by searchfothetruth 89 Replies latest members adult
Well, that's a fair question. For one thing, nature abhors a vacuum, so who will rise up and take over?
Then, there is the issue of cost. Monetarily just for starters. A wise man once said that wise people should sit down and count the cost before taking on any difficult project or endeavour.
Reporter,
I think Bush declared the end of the wat way too early, especially when they hadn't even secured the areas that they set out too.
There are millions of Iraqi's and a few hundred thousand US/British troops. An organised resistance will kill more troops than were killed in the war itself.
By declaring the war over, the media lessened its coverage and the public lost interest.
The same thing happened to the British troops in the 1920's. They invaded the country and then the troops that were left there were slaughtered. The memorial to them was a few hundred yards from were the British Military Policemen were killed.
| Jul. 6, 2003. 12:49 PM | |||||
Post-war euphoria gives way to new realities as Fourth of July finds America troubled and confused TIM HARPER WASHINGTON—The smoke had cleared from the last burst of fireworks, the barbecue was turned off and the final strains of "God Bless America" had drifted into the night. But somehow, the annual outpouring of jingoism sounded hollow this year, with far more doubts on the horizon this July 4 than anyone would have foreseen a few short months ago. Euphoria over the show of military might is evaporating and the sense of self-esteem that comes with doing the right thing is being openly questioned. Americans are heading into the summer's heat facing some new realities. Their troops in Iraq are facing increasingly brazen and deadly attacks and don't know when they can go home. Since George W. Bush congratulated troops on their job well done in his infamous photo op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier on May 1, American soldiers are facing an average of 13 ambushes and attacks per day. Seventy have died, 27 from enemy fire. The long Independence Day weekend opened here with television images of jubilant Iraqis jumping on the roof of a burned-out U.S. Humvee and a threatening audiotape from Saddam Hussein. That wasn't supposed to be happening. The Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan. No one here talks much about Afghanistan any more, but the job is not finished. Americans also appear headed to Liberia to try to halt a bloody civil war. They are busy trying to foment rebellion in Iran, where the country's nuclear capabilities cause concern. North Korea remains a preoccupation along with Syria, where U.S. troops recently engaged in a firefight with Syrian troops. The Middle East? It's one step forward, two steps back as Bush tries to forge a shaky peace in an overarching bid to reshape the region. Who knows, on this Independence Day weekend, the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, Saddam and his sons (now with multi-million dollar bounties on their heads in the absence of good U.S. intelligence) or weapons of mass destruction? Also missing in action on this holiday weekend: 236,000 jobs that have disappeared this year, 30,000 last month alone, bringing U.S. unemployment to its highest rate in nine years, higher even than in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. They have vanished, along with 15 points on Bush's approval rating in the past 12 months. Troubles? As Bush is wont to say: "Bring 'em on." Bush travelled to Dayton, Ohio, Friday to pay tribute to the U.S. military and assure Americans they are the guardians of freedom in the world and, without their might, "the ambitions of tyrants would go unopposed." But, he said, the nation faces challenges and remains at war. "The enemies of America plot against us and many of our fellow citizens are still serving and sacrificing in distant places. "Many military families are separated. Our people in uniform do not have easy duty and much depends on their success." Without them, he said, millions would live at the mercy of terrorists. "With America's active involvement in the world, tyrants learn fear and terrorists are on the run." As he spoke, U.S. troops faced renewed attacks in Iraq. "The realization has finally taken root in this country that Iraq is a problem, that it will end up with a fair number of U.S. casualties and there is no exit strategy," says Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute research foundation. "The sense of triumph, the exultation, the sense that we were doing something good in fighting terrorism and getting rid of Saddam will become a passing notion." As Iraq slides out of its control, the Bush administration is paying the price for pursuing unilateralism — now going cap in hand to other countries, pleading for international help for its dispirited and beleaguered troops in the country. "Begging Poland and Ukraine and Nicaragua and Honduras to help us is rather humiliating and degrading when we are supposed to be the great power," says Clyde Prestowitz, founder of the Economic Strategic Institute and author of American Unilateralism And The Failure Of Good Intentions. Speaking from Europe, Prestowitz says traditional allies, whom Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls the "new Europe," want no part of the chaos in Iraq and don't want to fight under American command. "We are now paying the price of our own cynicism and the perception in Europe of an America betraying its own ideals. It may be a silent price at home, but I hear it everywhere (in Europe.)" Yet pollsters will tell you Americans feel safer at home than they did a year ago, when the terrorist attacks were still uppermost in every mind. Bush still commands a 61 per cent approval rating — nothing great, but higher than predecessors Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and certainly his father, in the third year of a term. According to the Gallup organization, only one