OT: Bush Bungles Bagdad

[alcohol_]

you can buy the film here: https://secure.ctsg.com/truth_uncovered/contribute/DVD_Store.asp?ms=nation It's been shown in homes across the country.

[Saint Johnny B]

Thanks alch Was it broadcast on PBS or cable?

[Chuck Moore]

Pravda most likely

[Dogfur]

I have viewed the documentary in question and find it valid and its government sources believable. I very heartily suggest to other SSSr's to view it themselves to make their own decision. Best to all, Dogfur

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b] You might even say... The Iraqi people are better off now that Saddam has removed from power. But maybe you wouldn't agree. :eek: [/b][/quote]It doesn't matter whether Johnny agrees. The Iraqi PEOPLE don't agree. They're sick and tired of no water, no power, no medicines, no jobs, no money, no food, no security, and no future. Did you read the Newsweek cover story a few weeks ago - Who Botched The Occupation? Here's [url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/11/sprj.irq.main/index.html]more news on the subject[/url] that just came to light today. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have let the Iraqi people down in a big way. To argue to the contrary is absurd.

[Chuck Moore]

To try and argue that the Iraqi people are not better off, or that they do not believe they are better off is what is absurd. Most Iraqis when polled fully expect things to be improve there and fear the Americans leaving too SOON, before the security situation is stabilized. There were also thousands of Iraqis demonstrating in the streets yesterday in three cities...... not protesting us, but demonstrating against the terrorists and supporting democracy. 'Course you won't hear about that on the left wing media, they only cover protests AGAINST the US. To suggest that Iraq, or the world, was better off with Sadamm in power is just assanine.

[michael saulnier]

Of course, I knew you, or Johnny, would not agree... it would be too hard wouldn't it. Once you KNOW you're right... everything gets filtered by that knowledge. Humans. What a species... But back to the point. So you're saying that if Saddam was still running things in Iraq... everyone would have bountiful water, power, medical supplies, jobs, food security, and a wonderful future... Did they have that DURING his regime? Well maybe not the people he tortured and killed... what's the latest estimate? 65,000? Well, they probably aren't able to complain to Newsweek, are they... And of course the non-Baath party folks... well they never really saw the "upside" of the Saddam regime... did they? So they probably are a little LESS unhappy than some... I saw the newsstory you linked to... Yes, 300 of 700 soldiers quit... very unhappy. Although 400 DIDN'T quit. And what about the estimated 150,000 Iraqi's now in the non-military security forces. I guess their story doesn't deserve reporting because their "success" isn't really NEWS... is it? And of course they have something to do every day... it's called... how would you put it? A JOB! But there are NO jobs... so that can't be right! It's funny how "absolute" your comments are. Don't you think you would be more "believable" or "convincing" if you said NOT ENOUGH power, food, medicine, security... etc? But you feel you must say NO power, food, medicine, security... Talk about absurd! I don't think anyone predicted that a few months after Saddam's overthrow, Iraq would have a complete "recovery"... haven't any other reconstruction efforts have taken much longer than the time that has passed so far? Yeah, I know. "They didn't have a plan. They "botched" it. ANYONE else would have done a better job. They INTENTIONALLY didn't do a good job because it would be easier to get the oil..." Did I leave anything out? I'm sure I did... and that you'll fill me in... ;) But you know in spite of your comments... I don't think you'll get me to agree that the typical non-Baath Iraqi is wishing for Saddam's return so that "order" can be resumed. If they do... well it's quite curious isn't it? :eek: Don't you find it positive that the time table for Iraqi autonomy has been repeatedly moved forward? The ability of the Iraqi's to manage their own affairs is increasing day by day... The schools that we build, the markets that are now reopened bringing the flow of goods and services, the establishment of MANY local councils that now govern much of Iraq, the relative peace that the average person enjoys, the absence of the SEVEN SECURITY POLICE forces Saddam used to control the people, the freedom to assemble and protest... even against the US forces... Yeah, THAT sort of protest would have been allowed in the "Good old days" under Saddam... But you probably don't see any of this as positive. Or if you admitted SOME of it were... of course it wouldn't be "enough"... you just CAN'T agree... No, I knew you wouldn't. It would be absurd of me to think you would! You see I CAN say that some things are really screwed up. I'm not happy about the Halliburton contracts and today's reporting of the "overcharges"... It's screwed up, and if it's ILLEGAL I hope they pay the price... I'm not happy they haven't found Saddam or several of the top leaders... Although ironically Johnny's idea of a special force to hunt Saddam is actually in place... so maybe SOMEDAY! I'm not happy with the failures in security that allow the constant, but not decisive attacks against our forces and those of our allies... BUT THESE ARE CARRIED OUT BY AT MOST A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE IN A NATION OF MILLIONS. Not exactly the whole country acting against us is it? Of course there have been mistakes. I would bet anything there will be more. It's humans doing things. They are ALWAYS imperfect. The Republicans answer to their powerbase just as directly as the Democrats do... THEY ARE ALL CORRUPT. BOTH SIDES. IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE YOU'RE KIDDING YOURSELF. But we are there now. So to me, the question isn't whether we should be... or even if we've made mistakes... only what do we do now. Are we LEARNING anything from the mistakes? Is there change for the better? Why not seek a balanced way of looking at it? No, I didn't think so... I'm sure there will be a nice reply with a link or two to the "news of the day"... :rolleyes: :wave: guitplayer

