Just How Much of a Mess is Iraq?

[Skywarp! 0]

Here is a letter a former Wall Street Journal reporter wrote home. It has somehow found its way online. She has since been dismissed for telling too much.

 

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659

[Guest INXS]

Thanks for posting a very interesting read which should enlighten a few posters here.

[2GOLD 0]

Raise your hand if you didn't know Iraq was going to be a mess after the war?

 

For those of you with your hands in the air, do you also believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?

 

I was for the war, bungled as it may have been, and even I KNOW that Iraq will be a mess for at LEAST a decade. Christ, the US was a mess for YEARS before even we were able to sort things out at our beginning.

 

I'm really tired of this, "IRAQ IS A NIGHTMARE", like that was not to be expected. If anyone honestly thought that things would be all chocolates and Teddy Bears once we cleared out the bigger evil then you were mindless.

[Slayer 0]

If unger approves it, it can't be a good read

[Skywarp! 0]

It's not just that the situation is a mess. It is also that we are clearly not in control of it.

[2GOLD 0]

Which was also TO BE EXPECTED.

 

That country was going to be chaos for a long time, no matter what. This was obvious and it was basic logic.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Lack of control? What did you expect for everything to magically stop after the Saddam statue got toppled and we'd just leave?

 

It always takes years for a new government to get things under control. The U.S. governement had to completely redesign itself and make the Constitution because the government couldn't control the states at all. The only reason there was control after the Civil War was because Sherman had burned most of the South down and even then you had the KKK doing shit.

[Skywarp! 0]

Comparing this to the Revolutionary War is stupid and shortsighted. That was a war fought by people who wanted their independence and governed themselves afterwards, knowing that even with the troubles right now, they are better off. This is a war fought by another country saying, "You should have your independence" and proceeds to destroy everything about those people's lives to the point where the dictator's rule was looked upon as "the good ol' days".

 

Not only that, but you're suggesting that things are getting better, when it seems to me that it just keeps getting catastrophically, exponentially worse.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

No, it's pointing out how shortsighted YOU ARE when you're freaking out because everything isn't fixed yet. If you actually bothered to use your head you'd see how it applies. Even when the U.S. fought for it's own independence it took years and a second try at government to even stabalize the country.

 

EDIT: And even then our country erupted into a civil war within the first century of it's existence.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, not worth reading, eh?

-=Mike

[Skywarp! 0]

So, not worth reading, eh?

-=Mike

It's worth everyone reading.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, not worth reading, eh?

      -=Mike

It's worth everyone reading.

Oh, I'd bet otherwise.

 

Iraq isn't utopia. Thanks. Truly stunning revelation.

 

I could post links to pieces that Iraq is not nearly as bad as you claim, but what would be the point?

-=Mike

[CanadianChris 0]

So, not worth reading, eh?

       -=Mike

It's worth everyone reading.

Oh, I'd bet otherwise.

 

Iraq isn't utopia. Thanks. Truly stunning revelation.

 

I could post links to pieces that Iraq is not nearly as bad as you claim, but what would be the point?

-=Mike

Hell, the feedback from that article would be sufficient in that regard.

[Skywarp! 0]

Edit.

[cbacon 0]

To think that Iraq will progressively become better off thanks to US intervention is very naive. History has taught us that such intervention very rarely helps the citizens of a nation, and oppressive regiemes flourish further.

 

When it comes to having a democracy in Iraq, many are quick to point out that "Well, Japan and Germany converted just fine". What isn't taken into account is the fact that both of these nations were made up of an entire homogeneous group. By that token, one could argue that the US was heterogenous in the days of the founding fathers, but there was a common goal there.

 

You simply can't have that with Iraq. It's a makeshift country full of differing religious, social, and political ideaologies. This is in part thanks to British colonization after the first World War. The Shites have the larger majority in Iraq, and if in power, the conflict of interest will only intensify between the Sunni majority and the Kurds, whether it be in January or 10 years from now. This type of tension is not at all comporable to the differing religious ideaologies in the United States. Of course, the US will have their hand picked puppet regieme in there, painting a picture of 'progress' in Iraq until the day it's found too much of a bother to take care of anymore. But hey, they've got bases in the county, that's all that is really needed.

 

It's also outrageous to even argue the point that "well, it's suppose to look bad now, it's expected" in regards to the current state of the country. 15,000 Iraqi's are dead on the basis of 'false assumptions'. Oh democracy, how convenient.

[Guest BDC]

Y'know what, I'm going to take the word of a friend of mine that's actually there and that I know personally over this other stuff.

 

Here's some of what he's told me:

 

-do they lack amenities. But then again, what has he told me about? Oh yeah. That they are working on the water lines. They have fixed the electricity. After years living under Hussien, these people didn't have running water and aren't used to having indoor facilities, so they make like India and just go where ever outside.

 

-Peace and stability? Fifteen regions and only one is active? Just checking.

 

-Iraqis learning a few words of English with the specific purpose to thank US soldiers that are there for coming.

[Guest GreatOne]

To think that Iraq will progressively become better off thanks to US intervention is very naive. History has taught us that such intervention very rarely helps the citizens of a nation, and oppressive regiemes flourish further.

Oh but history is nowhere near the teacher that C-Bacon is! So which is it, we'll fail over there, or since we supposedly ARE the oppressive regime, we'll flourish?

 

Or should they have other nations involved in their future?

[cbacon 0]

You missed the obvious.

 

I was referring to military interventions that serve their own interests rather than the citizens of a country. Staging various coup's around the world and robbing nations of democracy, ironically the very prinicple that the US government extensively praises. And arming and funding terrorist groups in order to perserve these self interests . That is the history i'm referring to. And many of these elements are transcending the issue in Iraq today. Thinking the betterment of Iraq is at the top of priorities list is quite naive.

[Guest GreatOne]

You missed the obvious.

 

I was referring to military interventions that serve their own interests rather than the citizens of a country. Staging various coup's around the world and robbing nations of democracy, ironically the very prinicple that the US government extensively praises. And arming and funding terrorist groups in order to perserve these self interests . That is the history i'm referring to. And many of these elements are transcending the issue in Iraq today. Thinking the betterment of Iraq is at the top of priorities list is quite naive.

You mean like we--according to you--do all the time. Yep, HALIBURTON on 3!

[Highland 0]

What does Haliburton have to do with anything?

 

The situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as it is being made out to be. It's because we are fed up-to-the-minute reports from there that we believe it's all going to hell in a hand basket. Iraq will be democratized, it's already on it's way, but it will take time, at least 10 years, before it is stable, thriving and wealthy democracy.

[Guest GreatOne]

What does Haliburton have to do with anything?

You know when C-Bacon dropped the line about 'military interventions that serve their own interests' he was just dying to go there, so I accommodated him. But you're right, it has nothing to do with it.

[NoCalMike 0]

What does Haliburton have to do with anything?

You know when C-Bacon dropped the line about 'military interventions that serve their own interests' he was just dying to go there, so I accommodated him. But you're right, it has nothing to do with it.

Actually Haliburton has a lot to do with it, unless you stupidly feel that NO ONE in Iraq is capable building stuff, and the only ones up to the task are american corporations that price gouge. Sending an american corporation over there with exclusive "rights" to build everything back up, sure as hell exhibits "america going to war for it's own interests"

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Hey, whats the exit strategy again?

[Guest GreatOne]

I don't know Cheese, since you're so fucking concerned, why don't you send your 'strategy' to the White House? Either that or we can get Kerry and HIS PLAN!~ to work.

[Red Baron 0]

What plan?

 

Only a time machine can save the debacle thats in Iraq. If you leave, the world will think America can not clean up their own mess. (Canadian Journalists will love this)

 

Staying in Iraq will be in the same shit as America is in.

 

Quite frankly I don't think Bush and Co. figured out their game plan after Baghdad.

[Guest BDC]

The situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as it is being made out to be. It's because we are fed up-to-the-minute reports from there that we believe it's all going to hell in a hand basket. Iraq will be democratized, it's already on it's way, but it will take time, at least 10 years, before it is stable, thriving and wealthy democracy.

You hit the nail right on the head.

 

You know what they tell the wives of servicemen that go to Iraq? Don't watch the news, it's not reliable. Don't trust anything that you don't hear from people in the service.

[Highland 0]

Actually Haliburton has a lot to do with it, unless you stupidly feel that NO ONE in Iraq is capable building stuff, and the only ones up to the task are american corporations that price gouge. Sending an american corporation over there with exclusive "rights" to build everything back up, sure as hell exhibits "america going to war for it's own interests"

Actually, I doubt there are many corporations that have the resources and means to partake of such a huge undertaking as the reconstruction of a country's oil program. Haliburton is one of those companies. Further, why shouldn't it be an American company getting the contracts? It was the US that toppled Saddam's regime, therefore it is the US that should benefit the most, not any foreign corporation whose host country was not in the coalition.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually Haliburton has a lot to do with it, unless you stupidly feel that NO ONE in Iraq is capable building stuff, and the only ones up to the task are american corporations that price gouge.  Sending an american corporation over there with exclusive "rights" to build everything back up, sure as hell exhibits "america going to war for it's own interests"

Actually, I doubt there are many corporations that have the resources and means to partake of such a huge undertaking as the reconstruction of a country's oil program. Haliburton is one of those companies. Further, why shouldn't it be an American company getting the contracts? It was the US that toppled Saddam's regime, therefore it is the US that should benefit the most, not any foreign corporation whose host country was not in the coalition.

From what I gather, two companies can do it.

 

One is Halliburton.

The other is a French company.

 

Why does Kerry want to outsource these jobs?

-=Mike

[snuffbox 0]

On a mildly related note, a lifelong friend of mine is FINALLY getting a leave from Iraq and will be back home for a week or so starting this weekend. I will be giving notice to my job to not expect me in too much next week.

[NoCalMike 0]

Actually Haliburton has a lot to do with it, unless you stupidly feel that NO ONE in Iraq is capable building stuff, and the only ones up to the task are american corporations that price gouge.  Sending an american corporation over there with exclusive "rights" to build everything back up, sure as hell exhibits "america going to war for it's own interests"

Actually, I doubt there are many corporations that have the resources and means to partake of such a huge undertaking as the reconstruction of a country's oil program. Haliburton is one of those companies. Further, why shouldn't it be an American company getting the contracts? It was the US that toppled Saddam's regime, therefore it is the US that should benefit the most, not any foreign corporation whose host country was not in the coalition.

well since the "liberation" in Iraq was supposed to benefit Iraqis the most, not american corporations. How about they hire some actual Iraqis to work then, instead of totally shutting them out of the process of rebuilding?