Hayes: Iraqis Destroyed Their Own Country ‘Far Worse Than Any Damage We Did During The War’
Hayes: Iraqis Destroyed Their Own Country ‘Far Worse Than Any Damage We Did During The War’
Yesterday, Weekly Standard senior writer — and Cheney biographer — Stephen Hayes appeared on CNN and defended the Bush administration’s ineffective reconstruction in Iraq, claiming that the infrastructure there was “deplorable” long before the U.S. invasion:
HAYES: The state of the Iraqi infrastructure before we went in, before we dropped one bomb was deplorable. It was far worse than any damage that we did during the war.
CAFFERTY: Are you suggesting that a five year war has helped things over there?
HAYES: No, I’m not suggesting a five year war has helped things, necessarily, although the reconstruction has. But most of the damage that was done to the Iraqi infrastructure was done well before the U.S. came.
Watch it:
Infrastructure in Iraq certainly wasn’t perfect before the U.S. invasion. But Hayes’s claim that the war had barely any effect is completely false. Some examples:
– Education: According to a 2005 analysis by the United Nations University, since the 2003 invasion, 84 percent of Iraq’s higher education institutions had been “burnt, looted or destroyed.”
– Medical Care: Before the U.S. invasion, there were 34,000 doctors registered in Iraq; an estimated 20,000 have left since then. “It’s definitely worse now than before the war,” Eman Asim, a Ministry of Health official who oversees the country’s 185 public hospitals, told the New York Times in 2004.
– Electricity: Although the average hours of electricity each day across Iraq have increased since the invasion, the number in Baghdad has decreased to 10.6 hours each day, down from 16-24 before the war.
– Oil Production: Since the U.S. invasion, Iraq’s oil infrastructure has been hampered by post-conflict sabotage, with more than 450 attacks on its pipelines. Only as recently as May has Iraq been able to return to its pre-war crude oil production levels.
During his CNN appearance, Hayes used his argument that infrastructure damage was not America’s fault to argue that Iraqis should foot the bill. But that’s not the reason Iraqis should have more responsibility. The war has exacerbated Iraq’s infrastructure problems, yet U.S. taxpayers are still entitled to some accountability. As Matt Duss explains at the Wonk Room:
While I think there’s no escaping the financial responsibility that Americans have incurred by invading and occupying Iraq, American taxpayers have a right to ask why, given its substantial oil revenues, the Iraqi government isn’t dedicating more of that money to rebuilding its country. [...]
[J]ust as the Bush committed tens of thousands of American troops to the Iraq war with no plan for winning the peace, so they’ve committed tens of billions of American dollars to various Iraqi construction projects with no real plan for how all of it’s supposed to add up to a stable Iraqi state.
During the segment, Gloria Borger of U.S. News said that the United States should “be reimbursed for years of support. I don’t just think they should just start ponying up now.” Maybe Iraqis should just pay us for invading their country too?
(HT: Heather)
Transcript:
BLITZER: Let’s discuss this and more. Joining us, our senior political analyst Gloria Borger, our own Jack Cafferty, and Steve Hayes, the senior writer for “The Weekly Standard.” They’re all part of the best political team on television.
Jack, you know, a lot of people hear this and their blood starts to boil.
CAFFERTY: Well, understandably so. It’s much more than the $50 billion. We’ve spent $700 billion or $800 billion on this — on this war. The Iraqis could say hey, we didn’t ask you guys to invade. You came over here, invaded our country, blew up our infrastructure, killed a couple of hundred thousand of our people, maybe you should pay to fix it.
The thing that really gets up my nose is somebody like Carl Levin sitting there expressing this moral outrage. The Democrats in 2006 said give us the majority in the House and Senate, we will end the war. We will cut off funding for the war. We will bring the troops home.
Well, that was a bald-faced lie. And to sit here two years later and try to grab the high ground on $50 billion worth of reconstruction costs when you did nothing to end this war two years ago, after you told us you would, I ain’t buying it.
BLITZER: You know, Obama spoke out on this. He was outraged today, Gloria.
And the McCain people, I take it they’re beginning to respond now, as well?
GLORIA BORGER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I just got off the phone with a spokesman for John McCain, Wolf. And, of course, they’re saying that this is all due to the success of the surge. That’s pretty predictable. And they also say sort of like what the White House says — American troops and American taxpayers have borne the lion’s share of the costs of fighting Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed extremists in Iraq. Now it is time for the government of Iraq to take grarter responsibility to build on the progress to date, which remain fragile and reversible.