[Dan South]

Read the article. Not absurd at all. Many areas of Baghdad had ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTIC POWER FOR MONTHS. Can YOU imagine living under such conditions?

[Chuck Moore]

And before we went there, your daughter could be raped and then shot at will. Your children tortured in front of you and your whole family end up in a mass grave if it was even suggested that you said something against the reime. Can YOU imagine living under THOSE conditions? 'Course not. But you seem to think they must not have been so bad for the Iraqis, as things are much worse now. :rolleyes:

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]And before we went there, your daughter could be raped and then shot at will. Your children tortured in front of you and your whole family end up in a mass grave if it was even suggested that you said something against the reime. Can YOU imagine living under THOSE conditions? 'Course not. But you seem to think they must not have been so bad for the Iraqis, as things are much worse now. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]And today entire families can simply be shot and killed while approaching a checkpoint. Big improvement. I don't "think" any of what you've suggested. I KNOW that Iraqis were happier with their life under Saddam than under the American occupation. Yes, Chuck, I agree that Saddam was horrible, but if they think that WE are WORSE, what does that say about the mismanagement of the occupation? That's what this thread is about, the mismanagement of the occupation, not whether Saddam was (is) a bad guy. Everybody KNOWS that he was an evil dictator. That's not the point. The point is that we expected the Iraqis to view us as liberators, and if we had done the job right, they would have. The operation was poorly planned, however, and it's brought the Iraqi people much misery. This is well-documented. So while we've been over here patting ourselves on the back, THEY have been suffering for months. Face it. That should NOT have happened. President "Mission Accomplished" put his foot in his mouth on that aircraft carrier, and the whole world know what kind of a mess we've made. We'd better fix it soon if we want to retain (or rather, re-GAIN) ANY shred of respect in the international community.

[DoctorNo]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]And before we went there, your daughter could be raped and then shot at will. Your children tortured in front of you and your whole family end up in a mass grave if it was even suggested that you said something against the reime. Can YOU imagine living under THOSE conditions? 'Course not. But you seem to think they must not have been so bad for the Iraqis, as things are much worse now. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Well the Iraqis lived under those conditions for a long time. I have just one question. Why is it our responsibility to free people when they won't do it themselves?

[strat0124]

Yeah, Iraqi's deserve a McDonalds, Pizzahut, Blockbuster, and liquor stores on every corner.....its freedom damnit!

[StoneinaPond]

Is there ANY way that we as citizens of this great land could get a [i]real[/i] picture of what is going on in Iraq as concerns the people's plight? That is not a rhetorical question. I feel that when I am watching the news I am doing so through a keyhole, and I don't even know who controls where the keyhole is pointing. I keep trying to look behind the talking head or the picture of the latest violence to see if I can get a real sense of what is happening on the ground for the ordinary citizen. On the one hand you hear that kids are going to school, business is progressing, but then you hear that it is unsafe for women to walk in the streets because of lawlessness. Are there any people here, who have relatives in Iraq? Are the newspapers that are reported to be springing up all over Iraq available here? Has anybody read any of them? Anybody?

