's quite anti-elections and pro-Saddam.
I'm still curious how Shirin came by those same convictions; maybe he'll enlghten us without resorting to a screed, but I doubt it.
TallDave,
I've gone through the archives at Riverbend's blog and have only found 2 pages with the word "diplomats" in.
First
Second
I'll try some other words later.
Why does your pessimism not surprise me? Like most leftists, you have no faith in freedom and democracy.
Yes, becasue as we all know the ouster of dictators in Bosnia, Congo and Uganda led to golden ages of peace and prosperity.
Is George Bush sr. a leftist, my view on Iraq's likely future is virtually identical to the list of reasons he gave back in the 90's for not mountign a full-scale invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War.
"Right, because Saddam appointed his enemies as his diplomats."
That is not even remotely what I suggested, of course.
"He was well-known as someone who tolerated, even encouraged dissent."
I also did not suggest that he would allow someone who dissented openly to a position of any kind. That does not mean that every diplomat or other official who served during his regime is pining away for the "good old days". Even more to the point, it most definitely does not mean that every child of every diplomant or other official who served during his regime is pining away for the good old days. In fact, it doesn't even mean that every child, spouse, or other relative of every person who was genuinely devoted to him is pining away for the good old days.
TallDave,
Being "anti-elections" doesn't necessarily mean "anti-democratic".
I don't remember her being pro-Saddam. She may have said certain things were better under Saddam, but that doesn't necessarily mean she thinks Saddam was a wonderful leader. I'd imagine certain aspects of German life improved under Hitler (for good Aryan's anyway), but I still think he was an evil bastard.
"I was quoting the democratically elected Iraqi gov't."
1) There is no democratically elected government in Iraq.
2) Surely you are not suggesting that every word out of every politician's mouth - whether democratically elected or not - is factual and truthful.
3) It is a well documented and well-known fact that Saddam Hussein did not neglect the infrastructure for 30 years. You don't need to take my word for it. The Ba`thists put enormous resources into the physical and social infrastructure all during the '70's and the first several years of the '80's - so much so that it was classified as an emerging first world country based on all the social and economic indicators. It was not until the mid-80's that the country began to slide backward, as a result of the cost of the war with Iran. The deliberate destruction by U.S. forces of most of the essential civil infrastructure - water, electricity, communication, sewage and sanitation - combined with nearly 13 years of sanctions more than undid the progress of the '70's and '80's.
"Why don't you stop parroting Baathist propaganda and try thinking for yourself?"
Why don't you 1) learn something about Iraq's history before you start lecturing people who have actually experienced it, 2) try to think of things in a more advanced, nuanced (not to mention fact-based) than the childish, uninformed, simplistic black and white, good or evil, one-extreme-or-the-other-with-nothing-in-between approach that seems to typify most of your posts?
"Much like our Shirin, she's quite anti-elections and pro-Saddam."
When you can't effectively argue the facts and the issues, attack the person.
I am neither anti-elections nor pro-Saddam, and nothing I have posted here justifies your allegation that I am.
Shirin,
Well, not much point in wasting my time with poeple who say "The deliberate destruction by U.S. forces of most of the essential civil infrastructure - water, electricity, communication, sewage and sanitation" and "There is no democratically elected government in Iraq." If and when you join reality, I'll reconsider.
Meyrick,
Not a single criticism of Sadddam's regime, and claiming ballot boxes were thrown out due to a massive write-in campaign for Saddam? I mean, she doesn't get out there and chant "Bring back Saddam!" but she's close. Her blog reminds me a lot of the letters written by Confederate plantation owners after the Civil War: "how can they call this democracy?" "Things were so much better before."
"Being "anti-elections" doesn't necessarily mean "anti-democratic". "
More to the point, refusing to pretend the "elections" in Iraq were free, fair, or legitimate does not mean being anti-election OR anti-democratic.
"I don't remember her being pro-Saddam."
Riverbend is not only not pro-Saddam, and she has never said or implied anything by which a reasonable person would conclude she is pro-Saddam. Neither have I. Hurling the allegation pro-Saddam at anyone who opposes the invasion and occupation and its sequelae is merely a way to avoid addressing the very valid facts and issues we bring up. It is the same technique as that used by those who hurl accusations of anti-Semitism (or self-hating Jewness) at anyone who rationally and factually criticizes the state of Israel, or who advocates for the Palestinians.
"She may have said certain things were better under Saddam"
There are very few Iraqis who have not said things were overall better with Saddam - or rather that they are overall worse post-March 19, 2003 than they were pre-March 19. 2003. By every objective measure, most things ARE worse.
"but that doesn't necessarily mean she thinks Saddam was a wonderful leader."
When someone is forceably ejected from the frying pan, and suddenly finds himself sitting in the middle of the fire, he is likely to acknowledge that being in the frying pan is the lesser of two very bad options. That does not mean he considers being in the frying pan desirable.
Yes, becasue as we all know the ouster of dictators in Bosnia, Congo and Uganda led to golden ages of peace and prosperity Bosnia, Congo and Uganda
They were never free. They traded one dictator for another. Theirs was "one election, one man, one time" pseudo-democracy.
It's important to understand democracy must be an extension of freedom, and is useless without it. Without freedom, you get "democracies" like Saddam or the Congo or North Korea, where people can vote but are not remotely free.
Is George Bush sr. a leftist, my view on Iraq's likely future is virtually identical to the list of reasons he gave back in the 90's for not mountign a full-scale invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War.
Those were the old "realist" rightists who are (somewhat rightly) reviled now for not doing more to promote freedom and democracy. Even back then, though, I don't remember leftists promoting the idea of freedom and democracy.
OK, I'm curious enough to ask one more question of Shirin:
What would you like to see the U.S. do in Iraq?
Oh, and I do enjoy all the heated "just because we say everything was better in every single way under Saddam doesn't mean we're pro-Saddam" denials. Very amusing.
"What would you like to see the U.S. do in Iraq?"
I believe I have made this abundantly clear several times in the past. I would not like to see the U.S. in Iraq at all. I would like the U.S. to get out, and take its "enduring" military bases, it's mega-embassy, its corporate contractors, and its imported "Iraq exiles" with it. I would like to see the U.S. pay reparations for all the physical, cultural, societal, and personal damage it has done.
Foreign states are not entitled to decide unilaterally to establish military bases in sovereign countries, and they are not allowed to determine unilaterally who will be their ambassador, and how large their embassy will be. I would like to see Iraqis decide, as every sovereign state is entitled to do, whether they want a relationship with the U.S. at all, and if so what will be the size, scope, and nature of that relationship.
And what do you think will happen when the U.S. pulls out?
Ummm no more satellite dishes?
"not much point in wasting my time with poeple who say "The deliberate destruction by U.S. forces of most of the essential civil infrastructure - water, electricity, communication, sewage and sanitation""
Dave, it is no secret that in 1991 the U.S. deliberately and methodically destroyed electrical, water, telephone, and sewage infrastructure. That fact is documented in U.S. government documents.
""There is no democratically elected government in Iraq.""
What you call the "government" was not elected, it was chosen in a non-democratic, and convoluted way. The election held in January did not even meet the minimum requirements for a democratic, free, fair, legitimate election. Therefore, there is no democratically elected government in Iraq.
"Not a single criticism of Sadddam's regime..."
As always your logic is unassailable. Failure to criticize Saddam in one's blog is definitely proof positive.
"and claiming ballot boxes were thrown out due to a massive write-in campaign for Saddam?"
1. Do you honestly not know the difference between claiming that ballot boxes were thrown out, and reporting that someone else has claimed that ballot boxes were thrown out?
There were a lot of different rumours. Reporting about them, or even suspecting that some of them might have had some truth to them does not make one pro-Saddam.
2. For your information, there was talk of writing in Saddam's name, and I recall an official saying that any such ballots would be thrown out.
"I mean, she doesn't get out there and chant "Bring back Saddam!" but she's close."
You have exactly zero justification for claiming that.
"Her blog reminds me a lot of the letters written by Confederate plantation owners after the Civil War: "how can they call this democracy?" "Things were so much better before." "
You simply cannot conceive of the possibility, can you, that the current situation is actually worse than the situation pre-March 19, 2003? Perhaps it is simply because you do not have a realistic idea of what Iraqis have been living through for the past two-plus years. Or perhaps you have an exaggerated idea of what day to day life was like before.
What I really cannot understand is the complete inability you share with other war cheerleaders to grasp the clear reality that someone who states that the frying pan was better the fire he is engulfed in now is not necessarily praising the frying pan.
LOL
You didn't answer my question, or establish you have any connection to reality.
In case you forgot:
What do you think will happen when the U.S. pulls out?
"nd what do you think will happen when the U.S. pulls out?"
The first thing that will happen is that the violence will be reduced dramatically.
1. Occupation forces and their Iraqi proxy troops commit the majority of the violence, and the most devastating violence. That violence will cease immediately as soon as the occupation forces are no longer in the the country to commit it.
2. The Americans have proven their unparalelled ability to take actions guaranteed to destabilize any situation, and cause severe escalation of violence. In fact, they have shown they are experts at making any situation worse. They have also shown their aptitude for deepening existing divisions, and creating new ones where none existed before. It will only benefit Iraq and Iraqis to have their destabilizing influence removed.
3. Despite all the publicity to the contrary, independent studies (most notably the one done by CSIS) have shown clearly that the overwhelming majority of "insurgent" attacks are not against civilians, but against occupation forces and other elements of the occupation. With the occupation over and the occupier gone that violence will cease, or be reduced significantly.
4. With the hated occupation over, public support for violence will decrease significantly.
5. Iraqi security forces will no longer be stuck taking orders from the occupying power, will no longer be used as proxies and cannon fodder for the occupation, and no longer be targets for anti-occupation forces. They will be freed to do the job of protecting Iraqis from criminal and foreign elements.
The Americans have proven beyond question their inability to do anything but make matters worse. From the day they dropped their first bombs the situation has deteriorated steadily as a result of their ignorance, arrogance and incompetence. If they were gone the greatest destabilizing factor would be taken out of the equation. The damage is done, and it will take quite some time for Iraq to stabilize, but the only way to reverse the downward spiral is for the Americans to get out completely.
So then, with the Americans who are causing all the problems gone, the insurgents will put down their weapons, Iraq will be able to hold real elections, and generally everything will be better?
If only the rest of the world knew what you know, Shirin. I weep for the lost opportunity. Those poor Iraqi people, needlessly suffering for want of your wisdom.
Dave, it is no secret that in 1991 the U.S. deliberately and methodically destroyed electrical, water, telephone, and sewage infrastructure. That fact is documented in U.S. government documents.
""There is no democratically elected government in Iraq.""
What you call the "government" was not elected, it was chosen in a non-democratic, and convoluted way. The election held in January did not even meet the minimum requirements for a democratic, free, fair, legitimate election. Therefore, there is no democratically elected government in Iraq.
That is classic, I'm going to keep that one around.
So, as long as the Americans are around, things in Iraq will keep getting worse? A "downward spiral," as you put it?
"So then, with the Americans who are causing all the problems gone, the insurgents will put down their weapons, Iraq will be able to hold real elections, and generally everything will be better? "
That is not what I said, is it, TallDave? I made several very specific points. Why don't you try to respond to what I actually said instead of making up something you can dismiss out of hand?
"If only the rest of the world knew what you know, Shirin."
Most people in the world, including most other Iraqis, know just what I know, and see things just as I see them.
"Those poor Iraqi people, needlessly suffering for want of your wisdom. "
You appear to be unaware of the fact that according to several measures the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out of their country, and sooner rather than later, so it would appear I am with the majority on this at least. The only thing that has changed over time is that the number of Iraqis who want the U.S. out has increased.
"So, as long as the Americans are around, things in Iraq will keep getting worse? A "downward spiral," as you put it?"
The Americans blasted their way into Iraq in March, 2003. Prior to that, despite the economic misery and political suppression, daily life for most Iraqis contained some semblance of normalcy. Iraq's streets were among the safest in the world. Since March 19, 2003 the situation has deteriorated consistently over time by every objective measure, and by most subjective criteria. Iraqis say today is worse than yesterday, yesterday was worse than the day before, and tomorrow will be worse than today. Other common Iraqi sayings since March, 2003 are "Bush and Saddam are two faces of the same coin" and "the student is gone, and the teacher has replaced him". Many Iraqis were not initially opposed to being invaded by the U.S. because they could not believe anything could be worse than Saddam. They now admit they were wrong. Some of them ended up joining the resistance.