in four Americans thinks the level of U.S. casualties is too high. But still, says Frank Newport, editor-in-chief at Gallup, the numbers show an increased level of concern over the rationale for war in Iraq. "This is an important point for the U.S. internationally," Newport says. "If the backing of the reasons for this war were to drop below 50 per cent, that would be a crucial threshold." It's getting perilously close, with support for the war down 20 points since the March invasion. Carroll Doherty, editor at the Pew Research Centre, says the unity Americans found in meeting the perceived Iraqi threat has dissipated. Traditional partisanship has returned to politics. That partisanship, Doherty adds, will only accelerate as the country rushes into the 2004 election season. "This is now very much like the country it was before September, 2001, with maybe three important differences. This is a country now much more cognizant of foreign military threats, much more cognizant of terrorist threats, much more cognizant that the world is a dangerous place." It also seems Americans are confused about where the threats are coming from. In a University of Maryland poll released last week, one in four respondents thought Saddam was directly involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. And there is still a widespread perception in this country that the hijackers entered the U.S. from Canada. There may be a reason for the confusion, however. It may be that the Bush administration is purposely trying to confuse people. In the Maryland poll, 71 per cent believed Bush at least implied that Saddam and Iraq were behind the terrorist attacks. Now, with the Liberian deployment looming, Americans are set to plunge deeper into potential danger, something U.S. presidents seeking re-election would normally seek to avoid. It also marks a departure for Bush who, while campaigning in the last election, was viewing the country from the more narrow perspective of a state governor. In 2000, Bush promised he would not overextend the military, saying he would not even have intervened in the Rwandan genocide and he shunned nation-building exercises. "We can't be all things to all people in the world," he said then. Liberia would be the 10th world hotspot where American troops are deployed. Altogether, there are 15 nations in which more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed. In his Independence Day message to troops stationed abroad, Rumsfeld said the United States is "engaged in a struggle as great as any America has faced throughout her long and honoured history." The struggle mirrors the American battle for independence in 1776, he said in a broadcast message. "The global war on terror is far from over. While freedom has been restored to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, dangerous threats remain, in those countries and across the globe. "The transition from tyranny to a free society will take time to accomplish. As Thomas Jefferson so aptly described it, we are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather bed." But Rumsfeld is counting on the arrival in Iraq of some 20,000 peacekeeping troops from other countries by the end of the summer to provide some relief for U.S. troops — and a $3 billion (U.S.) per month bill for the occupation of Iraq. "It can come as no surprise that if you feel you have the right to go into countries unilaterally, that you have trouble finding other countries to come in and clean up your mess," says Bandow, who served as a special assistant to Reagan. Without such help, Prestowitz says, the American occupation in Iraq can be compared with Vietnam. "We got into Vietnam under false pretenses, but Congress went ahead and okayed it without debate or raising any tough questions. "We went in with no exit strategy and all of a sudden there are 52,000 names etched in black granite on the memorial on the Mall. I hope it doesn't take 52,000 in Iraq." Even as it seeks help, it continues to flex unilateral muscles, snubbing international organizations unless they serve its needs. Last week, for example, Washington suspended almost $50 million in military aid to 35 countries that refused to give blanket immunity to American citizens at the International Criminal Court. The Bush administration has strongly opposed the court for fear it will be used to prosecute Americans on politically motivated charges. As the summer plays out and Americans continue to take casualties in Iraq, the partisan shots and national debate are sure to intensify. When Bush invited more Iraqi attacks with his "Bring 'em on" comment last week, the reaction was quicker and tougher than it would have been a few months ago. "I've had enough of this phony, macho rhetoric (from Bush)," said Missouri Representative Dick Gephardt, who is seeking the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who is riding anti-war sentiment to the head of the Democrat pack, said Bush showed "tremendous insensitivity" with his remark. Even some senior Republicans want straight talk instead of rhetoric. Last week, Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican senator who chairs the foreign relations committee, said U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq at least five years. "This idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more — we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish. "We're going to be there for a long time. We must reorganize our military to be there a long time." Bandow believes it could take seven or more years to bring order to Iraq — and young Americans will have to pay the price. "I find that depressing," he says. "And now, with Iraq going badly, to be moving into Liberia, I can only conclude they have lost their minds." |
I think they have a real problem:
Was this inevitable? Many thought so and said so. I guess the people who gave assurances that it would not turn into this need to provide some answers or else some heads on blocks.
Of course, Afghanistan is far from resolved and that fight is still ongoing. I doubt anyone would class Iraq as 'easier' than Afghanistan.
well said KGB!!!
It was still neccessary for Iraq to be invaded IMHO. I don't much care for the fact that my Prime Minister was either a liar or a mislead fool though.
Englishman.
So what do you think should happen? Should the troops be pulled out before any more of them are killed, or is it too far gone for that?
The US promised to rebuild Iraq, but while the oil is flowing nicely, the rest of the infrastructure has been left to rot.
It would leave quite a power vacuum in Iraq. So that is a foolish idea. If it was right to go there or not is now a moot issue. The US is stuck there for a very long time. The killing of US, UK, & Iraq's who work with them will continue until they {The Iraqi people) trust the US more than they fear the myth of Saddam.
Special Announcements
Briefing of the Security Council by Mr. Benon V. Sevan, Executive Director,
Office of the Iraq Programme
Thursday 26 June 2003
Security Council resolution 1483 (2003) - Prioritization of Contracts
Notice to Suppliers and Permanent
Missions regarding contract applications that have not been approved and funded
(4 June 2003)
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations
$188 million Purchase of Iraqi Grain ApprovedWith the lifting of sanctions against Iraq, the Oil-for-Food Programme has announced the approval of its first local purchases of grain.
In a 26 June briefing of the Security Council, the Executive Director of the Programme, Mr. Benon Sevan, said a World Food Programme project for the local procurement of 1.25 million tons of wheat, valued at more than $152.4 million, was approved on 28 May and an FAO project to purchase 500,000 tons of barley, valued at $35.4, was approved on 11 June. Also under consideration is the spending of some $97 million for the local printing of all Iraqi schoolbooks for the next academic year.
"The start of local procurement is a most welcome development," Mr. Sevan said. "It should be allowed to continue and expand as the most expeditious and cost-effective way of procuring the required goods and services. Moreover, it would also help to jump-start the economy and provide opportunities for gainful employment."
Since its establishment in 1996, the Programme has delivered some $28 Billion in humanitarian goods and supplies to Iraq, but until the adoption of resolution 1483 lifting sanctions on 22 May, it was required to import these items from abroad.
Mr. Sevan also told Council members that the total value of priority items identified so far from the Programme’s humanitarian delivery pipeline that could be shipped to Iraq for emergency needs has reached $1.4 billion. This includes food ($748 million), and goods and supplies for the electricity ($297 million), agriculture ($184 million) and health ($126 million) and water and sanitation ($40 million) sectors.
Mr. Sevan said the coalition Authority had expressed its intention to accelerate the process of submitting requests for the prioritization of contracts for expeditious delivery to Iraq. Under consideration, are procedures for the handling of oil sector contracts valued at some $1.9 billion.
$1 Billion Transferred to Development Fund for IraqThe UN Controller has transferred US$1 billion to the Development Fund for Iraq. The transfer on 28 May was made from the United Nations Iraq escrow account, at the request of the Security Council contained in paragraph 17 of resolution 1483 (2003) of 22 May 2003.
http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/wf030324_1.html
You know its sad how a lack of backbone some people present. Only a fool wants a war, I would agree with anyone who says that. But sometimes it is nessesary. In WW1 I have read where 25,000 men died in a single battle. In Vietnam some 280 men died every week. Here 200 US soldiers have died in a very real war. While that is tragic and yes it was a war by US lead choice, it is not a disater. Kosovo is still not back together with offical UN help for years now. These things take time and that is hard in a fast food world. We still seem to massively ignore the waste of Human Life that Saddam regime inflicted on his people & that region. It's like no one cares. Things were SNAFU prior to the invasion. Maybe it was not the US's role to topple the dictator. It would have been nice if the UN had done it in 1991. But, the UN did not. I think these are difficult times to know for sure exactly what is right and what is wrong. But I can say without a doubt that the US can not just "pull out" of Iraq. You know, and this includes the US, think of the mess that would come out of the Middle East if "peace" were to break out. Somehow I think that the Governments that be and the media outlets we trust would do everything in their powers to prevent that from happening. Imagine if Arab nationalists focused on the issues inside their boarders and their own governments as opposed to only looking outward.
So off to Liberia we go. High ho high ho its off to work we go
Anyone remember the media-friendly expression "Shock and Awe"? Seems like a long time ago.
I never gave my permission for this "war" anyway. I am getting ready for the "big war" coming real soon..............................................but than, I'm not suppose to say anything.