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote]I feel that when I am watching the news I am doing so through a keyhole, and I don't even know who controls where the keyhole is pointing. [/quote]DING DING DING. :thu:

[offramp]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b] [quote]I feel that when I am watching the news I am doing so through a keyhole, and I don't even know who controls where the keyhole is pointing. [/quote]DING DING DING. :thu: [/b][/quote]Oh, and your situation isn't exactly the same?

[Chuck Moore]

[quote] I agree that Saddam was horrible, but if they think that WE are WORSE, what does that say about the mismanagement of the occupation? [/quote]Do you honestly feel that the average Iraqi thinks we are worse than Sadamm? If so that speaks volumes about your own biases and willingness to believe the very worst about us. That statement would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact you probably actually BELIEVE that. Typical 'blame America first' mentality. [quote] I feel that when I am watching the news I am doing so through a keyhole, and I don't even know who controls where the keyhole is pointing. I keep trying to look behind the talking head or the picture of the latest violence to see if I can get a real sense of what is happening on the ground for the ordinary citizen. On the one hand you hear that kids are going to school, business is progressing, but then you hear that it is unsafe for women to walk in the streets because of lawlessness. [/quote]Very good point. It is difficult to get an accurate picture of how things are going from the media. Also consider that Iraq is a large country with 25 milion people living in it. There are large portions in the country where things are relatively secure and life is improving daily. Other parts have issues still to be resolved. Hell, there are parts of THIS country where it's unsafe for women to walk the streets as well. And lets not forget that prior to the invasion Sadamm opened his prisons, and those people are now roaming freely causing mischief. I don't have any relatives there, but do know some military personel that have been there. They tell me that the people they came in contact with were largely friendly and supportive, and feared us leaving too soon rather than wishing us gone immediately. But just like the various news reports, thats just a snapshot of one tiny slice of a very large pie.

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by DoctorNo: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]And before we went there, your daughter could be raped and then shot at will. Your children tortured in front of you and your whole family end up in a mass grave if it was even suggested that you said something against the reime. Can YOU imagine living under THOSE conditions? 'Course not. But you seem to think they must not have been so bad for the Iraqis, as things are much worse now. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]Well the Iraqis lived under those conditions for a long time. I have just one question. Why is it our responsibility to free people when they won't do it themselves?[/b][/quote]Dr. No. I'm not sure you can point to a foreign policy past or current where the US says its global mission is to "free everyone"... Whether you claim the current administration intentionally misled the US citizens and congress or you believe that they unintentionally misled them, or you believe that they didn't mislead them at all... The stated basis for our attack on Saddam was NOT to "free the Iraqi people". The administration is saying NOW, that this is one of the "positive" outcomes of the war, but it wasn't one of the stated "goals" prior to the war. Keep in mind, as much as some want to portray this as Bush versus Saddam, the sum of the international intellegence was that Saddam had not proven his destruction of the WMD's he was known to posess. When the Congress overwhelmingly gave the administration the green light for the use of military force, it was THIS threat that was the dominant reason why. Of course, now, several months after the war, the failure to locate significant WMD's MUST be viewed as a political problem for the administration. It may be that WMD's may eventually be found... maybe not... But it was the threat of those weapons, and Saddam's unwillingness to truly cooperate in inspections aimed at verifying his claimed destruction of them that were the core "reason" the war happened. There are dozens of countries around the world where "American style" democracy isn't in place... meaning by "our" standards, the people aren't "free". I haven't heard of ANY plans to attack these nations. And I doubt there is any. guitplayer