So they’re saying OK, they’d better pony up now, but reminding you that, of course, this progress is fragile, so you can’t do what Barack Obama wants to do, which is to get out.
BLITZER: What do you…
BORGER: That’s their…
BLITZER: All right, Steve, as you look at this — and you’ve studied this subject for a long time — they have, what, $80 billion sitting around simply in banks.
STEPHEN HAYES, SENIOR WRITER AT “THE WEEKLY STANDARD”: Yes. It’s a pretty remarkable report. I mean it’s not every day that I find myself agreeing with Carl Levin.
But I think Jack is wrong on this. I think Carl Levin is right. It’s pretty outrageous that the Iraqis, you know, effectively have lockboxes all over the world holding this surplus. It made sense, I think for a while for the United States to be careful about how much of a burden — a financial burden we put on Iraq, as Iraq got the oil sector going and things of that nature. But now you’re at a point where the country is stabilized in terms of its violence, for the most part, and Iraqis should be contributing more.
I don’t think you’re going to find very many people in Washington who will disagree with the findings of this report…
BORGER: Well, and by the…
HAYES: …or suggest that they shouldn’t.
BORGER: We have a $482 billion deficit coming up in this country. So I think we should be reimbursed for years of support. I don’t just think they should just start ponying up now.
CAFFERTY: Well, I mean…
BORGER: I think it needs to be retroactive.
CAFFERTY: Who caused the damage to the infrastructure to begin with?
HAYES: Well, I’d disagree with you on that, Jack. The state of the Iraqi infrastructure before we went in, before we dropped one bomb was deplorable. It was far worse than any damage that we did during the war.
CAFFERTY: Are you suggesting that a five year war has helped things over there?
HAYES: No, I’m not suggesting a five year war has helped things, necessarily, although the reconstruction has. But most of the damage that was done to the Iraqi infrastructure was done well before the U.S. came. And you could complain that the U.S. intelligence community missed a lot of that, didn’t know it, whereas journalists who were in country knew about the state of the infrastructure. We really didn’t.
BLITZER: You know, it…
BORGER: But…
CAFFERTY: Just like the WMD, right?
HAYES: Well, they missed that, too.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
102 Responses to “Hayes: Iraqis Destroyed Their Own Country ‘Far Worse Than Any Damage We Did During The War’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
really? that's just amazing... i didnt catch that part in the batman movie....
August 7th, 2008 at 11:39 amHAYES: The state of the Iraqi infrastructure before we went in, before we dropped one bomb was deplorable. It was far worse than any damage that we did during the war.
- - And Cafferty didn't call shenanigans on it, like say, how about some FACTS, Mr. Hayes, to support your that wildly bizarre claim?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:39 amThis Gloria Borger is too much!
BORGER: We have a $482 billion deficit coming up in this country. So I think we should be reimbursed for years of support.
Years of "support"? What planet does she live on?!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:40 amThen why the hell weren't they destroying their country under Saddaam>?
Lord, forgive them, they know not what knuckleheads they are.
Oh. Right. That really doesn't work, does it.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:41 amhow about some FACTS, Mr. Hayes, to support your that wildly bizarre claim?
- - I destroyed the infrastructure of my post far worse than any troll could have.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amHAYES: Well, they missed that, too.
there are just too many lies there...
lap it up, cons...
...
the other day, a righty family member actualy said, "well if those people didn't live in a desert they could grow their own food" -
a reaction to the 'food for oil' program, i guess...
tiny tiny brains... and hearts...
August 7th, 2008 at 11:42 amMORE LIES and REICHWING PROPAGANDA!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:43 amDenial is not a river in Egypt. Has this WH admitted to anything they have done?
August 7th, 2008 at 11:43 amJack C. is the only newsman on CNN. Blitzer is a well dressed stooge.
These NeoCon Weakly (Sub)Standard guyz are getting a little worn around the edges with their bogus rants and outright lies. But I guess it does play to a small audience of like-minded scumbags.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:44 amYou people at TP are ridiculous sometimes. I copy and paste a section from the article YOU POSTED, and because the section I copied includes the proper spelling of "anlysis", my comment is "Awaiting moderation".
