Iraq Failure (yet again!)

@if ®afiq · 16 Oct 2006 at 12:53

RaohNS said:
It is generally however when you have a sizeable force coming in from the neighbour next door it becomes rather difficult. You may find that as i've pointed out the average Iraqi now receives 13hours of electricity per day, more than before the war. And again it shows you have failed to read my posts regarding the million of children who have been vaccinated against TB and the like. The additional health care staff etc.

>| Raoh |<

I've read it...When was that report published?

RaohNS · 16 Oct 2006 at 12:56

@if ®afiq said:
I've read it...When was that report published?

Later months of 2005

so its likely that there are now more trained staff, a regular vaccination (MMR) jabs being offered at local hospitals.

>| Raoh |<

Edit: looking at it it seems very likely it could even be early 06

Geoff · 16 Oct 2006 at 13:03

@if ®afiq said:
On my sketchy knowledge of the rules of war, is it not the responsibility of the occupying forces to provided security etc for the general population. This would include rebuilding the infrastructure (electricity), clean water, sanitation, providing more medicine than has been made available etc..

But, if it weren't for constant insurgent attacks, would far more not have been achieved?

If the "reconstruction" had been allowed to continue without the insurgent sabotage and attacks, is it not conceivable that the troops would be out by now? If so, the insurgents have as much blame to take as the troops.

Oh, and who are the insuregents? Some are locals, for sure. But what proportion? And don't forget Iran sitting next door, with a vested interest in how things turn out. Are they just innocent bystanders, sitting on their hands and watching, or are they involved?

Yes, the occupiers have a responsibility, and oh hell yes, the planners cocked up. Big time. But I think the situation is a bit more complex than many would like to believe. There's plenty of blame to go round.

@if ®afiq said:
.... but this comes down to the complete lack of planning.

Not entirely, but it's a big factor.

@if ®afiq said:
For some strange reason we thought we would be welcome in a country where we starved half a million babies . And we also assumed that they would accept the leadership we have chosen for them.

To some degree, we (a generic we) were welcome, even if only in the short term, because it was perceived that we'd be better than Saddam. We can thank incompetent planners for screwing that up.

From what I see, and hear, and read, many Iraqis were glad to see the troops, and would have rather it had happened after Gulf War 1, not having to wait another 10 years. I have no doubt they do not want foreign troops there indefinitely, and the longer they're there the less popular they'll be. But many Iraqis still want the troops there, if only to forestall the free-for-all that will likely occur if they were to just leave.

However, it seems the free-for-all may be imminent anyway.

As for leadership, surely that's what elections were all about?

@if ®afiq said:
Just me being emotional.....to me it sounds more like we don't care how many we kill rather than it would be too dangerous. I mean, even the straight forward shooting up of a civilian car is not recorded.

The latter point, if a recording ever existed, may well be a few individuals covering themselves (assuming that allusion is to the obvious event). If so, it's wrong, but hardly surprising, and is down to a few individual troops on the ground. Unless you have evidence that it was supressed or deleted later on, which I grant is possible, but I've seen no evidence to support it.

I don't accept that we don't care how many we kill. I certainly care, and I'd suggest most individual troops do too. But many of them are young, very inexperienced and in a very frightening situation. However you try to conduct it, war is war, and however smart your smart bombs, a lot of people are going to die. If it had been a callous indifference, the numbers would be far higher.

Given what we know know about WMD, we should not (IMHO) have been in Iraq in the first place. And I personally will never forgive Blair or his cabinet for the lies. But even given that, I don't attribute a callous indifference to life to the troops. But I for one would not be willing to give orders to troops to go count bodies, knowing that some of them would be likely to be killed doing it. Would you?

@if ®afiq · 16 Oct 2006 at 13:22

Why are you ever-ready to believe whatever the State Department puts out?

If you do a google on "Iraq" and "electricity" it brings many results which show that all is not as it seems. In fact accroding to this report, Baghdad is lucky to get 4 hours of electricity a day. Or an older report from CSMonitor, which also paints the same picture.

