Are Iraq's people better off now than before the invasion?

[alexandra]

I am not ignoring what they are saying alexandra. I am telling you that ONE blog is not enough to say how the Iraqi's feel about the situation. Do you think that if I found ONE person on the street and asked their opinion on America that it would reflect what the majority of what the population thinks? That is why you NEED a statistical survey.

No, I do not think that if I found one person on the street and asked their opinion about something it would reflect anything at all about the entire society they are living in (that would truly be stupid of me).

To clarify: this is just one of many blogs I read (if you'd like, I could provide a long, long list of others that also basically say that life in Iraq is pretty rotten at the moment - they say, in fact, that it is worse than it was before, under Hussein. Maybe they're all crazy?). So, on the basis of reading such blogs written by people who live there, and also listening to news on radio, watching tv news reports and documentaries, listening to and reading analyses of the situation, I formulate an opinion. I base my opinion on all these sources.

For the purposes of this particular thread - we were asked to give our opinions, but were not told to go to statistical sources to find out what the bulk of the Iraqi people feel about it. I feel that I am meeting the OP's demands.

 

[Curious3141]

Russ your own link seems to contradict your rosy assessment. Scroll down to see this :

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

Isn't that a direct answer to the question posed by the author of the thread ?

 

[BobG]

Russ your own link seems to contradict your rosy assessment. Scroll down to see this :

Isn't that a direct answer to the question posed by the author of the thread ?

I believe Russ's point is that the hope of democracy outweighs the current problems - something that could be a valid point if you believe the US actually has some obligation to actively spread democracy (as opposed to promoting democracy by favoring countries that make democratic changes on their own).

If you wanted to present the whole story, the next paragraph puts the violence in Iraq into perspective. 71% believe their own lives are going well, even though 52% believe the country is doing badly.

A paragraph above the one you quoted said 69% of Iraqis expect things in their country to improve, but only 35% in Sunni provinces expect things to improve.

The biggest problems are in the Sunni region and they are the ones suffering the most from the overthrow of Iraq. The rest aren't doing horribly.

The significance of the problems in the Sunni region and the fighting between Sunnis and Shi'ites are more important than the extent of the problems. There's major problems that will envelope the entire country if they're not resolved soon (hence pessimism about the country as a whole even for those doing okay). The only thing in your paragraph that directly contradicts Russ's position is the trends in the polling. Half of Iraqis now say that it was wrong for the US to invade as opposed to only 39% a year ago. The optimism within the country was beginning to run a little thin four months ago even before the Amercian public began to see how close Iraq is getting to an all-out civil war.

Hmmm. Russ probably doesn't want me defending his position anymore :rofl: , but the point is - you need the whole picture, not just the part that defends your own position.

 

[Curious3141]

I believe Russ's point is that the hope of democracy outweighs the current problems - something that could be a valid point if you believe the US actually has some obligation to actively spread democracy (as opposed to promoting democracy by favoring countries that make democratic changes on their own).

Why would anyone believe that ? The US has no right to be spreading democracy by violence. Especially without the overt support of the UN.

If you wanted to present the whole story, the next paragraph puts the violence in Iraq into perspective. 71% believe their own lives are going well, even though 52% believe the country is doing badly.

"Going well" is hardly a comparison between before and after. Besides the truly ironic thing is that if you took such a poll *before* the invasion, I'd bet you'd get 100 % saying things were going peachy ! :D That's because of the fear of Saddam that permeated Iraq pre-invasion. In that respect, the 71 % here is a more believable figure.

Then again, it *isn't* a comparison between before and after. The bit I quoted is, and since it comes now when people don't have to hold their tongues for fear of reprisals, it's also an accurate opinion. The majority opinion is that the country is not better off now than it was before, that's what the OP wanted to know.

but the point is - you need the whole picture, not just the part that defends your own position.

That's fair enough. I'm not disputing that some, even much good has come of this invasion. But enough to justify the losses from the invasion and the destruction of infrastructure and the lives of not a few people ? Personally, I don't think so.

 

[edward]

The survey I posted was taken 4 months ago.