Get with the program, TP mods! This is so stupid.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amAll part of the Neocon full court press to buff up the Bush/Cheney legacy. Never mind if it's lies. If they say it often enough, it won't seem like a lie to them.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 amMaybe at the convention the GOP will declare victory in Iraq.
It comes to me that we really aren't with the entire 'conquering' mindset.
When one conquers another, the proper way to complete the job is to rape all the women, enslave and or kill all the men, and conscript the children to work in sweatshops.
When will we ever learn!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:50 amWhat we broke, we should fix . . . and we broke plenty. It gets messy because we are still there breaking things. So why not get out and let them fix the place? In my opinion, we owe reparations which an entity other than the US media should determine.
How convenient that the loss of Iraqi lives has come at such a discounted price. Shameful!
August 7th, 2008 at 11:50 amHAYES: No, I’m not suggesting a five year war has helped things, necessarily, although the reconstruction has. But most of the damage that was done to the Iraqi infrastructure was done well before the U.S. came.
This is why it's useless to argue with most Republicans, they believe whatever they want to believe.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
August 7th, 2008 at 11:56 amAnyway, here's the post I wrote that is "Awaiting moderation":
According to a 2005 anlysis by the United Nations University, since the 2003 invasion, 84 percent of Iraq’s higher education institutions had been “burnt, looted or destroyed.”
yeah, but this doesn’t count. Right-wingers don’t consider education as “infrastructure”. They consider it “socialist indoctrination”.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amOur government and their msm are completely out of control.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amI can only think that at some point this has to result in a total meltdown.
Seldom have truer words been posted on this blog.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:57 amGet with the program, TP mods! This is so stupid.
NO SHIT! My 14 year old nephew could build a better website.
This one's a joke.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:58 amAll that and an $80 billion dollar surplus in the bank?
I'm surprised other countries aren't lining up begging to be invaded.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:59 amtrace, your frilly green panties are on fire
AGAIN.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pmSo the abused spouse must pay her defendant husband's legal fees?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pmAny idiot that watched the invasion of Iraq coud see that there was a semblence of normal life that existed prior.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:00 pmIn reality, the bush war to Iraq is the same as the bush war against American infrastructure, a disaster.
If Borger, Cheney, Perle, Feith and the rest of the morons are correct, the good news is that Iraq will be able to pay for its own reconstruction from oil revenues.
The bad news is we will be financing it interest-free for the next thousand years.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pmWe all know the problems Iraq had before the invasion. Obviously, we exacerbated the infrastructure problems. Why didn't our leaders plan for immediate, intensive efforts to remedy those problems, knowing that improving life for the average Iraqi would do more than anything else to help blunt the effects of the insurgents. No matter how you look at it, the war has been handled with astonishing ineptitude.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmYou know, that's sort of the argument that's been used to justify some of the things that were done to Native Americans. The old "they were savages before we got here anyway, so that justifies anything we do because its better than the squalor they used to live under" argument.
Flies in face of the facts, but sure makes you feel good about yourself.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmTrace, please try to distinguish between the concepts of "fragile" infrastructure and "destroyed" infrastructure, as in schools, hospitals, neighborhoods destroyed by bombs and artillery fire.
Of course, in the wingnut mind, one could count all of the damage done to police stations, markets, etc. by suicide bombers targeting American troops as "damaged by Iraqis" too. Nothing to do with the war at all.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmAww, twacy is defending the raging machine.
You're a f ucking rusty tool.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmYeah right, and victims of crimes should have to pay restitution to the attacker too.
What planet?? heck, what galaxy does this come from?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:02 pmTracy_5 Says: (blah blah blah)
Well, we know that at least one troll here will believe just about any lie fed to him by the neocon propaganda machine.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pmdefine 'good'
August 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pmObviously, we need to attack Iran to prevent their citizens from causing similar damage:
Kuwait finalized its war plan when it learned two additional aircraft carriers are headed to the Persian Gulf.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
August 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pmcc Says: "Why didn’t our leaders plan for immediate, intensive efforts to remedy those problems, knowing that improving life for the average Iraqi would do more than anything else to help blunt the effects of the insurgents."
Because they truly believed that "free markets" would somehow spontaneously fix everything. Ironic, given that they do everything possible to undercut the freedom of markets whenever it enriches them and their cronies.
Sorry, Tracy, this part of the conversation is over your head.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pmTracy_5 Says:
Are you suggesting it was a good idea drive 10% of their population into exile and use the ones left behind as targets for sporting events (i.e., Haditha)?
