US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam.

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Nadia, show me any serious discussion of an all Muslim force.*
[/quote]

OG, Despite your fervent attempts to 'prove' the contrary, it CAN be done. Why won't you even consider the idea? Put the force under the control of Lakhdar Brahimi, UN envoy to Iraq. If we transferred authority to the UN, it is almost a sure-fire thing you would get previously reluctant countries like Canada onboard. You NEED countries that are not perceived of as occupiers. Canada, at least in the eyes of many Iraqis, is not perceived in that light. Face it, the days when we could dream of showering rosebuds and petals upon the Brits & Americans, isn't going to manifest itself anytime in the next gazillion years. Why not have neutral countries ? Why do you dismiss the idea so arrogantly when your only other alternative is proving to be so disastrous? There is nothing wrong in admitting the wrongs of one's government when all the facts on the ground are painting such an ugly picture.

[quote]
Second, other than the past 4 weeks, there was indeed reconstruction and progress being made.
[/quote]

Details, please.

[quote]
No, let's be realistic, the "insurgents" are certainly not the forces of goodness and light. Even an "all Muslim" security force would have to deal with them.
[/quote]

No they are not the forces of goodness and light. i never said they are. But from THEIR perspective, they are simply defending their homeland - whatever we say about the methods they use.

[quote]
Now please tell me this, why do the insurgents not adopt a political approach? the answer is simple. The gun is easier.
[/quote]

Are you kidding me? What political approach? The Governing Council is filled with puppets. What political approach do you fathom ? Those who are desperate, those who have not been paid for the past twelve+ months, those who have ten mouths to feed - yes they will use all desperate means to be heard. And who can blame them.

[quote]
**The press is good at covering things that go boom. The real feelings of the Iraqi's have nothing to do with explosions....
[/QUOTE]

[/quote]

Well in that case, why don't we see pro-American Iraqis taking to the streets in support of the forces' actions.

i think neither of us really knows the "real" feelings of the Iraqis.

22

Nadia,

If you can assemble a UN plan, then go to it. But no serious plan has been put forward. At the first bomb, the UN scurries out of the country and runs, firing their security coordinator.

If you want Iraq, more power to you. You can have it. Nobody is standing in the way of a UN plan, there just is no plan. Just because YOU claim it can be done, does not mean that it will happen anytime this decade.

Once again, show me any serious proposal.

23

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Remember, the UN was blown up in Iraq? What on earth makes you think things will be any better with the UN?*
[/quote]

OG, The reason the UN was blown up in Iraq had everything to do with the perception that the UN was associated with the US. Even back then, when it happened, i made the point that the US should leave the country because the latter's actions in the country was making it difficult for supposedly neutral orgs. to work in the country.

Your whole premise is based upon the belief that the US is wanted in the country. All actions in the past 12 months have proved otherwise.

[quote]
*So far, nobody has come forward with a serious proposal other than hallway rhetoric in front of cameras for the management of Iraq. You may WISH that the UN was capable but the facts argue otherwise....
[/QUOTE]
*
i call "hallway rhetoric" keeping in place the soldiers from two countries when they are:

i) not wanted in the country
ii) creating the conditions for a civil war and thereby exacerbating the repairing of vital infrastructures and industries, hindering all hopes for a "normal" return back to sanity for Iraqis

Give the idea of a multinational UN force in the country, just one serious second's thought. All this time & energy has been wasted by the US and UK into "controlling" hotspot cities like Najaf and Falluja. A pure waste of time and money. If Dick and George had listened to the opinions of the international community MORE than a year ago, we could have had Brahimi in Iraq right at this very moment.

24

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Once again, show me any serious proposal.
[/QUOTE]
*

OG,

This is not rocket-science the way you are making it out to be. It does not take a rocket scientist to put together forces from Canada, some Latin American countries, and Muslim countries.

US/UK leave and that would make Annan's job a hell of a lot easier. As long as they are the occupiers, no third country wants to be a part of that occupation force.

25

"This is not rocket-science the way you are making it out to be. It does not take a rocket scientist to put together forces from Canada, some Latin American countries, and Muslim countries. "

Nadia, if it was going to happen, then it should have started months ago. But if the US pulls out, there will be a wholesale slaughter. A force of 50,000 troops from anywhere will take 9 months to assemble. And other than you, there is no one working on this!

Show me where ANYONE actually has a workable plan! You cannot just run a country of 24 million on a moments notice. The US would love to have someone take over, there is no one capable and willing to do it! And there never was.

Enjoy your fantasy....