A lot of really terrible things have happened Since November.
The 2004 survey interviewed 22,000 people. The more recent survey of 1,700 was obviously conducted in relatively safe areas, because no one is venturing into the "Real Iraq" The Kurds are in a relatively safe area at present.

At the rate we have detained people I doubt that many would be dumb enough to describe how they really feel. The survey did not mention that the cities only have 10 hrs of electricity per day or that only 30% of the people having safe drinking water. (percentages from Face the Nation this morning)

Interviews for the poll were conducted Oct. 8 to Nov. 22, 2005, in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and up. (Oxford Research International)

 

[russ_watters]

Russ your own link seems to contradict your rosy assessment. Scroll down to see this :

Isn't that a direct answer to the question posed by the author of the thread ?

Yes, it is - but ironically, some of the poll answers contradict each other and the movement in the polls with time is relevant as well. People will say the country is not better off, yet say they, individually are. Its a curious perception issue.

But anyway, Bob is right - "better off" is as much a matter of future potential (more than just the hope of democracy, I mean improvement in standard of living as well) as anything else and that is a big component of my point.

Besides - when exactly did I give a "rosy assessment"?

 

[russ_watters]

Why would anyone believe that ? The US has no right to be spreading democracy by violence. Especially without the overt support of the UN.

Whether or not the US was right doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Iraq is better off as a democracy.

 

[Curious3141]

Yes, it is - but ironically, some of the poll answers contradict each other and the movement in the polls with time is relevant as well. People will say the country is not better off, yet say they, individually are. Its a curious perception issue.

Polls like this in general are fairly useless since the questions are poorly standardised and posed inconsistently.

But anyway, Bob is right - "better off" is as much a matter of future potential (more than just the hope of democracy, I mean improvement in standard of living as well) as anything else and that is a big component of my point.

This remains to be seen. How can you be sure a peaceful democracy is sustainable there ?

Besides - when exactly did I give a "rosy assessment"?

I would consider your optimism about the fate of that region to be rosy, yes. I have no confidence a peaceful representative democracy is ever going to take root there. Maybe a tyranny of the majority over the minority followed by yet another pogrom ? Or perhaps another dictator arising from the ruins ? Who knows ?

Whether or not the US was right doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Iraq is better off as a democracy.

Does the end justify the means ? In any case, most people are FAR from convinced that a sustainable representative democracy will ever exist there.

 

[Cyrus]

To Vanesch :tongue2:

To answer your comparison, it is too unpredictable at this stage to say whether or not Iraq will turn out for the better or the worse. Had Sadam remained in power, we do know that he would have continued his old policies. This included deceiving the UN. Kofi Annan said last week that with respect to Sadam, he had manipulated the UN into trying to get it to lift its sanctions. He had even paid off some representatives and their companies that worked for the UN. This even caused trouble for Annan himself as his son got caught up in the scandal. Let's also remind ourselves of the oil for food program. So the UN had lost its legitimacy long before the invasion.
TABAnother problem was that Sadam had a policy which he called 'deterrence by fear.' He knew he had gotten rid of all his chemical weapons, but by his actions, he wanted to put fear and doubt into people’s minds so he could retain his illusion of power. He did this, not because he wanted to put fear into the United States; rather, he wanted the Iranian's to have doubts in their minds as to what he did or didn't have. Likewise he wanted the Kurds to fear his use of chemical weapons on them as well. Even up to the days just before the war, his own generals thought he still had chemical weapons! Of course, this backfired on him when he misjudged the change in US policy after 9-11. We also know that he would have continued to jail and murder his own people. The theory of the coop attempt while possible seems very unlikely. With the amount of power and fear he yielded, I could see Iraq being handed over to his sons rather than a coop. In which case it would just result in a new Sadam for the next 30 years to come.
TABNow let's look at the possibilities of the future. For one thing, Iraq was never a heterogeneous country. It was only after being forced as a conglomerate Vis a Vis Sadam’s authoritarian regime that Iraq held together. It was said tonight on The Charlie Rose Show, by many experts that Iraq was already ready to collapse. The infrastructure was, in their words, becoming paper thin. Also, the clashes between the Sunnis and the Shiites is nothing extraordinary that would not have occurred if Iraq overthrew Sadam on their own. There has always been a divide between the two due to the fact that the minority enjoyed the majority of the power for the last 30 years. We can also see based from the bombing of the Golden Mosque that after the violent protests the Iraqi's for the first time realized how far they were going and took a step back. You can see this by the words of the clerics who called on the people not to blame the Sunnis or the Shiites in retaliation.
TABIf Iraq manages to become a stable country(ies) in the foreseeable future, I would not go so far as to say it was because of shear luck, but because of the hard work of the Iraqi people. I must admit; however, that at this point their future does look very bleak. They still do not have a real police force and their political leaders are out of touch with the people on the streets. Most of the leaders have been in the green zone for the last 3 years.
*BUT* the reason why the Iraqi's are better off is found by looking at the area. You have many countries were the people are envious of the Iraqi's because they have a government that is not an authoritarian leader, like Egypt, or Syria. They have a government that is by the Iraqi people, for the Iraqi people. In effect they have a stake in their own future. But at the same time Iraqi's neighboors are worried, because if Iraq goes wrong Iraq will be their headache now as well.
But overall, the Iraqi's are still better because they have control of their own political future. And this is the main reason why they are better off in my opinion.