Iraq wants for us to leave. We must do so; it isn't up to you and your ilk.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pmRight wingers usually blame the victims for their plight. In this case, it is the Iraqi's fault the US destroyed their country.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmOn the bright side, regime change brought stability to the Middle East!
August 7th, 2008 at 12:08 pmYou are posting irrelevant things…AGAIN.
Well since that's all you EVER post, I thought you might be better able to understand.
I was wrong. You are hopelessly lost.
And don't it just piss you off when someone makes fun of your girly name????
August 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pmNo follow up question, Wolf?
Sheesh...
August 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pmHAYES: The state of the Iraqi infrastructure before "WE" went in, before we dropped one bomb was deplorable. It was far worse than any damage that "WE" did during the war.
"WE"!!!
What unit was Stephen Hayes in? The only Stephen I remember being there is the Stephen that WE in my unit all loved and lost. I am so tired of all of the chickenhawks using the WE term. Until you ruck up, grab your weapon, fight, bleed and see death UP CLOSE, and then have to police up your dead Men and Women STFU with all of that WE SHHHH!!!TTT.
All of you who continue to support this regime and this failed war (surge and all) should lose a loved one to it, then talk to me about or any of us about WE.
RIP
August 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pmStephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
My theory:
Your parents wanted a girl and came up with the name before you were born.
When mama shot out a boy, they just stuck with the only name they could think of.
The shallowness of the Repukelican mind.
PRICELESS.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:13 pmOh, I see. The piss-fest is continuing on this thread.
Carry on...
August 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pmTracy_5 Says:
Iraq WAS in poor shape before the invasion.
And you Republicans figured you would fix things by bombing the crap out of them.
What plans do you brain wizards have for America's infrastructure?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pmSure the US destroyed the Iraqis' country...in order to save it!
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pmSING ALONG, TRACY AND Co. It's your favorite song!
"Fire Water Burn"
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
August 7th, 2008 at 12:19 pmThe roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire,
We don't need no water let the motherf ucker burn,
Burn motherf ucker burn.
It was fragile because a decade of sanctions had weakened the nation to the point that it was not a credible threat to any one. Yet Bush sold it to loyalists like yourself as the greatest threat to us security since industrial Germany.
Wrong. It's not irrelevant. We don't believe Iraq was doing "okay" before the invasion. It was clearly weakened and dysfunctional, which makes Bush's cries of "immanent threat" all the more ridiculous.
That damage is just not comparable to the actual destruction of property and facilities that has occurred since March 2003. Yet Hayes not only compares the two levels of damage, he dismisses the actual wartime destruction as far less extensive than simple neglect.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pmWas Iraq in good shape before the invasion?
NO dumbfcuk.
But it's worse now.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+worse+now&btnG=Google+Search
August 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pmI will ask you: Was Iraq in good shape before the invasion? What was the effect of the U.N. sanctions?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
WRONG QUESTION. A number of countries are in poor shape with shit dictators. DO WE USE MILITARY INTERVENTION ON EVERY ONE OF THEM? Do you think we have the military manpower to commit ourselves for six years at a time to every ailing country?
WAS WAR EVER DECLARED?
DID THE IRAQI PEOPLE REQUEST OUR "SERVICES?"
August 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pmTracy_5 Says:
I will ask you: Was Iraq in good shape before the invasion? What was the effect of the U.N. sanctions?
The UN sanctions were about to be lifted. But, before that could happen George W. Bush fixed their infrastructure problems by blowing it all up.
Your concern for the people of Iraq is touching, but I don't see many other countries lining up for Bush's help with their infrastructure.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:25 pmTracy_5 Says:
And in the moonbat mind one could count all of the damage done by a decade of U.N. sanctions…but that is irrelevant to them, for they believe Iraq was doing OK before the invasion.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
______
And we do. Many of us are very critical of the humanitarian effects of the sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s. There was a substantial amount of damage done to Iraq by the 1991 war as well that was still lingering in 2003.
That's why in 2003, when you hawks were calling for war, we were calling for dialogue and reengagement with Iraq, and lifting of the damaging sanctions.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:26 pmEverything happening successfully due to the Surge according McCain.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:26 pmYesterday McCain was talking about economic Surge , but today:-
McCain :"I stopped taking Viagra....and that's due to the Surge".