[the stranger]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guitplayer: I'm not sure you can point to a foreign policy past or current where the US says its global mission is to "free everyone"... guitplayer[/QB][/QUOTE ]Foreign Policy in Focus: U.S. Democratization Assistance July, 1999 • Vol.4, #20 By Elizabeth Cohn Edited by Tom Barry and Martha Honey Key Points * U.S. democratization assistance is hard to evaluate because of a lack of clarity about what is considered democracy promotion. * Historically, the U.S. commitment to promoting democracy has been more rhetorical than real. * The objectives and impact of past U.S. political aid produces skepticism about current democracy programs. With the end of the cold war, U.S. policymakers sought a number of rationales to justify continued engagement in the world and to promote American interests. [b]Republicans and Democrats alike were attracted to a framework developed by the Reagan administration: the U.S. promotion of democracy. The Clinton administration went further than Reagan and Bush, announcing in 1993 that all U.S. foreign policy would be guided by the doctrine of "enlargement," aimed at expanding the community of democratic states.[/b] Although this rhetoric indicated a shift in thinking from the former policy of containment (no longer necessary after the collapse of the Soviet Union), it was not backed up with significant policy initiatives designed to implement it. There were minor bureaucratic rearrangements such as the creation of the Center for Democracy and Governance at the Agency for International Development (AID) and the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor at the State Department. Clinton's attempt to create a position of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and Peacekeeping at the Department of Defense was thwarted by Congress, but a special Assistant for Democracy was named at the National Security Council (NSC). Promoting democracy, the Clinton administration has argued, is valuable not only for its own sake but also because it enhances free trade and economic growth and promotes global security. As President Clinton said in his 1994 State of the Union address, "Democracies don't attack each other," and therefore "the best strategy to insure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere." However, academic Michael E. Brown and others contend that this "democratic peace theory" is based more on wishful thinking than empirical evidence. [b]Among policymakers, analysts, and the public there is a broad consensus supporting democracy promotion. [/b]The consensus, which builds on the U.S. national identity in global politics and the idealist tradition in foreign policy, has emerged with little critical examination of the objectives, methods, and impact of democratization programs. [b]Since Woodrow Wilson, U.S. presidents have made a rhetorical commitment to democracy[/b] while supporting nondemocratic governments or forces if security or economic interests were at stake. [b]During the cold war, government democracy assistance programs were largely housed within the CIA and run covertly. Since the Reagan administration, a number of government agencies have begun democracy programs under the rubric of strengthening civil society. Although these programs are now overt and administered by a variety of agencies, the U.S. has continued the long-established model of funding-either directly or indirectly-foreign institutions such as the media, political parties, and trade unions. Government agencies currently involved in the promotion of democracy include AID, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), and the departments of State, Justice, and Defense. Also involved are quasi-governmental organizations, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Asia Foundation, that rely almost exclusively on government funding. These democracy programs focus on the rule of law, the administration of justice, human rights, political processes including elections, civil society, government institutions, and civil-military relations. Though most of these government agencies target foreign institutions, USIA's public diplomacy efforts-which are here considered part of U.S. democracy assistance-target foreign individuals regarding U.S. policy and U.S. values, including democratic principles.[/b] The amount of U.S. financial support for democracy assistance is difficult to assess over time because of numerous changes in the categorization of aid programs and accounting practices. Government figures have not consistently included economic assistance projects as part of democracy building funding. Similarly, the USIA is not always included. Recent figures from the State Department indicate spending of $580 million in 1998, with increases to $623 million and $709 million in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Nevertheless, these levels of democracy assistance have not reflected the Clinton administration's grand commitment to a policy of enlargement. When compared with the 1999 appropriations of $216 billion for International Affairs and $276.7 billion for the Department of Defense, the dollar amounts are extremely small. Problems With Current U.S. Policy Key Problems * The U.S. definition of democracy narrowly focuses on free markets and U.S.