 

[vanesch]

To answer your comparison, it is too unpredictable at this stage to say whether or not Iraq will turn out for the better or the worse. Had Sadam remained in power, we do know that he would have continued his old policies. This included deceiving the UN. Kofi Annan said last week that with respect to Sadam, he had manipulated the UN into trying to get it to lift its sanctions. He had even paid off some representatives and their companies that worked for the UN. This even caused trouble for Annan himself as his son got caught up in the scandal. Let's also remind ourselves of the oil for food program. So the UN had lost its legitimacy long before the invasion.

That's not on the same level, is it ? Imagine that it is discovered that there is some bribery going on at high levels in the US gouvernment ; does that make the entire US democratic structure loose its legitimacy ? I wouldn't think so. However, imagine that the Texas governor decides to take some army bases in Texas, and go fight a war, say, with Mexico, on its own, EVEN if there's no approval by Congress or the president.
(I know that this is rather crazy as the army is federal and so on, but just let us imagine that there are a few generals who go with the Texas governor). And then that same governor is not even sanctioned, but goes and tells congress that things turned out sourer than he thought, and now it is up to the federal gov. to see what it can do to clean up the mess. Now is THAT not a much more serious loss of legitimity for the federal state than some bribery of individuals ?

TABAnother problem was that Sadam had a policy which he called 'deterrence by fear.' He knew he had gotten rid of all his chemical weapons, but by his actions, he wanted to put fear and doubt into people’s minds so he could retain his illusion of power. He did this, not because he wanted to put fear into the United States; rather, he wanted the Iranian's to have doubts in their minds as to what he did or didn't have.

Well, that was a good thing for the West, wasn't it ? That Iran had some (imaginary) counterweight from a non-religious leader ?

We also know that he would have continued to jail and murder his own people.

Yes, as do many other dictators...

The theory of the coop attempt while possible seems very unlikely. With the amount of power and fear he yielded, I could see Iraq being handed over to his sons rather than a coop. In which case it would just result in a new Sadam for the next 30 years to come.

All this could be said of Kadhafi too.

TABNow let's look at the possibilities of the future. For one thing, Iraq was never a heterogeneous country. It was only after being forced as a conglomerate Vis a Vis Sadam’s authoritarian regime that Iraq held together. It was said tonight on The Charlie Rose Show, by many experts that Iraq was already ready to collapse. The infrastructure was, in their words, becoming paper thin. Also, the clashes between the Sunnis and the Shiites is nothing extraordinary that would not have occurred if Iraq overthrew Sadam on their own. There has always been a divide between the two due to the fact that the minority enjoyed the majority of the power for the last 30 years. We can also see based from the bombing of the Golden Mosque that after the violent protests the Iraqi's for the first time realized how far they were going and took a step back. You can see this by the words of the clerics who called on the people not to blame the Sunnis or the Shiites in retaliation.

Of course, but in that case, it would have been a purely internal affair for which the West wouldn't take any blame. It looks like saying: hey, the patient was very ill anyways, and was going to die, so it is not so bad that I killed him hitting his head with a hammer.

*BUT* the reason why the Iraqi's are better off is found by looking at the area. You have many countries were the people are envious of the Iraqi's because they have a government that is not an authoritarian leader, like Egypt, or Syria.

Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that may Egyptians or even Syrians are so envious of the average Iraqi! I think that the actions over there have radicalised public opinion in favor of Islamism.

They have a government that is by the Iraqi people, for the Iraqi people. In effect they have a stake in their own future. But at the same time Iraqi's neighboors are worried, because if Iraq goes wrong Iraq will be their headache now as well.

Exactly, and there are serious chances that it DOES go wrong. The ONLY hope for the Iraqi invasion to have a positive effect in the long run, and to play its "domino effect" is for it to turn into a very prosperous democracy. THEN it will be envied by its neighbours, and THEN people will maybe decide that - after all - fundamentalist Islamism is NOT the right way. But if it turns in anything LESS than that - which it probably will - then all the troubles that fall on the heads of the Iraqis will be perceived as the fault of the West (and the US/UK in particular) - and hence feed anger and hate, and as such, serve as a recruitment basis for fundamentalist organisations.
Look at Iran: it was on its way towards less theocracy, and the Iraq invasion radicalised the population to elect an extremist president. They ALSO have their fate in their own hands!

If it was known (and it was!) that Iraq was an unstable entity which didn't turn into a a civil war mess ONLY because of the iron hand by which Saddam held them in his fist, then why, o why, take away that last element of stability and take the blame on you for the inevitable mess that was going to result ?

But overall, the Iraqi's are still better because they have control of their own political future. And this is the main reason why they are better off in my opinion.

So do the Iranians!

 

[Curious3141]

I suggest that all the M people...

Mole people ?

 

[Astronuc]

With regard to whether or not Iraq will become a democracy, it is still not clear and neither is it a forgone conclusion.

In Basra, Anniversary Marked by Disappointment
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5291314

Three years after the invasion of Iraq, one of its largest cities is beset by disappointment and fear. Residents of Basra say they feel forgotten by their own political leaders and embittered by unkept promises of help by the U.S. and British forces that ousted Saddam Hussein.

Situated in the overwhelmingly Shiite south, there is little of the sectarian violence now common in Baghdad. There are rarely car bombs, but assassinations are on the rise. Basra faces a different type of insurgency than that plaguing the region around the capital. The enemy is harder to identify and often closely associated with competing Shiite militia groups, many of whom are linked to mainstream religious political parties and tribes.

After the U.S.-led invasion, Basra was seen as the future economic engine of Iraq -- a city whose natural resources could make it rival the wealthiest cities that dot the Persian Gulf. But little has been done to improve the crumbling infrastructure. Though it sits on a sea of oil, those riches are not evident. The city is awash in sewage, which collects everywhere in fetid pools. There is no system of garbage collection. Electricity is only now at prewar levels, which, even then, were far from adequate.

A respected moderate cleric who has kept his distance from political parties says people have lost all hope that conditions will improve.

A senior Iraqi official, who asked that his name not be used because he fears for his life, confirms that the Islamist political parties are involved in smuggling, gun-running, corruption and assassinations. Last May, the Basra police chief said publicly that half of his forces belonged to militias and that he trusted only one-fourth of his officers.

The political parties deny that they have militias or anything to do with the violence. The Basra spokesman for radical cleric Muqtada Sadr insists his organization has been reformed, and Sadr's militia here is now a cultural educational institution. The local leader of the prominent political party Sciri, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution In Iraq, denies that its Iranian-trained militia is a source of trouble. Both blame the British, who are responsible for the Basra region.

Criticism of the British has been on the rise. Responding to popular pressure, Basra's provincial council voted last month to sever ties with the British troops. The final straw was the release of a video shot in 2004 depicting British soldiers beating Iraqi boys.

British troops recently launched a comprehensive effort to cleanse and rehabilitate the police force, similar to U.S. efforts further north. Citing improvements, the British plan to cut their force levels to 7,000 from 8,000.

Many in Basra are quick to call for an end to what they say is an occupation that has worn out its welcome. But many don't want the British to leave yet, fearing a power vacuum that neighboring Iran might seek to fill.

Basra Crippled by Control of Islamist Extremists
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5293139

Once a thriving river port, the southern Iraqi city of Basra fell on hard times during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war and years of U.N. sanctions. Three years after the U.S. invasion, the city is still mired in poverty, and daily life in this once cosmopolitian city is being transformed by the growing power of conservative Islamist parties.

Nine-year-old Zainab works at her father's automotive shop in Basra, selling oil and welding motorcycle parts. She was once the top student in her class, but her father felt the school was too far away.

It does not look promising for democracy. And I think Bush would be quite comfortable with that as long as he and his oil buddies get access to a stable supply of oil. :grumpy:

 

[dsky]

Curius3141: ...mole people...
bud I'm sure your lot smarter than that?

 

[Curious3141]

Curius3141: ...mole people...
bud I'm sure your lot smarter than that?

Probably not.:tongue2:

 

[scott1]

A better question is to ask whether or not the Iraqis will be better in the future then they were back under Saddam.

It's similar to asking whether the Japanese were better off in 1947 then they were before they began their asian campaign.

Pengwuino, is right.We occupied Japan after WWII just like Iraq after the invasion and Japan now has a very ecconmy.
I wonder how much similer Iraq will be to Japan in the future?It probally won't be exactllay like Japan but it might have a strong ecconmy for country in the middle east.If it does a strong ecconmy the insurgency might would be lot weaker the insurgents aren't fighting for ideology but for money(Sucide bombers don't get payed they get free life insurence) and it would be good thing for other countries there too to have another country with a good ecconmy.

 

[Astronuc]

Pengwuino, is right.We occupied Japan after WWII just like Iraq after the invasion and Japan now has a very ecconmy.

Japan did not have 3 strongly determined ethnic/religious groups, but rather Japan was relatively ethnically homogeneous - a huge advantage to Japan as compared to the current situation in Iraq.

Japan was not mired in a civil war at the time of occupation.

Japan did not have anything like al Qaida.

 

[Cyrus]

To Vanesch :tongue:

I think it is on the same level. With corruption in the UN via Sadam's bribery and payoffs, how can the UN be unbiased or impartial (not perfectly unbiased, but not allowed to erode to the levels it had)?

Imagine that it is discovered that there is some bribery going on at high levels in the US government ; does that make the entire US democratic structure loose its legitimacy ?

Sure it does. Look at the Abramoff scandal. He made the US government loose its legitimacy with respect to those he bribed and paid off. Almost exactly the same scenario as with Sadam and the UN. As a result, Abramoff is going to go to jail, and the people he bribed are being indicted by congress or resigning. The people who he had bribed had lost all legitimacy in the process.

And then that same governor is not even sanctioned, but goes and tells congress that things turned out sourer than he thought, and now it is up to the federal gov. to see what it can do to clean up the mess. Now is THAT not a much more serious loss of legitimacy for the federal state than some bribery of individuals ?

I do not like your analogy :tongue:. The US did/does not need sanctions by the UN to go to war. They can go through the UN to provide a case for war and to show legitimacy, but they do not serve the UN. I also do not see the UN cleaning up any mess in Iraq. While they might have a small presence there, they are by no means "cleaning up." The bulk of the burden has fallen on the US taxpayer, not the UN. Kofi Annan himself said that he did not agree with the way the US went about the war, but he did go on to say that despite this disagreement he knew it was necessary for the UN to help afterwards. You could tell by the expression on his face that he was deeply embarrassed by the level with which Sadam had corrupted the UN.

Of course, but in that case, it would have been a purely internal affair for which the West wouldn't take any blame. It looks like saying: hey, the patient was very ill anyways, and was going to die, so it is not so bad that I killed him hitting his head with a hammer.

It would have been an internal affair that would have resulted in civil war, and could have lead to another Taliban-like state, the only difference being that in this scenario we know they would have access and control over biological weapons that they could use against Europe or the US. I think your analogy is an oversimplification of the ramifications of an internal civil war without foreign intervention.

Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think that may Egyptians or even Syrians are so envious of the average Iraqi! I think that the actions over there have radicalized public opinion in favor of Islamism.

Yes and no. One can look at Lebanon and their protests to kick Syria out of their country. Also, Syria's actions to stop their nuclear research programs. Dubai is now a strong ally, as is Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia. I think your statement that the public opinion is radicalized towards Islam extremism is incorrect. I think that they are more sympathetic to extremists who fight against the US because of the lack of planning and execution in the war. Had things been done right, I think the overall feelings would have been more positive towards the US instead of being seen as an attack on the middle east.

Look at Iran: it was on its way towards less theocracy, and the Iraq invasion radicalized the population to elect an extremist president. They ALSO have their fate in their own hands!

Khatami faced a lot of opposition at the same time. It was not like Iran was on steady pace to phasing out the radical clerics.

So do the Iranians!

The Iranians have control over choosing who the mullahs will approve to run for president. Not a totally free election. They can only choose from those approved to run.

 

[Amp1]

I have to thank Astronuc for this source and quote:http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GLAA001.shtml

How America Lost Iraq
Aaron Glantz

In Iraq, most of the corporate journalists, when they venture outside their heavily guarded hotels, travel with US troops and base their stories on what the military tells them. Not so- Aaron Glantz, who went to Iraq totally un-embedded. And what he learned initially was not what he had expected. Most Iraqis welcomed the Americans and patiently accepted the hardship and destruction as a final sacrifice on their way to freedom. But as the occupation dragged on, and as living conditions and the security situation steadily worsened, the Americans were no longer viewed as liberators, but as oppressors. Glantz's eyewitness account gives insight into what is fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

Aaron Glantz

Aaron Glantz, a reporter for Pacifica Radio, has been to Iraq many times. He is the author of "How America Lost Iraq."

This quote (even if it is only half true) all but proves the point of this poll. If I understand this correctly, the people of Iraq initially were quite willing to under go hardship, even suffering because of the promise of the possibility that there would be improvements later on 'down the road'. Now that they are somewhat recovered from the shock of their dissillusionment, they are experiencing negative feelings and attitudes to the oppressive occupation of their country. And as many,IMO, of them see the establishment of 'Permanent Bases' in their homeland, I venture the opinion/prediction that they will start - if they haven't already - supporting the insurgents or begin their own insurgency. I think it has been posted already that there are various insurgency groups gnawing at the occupying US forces.

 

[vanesch]

Japan did not have 3 strongly determined ethnic/religious groups, but rather Japan was relatively ethnically homogeneous - a huge advantage to Japan as compared to the current situation in Iraq.

Japan was not mired in a civil war at the time of occupation.

Japan did not have anything like al Qaida.

And Japan LOST a war it started itself, so the US had the moral high ground. In fact, according to Japanese tradition where there's not much room for the rights of the loser, the US was almost incomprehensibly friendly to them. This situation is totally different in Iraq and in the Arab tradition.

 

[vanesch]

To Vanesch :tongue:

I think it is on the same level. With corruption in the UN via Sadam's bribery and payoffs, how can the UN be unbiased or impartial (not perfectly unbiased, but not allowed to erode to the levels it had)?

I make a strong distinction between corruption of individuals, and demise of an institution. Any institution, no matter how noble, can be victim of having corrupted individuals in its system ; if it ends up dealing with them, I don't think that the institution is disavowed in that way (only if repeatedly, and systematically, corrupt people seem to be steering the institutions, there's an indication that there is something seriously wrong).
However, when its purpose and system is simply put aside by its "subjects" or "members" and nothing special happens, then the institution stopped existing. I repeat my example: when the president of the US turns out to be a corrupt person, then it is only this PERSON which is in cause, not the institutions of the USA. It may take some time to find out, but, if eventually this person is brought to justice - or even, if it is historically recognized - then this doesn't harm the democratic institutions of the USA. However, if, say, the president puts down decisions of Congress, or the Supreme court, or other violations of the rules of the institutions, and NOTHING HAPPENS, then that's the end of the democratic institutions of the USA. It means that the rules are now simply written on worthless sheets of paper.

This is essentially what happened to the UN. Now, there's some legaleze wiggle room to say that the US-led invasion did not go against the UN ; but let's face it, the major institution of the UN (the security council) DID NOT AGREE with the invasion in its spirit, according to the rules of that institution. If put to vote, there would have been two or three vetos (France, Russia, and China), and there would not even have been a qualified majority. This is why THE VOTE DIDN'T TAKE PLACE. Now, although, again, there is legaleze wiggle room to justify it, the SPIRIT of the UN security council is that no member nation goes to war against another nation (unless there is imminent threat and that nation acts in self defense). It is the PURPOSE of the UN: to avoid war, and IF war is necessary, that it happens with a UN mandate. As I said, there's enough legaleze to wiggle out, and to say that the US didn't sign any such contract, and reserves the right to military actions and so on, but nevertheless, this was the SPIRIT of the UN security council: to discuss and to come to a consensus before waging war. The US being one of its major members (one of the few with veto right and permanent membership) was supposed to keep up the standard. The very fact that the US - as one of its prominent members - went OVER the UN security council to go and do its invasion, is similar, say, to the president of the US to step over a decision of the supreme court. And nothing happened.
So I consider this as an act that totally discredited the INSTITUTION of the security council. The security council has no authority left anymore. Its resolutions and votes are worthless pieces of paper because one of its most prominent members trashed them. This - IMO - is far far more discrediting than having corrupt people in its machinery. The people could have been found, put to trial and the machinery cleaned up. The loss of authority, however, is irreversible.

Sure it does. Look at the Abramoff scandal. He made the US government loose its legitimacy with respect to those he bribed and paid off. Almost exactly the same scenario as with Sadam and the UN. As a result, Abramoff is going to go to jail, and the people he bribed are being indicted by congress or resigning. The people who he had bribed had lost all legitimacy in the process.

The *people*, yes. But the US gouvernment is still a working institution. Why ? Because, once the corrupt people removed, the belief is still there that the institution functions. But the day that the president, say, puts down a decision of the Supreme court, and nothing happens, the Supreme court has had it. This is what happened to the UN.

I do not like your analogy :tongue:. The US did/does not need sanctions by the UN to go to war. They can go through the UN to provide a case for war and to show legitimacy, but they do not serve the UN.

This is not the spirit of the UN - it was founded to discuss waging war. Now, as Mao put it nicely: "power only comes out of the barrel of a gun", of course, the one with the guns has the last word - in this case, the US. But if he does that, he reduces to worthless paper all agreements to act otherwise.

The only difference being that in this scenario we know they would have access and control over biological weapons that they could use against Europe or the US. I think your analogy is an oversimplification of the ramifications of an internal civil war without foreign intervention.

*what* biological weapons ? And in any case, I think that this kind of preemptive waging of war goes far too far: you cannot speculate over what MIGHT happen, how people MIGHT decide they don't like to, and how they MIGHT decide to take aggressive action upon you to go and hit them to hell, no ? Because if that's true, the only way to be safe is to conquer all you can, and to blow to pieces all you cannot conquer!

I think your statement that the public opinion is radicalized towards Islam extremism is incorrect. I think that they are more sympathetic to extremists who fight against the US because of the lack of planning and execution in the war. Had things been done right, I think the overall feelings would have been more positive towards the US instead of being seen as an attack on the middle east.

I don't think it was POSSIBLE to "do things right". Sure, it could have been done slightly better than things have been worked out, but I don't think the military failed. In fact, it was my impression that the military did a great job - especially the special agents who could convince some Iraqi generals to abandon fighting, which made the entry into Bagdad much much easier than should have been the case if they fought back - everybody was expecting a very bloody entry into Bagdad. But the instability that followed was inevitable, and the influx of terrorists was unavoidable. The only way for things to have a better image was to let the thing deteriorate WITHOUT intervention - so that it is clear that the blame was not on the West, and then go into try to stabilize - and even then you have an image fight to win.

The Iranians have control over choosing who the mullahs will approve to run for president. Not a totally free election. They can only choose from those approved to run.

Yes, and they chose the hardest one of those approved by the Mullahs. Rafsanjani was also in the running, was even expected to win and was much much more moderate. But people didn't vote for him.

 

[Astronuc]

Stolen Away
As criminal gangs run amuck in Iraq, hundreds of girls have gone missing. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1186558,00.html

Safah is part of a seldom-discussed aspect of the epidemic of kidnappings in Iraq: sex trafficking. No one knows how many young women have been kidnapped and sold since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The Organization for Women's Freedom in Iraq, based in Baghdad, estimates from anecdotal evidence that more than 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in that period. A Western official in Baghdad who monitors the status of women in Iraq thinks that figure may be inflated but admits that sex trafficking, virtually nonexistent under Saddam, has become a serious issue.

Add this to the list of failures of George Bush!

 

[Astronuc]

Thousands of Families Displaced in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (April 29, AP) - Sectarian violence has forced about 100,000 families (or people?) across Iraq to flee their homes, a top Iraqi official said, as six more Iraqis were killed in scattered violence on Saturday.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi, one of the country's two vice presidents, told reporters in the southern city of Najaf that 90 percent of the displaced were Shiites like himself and the rest were Sunnis, the minority that held sway under former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Other estimates of the number of displaced families have been lower.

Dr. Salah Abdul-Razzaq, spokesman of the Shiite Endowment, a government body that runs Shiite religious institutions, put the number of displaced families at 13,750 nationwide, or about 90,000 people.

That includes 25,000 Iraqis who have fled their homes since the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra on Feb. 22 triggered a wave of attacks on Sunni mosques and clerics.

Earlier this week, U.S. spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters that U.S. forces had found no "widespread movement" of Shiites and Sunnis away from religiously mixed areas, despite reports to the contrary by Iraqi officials.

Hmmmm, so whom to believe?

 

[Astronuc]

I heard today that the morgue in Baghdad is overflowing with victims, sectarian violence is increasing, and the US military commanders thinks it's not getting any better, and possibly is getting worse.

The US Commission on Religious Rights has added Afghanistan to it list of countries it watches for violations of religious freedom. While an article at Voice of America mentioned Aghanistan, other an NPR program mentioned Iraq was also added to the list.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its annual report to Congress and President Bush Wednesday. It recommends that 11 countries be designated as "countries of particular concern" by the State Department, meaning they could face sanctions. Those countries are China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Eritrea, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

The commission says it has again concluded that freedom of religion "does not exist" in Saudi Arabia.

The commission placed another seven states on a watch list because of severe religious rights violations. They are Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia and Nigeria.

The commission's chairman, Michael Cromartie, warned that the universal right to religious freedom is imperiled in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries where the United States has troops deployed.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-05-03-voa53.cfm

Hmmm, it doesn't seem to be going as planned - assuming there was any plan in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

In a 6 hour period today, the bodies of 70 people were delivered to the morgue. Most of them had signs of torture and most were apparently executed.

In another article, the Iraqi army will not be prepared to take over from the US military for another 2-5 years.

Dozens Killed in String of Bombings in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5403686

Weekend Edition Sunday, May 14, 2006 · Baghdad residents were greeted Sunday morning by a series of explosions: car bombs, roadside bombs and mortars. The attacks left at least two dozen people dead as Iraq struggles to finalize the makeup of its new government.

Suicide Bombers Kill 14 at Baghdad Airport
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5403966

All Things Considered, May 14, 2006 · As politicians in Iraq wrangled over Cabinet seats, suicide bombers struck the Baghdad airport, killing 14. Six small Shiite shrines were also attacked, and four American and British soldiers died in roadside bombings.

On a positive note:
Iraqi Soldier Completes U.S. Army Ranger Training
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5403689
by Deborah Amos

Weekend Edition Sunday, May 14, 2006 · A small milestone has been reached in the development of the Iraqi army. The first Iraqi soldier has completed Ranger training at Fort Benning, Ga. It is a first, but what does it mean in a country where loyalties are shifting, the police are infiltrated by militias, and sectarian identities are dominant, even for soldiers. A strong Iraqi Army is a key component for American withdrawal plans from Iraq. When will the Iraqi army be ready? Can Iraq still develop a professional army on the American model?