Gee, I don't see what the problem is. Bush and his buddies are doing to, er, for the US what they are doing to, ah, for Iraq, and getting rich doing it. /BIG SNARK
More unemployed every day
Economy in the shitter and will be for years to come
Health care denied to millions
Energy problems - solved by drilling? BULLSHIT
Corruption and greed enriching the 'gentry'
Corporations over all
Supression/removal of peoples' rights
Causing a rift around religion
...
And it goes on and gets more depressing. IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS!!!
War is a racket - Smedley Butler
August 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pmTracy_5 Says:
I will ask you: Was Iraq in good shape before the invasion? What was the effect of the U.N. sanctions?
Here is everything you need to know: Iraq was in much better shape than it is now. 2 million refugees, 2 million internally displaced people, 1 million dead. Is that how losers like you define success? Keep lowering the bar, Tracy, some day you might finally reach bottom.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pmHey Trace,
The fact that 100's of thousands of Iraqi's are dead and close to a million have left Iraq AFTER the invasion might point to the fact that Iraq is a Hell of a lot worse off now then before.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:29 pmIn the final an_lysis: Bush is an ass.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:30 pmYou can't spell Bull**** without a Bushite.
Let me get this straight, after ginning up (AKA lying about) evidence to invade this country, then failing to secure anything in the country but the oil fields, and screwing up the occupation by bringing in teams of under-prepared but ideologically correct neocon-wannabees, the Bush administration is NOW going to argue that it's all Iraq's fault?
Why is Hayes still given airtime on CNN to peddle this crap?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pmAnyway, why am I bothering to argue with a 23%er? If they haven't been convinced yet, nothing will ever convince them. Nothing. Ever.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm...because it's the Corporate NeoCON News
August 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pmPottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it."
Corollary to Pottery Barn Rule: "You break it, then just claim it was broken before you broke it, and make sure the store reimburses you for your loss on breaking the thing before you broke it."
Dr. Grumpus
August 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pmThis is a joke. I was there for the initial invasion in 2003. By the time we got up through Nasariyah and on to Baghdad you could tell where the important buildings were - they were all in tiny pieces. The B-52's rolling ahead of our convoy weren't dropping candy. Their infrastructure was the first thing we targeted. About three months later we kept getting reports that Saddaam was in this or that restaurant in downtown Baghdad. So we started bombing the restaurants. My engineer team was part of the cleanup for that mess.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pmAnother aspect of Shrubbies legacy:
Christians in Iraq are probably worse off than ever these days, an Anglican priest tells CBS' "60 Minutes."
LINK
or this:
Torture in Iraq worse now than under Saddam?
U.N. official: Violence perpetrated by terrorists, government is ‘out of hand’
LINK
or this:
Life in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam, Iraqi woman tells MCC students
LINK
August 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pmI wonder, if I had a girls name, would masturbating be more fun?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pmI agree it’s worse now but with Saddam in power and his sons comming into power right behind him there was ZERO chance it was going to get any better.
Neocon bootlicker apologist step two:
THE BACK-PEDAL.
Sooooooo predictable.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pmGreat post, Chris. We're fortunate to have you speak from experience.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pmlacey_tracey's philosophy is similar to saying that, if you run into another car and it's your fault, you shouldn't have to pay for the repairs if the car was rusty before you hit it.
Good luck with that one, lacey_tracey.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:39 pmTracy_5 Says:
Calm down boy.
HOHO. Are you in your authoritarian suit, Tracy?
Tracy and its ilk is losing power, and fast. You'll see what's coming to you fast on January 21, 2009.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:41 pmWith all the carnage and damage we've inflicted on the world in the past 8 years, it's a good thing no other nation is as cavalier about invading rogue states as we've been.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pmHmmm $$ in foreign aid or != (for you C enthusiasts) bombing the shit out of and invading...
August 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pmTracy_5 Says:
I agree it’s worse now but with Saddam in power and his sons comming into power right behind him there was ZERO chance it was going to get any better.
________________
Yeah... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiighto, Tracy. Endless bombing missions have a way of doing that...
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Bombing.asp
Iraq—Post 1991 Persian Gulf War/Sanctions
"As mentioned above, since the US and UK imposed a no-fly zone (not a UN-enforced one), Iraq has been bombed anything from almost daily to every three days. That does not seemed to have stopped, as nearly two years on from the above, John Pilger reports (April 2002) that the "[British Royal Air Force] RAF and American aircraft have been bombing Iraq, week after week, for more than two years."