-style democracy. * The U.S. government funds U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to carry out politically sensitive projects that could damage U.S. bilateral relations if U.S. government funding went directly to foreign nongovernmental organizations. * U.S. policymakers fail to acknowledge that democracy promotion may constitute political intervention. The Clinton administration, even more than its predecessors, has emphasized that free markets and a strong private sector are integral to democracy. Indeed, the Clinton administration was the first to use the term "market democracies." However, this definitional linkage of free market policies with political democracy is often more theoretical than real. Economic globalization, privatization, and free trade tend to widen the gap between rich and poor, and this can exacerbate crime, corruption, and instability, thus undermining efforts to build democratic institutions. As a result, U.S. democracy programs may have a negative impact on a country's political democratization processes. Historically the U.S. has had a very ethnocentric concept of democracy that focuses almost exclusively on elections-even if these elections occur in highly volatile and controlled conditions, as in El Salvador in the 1980s or Cambodia in the 1990s. The U.S. employs a limited definition of democracy, modeled on the American form of government: free and fair elections, the protections guaranteed by the American Bill of Rights, and competition among institutions in civil society. In Tanzania, Kenya, and several African countries for instance, the push for multiparty elections has often fanned domestic tensions through the rapid proliferation of ethnically, regionally, or religiously based political parties. In recent years policymakers have correctly begun to recognize that multiparty elections are necessary but not sufficient for creating a democracy. Indeed, democratically elected governments may rule in an undemocratic manner, and this reality has led some observers to caution that there may be a proliferation of "illiberal democracies," such as in Peru, Romania, Bangladesh, and Ghana. The democracy buzz words today are "strengthening civil society," which independent analysts have described as supporting a free press and free speech, the right of NGOs and labor to organize, an independent judiciary, and a civilian-controlled military. The need to strengthen civil society-although not necessarily all these components-has now been officially embraced by AID, but it is usually narrowly construed as building societies that embrace U.S. values and U.S.-style democracy. In practice, strengthening civil society can be used to support one political group or party over another. This occurred in Nicaragua under a media spotlight in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the U.S. funded conservative forces against the Sandinistas, and it continues to occur today, although not on as grand a scale. Conservative and centrist, pro-U.S. and pro-free market forces are strengthened and helped into power, while other indigenous forces are marginalized. Thus the political map of a target country becomes reshaped by U.S. involvement. When promoting democratic movements would mean countering U.S. allies-as with the Zapatista peasants' struggle against the Mexican government-funding is denied. Currently, U.S. NGOs are tapped for projects, such as funding opposition leaders, that could be damaging to bilateral relations if done directly by the U.S. government. In Romania, for instance, the International Republican Institute-one of NED's core grantees- "carried significant water" for the U.S. government, according to a State Department official. Indeed, although NED is technically a nongovernmental organization, the U.S. State Department has in the past reviewed NED grants before money is allocated, and the two still work together closely. The political way in which the U.S. government uses NED, and the many other U.S. NGOs it funds, damages both U.S. democratic credentials and democratic processes abroad. Government agencies and NGOs contracted to administer democracy assistance argue that they seek to avoid even the appearance of interference in a host country's politics. According to Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "AID officials cling to the idea that they can promote democracy around the world without actually becoming involved in politics or 'being political.'" However, in practice, democracy programs often do interfere in the political affairs of other countries. Although far less dramatic than the use of military force, training union organizers, publishing elementary school texts, or funding political parties and movements produces a long-term impact on a country's political life. Further, as the furor surrounding China's contributions to U.S. political parties highlights, the U.S. government does not tolerate foreign interference in American political campaigns or elections. Toward a New Foreign Policy Key Recommendations * Redefine democracy so that free markets are not conflated with democracy and so that reducing economic inequality is considered a fundamental element. * Limit U.S. government involvement in the strengthening of civil society. * Utilize multilateral and regional organizations when possible. [b]In 1995, President Clinton called democracy promotion "one of the central pillars of the United States' security strategy."