As for the health staff, I think Anarchist pointed you to some stats on how many doctors remain in Iraq. That coupled with the countless reports about the virtual collapse of the health system paint a very different picture to what the State Department is trying to put out.

RaohNS · 16 Oct 2006 at 13:43

@if ®afiq said:
Why are you ever-ready to believe whatever the State Department puts out?

If you do a google on "Iraq" and "electricity" it brings many results which show that all is not as it seems. In fact accroding to this report, Baghdad is lucky to get 4 hours of electricity a day. Or an older report from CSMonitor, which also paints the same picture.

As for the health staff, I think Anarchist pointed you to some stats on how many doctors remain in Iraq. That coupled with the countless reports about the virtual collapse of the health system paint a very different picture to what the State Department is trying to put out.

Your first link doesn't work mate...

Secondly there are various reports i've googled and depends what you are looking for...

Either way the children of Iraq are now receiving vaccines from diseases which as you say due to sanctions killed an "estimated" 500,000 of them... they've been given a new chance at life thanks to the coalition forces

>| Raoh |<

@if ®afiq · 16 Oct 2006 at 13:46

Geoff said:
But, if it weren't for constant insurgent attacks, would far more not have been achieved?

If the "reconstruction" had been allowed to continue without the insurgent sabotage and attacks, is it not conceivable that the troops would be out by now? If so, the insurgents have as much blame to take as the troops.

Well that's a tricky one to answer. From the viewpoint of those who are doing the occupation, these attacks are a setback. From the viewpoint of those who are fighting the occupation these attcks are exactly what they need.

Let's not forget the greedy corporations that have plundered a fair bit of the reconstruction money as well.

Geoff said:
Oh, and who are the insuregents? Some are locals, for sure. But what proportion? And don't forget Iran sitting next door, with a vested interest in how things turn out. Are they just innocent bystanders, sitting on their hands and watching, or are they involved?

I think even the US Army has acknowledged that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the resistence, something like 5%.

TBH, I don't Iran needs to do anything - the occupying forces are doing a good enough job of screwing up everything they try and do.

Geoff said:
But many Iraqis still want the troops there, if only to forestall the free-for-all that will likely occur if they were to just leave.

A recent poll that was published a couple of week agao showed that something like 70% of Iraqi's want the US out within a year. 60% approve of attccks on the US and 78% beleive that the US presence is having a negative effect.

Geoff said:
As for leadership, surely that's what elections were all about?

IMO, any government that is formed under occupation lacks legitimatcy(sp?)

Geoff said:
The latter point, if a recording ever existed, may well be a few individuals covering themselves (assuming that allusion is to the obvious event). If so, it's wrong, but hardly surprising, and is down to a few individual troops on the ground. Unless you have evidence that it was supressed or deleted later on, which I grant is possible, but I've seen no evidence to support it

The US army is known to be trigger happy, see the recent finding of the reporter who was unlawfully killed. They are known to open fire on civilian cars. If you want I will try and dig up some reports for you.

Geoff said:
I don't accept that we don't care how many we kill. I certainly care, and I'd suggest most individual troops do too. But many of them are young, very inexperienced and in a very frightening situation. However you try to conduct it, war is war, and however smart your smart bombs, a lot of people are going to die. If it had been a callous indifference, the numbers would be far higher.

Higher than half a million? Maye there's a reason why people appose war?

I was suggested that your average man on the street does not care - it is only those who have planned and are still in charge of the war.

Geoff said:
But I for one would not be willing to give orders to troops to go count bodies, knowing that some of them would be likely to be killed doing it. Would you?

It would depend on the situation on the ground I suppose, but I would want then to.

i know nothing · 16 Oct 2006 at 15:05

@if ®afiq said:
Why are you ever-ready to believe whatever the State Department puts out?

Why? Do you believe that everything they say is rubbish?

@if ®afiq said:
If you do a google on "Iraq" and "electricity" it brings many results which show that all is not as it seems. In fact accroding to this report, Baghdad is lucky to get 4 hours of electricity a day. Or an older report from CSMonitor, which also paints the same picture.

Why is the electricty situation so bad? The answer in in your second link.

@if ®afiq said:
As for the health staff, I think Anarchist pointed you to some stats on how many doctors remain in Iraq. That coupled with the countless reports about the virtual collapse of the health system paint a very different picture to what the State Department is trying to put out.

I've witnessed this first hand in the country I currently reside in. It never ceases to amaze me how doctors always seem to be the first to leave, so much for helping others.

RaohNS · 16 Oct 2006 at 15:15

@if ®afiq said:
CSMonitor,

Way to go Atif! Backing up the US invasion....

From your link:

So thats Electricity on the improvement...
Water and Sanitation
Security
Services
Transport...

The only one that hasn't really taken off... oh yes its the "reason" the US invaded...

>| Raoh |<

i know nothing · 16 Oct 2006 at 15:38

RaohNS said:
The only one that hasn't really taken off... oh yes its the "reason" the US invaded...

>| Raoh |<

I've noticed this and I've even made that point on these forums. I first picked up on it watching Bloomberg when the oil prices were going up and down like a yo-yo, they mentioned the declining oil output in Iraq.

Not that it should discourage the oil conspiracy theorists at all...

RaohNS · 16 Oct 2006 at 15:41

i know nothing said:
I've noticed this and I've even made that point on these forums. I first picked up on it watching Bloomberg when the oil prices were going up and down like a yo-yo, they mentioned the declining oil output in Iraq.

Not that it should discourage the oil conspiracy theorists at all...

lol indeed... don't usually watch Bloomberg (mainly cause i can't get it) but i take note whenever i see anything that may influence anything about petrol prices... even told me mrs a while ago to hold off buying petrol as it will drop to about 84.9

bang on the money too.. not bad going from guessing when it was 88.9

>| Raoh |<

perplex · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:34

@if ®afiq said:
I suppose these nutters are in no way a reaction to the illegal brutal invasion and subsequent occupation of their country that has resulted in the death of 650,000 Iraqi's?

Easy there, we don't want another Jihad!

jezsoup · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:55

NEWS FLASH, Bradford has been taken over by a coalition made up of me and my pet fish, Bradford is know known as Greater Soupistan resistance is futile.......

Cybermyk · 16 Oct 2006 at 19:28

jezsoup said:
NEWS FLASH, Bradford has been taken over by a coalition made up of me and my pet fish, Bradford is know known as Greater Soupistan resistance is futile.......

Greetings to the people of Greater Soupistan from the Peoples Republic of Teesside. May your women never grow beards and your kebab houses become plentiful

@if ®afiq · 16 Oct 2006 at 21:40

The collapse of Iraq's health care system.

Stringy · 16 Oct 2006 at 21:43

Stiff_Cookie said:
Hell, I could go to Iraq and claim it to be an American state.

There's a joke in there somewhere......I know there is.....

Van_Dammesque · 16 Oct 2006 at 21:44

@if ®afiq said:
The collapse of Iraq's health care system.

Have you seen the Ch 4 documentary, Dispatches:Iraq's missing Billions?
Very interesting!

@if ®afiq · 16 Oct 2006 at 21:53

Van_Dammesque said:
Have you seen the Ch 4 documentary, Dispatches:Iraq's missing Billions?
Very interesting!

I've not seen the report, but I've read countless articles/reports. It truly is shocking how people can make money of such tragedy.

RaohNS · 17 Oct 2006 at 08:33

@if ®afiq said:
The collapse of Iraq's health care system.

Luckily US Aid is more reliable than the "political" counterpunch

>| Raoh |<

RaohNS · 17 Oct 2006 at 08:40

In other news... Amadmanihijihad has accused Bush of conspiring with Satan ... well i guess wanting to wipe out 6.5million people along with wishing another 300,000,000 would go that way isnt conspiring with Satan....

One thing to say to you Armanijihad... Rushdie

>| Raoh |<

@if ®afiq · 17 Oct 2006 at 08:44

RaohNS said:
Luckily US Aid is more reliable than the "political" counterpunch

>| Raoh |<

Are you saying US Aid is not political? :confused:

- and why would a report from the US State Department on how well the war in Iraq is going be more reliable? Do you think they would not have an interest in making evrything look glossy?