As pointed out by Jonathan Power, in a July 6, 2000 article, "the Pentagon says more than 280,000 sorties have been flown in the near decade since no-flight zones were imposed on Saddam in the north and south of the country."
This goes on without much mention from the west's mainstream media. Until the February 16, 2001 bombings, it was almost hardly mentioned at all. These bombings led President George Bush to admit that this was "routine" to indicate that bombings occur often. (Although these were one of the rare ones outside the US-UK imposed no-fly zones.)
August 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pmAnd we're STILL wrecking the place!
Historic sites being trampled by foreign troops in Iraq
19th February, 2008
An Iraqi minister has criticised U.S-led multinational troops who continue to set up military camps on historic sites in Iraqi cities.
The Minister of Antiquities and Tourism, Mohammed Abbas, has told the al-Mada newspaper that foreign military troops are causing damage to sites in Samarra and Nasiriyah.
He explained the damage was caused when soldiers set up their camps with barriers, bunkers and heavy military vehicles.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pmArchbishop speaks of Iraq damage
The Iraq conflict has wreaked "terrible damage" on the region - far more than has been acknowledged, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:49 pmTracy_5 Says:
Calm down boy. I agree it’s worse now but with Saddam in power and his sons comming into power right behind him there was ZERO chance it was going to get any better.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
______
Remind me - who was it that put Saddam in power again? I seem to have forgotten.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pmTracy_5,
I think most of us would agree that the sanctions were a bad idea that had caused a lot of problems for the Iraqi people. However, bombing the sh!t out of them and placing a large occupation army on their land for the last 5 years hasn't helped. You can never get two Iraqis to agree on anything. The only thing they all seem to be in agreement about right now is wanting us to leave. Once we can at least move our 160,000 contractors out, the Iraqis can start to gain employment. And if we stop paying for everything for them, maybe they will start to use their own money instead of continually putting it in private banks. Either way, the elections in Iraq will change everything. Maliki is extremely unpopular there now, which is why he has recently tried to take a stronger stance against the US. But I don't think the Iraqis are buying it.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pmInteresting video on an Iraqis view of Baghdad:
http://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1729
August 7th, 2008 at 12:55 pmYo, dude wearing the a$$-hat.
The U.N. sanctions were put on Iraq after Gulf War I, by Herbert Bush.
Neocons don't do history or learnin' very well, do they?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pmTracy_5 Says:
Yeah just before the invasion. I find it interesting that no one in the U.N. really talked about lifting the sanctions on Iraq until there was talk by the Bush administration about actually going in and removing Saddam from power. Why were the sanctions in place so long to begin with and why did it take the threat of invasion for the U.N. to start talking about lifting sanctions?
######
Because just like Darfur, Rwanda, and Djibouti - Iraq had been forgotten. The US was worried about domestic issues and the UN was worried about trade. No one was really paying attention to the Middle East anymore, or Africa for that matter.
But that was then and this is now. We have accomplished the mission (in 2003) and Iraq is a sovereign nation that is asking us to leave. We need to get out so that we can transition to Afghanistan and stop retreating from AQ.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:59 pmThe invasion of Iraq was not warranted, just as the invasion of Rwanda would not be warranted right now. Our military is not a humanitarian organization, and it should not be used as one. We don't invade countries to build them schools and hospitals, or because they have bad roads. We invade when there is a threat, and there was no threat. Even if we did not know beforehand, we definitely know by May of 2003 that there was no threat, and should have left then.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:04 pmTracy_5 Says:
I agree it’s worse now but with Saddam in power and his sons comming into power right behind him there was ZERO chance it was going to get any better.
Wasn't it you last week arguing that Saddam was going to be overthrown by insurgents at any moment? That his hold was weak?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:11 pmTracy_5 Says:
“Your concern for the people of Iraq is touching, but I don’t see many other countries lining up for Bush’s help with their infrastructure.”
They are in line every year! How many billions does the U.S. dole out in foreign aid?
Tracy is cornered and playing dumb again. Or, perhaps he isn't faking it.
Let me explain it simply.
That type of aid is not Bush's idea. Bush's idea to "aid" Iraq was to invade it, blow up their buildings roads and bridges, kill a few hundred thousand Iraqis, displace a few million of them, then claim he did them a favor.