[/b] But democracy needs to be promoted for its own sake, not simply as an instrument to further U.S. security or economic interests. The U.S. can play a positive yet limited role in supporting democratic processes in other countries, but only if democracy assistance is delinked from furthering U.S. security and economic interests. One way to accomplish this is for U.S. democracy assistance to be channeled through multilateral and regional organizations. The U.S. government needs to recognize that democracy can take many forms, and the U.S. political model should not be imposed on other countries. Democracy could follow a social democratic model, as advanced by Social Democratic parties in Europe, where social and economic rights are regarded more seriously than they are in the United States. In this model the government plays a stronger role in protecting people from the excesses of the market and in ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources. Indeed, any definition of democracy must include a lessening of inequalities, since, in the long run, such inequalities undermine democracy and can lead to a return to authoritarian government. Policymakers should recognize that when the U.S. engages in "strengthening civil society" it acts to further its interests, and that the furthering of these U.S. interests is not necessarily in the best interests of democratic development in the target country. If the U.S. government is truly interested in promoting democracy, then it must be willing to accept leaders and institutions supported by the country's own residents-even if they are not favored by the United States. U.S. democracy programs should be directed away from the new emphasis on strengthening civil society and instead should be limited to technical support for elections and campaigns, judiciaries, and other governmental institutions. The U.S. government should be more transparent in its democracy assistance. Extensive government funding of NED and the Asia Foundation should be ended, and these groups should reconstitute themselves as true nongovernmental organizations. Close consultation between the U.S. government and nongovernmental groups should stop. NGOs should set their own goals and not be servants of U.S. national interests, as NED is by congressional mandate. When possible, the U.S. should use international and regional organizations, such as the United Nations and the Organization of American States, for its democracy assistance. These international organizations are better placed to address the democratization processes in other countries without promoting a U.S. security or free trade agenda. Isolationism should not be a policy alternative. In an interdependent world, the U.S. government is rightly concerned about the political and economic processes in other countries. But U.S. policymakers must realize that emphasizing free markets and privatization above all else destroys democracy's long-term prospects. AID can play a positive role in democracy building by addressing socioeconomic problems in poor countries and thus create a strong base for democratization. Or AID can support human rights and reconciliation, as it did with its $1.75 million funding of Guatemala's Historical Clarification Commission in 1997 and 1998. However, AID should not be drawn into advancing short-term U.S. policy interests. The U.S. needs to recognize that building stable democratic institutions takes time, as witnessed by America's own experience. Democracy programs should be geared toward supporting democratic reforms-such as an independent and well-trained judiciary, a civilian-controlled military, and a multiparty electoral processes-over the long haul, recognizing that, in the short run, these efforts may cause political unrest. Elizabeth Cohn is the Director of the International and Intercultural Studies Major at Goucher College. Publications Michael E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, eds., Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996). Thomas Carothers, Assessing Democracy Assistance: The Case of Romania (Washington: Carnegie Endowment, 1996). Thomas Carothers, In The Name of Democracy (Berkeley: University of California, 1991). Elizabeth Cohn and Michael J. Nojeim, "Promoting Democracy," in David W. Dent, ed., U.S.-Latin American Policymaking (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995). Government Accounting Office, Promoting Democracy: Foreign Affairs and Defense Agencies Funds and Activities-1991 to 1993, NSIAD-94-83, (Washington, DC: GAO, January 1994). Robert Kaplan, "Was Democracy Just a Moment," Atlantic Monthly, December 1997. William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, U.S. Intervention, and Hegemony (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University, 1996). Fareed Zakaria, "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy," Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 6, November-December 1997. Websites National Endowment for Democracy http://www.ned.org/ U.S. Agency for International Development http://www.info.usaid.gov/