The precipitating factor of the deterioration of life in Iraq is the American invasion and occupation. The aggravating factor is the continued presence and violent, deadly, destructive actions of the Americans, who have shown an astonishing penchant for choosing just the action that will have the very worst effect on any situation. They have been so consistent in this that many people believe they are intentionally creating chaos and instability. For my part, what I see behind it is not intent, but spectacular ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence.
LOL Wow, great stuff.
I made several very specific points. Why don't you try to respond to what I actually said instead of making up something you can dismiss out of hand?
Because every single thing you've said is either an outrageous distortion, meaningless invective, or totally made up. But it's fun to read!
"every single thing you've said is either an outrageous distortion, meaningless invective, or totally made up"
Then it should be very easy to refute. Why, then, have you not attempted to refute a single thing I have actually said? Why, instead, have you pretended I have made statements I did not make?
"you've already read the studies and links which directly contradict what you keep saying over and over"
I'm sorry, TallDave, but I have no idea what studies you are referring to. Kindly remind me. If there are credible studies (and links) that contradict what I keep saying over and over, I will be very glad to examine them, and have no problem either refuting them or admitting that there is evidence that contradicts my position.
How about instead of demanding I refute everything you said, you provide evidence for everything you said?
LOL I'd really like to see those military documents where the U.S. targeted sewage plants.
I'm sorry, TallDave, but if you have actually refuted anything I have said I missed it, or did not understand it. I will not ask you to take the time to repeat what you have already said, but perhaps you could do me the courtesy of referring me to the posts in which you refuted me so I can reread them and try to understand them. If you have presented facts and logic that refute what I have said, I appreciate knowing that, and will alter my viewpoint accordingly.
For starters, here's about 200 pages contradicting virtually everything you've said.
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/good-news-from-iraq-part-25.html
"How about instead of demanding I refute everything you said, you provide evidence for everything you said?"
I'm sorry. I may have suggested or requested, but I don't think I have demanded that you do anything. However, if what I am saying is such nonsense, why is it so difficult to refute?
"I'd really like to see those military documents where the U.S. targeted sewage plants."
Why, TallDave, do you keep making this false attributions? I have not said anything about military documents where the U.S. targetted sewage plants. It IS a fact,though, that in 1991 the U.S. bombed a number of Iraqi sewage plants. Are you suggesting they did this by mistake?
OK, this proves what I'm talking about: you're delusional.
Dave, it is no secret that in 1991 the U.S. deliberately and methodically destroyed electrical, water, telephone, and sewage infrastructure. That fact is documented in U.S. government documents.
And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.
For instance, the first thing you claimed was "utter nonsense:"
Former president Saddam Hussein heavily taxed cars, making them unaffordable for all but a favored few.
Still waiting for that first link from you that proves anything you said.
why is it so difficult to refute?
It isn't, it's very easy as I just proved. LOL But it is a waste of my time. Easier to just laugh.
"here's about 200 pages contradicting virtually everything you've said."
Oh, I am really sorry for your effort, TallDave, but Chrenkoff's blog is by no means a credible source for reliable information about Iraq. Aside from its blatant bias, it is at best a secondary source and contains a good deal of false, unreliable, and unverifiable information. I don't mind examining links from Chrenkoff's blog, so if you can provide some of those I will take the time to look at them.
Oh, I am really sorry for your effort, Shirin, but you are by no means a credible source for reliable information about Iraq. Aside from your blatant bias, you're not even a secondary source and spout a good deal of false, unreliable, and unverifiable information.
TallDave, it is not enough to state that someone is delusional, then quote them, then say you don't take them seriously. To be convincing you have to provide actual evidence that their assertions are at least questionable. What you have presented does not even constitute an argument.
I did provide evidence, and you pretended it wasn't there. Like I said: delusional.
LOL You said: "If you have presented facts and logic that refute what I have said, I appreciate knowing that, and will alter my viewpoint accordingly" and then when presented with the facts, you claimed they weren't facts. If there's a way to debate that, I don't know what it is.
"For instance, the first thing you claimed was "utter nonsense:"
Former president Saddam Hussein heavily taxed cars, making them unaffordable for all but a favored few. "
Your claim was that Iraqis were "not allowed" to buy cars. The above does not support that assertion. It only suggests that the regime made it more difficult for Iraqis who could not afford the high import taxes to buy cars.
The reality was that "a favoured few" did not even have to buy cars because the regime gave very nice cars to them gratis.
It is curious, of course, that you did not provide any source at all for any of this.
"did provide evidence, and you pretended it wasn't there."
I assure you I did not pretend anything at all. If you provided real evidence then I missed it. I apologize for that with all sincerity. I have a busy and varied life of which participation in this blog is only a small part, and it is more than a little possible that I have made mistakes and missed things. If that is the case, then I will be grateful for a reminder.
Your claim was that Iraqis were "not allowed" to buy cars.
Same thing. The practical effect was to prevent people from buying them. But according to you, that's "utter nonsense."
The source was the link I posted, genius. It's curious you haven't posted a singe source for anything.
"when presented with the facts, you claimed they weren't facts. If there's a way to debate that, I don't know what it is."
My apologies, TallDAve, for any frustration I have caused you. What facts have you presented that I have claimed were not facts?
Here you go Shirin, [Please do not post 10,000 word comments, especially when you can just link to the original. TL]
I see telluride also found it very easy to disprove what you said:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/LancetIraq/lan…
But that's not surprising.
<<Even back then, though, I don't remember leftists promoting the idea of freedom and democracy.>>
Yeah because Rightiss were responsible for "The Four Freedoms"; "The Truman Doctrine" and the 1963 Civil Rights Acts.,p>
Refresh my memory - which US President was it who vowed to "bear any burden" in defence of freedom and which one was it who recognised Mainland China, the largest dictatorship on the planet?
Which party was it that attacked Clinton for military interevention in Kosovo and which recent President came to office pledging an end to "nation building"?
"The source was the link I posted, genius."
What link?
By the way, I don't consider it in any way significant, but according to test scores I do formally qualify as a genius. :o}
"Here you go Shirin"
Here I go with what? I see nothing there at all - no information, no link,no logic, no argument.
"...the tactic of labelling anything you don't agree with as not credible."
I don't do that at all. Chrenkoff's stuff does not lack credibility because I don't agree with it. It lacks credibility because so much of it has provem to be contrary to fact, and because he does not provide actual evidence for so much of the rest of it.
Dave, it is no secret that in 1991 the U.S. deliberately and methodically destroyed electrical, water, telephone, and sewage infrastructure. That fact is documented in U.S. government documents.
It may not be a U.S. government document, but the U.S. Air Force Journal discusses it in the article "bombing dual-use targets", at: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Rizer.html
The US air force destroyed Iraq's electricity and telephone infrastructure. While this did have a military basis - the disruption of command and control - it also shut down all water and sewage processing within Iraq, resulting in disease epidemics throughout Iraq.
Considering that the US did deliberately destroy the electricity and telephone structure in Iraq, for clearly stated military reasons, and would have known that destruction of the electricity infrastructure would result in the disabling of any sewage treatment or water treatment infrastructre, Shirin's statement appears to be a reasonable description of the decisions made in 1991. It certainly could not be described as 'deluded'.
Shirin
By the way, I don't consider it in any way significant, but according to test scores I do formally qualify as a genius. :o}
LOL Sure you do, buddy. I bet the proof's right next to all your nonexistent links.
Here I go with what? I see nothing there at all - no information, no link,no logic, no argument
There's that genius at work! I stand in awe of your brilliance.
Toby,
Oh, I see, so it's only deceptive and misleading rather than delusional, like saying it's "utter nonsense" Iraqis weren't allowed to buy cars when in fact taxes prevented them from doing so. Sorry, disabling indirectly is not remotely the same as "destroyed most of."
Just for Tall "selective" Dave: From Alexander Cockburn:
Its vital to understand that the First Gulf War was waged as much against the Iraqi people as against the Republican Guard. Here's a rundown of what the U.S. did:
They destroyed Iraq's water, sewage and water purification systems and its electrical grid. Nearly every bridge across the Euphrates and Tigris was demolished. They struck 28 hospitals and destroyed 38 schools. They hit all 8 of Iraq's large hydropower dams. They attacked storage silos and irrigation systems.
Farmlands near Basra were inundated with saltwater as a result of allied attacks. More than 95 per cent or Iraq's poultry farms were destroyed, as well as more than 2 million cows. The U.S. and its allies bombed textile plants, cement factories and oil refineries and storage facilities, all of which contributed to an environmental nightmare that continued unabated for over 12 years.
When confronted by the press with reports of Iraqi women carting home buckets of filthy water from the Tigris River, which was itself contaminated with raw sewage from the bombed treatment plants, an American general shrugged his shoulders and said: 'People say, "You didn't recognize that the bombing was going to have an effect on water and sewage". Well, what were we trying to do with the sanctions: help the Iraqi people? What we were doing with the attacks on the infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions'.
Thus, Gulf War I left Iraq's civilian and military infrastructure in ruins, and the intent of the sanctions was not only to prevent Iraq from rebuilding its army, but to also prevent the rebulding of the foundations of its economy and society.
Ian,
Well, I supported the Kosovo intervention and the principles JFK stood up for. But again, since JFK the left has not promoted democracy or freedom.
The Truman doctrine? You mean letting China and a half-dozen other countries go Communist, then belatedly doing something about it only after Republicans made it a campaign issue?
1963 Civil Rights Acts
Democrats filibustered it.
Jeff,
I don't deny there are other nuts like you and Shirin out there, but I don't see a U.S. government document saying we bombed sewage plants.
I mean, I could go on. There are the numerous polls saying Iraqis are optimistic about the future which I've posted before. Polls show Iraqis generally feel the war was worth it to be rid of Saddam.
But Shirin and Jeff think the regime that killed 1 million in the Iran-Iraq war, put 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves, invaded Kuwait (committing numerous atrocities), and operated state-sanctioned rape and torture rooms for political dissidents was a better deal.
It lacks credibility because so much of it has provem to be contrary to fact, and because he does not provide actual evidence for so much of the rest of it.
Says you. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times found him credible enough to print. Your claim is totally dishonest. You claim he's not credible because he is lethal to your arguments.
Talldave, the deliberate destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure was reported in the June 23, 1991 issue of the Washington Post in an article by Barton Gellman. Human Rights Watch (probably the organization which has done the most to document Saddam's atrocities) reported on some of this destruction in a document they put out in 1991--I've forgotten the title, unfortunately.
The Gellman article (which I printed out some years ago, but don't have handy) said that the US deliberately hit Iraq's civilian infrastructure in order to put pressure on Saddam in hopes that he would comply with all disarmament demands--there was also the hope that the civilian suffering might lead to his overthrow. Kenneth Pollack also let slip in his book on Iraq (I don't have the page number handy and don't own the book) that this was also part of the logic behind the Iraqi sanctions. In other words, the logic was the same one currently being employed by the insurgents when they attack infrastructure. It's interesting that you don't know about this, but not surprising--as I recall, you also believe the torture scandal was due to a few bad apples.
BTW, though the figure of 300,000 dead under Saddam is plausible (HRW uses this number--they also criticized the sanctions), last I read it's not actually true that people have found 300,000 bodies in those mass graves. It's true that governments and the press sometimes meld the two notions together---300,000 estimated dead, 290 mass graves, and sometimes people claim that many bodies are actually in the graves. We don't really know that. The Guardian ran stories about this last year--most of the graves hadn't been fully examined, but the ones that had didn't contain anywhere near the number of bodies that locals often claimed. It's interesting how people who are intensely critical of the Lancet numbers accept other numbers without a second thought.
You'll have to google for all this information yourself. I'm not sure if the Washington Post story is online for free anyplace--it was at one time, but when I first printed my copy out I had to pay for it.
TallDave
You believe what you want to believe. You just can't come to accept that the U.S. deliberately bombed the civilian infrastructure of Iraq to Kingdom Come in the first Gulf War. If sewage treatment plants were't bombed, how on Earth did the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers become veritable cesspools? You also don't credibly challenge any of the points about the numbers of hospitals and schools destroyed, nor of the other effects I mentioned. The general's quote is genuine. The British Medical Educational Trust estimated the direct and indirect effects of the first Gulf war left up to 200,000 civilians dead. It was UNICEF that estimated the sanctions toll on the civilian population at up to a million more dead. You are left clutching at straws, and like Reid referring to those hammering your wafer thin arguments as "nuts" or "all messed up".
I suspect that you may be one of the 50% of Americans who still believes that Saddam Hussein's regime was involved in the 9-11 plot. In no other country on Earth does this figure exceed 5%. You are probably one of the 30% of Americans who believed, long after the second war, that WMD had been found in Iraq, or the 20% who thought that Iraq had used them in battle. Again, a puny minority of the rest of the world's population believed these myths. By sheer repetition in the corporate media, people in the U.S. were duped by a propoganda campaign that was "unprecedented in modern democracies" according the political analyst Anatol Lieven.
So, go ahead, remain in your state of denial with respect to U.S.-sponsored atrocities around the world. I, for one, believe in accountability. You, like Bush and his neocon brethren, think that laws that apply to the rest of the world don't apply to the U.S. You blather on about "freedom and democracy" but have nothing to say about the fact that the civilian population in every country in the world opposed U.S.-led aggression against Iraq. As I said yesterday, Bush and his cohorts praised those countries that were bullied, bribed or coerced to join the imperial adventure, and heaped scorn on those who didn't. Yet, in Italy and Spain, which were praised by Bush, overwhelming majorities of the populations (typically > 90%) were opposed to military action, even in the event of the second UN resolution being passed. The same was true in all of the other countries who were part of the 'coalition of the willing'. Those countries whose governments listened to public opinion (Turkey, Germany, France) were ridiculed and scolded by Bush and his government. Where the hell is your claim to support democracy now, Dave? Or is it as selective as your memory?
If sewage treatment plants were't bombed, how on Earth did the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers become veritable cesspools?
Well, mostly because Saddam wasn't big on treating sewage, but partly because electricity was cut due the fact Saddam had invaded Kuwait and had to be forcibly expelled.
The British Medical Educational Trust estimated the direct and indirect effects of the first Gulf war left up to 200,000 civilians dead. It was UNICEF that estimated the sanctions toll on the civilian population at up to a million more dead.
Right, and those both were the result of actions taken with broad international support, because Saddam had invaded Kuwait and refused to comply with international demnads for inspections.
You are left clutching at straws
Yeah, those straws are called "reality" by some people. I don't see any links to support anything you said.
Donald,
Dual-use infrastructure was targeted, like elextic and phone. (LOL it was a war after all, one Saddam started) Water treatment and sewage is not dual-use. Again, no link.
last I read it's not actually true that people have found 300,000 bodies in those mass graves
So, what number of mass graves is acceptable before a regime should be removed?
More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion,
On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them - a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.
Iraqis divide in their rating of the local security situation now, but strikingly, 54 percent say security where they live is better now than it was before the war.
The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent - a sixth of the population - call such attacks "acceptable." One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.
Notably, across the country, no more than 26 percent say any of these conditions are worse now than a year ago; in each about four in 10 or more say things are better; and in each sizable majorities - mostly three-quarters - expect things to improve over the next 12 months.
Among top mentions, 36 percent say the United States should play a role in rebuilding the country
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversar…
There goes half of Shirin's claims.
TallDave: "Polls show Iraqis generally feel the war was worth it to be rid of Saddam."
The only poll I know that said this was from a US right-wing think tank ... not very persuasive.
More on that "downwrd spiral" that can only be halted if American leave:
"The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27-March 5 [2005], after Iraq held its first free elections in half a century in January. According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction. That is the widest spread recorded in seven polls by the group, says Stuart Krusell, [International Republican Institute] director of operations for Iraq. In September, 45% of Iraqis thought the country was headed in the wrong direction and 42% thought it was headed in the right direction. The IRI is a non-partisan, U.S. taxpayer-funded group that promotes democracy abroad.
"Pollsters did not survey three of Iraq's 18 provinces because of security and logistical concerns. Two of those omitted, Anbar and Ninevah, are predominantly Sunni Muslim. A third, Dahuk, is mostly Kurdish. Krusell said that even if those areas had been included and 100% had expressed negative views, the poll would still have shown that most Iraqis believe that the situation in their country is improving...
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/03/good-news-from-iraq-part-24.html
"The IRI is a non-partisan"
Rubbish! link
Meyrick,
Well then, allow me to preent you with some new knowledge:
Two-thirds of Baghdad Residents Say Saddam's Removal Worth the Hardships
A new Gallup poll of Baghdad residents finds that two-thirds believe that the hardships they have borne in the past five months was a price worth paying to rid themselves of Saddam:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 23 - After five months of foreign military occupation and the ouster of Saddam Hussein, nearly two-thirds of Baghdad residents believe that the removal of the Iraqi dictator has been worth the hardships they have been forced to endure, a new Gallup poll shows. Despite the systemic collapse of government and civic institutions, a wave of looting and violence, and shortages of water and electricity, 67 percent of 1,178 Iraqis told a Gallup survey team that within five years, their lives would be better than before the American and British invasion.
Only 8 percent of those queried said they believed that their lives would be worse off as a result of the military campaign to remove Mr. Hussein and his Baath Party leadership from power.
The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews from Aug. 28 through Sept. 4 across the ethnically diverse landscape of the battered capital.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D11FC3C590C778EDDA008…
That's better. I'd trust gallop over IRI any day!
Meyrick,
Well, you can call it rubbish, but your link doesn't prove that, and USA today seems to disagree.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-15-iraq-poll_x.htm?csp=…
Mind you, that's pretty old data now! September 2003.
"IRI's board of directors includes many prominent Republicans, some of whom are involved in foreign policy."
Oh no! Prominent Republicans! Well, I guess that makes their polling meaningless.
It makes it biased, so yes, meaningless.
In your opinion. AS I noted, USA Today disagrees, and I'm taking their word over yours.
Also, other polls support the same result, and I don't see any polls contradicting it, and saying that since they have Repubicans they must be biased is rather hilarious considering the Lancet authors openly campaigned against Bush.
Oh well, a US tabloid said it, so it must be true!!!
TallDave: "other polls support the same result"
So far you've given the product of a right-wing think tank and gallop poll thats dated before Najaf, Fallujah, & Abu Gharib
Meyrick vs. USA Today: Still going with USA Today. Sorry.
So far you've given us: nothing. You lose.
Still, if you put so much strength on the views of USA Today, read this link
Three to nothing.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 2338 GMT (0738
But asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/
"The US air force destroyed Iraq's electricity and telephone infrastructure. While this did have a military basis - the disruption of command and control - it also shut down all water and sewage processing within Iraq, resulting in disease epidemics throughout Iraq."
This is correct, of course. Without electricity water treatment and delivery, and sewage transportation and treatment is impossible even if the water and sewage infrastructure itself is left intact. However, the Americans also targetted water and sewage treatment facilities, and damaged them significantly.
Same poll as the USA Today. It doesn't make for promising stuff. Much hatred towards the "occupiers" and desires for them to leave. This reminds me of Northern Ireland so much. The UK sent troops in to NI to protect the catholic community, and at first things went well, but fairly soon it all went wrong.
USA Today: "But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers.""
LOL even the Iraqis admit they don't really know that:
That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.
Shirin,
And the link is where again?
Meyrick,
Well, that's not a point anyone disagrees with. Everyone wants them to leave. We want them to leave. They themseleves want to leave. And when Iraq's democratically elected government is strong enough to sustain itself, we will happily depart.
Hey Shirin, let me take a wild guess here and say you're a Sunni.
TallDave,
You missed the "occupiers" bit
CNN: "Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time."
52% think attacks on US forces are justified!
3 to 0 is it?!
One right wing think tank
One out of date
One justifying attacks on US forces
If this isn't a pyrrhic victory, I don't know what is!
Meyrick,
Well, clearly we ARE occupying the country. I don't know why they poll people's opinion on a factual question.
It's three to zero that Iraqis support Saddam being removed and believe the war was worth it.
Still waiting for anything from you saying otherwise.
It's not a factual question, but an opinion. Are the US forces "occupiers" or "liberators"? They went for the latter. And you haven't commented on opinion that attacks on US forces might be justified.
Oops, should have said "former".
It's a factual choice vs an opinion choce. US forces are occupying the country; thats a fact. Liberation depends on your opinion. Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
It's like asking is an apple round or delicious?
"The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times found him credible enough to print."
And you believe everything the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times print?
"You claim he's not credible because he is lethal to your arguments."
No, he is not "lethal to my arguments" at all. I have gone up against his stuff numerous times, and it is very easy to demolish. His claims rarely stand up under any kind of examination. Many of them are simply empty claims with absolutely nothing to support them.
Chrenkoff is little more than a propagandist, and not a very good one at that if one applies even a little bit of critical thinking.
I haven't commented on that because it's not news to me.
Shirin,
So you say, but he has hundreds of links to back up his stuff, and so far you have zero. You lose. I would think a self-proclaimed genius would be able to do better.
"USA Today disagrees..."
And you believe everything you read in USA Today?
TallDave
It's an opinion choice vs. an opinion choice as you know only too well (do I need to post the definition of the word "occupier"?). Besides read the rest of the USA Today piece. Not much that to suggest pleasure at the Coalition forces.
Occupier: one who occupies. We're clearly occupying. And again, they're not mutually exclusive.
I didn't say there was pleasure, I said that Iraqis support Saddam being removed and believe the war was worth it.
Shirin,
No, I only believe statements from people claiming to be geniuses.
make that "totally unsupported statements"
Occupier: "To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest." link
And I'm saying that if the coalition forces don't find a way to get out soon, that opinion may change
--
living conditions are bad, the war made them worse
--
Maybe I missed something in the report, the one I read only gave comparison figures with before the Iran/Iraq war.
Can you point to the part of the report that can be used to justify this assertion?
soru
Meyrick,
Exactly, we seized possession of Iraq and maintain control over it by or as if by conquest. I don't know anyone who contests that.
I do agree the coalition should train Iraqi troops and police and get out as soon as its clear Iraqi democracy and freedom is on reasonably solid ground. But then, that's U.S. policy anyway. Hopefully that will happen in 2006 as some elected Iraqis are predicting.
"you're delusional.
"There's that genius at work! I stand in awe of your brilliance.
"nuts like you and Shirin..."
When you can't argue the issues effectively, get personal!
I thought the idea was for the Iraqis to possess & control Iraq.
Meyrick,
That's what we'd like to transition to, but it clearly wasn't the case, esp. nt before January.
Shirin,
Then I guess you'll be getting personal. Oh wait, you already did. Well, maybe some more totally unsupported statements?
TallDave
If Iraqis are saying the coalition are "occupiers" rather than "liberators", then surely that suggests they think it is the coalition that possesses (owns) Iraq rather than the Iraq people?
By the way, I don't consider it in any way significant, but according to test scores I do formally qualify as a genius.
This is simply pathetic.
"When you can't argue the issues effectively, get personal!"
says the author of
"according to test scores I do formally qualify as a genius."
TallDave,
This just seems to me like Northern Ireland. If you put troops in civilian areas (especially without peace keeping experience) they quickly end up pissing off the local population (the honeymoon ends!)
Meyrick,
Well, as I said, U.S. forces are in fact occupying the country.
Meyrick,
I agree, but I think you would agree the Iraqi pro-democracy forces need some more time before they can handle the country on their own.
TallDave
The coalition forces are simply not welcome anymore! The average Iraqi (except Kurds) do not like the average soldier.
Meyrick,
Again, I don't disagree.
I'm probably going to get roasted for saying this, but what the hell!