Dumbasses like you believe that crazy $hit just because your Bushgod proclaimed it to be true. I don't see any other countries asking for Bush's Shock and Awe in order to solve their problems.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm.
Can Hayes say... Fallujah?
... Or does he not know how to use "the google"?
Stephen Hayes would deny his own birth if he knew it involved blood...
.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:40 pmTracy_5 Says:
Calm down boy. I agree it’s worse now but with Saddam in power and his sons comming into power right behind him there was ZERO chance it was going to get any better.
Um, I don't think that word means what you think it does. We (and Saddam's enemies) were learning just how weak Saddam was because of the UN weapons inspections. If they had continued, it wouldn't have been long before he was overthrown.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pmTracy_5 Says:
Trippy Tracey_005,
I'll give you your assertion, the sanctions were working... Then did the Iraqis place these sanctions upon themselves? Did they plead to the USA to squeeze the life blood of 5 million people so that they could appear to be self loathing?
Please, can't you parse it better...?
.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pmTracy_5 Says:
Was that a vile of "Freedom Agenda" Powell held up to the U.N.?
Was the AUMF of 2002 about securing strategic oil reserves?
Your spin is slower than a carousel on OFF!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:53 pmWhy is this troll still being responded to? He is just here to stir up trouble and not for real discourse. Neocons like him are blinded by the Bush bullshit and will never see reality. Wait, I know how to distract him: Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, JLo's kids - ohhh, shiney things.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pmTracy_5 Says:
Exactly how am I backpeddling?
Quickly, but not very skillfully.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pmTracy_5 Says:
Tell us exactly how things were going to get better in Iraq if Saddam and his sons stayed in power or the insurgents succeeded in taking over the present Iraqi government?
There would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Would you claim things would be better in Iraq with AQ, rather than without?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pmTracy_5 Says:
“Wasn’t it you last week arguing that Saddam was going to be overthrown by insurgents at any moment?”
So the insurgents, i.e. ex Baath party members or AQI were going to change anything from what Saddam was already doing? Tell us exactly how things were going to get better in Iraq if Saddam and his sons stayed in power or the insurgents succeeded in taking over the present Iraqi government?
You said there was "zero" chance of anything changing with Saddam in power, to be succeeded by his sons. Yet just a few days ago you were claiming that he had virtually no power and that the Islamic extremists would have soon taken him out. Which, presumably, would result in a very different government.
And if you can't distinguish between Islamists and the Baath Party, you've really got nothing.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pmAnd the Gold Medal in the Moving the Goal Posts Competition goes to...
Let's see... the original question was "who was it that put Saddam in power again?"
Trace creatively interprets it this way:
"Hmm... let's see... Saddam -- power... how can I answer this without admitting my side's cuplability?... Better yet, how can i answer this by blaming it on the other guys?... GOT IT! I'll go back to when a Democrat was in power! Let's see... Kennedy, he's a good one... they'll hate it if I blame Kennedy for Saddam... how can i do that?... hmmm... GOT IT! I heard on wingnut radio that Kennedy put Saddam's party in power. It's perfect! It'll work! It's got to!"
August 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pmafter Gulf War 1 and we let them twist in the wind and get slaughtered by Saddam.
So now were blaming Herbert Walker for the current fiasco?
Unfinished business left by the ex CIA dope, Shrub 1.
Twisted fcuk wingnut's have a very hard time living in the present, don't ya?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pmPersonally, I don't think that Saddaam being overthrown would have been better. Due to the nature of the Baath Party, Saudi would have swept in and filled that power vacuum, and Al-Qaeda would have been welcome there, as they are now welcome in Pakistan and of course Saudi.
However, now we have the Secretary General of a UN listed terrorist organization as the Prime Minister of Iraq. The Iraqi government has strong social, political, and military ties to Iran. Every political party currently serving in the Iraqi government either originated from Iran, or has spent the last two decades exiled there. The current Iraqi military and police force is predominately composed of the Iranian Badr Corps, and the head of the Iraqi military works with an Iranian general in Qom for the logistical aspects of the Iraqi military. So, I don't see how we have created anything better.
Perhaps there was a solution that didn't involve our military... Something about engaging regional powers ...
August 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“If they had continued, it wouldn’t have been long before he was overthrown.”