[michael saulnier]

the stranger... Thanks for posting that stuff... I'm not sure of its relevance to my point. I think it's a GOOD thing for the US to support democracy around the world. Generally, democratic countries are less likely to attack their neighbors, threaten us, harbor terrorists and so on... They also tend to make good trading partners and often are international political allies. In almost EVERY case where a non-democratic nation has BECOME democratic... things have improved for the people of that country, and in their relations with other countries. So there's no doubt, "supporting democracy" around the world is something that IS a part of our foreign policy. The question was... do we have a policy to INVADE ANY COUNTRY THAT ISN'T DEMOCRATIC IN ORDER TO PUT DEMOCRACY IN PLACE. I don't believe this to be expressed in the content you provided, and I don't think that's the US foreign policy. Again, the adminstration is saying NOW, that one of the positive OUTCOMES of the war in Iraq is that we will allow a democratic government to emerge to replace Saddam's dictatorship. But it wasn't the REASON we attacked. That's NOT what the Congress authorized. I don't recall ANY official statement that this was the REASON or POLICY of the US. So again, thanks for the research... But maybe more is needed if you want to refute my point. :wave: guitplayer.

[Saint Johnny B]

Try looking here once in a while: [url=http://www.c-span.org]www.c-span.org[/url]

[the stranger]

Wasn't refuting your point, just adding to it. :D

[GZsound]

SINCE PRESIDENT BUSH DECLARED AN END TO MAJOR COMBAT ON MAY 1, 2003: 1. The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army had graduated and is on active duty. 2. Over 60,000 Iraqi's now provide security to their countrymen. 3. Nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are now functioning. 4. The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. 5. On Monday, October 6, 2003, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts...exceeding the pre war average power generation. 6. All 22 universities and 43 technical institutions and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools. 7. Over 1,500 schools have be rehabilitated..500 more than planned. 8. Teachers are now paid 12 to 25 times their pre war salaries. 9. All 240 hospitals and more than 1,200 clinics are now open. 10. Doctors salaries are not at least 8 times what they were pre war. 11. Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from nothing to 700 tons in May to a current level of 12,000 tons. 12. The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraqi children. 13. The Coalition has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed choked canals. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi's. 14. Telephone service is over two thirds restored and potable water production is over two thirds of pre war production. 15. 95% of all pre war bank customers have service. 16. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance business. 17. Iraq has a single unified currency for the first time in 15 years. 18. Satellite dishes are now legal. 19. Foreign journalists no longer are on 10 day high fee visas. 20. There is no longer a ministry of information. 21. A nation that had not one single element of a representative government now has several of those elements. 22. There are 88 elected advisory councils in Baghdad alone. The first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected it's new chairman. 23. 25 ministers, selected by the city councils now run the day to day business of government. 24. The democratic Iraqi government is now a part of over two dozen international meetings and groups, including the UN General Assembly, The Arab League, The World Bank, The IMF and the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced it was reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world. 25. For the first time in 25 years, Shiites were allowed to celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam. 26. The coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects. 27. A Muslim woman has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the first time in history. Uday and Queasy are dead. Political opponents are no longer imprisoned, tortured, executed or maimed. Children are not tortured or imprisoned when their parents disagree with the government. All this from an administration with no plan, no direction, was going to be slaughtered going into Baghdad, was only in it for the oil. But of course, you will never hear any of this on NPR, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC or in the New York Times. Wonder why..?

[Saint Johnny B]

What;s this a Halibuton report? Or did it come from some other sanitized source like Rush the drug addict?

[Jotown]

[quote]27. A Muslim woman has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the first time in history. [/quote]And what does this have to do with the war in Iraq? The woman was from Iran. The Nobel prize has nothing to do with America or Bush. It is statements like this that make the bulk of your rhetoric so amusing.

[michael saulnier]

[quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]Wasn't refuting your point, just adding to it. :D [/b][/quote]Okey Dokey! :wave: guitplayer

[Johnny Bitch]

I see they are really addressing the issues GZ. All that stuff GZ posted and you guys pick out that little bit to complain about , TYPICAL. This is pointless, you guys are NOT looking for the truth, this is all about propaganda . Bush could give billions away to Africa and you would still complain, .............wait a minute he did, OK find something wrong with that, I have confidence in the "hate America first" crowd.

[offramp]

"This is pointless, you guys are NOT looking for the truth, this is all about propaganda ." You seem to be happily spoon-fed from key players on your side. What's the difference?

[Saint Johnny B]

Another stupid comment from the moron drunk, the "hate America first crowd?" So anybody who dares to point out that Bush and Cheney are criminals hates all of America, all Americans, all the men, women, and children, that live here. If anybody "hates the American people," it has to be Bush and Cheney, after all, nearly every act they take and every move they make is detrimental to the average American's interests.

[Johnny Bitch]

You are like a lingering fart.

[Saint Johnny B]

Wow, You should know as you are the resident fart smelling expert. Big Dick C says it's time for you to brush your teeth. :wave: