Iraqi reconstruction
Find a Conversation
Iraqi reconstruction
| Sat, 07-31-2004 - 11:14am |
Given the gross mismanagement of the how US funds are rebuilding Iraq, I have to ask one question:
Why are Bush and Bush supporters against other EU nations getting contracts and rebuilding Iraq?
I thought we were there to make life better for the Iraqi people. It's as clear as glass, the current so-called plans aren't working and is not the ideal situation for the IRAQI people.
And even if we did allow these EU nations to assist in rebuilding, they probably wouldn't come anyway: Security is worse now than at any other time in 2004.
Iraq == a miserable failure even for a humanitarian mission. A failure because of pride and arrogance.

Pages
<<"I started this thread, because I feel with that unilaterism has failed in Iraq and that Internationalism would work better.">>.... going it alone???
Nothing to add in your own words? I asked a simple question that was very clear in the orginal posts. Why not allow those countries to share some of the burden with us instead of blackballing them from the reconstruction effort.
But, it's pretty evident (I guess, you haven't posted an opinion that I could see in all the cut/paste) you support the status quo in Iraq and feel everything's just fine the way it is.
I do not and neither do many many Americans, but at least I posted my own opinion on it.
I've heard this before go-left. Maybe you could shed some light on it for me. Why should countries that haven't help ousting Saddamm, countries that have sent no help for the Iraq people, that have sent no soldiers to help prevent the insurgents from rising up and taking power post-Saddamm, countries that I though agreed with, and even claimed that Saddamm was a threat and was either in the building phases of making, or had WMD's, reap any profit from building up the new Iraq. I know my choice of words is poor, but hopefully you understand what I am asking?
To benefit the Iraqi people and speed up the withdraw of US troops, reducing the amount of americans who will be killed.
And those insurgents (Not terrorists): They're rising up against an unjust war and occupation, but I'm sure you've participated in the merits of Bush's war already so we won't go there in this thread.
It's not about petty bickering and policy, but to speed up the finish. The so-called coalition isn't nearly as strong as it once was. Any country that lacks strength and influence is being pushed out by terrorists quite easily.
If you're satisfied with the status quo, fine. I'm not. It's not an ANTI BUSH message, its not an ANTI KERRY message, but a PRO AMERICAN message.
Edited 8/3/2004 1:44 pm ET ET by go_left
But that's really beside the point. If you're ok with the status quo, that's fine. I am not and that's why I'll continue to make noise about it.
<<"I don't think the use of the words GOING IT ALONE is out of order">>....I'll make sure to pass your unilateral message to the 1500 Dutch families who have loved ones in Iraq. You are dismissing 25,000 + troops and their families! You are dismissing their hard work and sacrifice. Shame on you!!
<<"If you're ok with the status quo, that's fine.">>....again: what on earth gives you that idea????
Thank you, that is a reasonable agrument, and if that would be the result, I can see the benefit. Do you think that if France or Germany offered troops to help with peacekeeping Bush would say no? Or is that not part of the rebuilding process you are talking about here? (It's an honest question) Also, I thought that I once heard, probably this past spring, maybe early summer, something on news of Bush asking for help from these countries, was it not the right kind of help? Again, it's an honest question. I have not kept up with news on all of this and I am trying to gather as much honest information as I can.
And those insurgents (Not terrorists): They're rising up against an unjust war and occupation, but I'm sure you've participated in the merits of Bush's war already so we won't go there in this thread. "
I'm not so sure that all the insurgents are not terrorists. I have no doubt that a portion of them, what % I have no clue, are simply Iraq citizens that want foriegners out of their country. But I also have no doubt that a % of them are indeed terrorists. Why would "insurgents (Not terrortists)" be bombing police headquaters, killing Iraq cititzens that are applying for police jobs? It seems that when enough Iraq citizens can take over peace keeping through their own police force, that will reduce the need for the US and the allies to continue such a strong presence in the region. Wouldn't you agree?
Alicia here's a link that gives some insight into what elements are "in view". I'm sure there are more links, but this one came up first. Hope this helps :).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm
Iraqi Insurgency Groups
The exact elements attacking the US-led coalition's nation building effort remain unclear. Some of those suspected of being behind attacks against Coalition Forces are ordinary Iraqi criminals. Saddam released thousands of criminals from jail before the war, allowing these once detained criminals to roam the streets and command strikes against Coalition Forces. The insurgents appear to include a mix of Saddam loyalists, Baath Party hard-liners, possibly Sunni tribal elements who fear a loss of their former importance, and simple Iraqi nationalists. Outside insurgents may include Arab volunteers recruited before 2003 by Saddama's regime, Arabs who infiltrated after the war, and Iraqi groups like Al Ansar that have some ties to Al Qaida. They may include some elements with direct ties to Al Qaida. It is reported that fewer than 250 of the 9,000 detainees in US custody as of late August 2003 were foreign nationals. This suggests that either the bulk of the attackers are Iraqi, or that the bulk of the detainees were common Iraqi criminals rather than guerilla combatants.
On 14 November 2003 General John Abizaid, the head of the US Central Command, estimated the number of fighters operating against US and allied forces at no more than 5,000 and said the insurgency remains a loosely organized operation. Abizaid said there "is some level of cooperation that's taking place at very high levels, although I'm not sure I'd say there's a national-level resistance leadership." He also said "the most dangerous enemy to us at the present time are the former regime loyalists" operating in central Iraq. According to Abizaid, "The goal of the enemy ... is not to defeat us militarily, because they don't have the wherewithal to defeat us militarily. The goal of the enemy is to break the will of the United States of America. It's clear, it's simple, it's straightforward. Break our will, make us leave before Iraq is ready to come out and be a member of the responsible community of nations."
(more in link)
Pages