26

OG,

Sometimes i think i am sitting on another planet when i participate in this Forum. This thread is a classic example of that.

How should the multi-national force have started "months ago" when, months ago, the US wasn't willing to even entertain the idea ?!!?! i mean, for the idea to take fruit, all parties have to be willing to open their minds to the possibility. From what i can see, no one on the US side was/is willing to even consider this. It's like - anathema or something.

You state other than me, "there is no one workong on this!". Yeah there's a reason for that. When the major occupying power is not even willing to entertain the idea in diplomatic circles, even discuss it with other heads of state, then obviously that's a minor obstacle in the way. 12 months ago the world was crying and pleading for George and Dick to not invade without a UN mandate. At that time, had G&D decided to discuss the idea of opening up forces under a UN umbrella, then you and i wouldn't be having this stupid conversation to begin with. The "fantasy" (as you call it) would have been a reality as i type these words.

[quote]
The US would love to have someone take over, there is no one capable and willing to do it!
[/quote]

What, and miss out on all those Halliburton contracts? Thanks for the laugh!

27

OG why would I want UN to own up to running Iraq when they failed as miserably in most places where they tried? In the business world there is a concept called "track record". UN's trac record is not very good...I would let US finish the job. The only able country with balls int eh world.

28

OG,

Thanks for the um let's say interesting discussion; i will check this thread again in a couple hours' time. i need to leave this computer lab and get some fresh air - you've given me a headache :p

29

Mat,

Precisely. The fact is, that unless the US does it, or NATO does it, it does not get done. Annan calls for "possible military intervention" in Sudan. Let's see how that goes as our benchmark. More than likely he won't get a sole show up for duty.

That is why the US goes unilateral, because you could wait forever for anything to get done if you count on the UN. And Nadia, planning could be going on today for a process in Iraq, but no country in thier right mingd would send troops there now. Like it or not, that is reality.

Enjoy your headache! :)

30

haha. So now we are blaming the United Nations for the United States’ fetish for engaging in unilateral engagements around the world. Sweet. What’s next? The UN is training Iraqi “insurgents”/ordinary civilians to rise up against the US?

You love the word “reality”. Here is another dose of reality, OG my dear friend (and i mean that ‘dear’ sincerely!). Iraq’s domestic instability is aggravating regional and international instability as the people of Madrid, Damascus, Jordan and others are slowly waking up to this reality.

The situation is not as immune to improvement as you seem to (want to) believe it is. Where there’s a will, there is always, always, always a way.

**
i am :stuck_out_tongue: It wasn’t you per se that gave me this headache. i think it’s the World Affairs Forum. i have a love-hate relationship with this forum. i do feel it necessary to say, however, there is vastly too much US-bashing that goes on in this Forum. Sorry if you think i seem to add to it :flower1:

31

OG, in 1939 we were asked to particiapte in WWII and we respectfully declined. The thought process was that it was not in our national interest and our interests were unlike those of the European colonizers. Dec 7th, 1941 changed that for us. And we allknow what happened.

For a long time there was debate in this country, should we be meddlesome, should we take a greater role in nation building, peace keeping etc...We took on challenges when no one else could step up. Some places we made the right choice to leave, beirut, somalia, haiti...some places we made the right choice to stay Bosnia. 9/11 changed that for us. We don;t need to ask anymore who the enemy is and what does it take to remove the possibility of the next 9/11. The signs were there, the cole bombing, etc.... Screw Democracy, screw WMD, screw Dick and Cheney and chirac and the rest. I feel that I am safer today in NYC with us fighting over there, than here.

That is the bottom line. The onus is not on us but on those that attacked us and their sympathizers to lay down the arms and mend their ways.

32

“there is vastly too much US-bashing that goes on in this Forum”

:eek:

Nadia, the theory of unilateralism is not new, look at Bosnia/Kosovo. The conflict HAD to be addressed by NATO, because there was so much dithering by the UN. Even in the peacekeeping stage, the vast majority of the troops were NATO, and still the Dutch allowed a slaughter of innocents. Let us not forget that Annan was “in charge” of Rwandan peacekeeping at the time of that horror.

But using Bosnia as an example, Muslims were being ethnically cleansed, and where was the “predominently Muslim” force to prevent that?

So why do you think that a “predominantly Muslim” force will arrive in Iraq? To help impose a democracy? To better Human Rights? For free and fair elections?

Let’s take an inventory of the parties who might be available for this… do you want the Turks in Iraq after what they have done to the Kurds? Saudi, Kuwait, Bharain, UAE, Qatar, not only is there some bad blood there, but none of these countries have true democracies, and nothing to crow about with human rights either! Egypt? Pakistan? Can you imagine the troops going home and saying, " The Iraqi’s just elected their leader, why don’t we? Not particularly in the best interest of their military to expose them to Democracy, and fair votes? Think about it.

Who else would volunteer troops? Syria? No way, they want no part of a religious awakening. Iran? perhaps in the south, but there is lots of old scores there too! I am sorry, but your list of “predominatly Muslim” countries available to provide troops in Iraq is impossibly small. Your best bet is Indonesia, and they could not send 50,000 troops.

Additionally you are grossly underestimating the organizational capabilities needed to run this basket case of a country. Never mind the funding, and the fact that chief donor nations like Japan have had hostages taken. The Iraqi oil fields need nearly 10Bil of upgrades and equipment to support the Iraqi nation. Who will lend them that money when there is still so much debt owed from the past?

As disgusting as this must sound to you, if you care about the Iraqi people as you claim to do, you should be rooting for our success. If not for the US, then for all of those Iraqi people that had the crocodile tears flowing during sanctions.

Mats–right on brother…

33

OG,

Do you never eat, work or sleep? :eek:

You don’t seem to (want to) realize that the majority of individuals in Iraq don’t want the US and UK there. Twelve months ago, the Shias were ready to work as equals with the US. Fast forward to today - reality is quite different. You seem content to let the status quo continue - doesn’t it bother you that the US itself is not wanted in the country by the people they are supposedly there to defend ? How do you rationalize your closing of your eyes and ears to the reality that the people of Iraq do not want the US there ? Which of two options do you think they would prefer - having a multi-national force made up of Muslim nations, Latin American and western European nations that were previously balking at the prospect, and Canada, - OR - the US, UK and Lichtenstein? Which of the two would be better received? In the eyes of the people of Iraq, imagine just for a second whether the US is considered more altruistic, or Canada ? Just ask yourself that question. With a UN umbrella, would it be easier to work in that country? Honestly.

Yes, Turkey should be there despite their track record - don’t forget that the US wasn’t too concerned about Turkey’s track record vis-a-vis Kurds when they invited Turkey to be a part of the “coalition”. If Pakistan and Bangladesh can contribute peacekeepers to Sierra Leone, they can do it for Iraq as well. UAE has no significant bad blood with the countries you mentioned; they have one trivial island dispute with one of their neighbours and that’s the extent of their “bad blood”. Sheikh Zayed of the UAE would far rather want Iraq to be controlled under a UN umbrella, he wouldn’t be closed towards the idea. Sorry, OG, but once you get the US out of the picture - don’t underestimate how hated they are in the rest of the world - other countries will be willing to participate. Canada’s foreign minister already pledged that if the UN had been running the show in Iraq, we’d have been part of the “coalition”. Get the US out, get the UN in, and you’ll be surprised at how receptive the EU, Canada, and Latin America will be towards assisting Iraq.

**
Really ? So what makes you believe that the US can do it on its own with British help ? By the way, if i am not mistaken, Blair just stated that he will not be sending additional troops to Iraq. Looks like the US is going to need ALL the multinational help it can get; it should be grateful if anyone even considers this idea after the way that the UN was totally bypassed last year.

i will root for the success of any entity that has a genuine desire to help the people of Iraq with no economic motivations as part of their desire. Twelve months’ proven track record, OG, does not exactly inspire confidence.

The people of Iraq have already given their voice as to what they want. They want the US and UK out. If you care about bringing democracy to that country, then you would support the withdrawal of your country’s forces. It is the only manner in which to ultimately bring lasting security and peace to that devastated region.

34

Lets suppose, US and their "Coalition of the Unwilling" withdraw from Iraq right away .... now all of you look in your crystal balls and tell us what do you think will happen in Iraq afterwards?

Who will govern it and who will protect security to the people etc etc?

35

Alright guys. You agree on the greater morality of the war, it's right naysayers just don't understand. But let's take a step back for a minute.

Right now we seem to be arguing over the process. First we've gotta figure out what the result is that we want, afterall what's a process without an end? We want a peaceful, democratic Iraq right? Cool.

Now, process. How can we reach that goal? Should the goal be realized simply because the the goal is moral and right? I mean is that enough to simply make it happen? Nope.

Y'see, countries are like women. They want to be treated a certain way. They have opinions, which might not be the same from day to day. They might make demands that don't exactly fit with what you want to do. They might say or do things that don't make sense to you. But if you want to stay on their good side you damn well better pay attention.

That's our failing in Iraq. We're not paying attention. We just want to leapfrog to the goal and can't understand why others might want to walk.

36

Prism Man,
Spain is implementing a gradual withdrawal of its forces, over the space of (i think?) 4-6 weeks. As they gradually withdraw, British and American forces are replacing their positions. Same deal with the UN interim forces.

Very interesting analogy, Spoon.

Painful to admit this but sometimes the problem with women (ahem) is that even they themselves don’t know what they want. Neverthless, notwithstanding this, more than anything else, though, they will all tell you that they want to be treated with respect as equals. Babying a country, adopting a paternalistic ‘we know what’s best for you - we will transfer limited sovereignty on a certain date, we will still control your army and other important areas of your country’ - doesn’t gain you the confidence of the people. Treat them as equals, not as subordinates. That applies to women as much as it does to Iraq. :flower1:

37

Nadia,

I dwell in a world of fact, and while it seems like I’m all over you like a cheap suit, here are the facts=

Nadia=7.97 posts per day

Ohioguy=2.91 posts per day

:slight_smile:

Now here is my big concern:

"Iraqis often say they do not like seeing U.S. soldiers on their streets — but many would also agree with the crude assessment a 66-year-old tailor in Kut gave to Time magazine’s Terry McCarthy: “If the Americans leave now, everyone will start eating each other.”

Please read the following assessment of life in Iraq, and see that despite what you may think, there was progress being made until the “Iraqi intifada”.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_assessment_040314-1.html

38

OG,

nah you are not all over me like a cheap suit ---- more like a bad rash :hehe: :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue: (Just kidding! :flower1: Never take me seriously when i use many smilies). Very interesting report. Thank you for providing the link, had not read it in detail.

Sorry. :slight_smile: i do not remain convinced that the majority of Iraqis want the US to remain in power. As you noted, the report came out prior to the “Iraqi intifada”. i wonder - all these individuals who have supposedly benefited from the occupation of their country, do not rise up to protest in favour of the US and UK. i watch BBC diligently, almost every day, surf the news websites multiple times a day, never have i ever heard or come across anything leading me to suppose that there are Iraqi individuals who are protesting in favour of the occupation forces post-Intifada.

The intensity & extreme manifestation of hatred located within the uprisings and attacks leads me to seriously doubt the same.

39

true dat nadia.

Case in point the hundred thousand people out on the streets on one call of Seestani.

Case in point the very frequent demonstrations against the US Occupation.

Why dont we see Iraqis leading protests against the Intifada, if the occupation forces are anything but an anathema. You'd think someone would have had that idea by now, its probably a very current topic of debate.

40

Not so sure about that.. USA Today Survey, “late March and early April”:
Amazingly, 57% of Iraqis say that US troops should leave Iraq immediately. If one subtracted the Kurds, a much higher percentage of Arabic speaking Iraqis say this. And, they say it with their eyes open. About 57% also admit that life would get harder (i.e. there would be a lot of instability) if the US suddenly withdrew. They want the US gone anyway, and will take their chances.

Over half say there are circumstances under which it is all right to attack US troops! A February poll I discussed here had said that only 10% of Iraqi Shiites held that attacks on US troops were ever justified, and 30% of Sunni Arabs felt that way. The number in al-Anbar province (think Fallujah) was 70%, but it was high for Iraq at that time. Again, if the earlier polling was correct, there was a massive shift in opinion on this matter. We went from having about 3 million Iraqis think it was all right to attack US troops to more than 13 million.
…
For the question, “Has the Coalition invasion of Iraq done more harm than good?”, in the USA Today poll 46% say “more harm,” whereas only 33% say “more good.” But the ethnic breakdown here is startling. Only 2% of Kurds say the invasion did more harm. 56% of Sunni Arabs say it did more harm, and so do 59% of Baghdadis (Baghdad is about 2/5s Shiite but the Shiites there are probably Sadrists in the majority, who agree with most Sunnis about the undesirability of the US presence). Among Shiites, 47% say it did more harm, 28% say it did more good.

More harm: Total 45%, Baghdad 59%, Shiite 47%, Sunni Arab 56%, Kurds 2%

More good: Total 33%

About the Same: Total 16%
…
Oddly, 61% of Iraqis still say that the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam was worth it (though only 28% of Sunni Arabs say it was worth it). That is, the poll does not show that Iraqis have begun regretting the US overthrow of Sadam. It shows that they have begun regretting the continued US Occupation.
And for our cute native quote:
“I’m not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein,” says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. “But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye.”