What disturbs me the most about all of this, is that no one seems to be asking how things could have been done better. Liberals (such as myself) have been happy to point out how things are possibly worse than before, yet seemed rather short on alternative ideas for getting rid of Saddam. Pro-war types have been saying that although there have been civilian deaths, this is an unfortunate cost for democracy and long term freedom/prosperity, yet pro-war types have been rather short on suggestions to reduce the costs.
This is not some irrelevant historical question. I believe in democracy (not so hot on capitalism), but military power is a blunt instrument that can go easy wrong (NI is a good example). I doubt even the US has the military power to practice regime change anywhere else for the time being.
If we are genuine in wanting democracy to spread, other ways, or at least complimentary ways, must be found.
Meyrick,
Well, I won't roast you, but I will point you to this:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/05/syria-democracy-protest.html
Freedom and democracy are the right of every human being. People everywhere are beginning to wake up to this reality. We should do everything we can to encourage that.
I agree military force is an ugly tool, and should only be used where no other methods can reasonably be expected to work.
And this:
http://www.spiritofamerica.net/cgi-bin/soa/project.pl?rm=view_project&r…
http://www.spiritofamerica.net/site/blog/Why_Lebanon_Matters
"Shirin and Jeff think the regime that killed 1 million in the Iran-Iraq war..."
The Iraqi regime did not kill 1 million in the Iran-Iraq war. The killing in that war was divided approximately evenly between the Iraqi regime, and the Iranian regime. And that war could have been over in about a year with Iran as the clear winner. Unfortunately for both sides, after they had won the war and obtained a cease fire agreement, the Iranian regime decided to break the cease fire, and invade Iraq. The Iraqi regime had no choice in that situation but to defend itself, just as the Iran regime had no choice but to defend itself when Iraq attacked it.
By an even remotely reasonable analysis, culpability for the deaths in that war is shared by both sides.
"put 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves"
This number is an unsupported allegation. Based on the mass graves uncovered so far, the number is probably much less than 300,000. However, let's accept that number for the sake of argument. 300,000 in mass graves over approximately a 30 year period versus approximately 100,000 killed in 18 months. You do the math. And if you don't like the 100,000 number obtained in the only scientific study conducted to date then, go with a lower number. 20,000 is a nice round number and not at all unrealistic.
"...was a better deal."
Unlike the brutality of Saddam's regime, the brutality, violence, rampant crime, destruction, death, deterioration of basic services, unemployment, lack of basic freedom, lack of food, the deterioration of women's and girls' rights and freedoms, arbitrary house raids in the middle of the night, arbitrary arrests, and the constant terror of the current situation completely permeate the lives of and adversely affect every Iraqi every minute of every day. So yes, as bad a deal as it was, was a better deal overall.
TallDave, perhaps you should go to Iraq and experience life there as an ordinary Iraqi for a month or so. Then at least you could speak from direct knowledge and experience.
Shirin,
I see you went with both personal and totally unsupported statememts.
Young men who once feared being dragooned or arrested by Hussein's ubiquitous henchmen now stroll the streets and breathe deeply of their freedom. Iraqis who used to refer to Hussein only with a wordless glance over their shoulder, for fear of being overheard and reported, now unflinchingly voice their opinions. And millions who survived on low, fixed wages under Hussein rejoice at changes that have given them more cash to cope with the profusion of consumer goods coming across newly opened borders.
"The money is good," said Tala Hassan, 40, a former army officer whose pension is twice what he earned on active duty, thanks to raises by the new government. And he earns more on the side, operating a small game room and driving a taxi.
"In Saddam's time, we had no refrigerators, no air conditioning in the houses, not enough food," Hassan said. "Now we can buy all those things."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46796-2005Jan29.html
Oops, you lose again.
You are a Sunni, am I right?
I remember quite a lot of people marching in support of Syria as well. My point is not that Syria is some sort of good guy (far from it), but simplistic diplomacy is likely to piss off certain factions.
Some Muslims, including in the UK, actually think democracy is un-Islamic. Until people start listening to that opinion and trying to understand where it comes from, attempts to create democracy are going to have only sporadic successes.
The Human Rights Watch report (then called Middle East Watch) is called "Needless Deaths in the Gulf War." You can find it at http://hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/
The parts dealing with attacks on electricity and also water treatment plants is in Chapter 4. They're careful about what they can prove, so they only mention attacks on plants in Basra. There are quotes from the Barton Gellman article that I cited, including one by targeting planner Colonel Warden who said that we destroyed Iraq's electricity so we'd have leverage over him--do what we say and we'd let him fix it. So it wasn't just to hamper military communications. Frankly, I'm surprised a military guy would admit this--most of the time a government spokesman would be more careful about our real motives. But maybe Colonel Warden is naive about public relations.
On the other hand, only a minority of Americans give a damn whether we commit war crimes or not and will grasp at any rationalization, so it's probably me that's being naive here.
Regarding mass graves, Saddam filled most of them either when he was our ally or had our tacit approval (which he did, even in 1991 when he suppressed the Shiite rebellion.) A lot of American allies fill mass graves without provoking so much as an aid cutoff. And we may have filled a few ourselves in Iraq--it's hard to tell what happened in Fallujah, for instance.
Again: it was a war. Started by Saddam, to seize Kuwait and rule it the same way he ruled Iraq: brutally. So the U.S. targeted dual-use facilities. That happens in war. Of course, the logical person to blame would be Saddam, but then I'm one of those Americans who don't
give a damn whether we commit war crimes or not and will grasp at any rationalization, so it's probably me that's being naive here.
so what do I know? Plus, I'm not even a self-proclaimed genius.
Saddam filled most of [the mass graves] either when he was our ally or had our tacit approval
Oh, I guess that makes it okay then.
"The survey of 1,967 Iraqis was conducted Feb. 27-March 5 [2005]..."
TallDave, you really should learn the difference between objectively quantifiable and subjectively verifiable facts and reality, and answers to questions on opinion polls. They are two very different things.
Which part is okay, Talldave, Saddam's killings, all the other killings by other American allies, America's own killings, or what? And yeah, rationalization is a bad thing--you see it all through history, both sides in a conflict expressing shock and horror at the barbarism of the other side. I don't think Americans are immune from the sins you find everyone else committing, and maybe you'd agree in the abstract, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it when we get down to actual cases.
Shirin,
LOL You claimed
Shirin: Iraqis say today is worse than yesterday, yesterday was worse than the day before, and tomorrow will be worse than today.
Reality (from links above): Despite the systemic collapse of government and civic institutions, a wave of looting and violence, and shortages of water and electricity, 67 percent of 1,178 Iraqis told a Gallup survey team that within five years, their lives would be better than before the American and British invasion.
Notably, across the country, no more than 26 percent say any of these conditions are worse now than a year ago; in each about four in 10 or more say things are better; and in each sizable majorities - mostly three-quarters - expect things to improve over the next 12 months.
According to the poll, 62% say the country is headed in the right direction and 23% say it is headed in the wrong direction.
You should really learn not to make totally false and easily disprovable statements.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Donald,
You're the one arguing they're OK. I was being sarcastic.
Donald,
In case you've forgotten, the debate is whether Iraq was better off under Saddam, not whether the US has done things wrong too.
Meyrick,
CC: TallDave
Claims that the IRI is non-partisan are simply false. That becomes obvious the moment you look at the roster of its Board of Directors. It is a virtual who's who in the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations. Quite a few of the members served in two out of the three, and a few served in all three. IRI polls are entirely driven by their political agenda, and are used primarily for P.R., not for information gathering. The fact that, at least as of the last time I checked, they have only published it as a PowerPoint presentation is an indication of its purpose.
Among other issues, there have consistently been serious - and obvious - sampling flaws in their polls. In short, they oversample groups that are more likely to give the answers they want, and to undersample those who are likely to give answers they do not want. The wording of some of their questions is prejudicial. In this, as in other polls they have conducted, their interpretations are often not justified by the numbers.
Polls taken by non-partison information-gathering organizations, such as Gallup, and Zogby, are far, far more reliable.
"Pro-war types have been saying that although there have been civilian deaths, this is an unfortunate cost for democracy and long term freedom/prosperity..."
That's easy enough to say given that it is not the war cheerleaders, but Iraqis, who are paying such a heavy price, and so far have not seen any return on their investment, but just increased misery.
"If we are genuine in wanting democracy to spread, other ways, or at least complimentary ways, must be found."
It is not the business of the United States or any other state to decide what form of government any other country must have. It is utterly immoral to force its will on another country by the use of deadly and destructive military aggression. But of course the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was not about spreading democracy.
The whole notion of forcible "nation building" by one state on another is absurd on its face. Nation building is an internal matter, not something to be forced by one state on another.
"Freedom and democracy are the right of every human being."
And you will make sure they get those rights, even it means depriving them of even more basics rights - the right to remain alive, the right to shelter, the right to food, the right to clean water, the right to medical care, the right to go to sleep at night without the fear that they and their family will be buried alive when a one-ton bomb turns their home to rubble.
PS Democracy is NOT a human right.
TallDave:
I very handy survey to consult on Iraqi's perception of their current condition is the National Science Foundation's Iraq Human Subject Social Dynamic poll conducted last year in Iraq by Dr. Mansoor Moaddel. It surveyed over 2300 Iraqi's, which is a good sample size.
Inasmuch as I am at work right now I don't have time to dig up the link from NSF, but you industrious lads could google it up.
Of course, most of it's results will displease Shirin so I'm sure he'll soon be denouncing the NSF as a right-wing think tank.
Btw, anyone who thinks that that IRI or it's sister organization the National Democratic Institute are "partisan think-tanks" needs to expand their reference library beyond Wikipedia...or maybe even visit their respective web-sites.
Both engage almost exclusively in organizing and training grassroots democratic institutions in countries that lack them - or ones that formerly lacked them like Ukraine and Georgia. How utterly sinister, eh?
Anyway, here is a synopsis of Moaddel's survey (sorry about posting the entire article, but it's from factiva):
Iraqi opinion poll shows that reassuring Sunnis is vital
Mansoor Moaddel
907 words
18 May 2005
Daily Star
English
(c) 2005 THE DAILY STAR, BEIRUT, LEBANON.
Beirut -- Most of what we think about Iraq is shaped by the daily violence that plagues the country. Intelligence and military analysts debate how much of the violence is due to the presence of foreigners, though it is widely conceded that most of the attacks can be attributed to what American officials call "former regime elements," with the Iraqi Sunni community the main pillar of the resistance. Having dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and despite numbering less than a quarter of the overall population, Sunnis, it is said, are fighting to prevent their communal interests from being overwhelmed by the majority Shiites and the Kurds.
Late last year, I was an organizer of a major national survey of Iraqi public opinion that demonstrated the complexity of the country's communal relations. To be sure, Iraqis of different ethnic or religious backgrounds are divided over many issues, but they also embrace a common national identity, as well as a desire for democracy.
To begin, we asked Iraqis to reflect on the fall of Saddam Hussein: Was Iraq better off without him? Among Sunnis, only 23 percent thought so. Among Shiites, however, 87 percent saw a better Iraq without Saddam. Kurds exceeded this number, with 95 percent claiming an improvement.
At the same time, overwhelming majorities of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites - more than eight out of 10 - preferred to be seen as Iraqis first, believing that "Iraq will be a better society if people treat one another as Iraqis." Strong majorities also endorsed the idea of a democratic system for Iraq.
Important divergences re-emerge on social questions. Kurds have a much more egalitarian view of gender relations than either Sunnis or Shiites. Asked if university education was more important for boys than girls, 78 percent of Kurds disagreed. Among Shiites, the number disagreeing was 50 percent. Among Sunnis, the number fell below a majority: only 44 percent believed in the equal importance of higher education for girls and boys. Similarly, 78 percent of Kurds rejected polygamy, compared to just 49 percent of both Shiites and Sunnis.
While these findings demonstrate the shadings of opinion across Iraq's dominant communities, they do not explain attitudes that may be behind the continuing violence that disfigures Iraqi life. The most radical differences in opinion can be found in communal perceptions of control of the future - the possibility of building a better life in post-Saddam Iraq - and security.
We asked respondents to rate how much control they had over their lives and how optimistic they were about the future, using a scale where 10 was a highly optimistic sense of control and one a deep level of powerlessness and pessimism.
Kurds had the highest perception of control and optimism, with 19 percent indicating the highest level of control over their lives and 17 percent the greatest degree of hope in the future. The comparable figures for Shiites were 10 and 14 percent, respectively, but were just 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively, for Sunnis. The results for extreme pessimism were skewed in the opposite direction: 14 percent of Sunnis thought things were as bad as could be, while only 2 percent of Kurds and 3 percent of Shiites shared this opinion.
The survey also made clear the effects of localized violence: 17 percent of Kurds, 41 percent of Shiites and 77 percent of Sunnis felt life in Iraq was unpredictable and dangerous, a clear demonstration of the effects of the ongoing resistance centered in the "Sunni triangle."
This disparity in attitudes toward the future could determine what eventually happens in Iraq. Widespread political violence in both Iran and Latin America in the 1960 and 1970 demonstrated a connection between popular feelings of powerlessness and the growth of urban guerilla movements. Leaders of these groups often defended terrorism by insisting that violence was the only means of bringing hope to demoralized people. This argument, long discredited, resonates in the actions of the Iraqi insurgents and their fanatical allies.
This is not to say that an insecure and demoralized community supports violence. By its immobilization, however, such a community may simply be too passive to oppose the violent men acting in its name. If Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada as-Sadr and his followers chose to stop their own violence, it was not simply because of the superior firepower of the coalition forces. It was because Shiite religious leadership felt empowered, optimistic and secure enough to press the Sadrists to end their revolt.
If the Sunni leadership were to feel that it has a stake in the outcome of political events now unfolding, it would also be able to stop the insurgency. That's why the political talks - open and clandestine - now reported to be underway are vital. They offer the possibility for the Sunni community to participate in the new system.
The U.S.-led coalition can help by taking more steps to reinforce a message of hope and optimism for Iraq's exhausted and demoralized Sunnis. Military action by itself may simply make matters worse.
Mansoor Moaddel, a principal investigator for a national survey of Iraqi public opinion, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, is professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University and the author of "Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse." THE DAILY STAR publishes this in collaboration with Project Syndicate ( www.project-syndicate.org ).
Right now the Iraqis are worse off than they were under Saddam in his final year. That seems fairly clear. What things will be like in five years I think it'd be silly to predict.
On the war itself, my impression is that many Iraqis initially welcomed the Americans. That changed when they realized that the Americans didn't really seem to have their welfare at the top of their agenda. This shouldn't have come as a big shock. Anyway, cynical comments aside,
the Iraqis would be probably be significantly better off today if the US government had planned things a lot better than they did. And not resorted to torture when the lack of planning allowed an insurgency to acquire lots of plastic explosives from unguarded weapons storage facilities, for instance.
"he has hundreds of links to back up his stuff"
So what? You could claim the world is flat, and post hundreds of links to back it up, and it would not make the world flat.
" thought the idea was for the Iraqis to possess & control Iraq."
I guess that's why the U.S. is unilaterally building numerous permanent - sorry, I mean "enduring" - military bases. I guess that is why they are also unilaterally setting up the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad.
It is the right of every state to decide whether or not it will maintain relations with another state, and what the nature of those relations will be. It is the right of every state to determine whether a foreign state will set up and maintain military bases on its soil, and to determine the location, size, and population of those military bases. It is the right of every state to determine whether a foreign state will maintain an embassy, and determine the location and size of that embassy. It is the right of every state to be presented with ambassadorial candidates, and to reject any candidate for any reason. The U.S. denies all of these rights to Iraq.
Tnanks Kerry, that is helpful.
Donald,
Right now the Iraqis are worse off than they were under Saddam in his final year. That seems fairly clear
Really?
"International monitors and prisoners who witnessed his dreadocracy report that under Saddam's direction, some inmates were branded, given electric shocks to their genitals or beaten. The fingernails of some were pulled out. Others were hung from rotating ceiling fans, raped or burned with irons and blowtorches. Guards dripped acid on the skin of some and often denied prisoners food and water. Saddam would force people he considered traitors to watch videotapes of their children being tortured or their wives raped.
And all this is in addition to his using chemical and biological weapons on his own citizens.
Like father, like sons. Qusai and Odai Hussein, who died in a shootout with American troops in July, were malignant clones. Odai would order his guards to grab young women from the streets so he could rape them. Qusai sometimes watched as prisoners he wanted dead were dropped into shredding machines -- some head first, some feet first so they'd suffer longer.
Even if intelligence sources got some of the details wrong, the
brutality was so pervasive, so consistent, so unbelievable in scope and cruelty that words cannot convey the atmosphere of fear that permeated all of Iraqi society -- a fear that continued after his fall and before his capture. So far, no theory adequately explains how things got so bad. All we know for sure is that Hussein ran one of the bloodiest regimes in history. Even people who have criticized President Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq and remove him do not deny Hussein's maliciousness."
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=20031…
I think being fed into a shredder is one those "quality-of-life" issues that have improved of late.
Gruesome videotape allegedly shows brutal Fedayeen Saddam punishment
Members of the Fedayeen Saddam throw a bound man from a rooftop. This man, and others shown on the videotape, survived the fall.
VIDEO
Viewer discretion advised: Alleged tape of torture under Saddam's regime has been obtained by independent sources.
PLAY VIDEO
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A gruesome videotape found in April by U.S. troops in Iraq allegedly shows the brutal punishment administered by the Fedayeen Saddam to enforce discipline under the regime of Saddam Hussein
On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/30/sprj.irq.torture.tape/
Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete.
"When you have people filming in front of crowds cheering and clapping, you have people cutting off people's tongues and cutting off people's heads and chopping off their fingers and chopping off their hands, throwing them off three-story buildings, you learn something about a group of people and how they lived their lives and how they treated their people."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/30/sprj.irq.torture.tape/
It is the right of every state to decide whether or not it will maintain relations with another state, and what the nature of those relations will be. It is the right of every state to determine whether a foreign state will set up and maintain military bases on its soil, and to determine the location, size, and population of those military bases. It is the right of every state to determine whether a foreign state will maintain an embassy, and determine the location and size of that embassy. It is the right of every state to be presented with ambassadorial candidates, and to reject any candidate for any reason. The U.S. denies all of these rights to Iraq.
More unsupported and easily disproven BS.
With American troops facing continuing battles in Iraq, the Bush administration on Friday did little to play down remarks by U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer (search), who said the United States would withdraw after the June 30 handover if the Iraqi Governing Council requested.
"We don't stay in countries where we're not wanted. So if the provisional government, the interim government were to ask us to leave, we would leave," Bremer told a delegation visiting Baghdad on Friday from Iraq's Diyala province.
Bremer added that he doesn't think that will happen in six weeks, when the United States is also expected to declare its occupation of the country over. There are 135,000 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.
In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell (search), meeting with the foreign ministers of the G-8 countries, half of which are coalition members, reinforced the notion of a pullout upon request.
"Were this interim government to say to us, 'We really think we can handle this on our own, it would be better if you were to leave,' we would leave," Powell said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120015,00.html
Tall Dave, I appear to remember similar statements from Krushchev about the Soviet Union pulling out of places.
The point of the Lancet study, one which you've endorsed Talldave, is that the death rate since the invasion has almost certainly gone up. The confidence interval isn't negative at the lower bound, you know. So in that sense Iraqis are worse off. They're worse off in some other ways too--women have less freedom than before. Maybe things will get better in time, but from what I've read that's not the current situation.
In general Saddam was a vicious murdering brutal thug, like many other American allies. To be honest, probably like some American politicians would be--it's our system that keeps our nastier politicians in check, I think, not their own consciences and when they deal with people overseas I think some American "statesmen" let their inner Saddam out.
I think the shredder story has been discredited, but I don't have links. Doesn't matter for determining that Saddam was a really nasty mass-murderer.
"women have less freedom than before."
Women have less freedom and fewer rights than EVER before in history, and it is getting worse due to several factors.
Traditionally Iraqi women have had a lot of rights, freedoms, privileges and were equal to men in many areas of life. Iraqi women were taking an active part in public life by the '20's and '30's. State-provided education through advanced degrees has always been available to women on the same basis as to men. Women's rights and equality eventually became a matter of law in Iraq. Women in rural and poor areas still had quite some way to go, but Iraqi women were taking some rights and privileges for granted while American women were still struggling for them. All of that has been blown away by American bombs.
"Maybe things will get better in time"
It is highly unlikely that the loss of rights and freedoms resultiang from the unleashing and bringing to power of religious extremism will do anything but continue to increase over time. Even Christian women are increasingly afraid to leave the house without wearing "Islamic" covering. The sister of a very close friend of mine is a professor at Najaf university. Prior to "liberation" the hijab - headscarf and modest clothing - she wore was always sufficient. Now she cannot leave the house without being harrassed for not being covered enough.
The unspeakably horrible safety and security situation continues to get worse over time. It may eventually improve - though not until the Americans withdraw - but it will be a very, very long time before Iraqi women (or anyone else) can leave their houses without constant fear.
"In general Saddam was a vicious murdering brutal thug, like many other American allies."
Like most who obtain power, he would do just about anything he could get away with in order to retain it. However, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis never encountered his brutality, and even at the worst of times most Iraqis had some semblance of normal life. The brutality of the occupation and its horrific sequelae affects every Iraqi at every moment of the day and night in ways no one can imagine who has not experienced it. There is no longer even a small semblance of normal life in Iraq.
"I think the shredder story has been discredited, but I don't have links."
It was one of many exaggerated rumours that had no basis in reality.
--
The point of the Lancet study, one which you've endorsed Talldave, is that the death rate since the invasion has almost certainly gone up.
--
That's a very strange reading of the study. If it shows anything, it is that the _average_ of the war and occupation was in some sense worse than the immediate pre-war period.
In addition, saddam knew the war was coming, so the immediate pre-war period is best considered part of the effects of the war, not a valid baseline to compare to, or a stable norm.
soru
Eli,
I don't seem to remember the Soviet Union holding free and fair elections or estbalishing a Bill of Rights in any country they conquered. They weren't big on freedom and democracy.
Donald,
The point of the Lancet study, one which you've endorsed Talldave, is that the death rate since the invasion has almost certainly gone up.
Yes, if you include the 30,000 who died directly from the military action to remove the Hussein regime that is true. However if you take them out, to ascertain the "postwar" effect aside from direct military effects, the lower bound becomes negative. Still, in my view the Lancet study mostly just says nothing useful.
Austria, you could look it up. Thank you for the straight line.
TD: Austria.
OK, what about the other 30-plus countries they conquered?
Thank you for such a ridiculous comparison.
Also, Autria was not conquered strictly by the Soviets, it was divided among the Allies.
http://www.austria.org/oldsite/nov96/eberhard.html
While Austria by then had a democratically elected government, the country was effectively governed by Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union. Each occupation zone was for all intents and purposes economically autonomous and each was loosely attached to the respective occupation areas in Germany (U.S. and France), Italy (Britain) and Hungary (USSR). Thus, Salzburg and Upper Austria, for instance, had closer contact with Bavaria than with Lower Austria.
Austria had no diplomatic representation abroad. The only way the Austrian government could communicate with the governments of the four occupying powers was through the four High Commissioners in Vienna.
As the economic situation deteriorated, the Austrian government early in 1946 decided to send envoys to London, Paris, Washington and Moscow. Ludwig Kleinwaechter was the diplomat selected for Washington. (He became Austria's first postwar ambassador to the United States). Kleinwaechter and his colleague Heinrich Schmid, who was sent to London, prevailed upon the American and British governments to review the Austrian situation not only to lend assistance in the economic area but also to ameliorate the occupation regime. Thereafter, the British representative in the Allied Council in Vienna proposed that the Allied control mechanism be amended to grant the Austrian government a greater degree of sovereignty and to let the four occupation zones become more integrated. The attitude of the Soviet Union was of course crucial. There was, however, a certain degree of optimism. After all, the USSR was proud that it was in Moscow that the declaration regarding the restoration of Austria's independence after the war had been signed in 1943.
In the subsequent Allied discussions in London, which laid the groundwork for the occupation regimes in Germany and Austria, the Soviets made a distinction between Germany and Austria. The "Four in a Jeep" in Vienna would hardly have been possible in Berlin. What the Soviets were inflexible about was their insistence on reaping economic benefits from the occupation in Austria. The question of the so-called German assets in Austria bedeviled the conclusion of an Austrian treaty almost to the last day of Allied negotiations in 1955.
Shirin,
State-provided education through advanced degrees has always been available to women on the same basis as to men. Women's rights and equality eventually became a matter of law in Iraq. Women in rural and poor areas still had quite some way to go, but Iraqi women were taking some rights and privileges for granted while American women were still struggling for them. All of that has been blown away by American bombs.
That's a bit rosy. It's true women were quite liberated in Iraq, but Saddam was pushing those rights back.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Background on Women's Status in Iraq Prior to the Fall of the Saddam Hussein Government
In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women's and girls' status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors.22 The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein's decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power. In addition, the U.N. sanctions imposed after the war have had a disproportionate impact on women and children (especially girls).23 For example, the gender gap in school enrollment (and subsequently female illiteracy) increased dramatically due to families' financial inability to send their children to school. When faced with limited resources, many families chose to keep their girl children at home.24 According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as a result of the national literacy campaign, as of 1987 approximately 75 percent of Iraqi women were literate; however, by year-end 2000, Iraq had the lowest regional adult literacy levels, with the percentage of literate women at less than 25 percent.25
Women and girls have also suffered from increasing restrictions on their freedom of mobility and protections under the law.26 In collusion with conservative religious groups and tribal leaders, the government issued numerous decrees and introduced legislation negatively impacting women's legal status in the labor code, criminal justice system, and personal status laws.27 In 2001, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Violence against Women reported that since the passage of the reforms in 1991, an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been victims of "honor killings."28 In recent years, both the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) administrations in northern Iraq issued decrees suspending laws allowing for mitigation of sentences in honor crimes, but the degree to which the suspension has been implemented is unknown.29
Furthermore, as the economy constricted, in an effort to ensure employment for men the government pushed women out of the labor force and into more traditional roles in the home. In 1998, the government reportedly dismissed all females working as secretaries in governmental agencies.30 In June 2000, it also reportedly enacted a law requiring all state ministries to put restrictions on women working outside the home.31 Women's freedom to travel abroad was also legally restricted and formerly co-educational high schools were required by law to provide single-sex education only, further reflecting the reversion to religious and tribal traditions.32 As a result of these combined forces, by the last years of Saddam Hussein's government the majority of women and girls had been relegated to traditional roles within the home.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
At the age of 14, I was arrested by the regime merely because I joined the Iraqi Women's League. I was not the only young girl arrested for such a trivial offence.
http://www.warroom.com/iraqiwar/firstperson.htm
I'm still curious, so I'll ask a third time: are you a Sunni?
The "Human Subject Social Dynamic" does not appear to be on the internet, but found this article about it. Again, the coalition is distrusted/disliked:
""I was surprised to see the Shiias were so anti-American," he said. "They are very suspicious of America's intentions.""
Link
Ah but Dave, I never said they left did I, I merely said that they said they were there on the invitation of the government. and would leave if invited to leave, which they surely did not do in Hungary, but did do in the DDR.
I didn't say you said they left, I said they weren't big on freedom and democracy. If you don't allow elections to replace the gov't you set up, as the US has alreay done in Iraq, the claim you'll leave if asked is pretty hollow.
TallDave, the U.S. was dragged,kicking and screaming, by Ayat Ullah Sistani into allowing elections after steadfastly refusing to allow anything remotely resembling a democratic process of any kind at any level (Iraqis also have been given absolutely no say in any of the decisions or actions that affected the short, mid, or long-term future of their country in any area, including political, economic, infrastructural, civil, social, or cultural, but that is a different subject). Paul Bremer even went so far as to cancel local elections that had been scheduled by his predecessor, Jay Garner, and to dismiss local officials that had been elected by the people and replace them by his own, often incredibly inappropriate, hand-picked appointees.
Once they were dragged kicking and screaming into allowing elections the Bush administration took every step they could get away with to define a process that they would be able to manipulate to their advantage. They appointed their own hand-picked people to the "Independent" (sic) Election Committee, and created a system that gave their only ally in Iraq, the Kurds, disproportionate power amounting among other things to veto power in the "assembly", and the ability to bring the process into gridlock any time they were ordered to.
They spent tens of millions to promote their candidates, and made sure they had a few trojan horses, such as Abdul Mehdi, in the other major lists. They even resurrected their warm and loving relationship with Chalabi when it became clear that their enormous investments in `Allawi's and Yawar's campaigns were not going to pay off, and they were going to need more friends in the UIA than they already had there. They also "met" with the UIA shortly before the election and "explained" certain "realities" to them. It was after these meetings that the UIA began to back down on three of the most critical planks in their platform, including demanding U.S. withdrawal.
And of course, there was no intependent supervision of the election, and the U.S. - hardly a disinterested third party - had possession and control of the ballots during the process of transporting and counting them, which took several times as long as it should have, completel with mysterious recounts, which may or may not be perfectly innocent.
To put it succinctly, that the election and government selection process that was designed, supervised, and controlled by an occupying power with a clear interest in the outcome, and without the benefit of independent third party monitoring, makes any claim of honest intentions pretty hollow.
Shirin,
No, the intent was always to transition to democracy, it was always a question of when not if.
The elections were free and fair, and Iraq has a real democratic gov't that has invited the U.S. to stay and assist in the continuing process of democratization. As usual your allegations otherwise are ridiculous and totally unsupported.
But of course you already know that what you're posting is misleading, and are doing it deliberately. Why don't you just be honest and admit you oppose democracy in Iraq?
This is equivalent to "Why don't you just be honest and admit you enjoy masturbating over pictures of dead arabs".
As to the claim that everything in Iraq is just hunk-dory. Someone hasn't told this guy: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1374021.htm.
"the intent was always to transition to democracy, it was always a question of when not if."
And your sole "evidence" for this is, of course, the words of the proven habitual prevaricators of the Bush administration.
If the true intention was to "transition to democracy" (whatever THAT means), then why did the Bush administration go to such enormous lengths to maintain control over every aspect of the country, to delay the "transition" by virtually any means possible, and finally to make sure they maintained as much ability as possible to manipulate the process once they had no viable choice but to allow some kind of election to take place?
"The elections were free and fair a, and Iraq has a real democratic gov't"
TallDave, you can repeat that all day every day and it will not make it a fact. There are very specific criteria that an election must meet to qualify as free. There are very specific criteria that an election must meet to qualify as fair. The election that took place in January did not meet even the minimum requirements to qualify as free and fair. The process of selecting the "government" does not qualify as democratic. Therefore, the election was neither free nor fair, and the "government" is not a "real democratic" one no matter how many times you insist - without a bit of supporting evidence or a single supporting argument.
"that has invited the U.S. to stay and assist in the continuing process of democratization."
Now that you are just making up out of whole cloth. The "government" has not "invited" the U.S. to stay, and they certainly have not asked them to assist in any "process of democratization".
"Why don't you just be honest and admit you oppose democracy in Iraq?"
Perhaps I don't "admit" that I oppose democracy in Iraq because what I oppose is not democracy in Iraq, but the creation at the point of a gun of a charade that is falsely labeled democracy.
Ian Gould, your link did not work. Please try again.
Ian,
No I think in Shirin's case he really does oppose democracy, and for good reason.
Shirin,
I posted links to back up everything I said. You can't, because it's all sophistry and BS. You lose.
LOL here's another link, just to show that in fact Shirin is the real "proven habitual prevaricator."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4471997
Sorry Shirin, freedom and democracy are the inalienable rights of every human being, and Iraqis are not going to give those rights up.
Like Riverbend, Shirin's vociferous and counterfactual rhetoric is probably best understood as coming from the Sunni minority that was the most powerful group in Iraq under Saddam. It's natural they bitterly resent their loss of power and privilege and the concomitant imposition of egalitarian freedom and democracy that came with the end of that brutal regime, and equally understandable that they would tend to whitewash the regime's crimes during their heyday while painting the worst picture possible of the war that drove them from power, the aftermath of that war, and its architects. Of course they would like the US troops to leave so they can overthrow the democratic gov't by force and re-assert tyrannical Sunni rule over Iraq, as the Sunni insurgency has been trying to do for some time now. Their views probably are fairly representative of a good proportion of Sunnis - but not of the 80% of Iraqis who are not Sunnis, as the polls I posted amply demonstrate. His counterfactual insistence that elections were not free and fair, that "Democracy is NOT a human right" and "It is not the business of the United States or any other state to decide what form of government any other country must have. " and "Nation building is an internal matter, not something to be forced by one state on another." make much more sense viewed in this light.
"freedom and democracy are the inalienable rights of every human being"
"Freedom" is not a human right, inalienable or otherwise. If it were there could be no laws restricting any kind of freedom. Only certain specific freedoms are human rights, most other specific freedoms are definitely not human rights.
Democracy is not a human right, period. Human beings DO have the right not to be attacked, killed, tortured, deprived of shelter, education, medical care, clean water, and basic decent living conditions in the name of democracy.
"Iraqis are not going to give those rights up."
And what, exactly, qualifies you to speak for the Iraqi people?
Oh, I don't need to speak for freedom- and democracy-loving Iraqis. They speak for themsleves just fine.
Free Iraqi
I was not living before the 9th of April and now I am, so let me speak!
http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/
I promised to tell you about different aspects of life in Iraq before and after the liberation, so today I'll be writing about another aspect (HEALTH CARE)
To those who think that conditions in Iraq nowadays are worse than they were under Saddan's regime, here are some notes...There are no more torture rooms, no more mass graves and we will make sure that it remains so.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Democracy and freedom (within reasonable bounds) are the most basic and important human rights, and Iraqis will not be handing them back over now that they have them.
"another link, just to show that in fact Shirin is the real "proven habitual prevaricator."
"U.N. Representative: Iraqi Elections Appeared Fair, Transparent
"
A link is only as good as its contents.
1. That something APPEARED to be a certain way is a very equivocal statement, and certainly does not confirm as a fact that it was that way, or even that the speaker unequivocally believes it was that way.
2. Someone claiming, or even honestly believing something does not make it factual. He could have many reasons for claiming or believing something that is simply not borne out by the evidence or the reality.
3. To state that the elections were transparent flies in the face of reality and logic given that, for starters, a) the identities of the overwhelming majority of candidates were unknown, 2) the positions on issues of the overwhelming majority of the candidates were unknown, c) the positions on issues of the overwhelming majority of the lists were unknown.
4. By no means can an election be free when the only parties who are able to campaign or even make their positions, or even their identities known are those who have their own militias, can afford to hire a large number of private armed guards, and/or who are provided armed guards and other forms of support by an occupying power that has an interest and a stake in the outcome.
5. By no means can an election be free or fair when large numbers of those who want to vote are prevented from doing so, and in which people feel compelled to vote even though they may not want to. Both were the case in Iraq.
6. That an election is free or fair is, at best, suspect when the armed forces of the occupying power, which has an interest and a stake in the outcome, have control over the ballots and their counting. It becomes even more suspect when the armed forces of the occupying power whisk the ballots out of sight, and when there are lengthy, unexplained delays in the results.
I could go on, but that will have to be enough for now.
I'm not sure why the previous link didn't work so here it is again www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1374021.htm.
I dropped out the initial http etc. so that may help.
Here's a sample:
Violence crippling Iraq rebuilding effort
The US official in charge of reconstruction efforts in Iraq says Washington is far behind in plans to pump $27.7 billion into reconstruction because it is bogged down by an insurgency that has killed hundreds of contractors.
William Taylor says too much of the available money is being diverted to meet increased security demands.
"There is a long way to go. We recognise a lot of work needs to be done," Mr Taylor said.
He said it was still too early to predict when Iraqis will enjoy adequate electricity and other essential services, more than two years after the US-led invasion.
Relentless insurgent attacks have killed 295 contractors for US projects alone since reconstruction began, said Theresa Shope, spokeswoman for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.
Violence has forced foreign governments and companies to pump money into security, draining budgets and delaying rebuilding ventures after years of wars, United Nations trade sanctions and a state stranglehold on the economy.
Boosting the national electricity grid would help raise the spirits of Iraqis who have spent three straight summers battling stifling heat with erratic power for air conditioners.
But bloodshed has put a US plan to improve the electricity grid on hold, Mr Taylor said.
Shirin
On the information avaialble to me I believe the election day itself in Iraq was operated faaily - you may have access to arabic language sources that dispute this.
"Appears" in this context is simpyl the standard cautious language of bureacracy.
The thing is though if I wanted to ensure a certain outcome from an election without resorting to outright ballot-riggin I'd use a process much like the one the US set up.
Base the election on a national electorate to make it harder for popular local leaders to run unless they have the backing of a national party.
Selectively fund and resource the parties you want to do well. (Dave: yes the US wanted Da'wa et al to win - having backed a secular sunni dictator up until 1990, they now seem to think a religious shia dictatorship is the best way to restore stabiltiy and let them leave before the next Presidential election.)
Keep the party lists secret so, for example, Talabani can shore up his support by doing deals with Kurdish clan leaders who collaborated with Saddam during the Anfal campaign.
Ensure that the executive government isn't directly elected so that even if you don't get the assembly you want you can twist arms to get the rulers you want.
Limit the term and the pwoer of the assembly for similar reasons.
The Iraqi Communist Party was polling up to 10% in polls leading up to the election - not because the Iraqis have any love for communism but because they were almost the only party to campaign for a secular Iraq with religious and sexual equality.
In the event, they got only 2 seats in the assembly. That MIGHT have something to do with the occupation forces selectively deciding who got access to the media and who got security for public rallies.
Ian,
The thing is though if I wanted to ensure a certain outcome from an election without resorting to outright ballot--riggin I'd use a process much like the one the US set up.
That's just laughably ridiculous. Lots of countries have party-slate elections. The UN helped set up the elections. There were consultants from dozens of countries. The U.S. did not choose the leaders of Dawa; they've been around for decades.
religious shia dictatorship
That's a ludicrous and counterfactual libel of an elected multiparty gov't that has promised to respect all religions. There are Kurds and Sunnis in the gov't as well; they are hardly a Shia religious dictatorship.
He could have many reasons for claiming or believing something that is simply not borne out by the evidence or the reality
Do tell.
"They are hardly a sha religious dictatorship" -give it a year.
"They are hardly a sha religious dictatorship" -give it a year.
Not likely. The constitution must be approved by Kurds and Sunnis. They wouldn't even bother putting forward a religious dictatorship model as they know it would be rejected, never mind that the Shia don't want one either. Honestly, I don't know why this notion gets tossed around that the Iraqi Shia look at Iran's gov't and say "Yeah! That's what we want!" when even the Iranians don't like it.
Poll after poll after poll says Iraqis do not want a theocracy, though they are receptive to Islamic principles underlying the gov't.
A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991
a. Multi-party parliamentary democracy such as that in most European nations, U.S. and some Asian countries
b. An Islamic democracy, such as that in Pakistan:
c. An Islamic theocracy in which religious leaders or Mullahs have a strong influence, such as in Iran
d. A conservative Islamic theocracy, such as existed in the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan:
e. A conservative Islamic kingdom, such as in Saudi Arabia
f. A royal constitutional regime such as the one prevailed in Iraq before 1958:
g. A system based on the Islamic concept of SHURA (mutual consent)
12. If you had to choose one of these forms of government, which would you choose?
Total Baghdad Shi'ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas Non-Kurdish areas
European version 40 45 27 31 94 32
SHURA 25 20 31 23 4 28
Iran 12 9 23 3 * 13
Royal constitutional 7 6 5 17 1 7
(Iraq pre-1958)
Saudi 4 6 2 9 - 4
Pakistan 2 2 2 3 - 2
Afghan(Taliban) 1 1 2 1 - 1
13. Looking ahead five years, which form of government do you think Iraq is most likely to have?
Total Baghdad Shi'ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas Non-Kurdish areas
European version 50 53 43 37 95 43
SHURA 12 8 14 12 4 14
Royal constitutional 7 4 5 17 1 8
(Iraq pre-1958)
Iran 6 3 12 1 - 7
Saudi 2 3 1 4 - 2
Pakistan 1 1 2 1 - 1
Don't know 19 26 19 27 * 22
14.4 Agree or disagree that these should be included in the new constitution:
Total Baghdad Shi'ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas Non-Kurdish areas
Freedom of speech 94 96 95 89 100 93
Freedom of religion 73 60 84 51 79 72
Freedom of assembly 77 81 81 63 75 77
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-29-key-findings2.htm
I'm sure that, if they actually manage to draft a constitution, it'll be full of all sorts og high-minded ideals.
Much like the one under which Saddam operated.
I pay less attnetion to such proclamations than I do to events such as the recent killings of university students in Basra by religious vigilantes (for the crime of staging a mixed picnic in a public park); the increasing reports of torture and reports that recent murders of sunni clerics were carried out by members of the security forces.
Of course, the majority of Iraqis want democracy - so do the majority of Burmese, Chinese, Saudis and Uzbeks.
The majority of Yugoslavs wanted the country dissolved peacefully.
To quote Sir humphrey Appleby: "Neville Chamberlain wanted peace - and look how that turned out."
The Sunni will probably boycott any future elections as they did the last. The kurds will happily cut a deal which leaves the Sunni under Shia domination provided it advances them towards their goal of independence.
Much like the one under which Saddam operated.
More like the ones every free democracy operate under.
Of course, the majority of Iraqis want democracy - so do the majority of Burmese, Chinese, Saudis and Uzbeks.
The main difference being there aren't 150,000 U.S. troops there to enforce their wishes.
To quote Sir humphrey Appleby: "Neville Chamberlain wanted peace - and look how that turned out."
Thus proving appeasing dictators doesn't work and removing them by force and replacing them with real democracies is a better course.
The Sunni will probably boycott any future elections as they did the last.
Our special correspondent Haider Ajina reports:
"The following is a translation of a headline and article in the April 23rd Edition of the Iraqi Arabic newspaper Nahrain:
" 'Iraqi Sunni Accord confirms that Sunnis will participate in the next elections'
" 'Adnan Mohamed Selman president of the Iraqi Sunni Accord confirmed that Iraqi Arab Sunnis will participate in the next elections. This was backed up by Nasier Alaani, a leader in the Iraqi Islamic Party (a Sunni party) who said that it is of utmost importance that all Iraqis of all factions participate in the writing of the constitution'."
Haider comments:
"Those Sunni leaders who called for the boycott of the Iraqi elections have realize the error of their ways and the damage they did to them selves, their followers and Iraq as a whole. These same leaders are now joining the river of democracy, which quenches the Iraqi peoples thirst for freedom and security. They realize that terrorism and supporting terrorism is not the way.
"It is sad that we do not see this kind of news reported in our mainstream media."
That's two major Sunni parties apparently making a conversion to democracy
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2005/04/sunnis-change-their-mind.html
Ian Gould,
"Violence crippling Iraq rebuilding effort
The US official in charge of reconstruction efforts in Iraq says Washington is far behind in plans to pump $27.7 billion into reconstruction because it is bogged down by an insurgency that has killed hundreds of contractors."
That might be the case now, although it is far from the only factor even today. In the beginning, however, the so-called "reconstruction effort" (a better term would be "deconstruction and transformation") was crippled by a combination of 1) ignoring Iraqis' immediate needs in order to focus on the Bush administration's short and long-term economic, political, military, societal and cultural agenda (oh yes, part of the plan was "social and cultural transformation"), 2) spectacular arrogance, ignorance and incompetence from the very top levels in the White House and the Pentagon on down to every level and every action of the American Occupation Authority, and the military, 3) raging corruption permeating every aspect of Bremer's American Occupation Authority (aka CPA) and virtually everything associated with it, 4) utter disregard, and disrespect amounting to open distain for Iraqis' immediate needs or for their abilities, desires, needs and absolute right to participate in determining, designing, and realizing any aspect whatsoever of their own future.
Democracy is the tyrany of the majority. Which is just fine if there is no majority (this is one of the US's great advantages, there is no dominant ethnic group), but as the Shia constitute about 60% of the population of Iraq, there is a danger. If the Sunni population end up feeling "it us against the Shia & Kurds", then there will be problems for the future of Iraq.
Ian Gould,
"Violence crippling Iraq rebuilding effort
The US official in charge of reconstruction efforts in Iraq says Washington is far behind in plans to pump $27.7 billion into reconstruction because it is bogged down by an insurgency that has killed hundreds of contractors."
That might be the case now, although it is far from the only factor even today. In the beginning, however, the so-called "reconstruction effort" (a better term would be "deconstruction and transformation") was crippled by a combination of 1) ignoring Iraqis' immediate needs in order to focus on the Bush administration's short and long-term economic, political, military, societal and cultural agenda (oh yes, part of the plan was "social and cultural transformation"), 2) spectacular arrogance, ignorance and incompetence from the very top levels in the White House and the Pentagon on down to every level and every action of the American Occupation Authority, and the military, 3) raging corruption permeating every aspect of Bremer's American Occupation Authority (aka CPA) and virtually everything associated with it, 4) utter disregard, and disrespect amounting to open distain for Iraqis' immediate needs or for their abilities, desires, needs and absolute right to participate in determining, designing, and realizing any aspect whatsoever of their own future.
There was an interesting article about the Iraqi power industry. I forget exactly where but I think John Quiggin's linked to it on his blog.
It described the problems that arose because foreign engineers failed to understand that their Iraqi counterparts had a lot of specialised knowledge that they lacked.
Examples included running generators at full power despite Iraqi advice that this would result in transformers on the high-voltage lines burning out and ignoring Iraqi warnings that fuel was likely to be contaminated.
Most of Iraq's power plants are based on Russian designs (and most Iraqi engineers trained in Russia) even leaving aside the particular problems arisiong from the long-term
neglect of the infrastructure, the western technical staff often simply don't understand the systems as well as the Iraqis.
Sure, there are problems, but Iraq still managed to have the highest GDP growth rate in the world.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html
Or course, that's relative to a very bad year, but it does show things got a lot better during a period that some people keep describing as getting worse for all involved.
Some things are rolling along despite the problems.
In less than one year, the newly formed Iraqi Stock Exchange (search) has tripled its trading volume, with growth rates unheard of nearly anywhere else.
"The market since it's opening last year is doing very, very well," said Talab Tabuy, a trader. "Excellent, actually."
Tabuy is betting on companies like Baghdad Soda, Hader Marble and Thesar Agriculture. But the real excitement is over Iraq's banking sector, especially Basra Bank (search).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157221,00.html
1. That's an (unsourced) estimate
2. I'd be willing to bet virtually all of the increase is due to revaluation of the Iraqi dinar. I'd like to see the PPE figures.
3. Iraq's largest industry is oil. I need to look at the Brookings Institute figures again. I know oil exports in dollar has fallen off since a peak some time last time. That suggests this year's growth is unlikely to match last years.
The latest piece (amongst many) completely quashing TallDave's myths about democracy in Iraq: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7914
It is indeed interesting how the Americans rigged the electoral process in Iraq to ensure its impotence. For any motion to pass in the new parliament, a full 75% majority vote is required. The Kurds make up only 15% of the Iraq population but enjoy 27% of the representation in the Iraqi parliament. As the Kurdish population is the only one really supporting the illegal occupation, the Americans can count on that 27% of their vote (2% more than needed) to block any legislaton unfavorable to Washington.
As I have said before, but without any kind of response from TD, the U.S. had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the electoral process. The big worry is that the Shia majority will eventually want to establish better relations with the Shia thoecracy in Iran. Following this, they will want to rebuild their defenses and eventually confront the old enemy of the region (Israel). Will the neocons allow for any of this? Brent Scowcroft said several years ago, in respose to a question about the formation of a Shia theocracy in Iraq, that "Surely we aren't going to let them take over!". At present, the impotence of the Iraqi parliament is a boon for the occupiers. But at some point the Americans are going to have to reveal their hand, and the Shia know it. They are being patient, for now.
I think TallDave Harvey has a false impression of the Kurdish situation. The Kurds are a major ethnic group in Asia Minor. One only has to consider their recent history with Turkey, Iran and Iraq to understand their paranoia. It is also clear that Iraq as a political entity can only exist with Kurdish participation, as is the case with the Sunnis. In that case it makes sense for each group to have a blocking vote in any assembly which drafts a constitution.
That being said, the election was more than a bit manipulated at the front, resembling that in Iran, and the Kurdish leaders are not you local democrats.
Jeff,
As I have said before, but without any kind of response from TD, the U.S. had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the electoral process.
Of course you're free to continue embarassing yourself with ridiculously counterfactual statements, but I don't see why I'm obligated to respond to every such raving. Yes, besides saying for years we would create a democratic Iraq, sending hundreds of thousands of troops to overthrow Saddam and make it possible, inviting representatives from the UN and numerous other countries to make recommendations on how best to hold elections, meeting with Shia, Kurd, and Sunni leaders to discuss timetables and logistics, and guarding the polling places from anti-democracy terrorists trying to kill voters, we really didn't do much to bring democracy to Iraq at all.
And of course the Iraqis are now writing their own constitution as we speak, and will soon be holding a referendum, then parliamentary elections based on that constitution. I can't wait to hear how the U.S. fixed all those too. And if that doesn't work, they can alway go back to claiming Iraq is about to become a theocracy or dissolve into civil war. Or more likely they'll claim all three at once like they do now.
Of course, no elections, constitution, or government in Iraq will ever be good enough for some people.
Ian,
1. If you have a competing, better-sourced estimate, I'm all ears.
2. I'm trying not to laugh.
3. I didn't say anything about this year, I was talking about 2004.
Monday, February 16, 2004; Page A01
CHEBAYISH, Iraq -- The banner outside declared the occasion: the first free elections in this hardscrabble southern town, battered by President Saddam Hussein and neglected in the disarray that followed. Campaign posters of men in turbans, suits and street clothes crowded for space along the wall of the polling station, peering at the gathering crowds. Inside was Tobin Bradley, a 29-year-old American trying to pull off the vote and, in the process, possibly reshape Iraq's transition from occupation.
"Ask them if they read and write," Bradley called out in Arabic to volunteers and staff. He positioned police to keep order. "One officer goes here," he said. "One goes there." To a handful of candidates gathered at the door, he lifted up a ballot box, painted in white. "You can see the boxes are empty." He caught his breath, rolled up his sleeves, then called out, "Yalla, let's go."
"We'll see how it works out," Bradley said, as voters surged through the doors. "It's always figure-it-out-as-we-go."
With a knack for improvisation and little help from Baghdad, Bradley, the political adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Nasiriyah, has carried out what may stand as one of the most ambitious democratic experiments in Iraq's history, a project that goes to the heart of the debate about how Iraq's next government should be chosen. In the province of Dhi Qar, about 230 miles southeast of Baghdad and a backwater even by Iraq's standards, residents voting as families will have elected city councils in 16 of the 20 biggest cities by next month. Bradley will have organized 11, more than half of them this month.
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/democracy/shadid.html
There's hundreds of stories like this.
This was my fourth trip to Iraq since the fall of the despotism, and my most hopeful yet. I traveled to Baghdad, Kirkuk, Erbil and Suleimaniyah. A close colleague--Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations--and I were there to lecture and to "show the flag." We met with parliamentarians and journalists, provincial legislators, clerics and secularists alike, Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurds. One memory I shall treasure: a visit to the National Assembly. From afar, there are reports of the "acrimony" of Iraq, of the long interlude between Iraq's elections, on Jan. 30, and the formation of a cabinet. But that day, in the assembly, these concerns seemed like a quibble with history. There was the spectacle of democracy: men and women doing democracy's work, women cloaked in Islamic attire right alongside more emancipated women, the technocrats and the tribal sheikhs, and the infectious awareness among these people of the precious tradition bequeathed them after a terrible history. One of the principal leaders of the Supreme Islamic Council for Revolution in Iraq, Sheikh Hamam Hammoudi, an elegant, thoughtful cleric in his early 50s, brushed aside the talk of a Shia theocracy. This Shia man, who knew a smattering of English, offered his own assurance that the example and the power of Iran shall be kept at bay: "My English is better than my Farsi, even though I spent 20 years in Iran." He was proud of his Iraqi identity, proud of being "an Arab." He was sure that the Najaf school of Shia jurisprudence would offer its own alternative to the world view of Qom, across the border. He wanted no theocratic state in Iraq: Islam, he said, would be "a source" of legislation, but the content of politics would be largely secular. The model, he added, with a touch of irony, would be closer to the American mix of religion and politics than to the uncompromising secularism of France.
...
"George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to me. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs. "Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." A Jordanian of deep political experience at the highest reaches of Arab political life had no doubt as to why history suddenly broke in Lebanon, and could conceivably change in Syria itself before long. "The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006721
"Prior to the 1991 war, the official rate of the Iraqi Dinar was approximately 3.00 USD. However, the black market rate was closer to 0.30 USD per Dinar. The currency slid during the post 1991 war United Nations embargo. The value of the Iraqi Dinar has appreciated from lows of approximately 3,000 Dinars per US Dollar to 1,460 Dinar per USD as of January 2005." http://www.answers.com/topic/iraqi-dinar-1
In case case the link doesn't work that's www.answers.com/topic/iraqi-dinar-1.
An appreciation in the currecny from 3000 dinar to the US dollar to ca. 1500 dinar to the dollar would by itself result in a doubling of GDP in US dollar terms.
"The drop in GDP in 2001-02 was largely the result of the global economic slowdown and lower oil prices. Per capita food imports increased significantly, while medical supplies and health care services steadily improved. Per capita output and living standards were still well below the pre-1991 level, but any estimates have a wide range of error. The military victory of the US-led coalition in March-April 2003 resulted in the shutdown of much of the central economic administrative structure. Although a comparatively small amount of capital plant was damaged during the hostilities, looting, insurgent attacks, and sabotage have undermined efforts to rebuild the economy. Despite continuing political uncertainty, the Iraqi Interim Government (IG) has founded the institutions needed to implement economic policy, and has successfully concluded a debt reduction agreement with the Paris Club. The high percentage gain estimated for GDP in 2004 is the result of starting from a low base.
That's from the CIA Factbook - the apparent source of the claimed 53% growth in GDP in 2004.
http://www.ameinfo.com/42209.html
EIU, Iraq GDP to rise 55pc
Iraq: Tuesday, July 06 - 2004 at 08:36
The Economist Intelligence Unit has forecast a 55 per cent rise in Iraqi GDP this year, and a further 25 per cent growth in 2005, making Iraq the fastest growing economy in the world. This follows a 22 per cent fall in GDP last year. But progress is dependent on maintaining oil supplies.
That prediction from the Economist Intelligence Unit seems to be the basis for the estimate. Note that it was issued in July - before Fallujah, before the fall-off in oil output and before the election campaign and the related surge in violence
Note too that the estimated 55% increase follows an estimated 25% fall the previous year. So if we take 2002 output as 100 it fell to 75 in 2003 and then rose to 116.
That's somewhat less impressive sounding, isn't it?
There's also the issue of monetarisation.
Since Dave is such an expert in economics I'm sure he'll be only too happy to define the term and explain its relevance.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=65
That's: www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=65
This site includes data from previous editiosn of the CIA Wold Factbook. On those estimates, output fell from $58 billion in 2002 to ca. $39 billion in 2003.
On that basis a 55% increase in 2004 would mean output in 2004 of around $60.5 billion - a massive 4% increase over 2002. Wow!
And it only cost $300 billion (so far). Oh and 100,000 lives.
Let's see $2.5 billion dividing by 100,000 dead Iraqis - that's around $2,500 per Iraqi.
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/irq_aag.pdf
That's: www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/irq_aag.pdf.
The Worldbank says Iraqi GDP grew by 52% in 2004 after declining 30% in 2003. GDP per capita declined 33% then recovered 47%.
On those figures GDP was 6% higher in 2004 than 2002 and per capita GDP was 2% LOWER.
Looking further at the World Bank figures.
Inj 2002, private consumption amounted to 74% of Iraqi GDP. Government expenditure was 16%, In 2004 the figures were 38.9% and 50.5%.
In other words, private consumption has fallen significantly and the 2004 "boom" consists largely of public spending.
I wonder how much of that went to Bechtel and Haliburton? And how much was spent on security?
"The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus."
Even if this were so, its only because Syria is strategically important from Washington's point of view in terms of its location (access to oil fields and of course being Israel's neighbour). Of course, it had nix to do with human rights. Where human rights conflicts with U.S. business and military objectives (as is the case in much of Latin America, Uzbekistan, Indonesia etc. etc. etc.) Bush and his junta are more than happy to support rogue regimes that torture their citizens and plunder their environment.
Read this little atrocious ditty by Melana Zyla Vickers on Tech 'Exxon' Station (TCS): http://www.techcentralstation.com/052305A.html
In Vickers vile piece she makes no bones about it: the U.S. just has to keep on supportin' many of those rootin' tootin' vile regimes out there. Why? Because the U.S. has 'strategic priorities'. Pure bile.
"I wonder how much of that went to Bechtel and Haliburton? And how much was spent on security?"
Don't forget to wonder how much of it simply got sucked into that great black hole of corruption known as the CPA (more caccurately the American Occupation Authority).
To show you how much the media in the U.S. is now a pawn of its far-right government, this interview with journalist Greg Palast underlines the fact: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7931§ionID=15
The facts laid out here and in the European media reveal how brazenly Bush and his cronies control the media in support of their agenda.
--
Of course, it had nix to do with human rights.
--
It has everything to do with human rights, and very little do do with how much Bush cares about human rights.
Which is more important, the lives of the poeple on the ground or the state of Bush's conscience?
soru
"It has everything to do with human rights..."
Human rights are in worse shape in Iraq now than at any time in memory.
and very little do do with how much Bush cares about human rights.
Which is more important, the lives of the poeple on the ground or the state of Bush's conscience?
Soru
What'sd mpre important - Iraqis' lives or Americans' sense of their own righteousness?
"What's mpre important - Iraqis' lives or Americans' sense of their own righteousness?ev "
Do you even have to ask? Isn't it obvious?!
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a0c6194c-dece-11d9-92cd-00000e2511c8.html
On the subject of Iraqi living standards, The Financial Times reports that, according to a UN survey (presumably the ICLS so beloved by the right wing since it gives a lower head-line figure for Iraqi casualties than the Lancet survey), the median income in Iraq has declined since the war from from $255 in 2003 to about $144 in 2004.
So much for claims that average Iraqis are materially better as a result of the war.
"...the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world."
Or it may have have resulted in a reduction in women's access to contraception and abortion. This would be consistent with both the general decline in medical services and the revival in islamic fundamentalism.
Why does your pessimism not surprise me? Like most leftists, you have no faith in freedom and democracy.
Yes, becasue as we all know the ouster of dictators in Bosnia, Congo and Uganda led to golden ages of peace and prosperity.
Is George Bush sr. a leftist, my view on Iraq's likely future is virtually identical to the list of reasons he gave back in the 90's for not mountign a full-scale invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War.
"...the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world."
Or it may have have resulted in a reduction in women's access to contraception and abortion. This would be consistent with both the general decline in medical services and the revival in islamic fundamentalism.
Why does your pessimism not surprise me? Like most leftists, you have no faith in freedom and democracy.
Yes, becasue as we all know the ouster of dictators in Bosnia, Congo and Uganda led to golden ages of peace and prosperity.
Is George Bush sr. a leftist, my view on Iraq's likely future is virtually identical to the list of reasons he gave back in the 90's for not mountign a full-scale invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War.
"...the overthrow of Saddam might make people more optimistic about bringing another child into the world."
Or it may have have resulted in a reduction in women's access to contraception and abortion. This would be consistent with both the general decline in medical services and the revival in islamic fundamentalism.
Why does your pessimism not surprise me? Like most leftists, you have no faith in freedom and democracy.
Yes, becasue as we all know the ouster of dictators in Bosnia, Congo and Uganda led to golden ages of peace and prosperity.
Is George Bush sr. a leftist, my view on Iraq's likely future is virtually identical to the list of reasons he gave back in the 90's for not mountign a full-scale invasion of Iraq after the Gulf War.