Sounds very plausable to me. BTW lets think about who would have been in a perfect position to to this. Considering there was no love loss between that Iranians and Saddam with all the internal opposition was all but gone….a weak Iraqi leader who wrought a long war on them…seems like that was going to turn out to be a good opportunity to get rid of this guy and turn Iraq into an extension of the Iranian regime, i.e. another Lebanon…considering those inspections were revealing how weak Saddam was militarily. I think you were on to something with that comment.
####
Tracy,
Iraq is currently an extension of the Iranian regime. If Saddaam would have been overthrown they would have become an extension of the Saudi regime - which would honestly have been much worse. But we cannot change the past, all we can do is learn from it. We have been needing to bring our troops home since 2003. I can make an argument to support the invasion (albeit a weak argument). I can make an argument for the overthrow of Saddaam and the killing of his two sons. However, I cannot make any agrument using logic for why we are still there, or for why we have stayed there since May 30, 2003.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:46 pmTracy_5 Says:
“He is just here to stir up trouble and not for real discourse.”
We have been having good discourse and you are free to join in at anytime.
#####
I'm gonna take a chance and assume that you really want discussion, and you are not just a troll. I think you are just very misinformed about the realities of Iraq. If you click on my name, it will take you to vetvoice.com. I am a front page writer there (click on the "about us" link at the top and you can see a picture of me at the bottom of the page). Anyway, if you go to any of the articles I have written there and click on my name - Chris LeJeune - it will take you to my page where you can read all that I have written concerning Iraq and the inner workings of the Iraqi government. I think you might just learn a thing or two.
One disclaimer about stirring up trouble however - almost all of the commenters, and ALL of the writers at vetvoice are OIF/OEF veterans. Please be respectful.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pmIf I take your word at face value and admit that the Iraqi infrastructure wasn't in line with the American standards of luxury,
Will you explain to me how dropping a bomb on it improved it ?
Will you explain why they started with electricity and lost it ?
Will you explain why they started with potable water delivered to their house by pipes and don't have that any more ?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:56 pmTracy_5 Says:
“There would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
But Saddam would still be in power.
You said only a few days ago that he was weak and would have been easily overthrown by the Islamists. Which is it?
August 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pmTracy_5 Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There would be no Al Qaeda in Iraq.”
But Saddam would still be in power
####
Saddam could be controlled - just like Assad, Musharef, Noriega, and many others. If we attacked every country with a ruler we didn't like we would be in a perpetual state of war. However, AQ and AQI are loosely based organizations with no central structure or command. Having the choice between AQI and Saddam, I would choose Saddam.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pmTracy, as usual, you are a lying a$$hole. The Iraqi people never asked George W. Bush to kill hundreds of thousands of them and bomb them back to the stone age. You are so propaganda addled as to be totally nonsensical.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pmTracy_5 Says:
“Which, presumably, would result in a very different government.”
Again explain how things would have got better for the Iraqi people if Saddam would have remained in power or if the insurgents would have taken over?
####
Well there are two parts to that.
1. If Saddam would have stayed in power - I don't think things would have gotten better or worse. They would have stayed the same as they had been for three decades.
2. If the insurgents had taken over - things would have been better for the Iraqi people by a long shot. Being that the majority of Iraq is Shia, there would be no AQI in Iraq. The Badr Organization would still be there, but to a much lesser degree than it is now. Their oil would probably still be nationalized as it had been in 1970, and their infrastructure would not be as destroyed as it is now. They would not have the open trade environment that they have with Syria now, but they also wouldn't have all of the same border problems. Altogether, if the insurgents had taken over (and if we could somehow keep Saudi from moving in and filling that vaccuum) the Iraqi people would be much better off.
But this is all a history discussion. What we should be focusing on is what to do now. Saudi is the most de-stabilizing and most dangerous threat to Iraq. We need to work with the Iraqi and Iranian governments to minimilize Saudi's influence there. We need to work with the Syrian government to get a hold on their border problems with Iraq. We ned to work with Turkey and Iran to help broker a deal that is fair to the Kurdish people. But all of these things are political and diplomatic goals - not military ones. Our military is needed in Afghanistan, and our National Guard is needed here at home.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pmIf we were to have taken out Saddam back then we almost certainly wouldn’t have invaded in 2003.
So you ARE blaming the past, other, not-so-stupid Bush?
Again, try living in the present. I know it's confusing having a girly name and all the baggage associated with figuring out which sex you really are...
August 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pmNo problem my brother is a major in the USAF AWACS.
Let me guess: He's the pitcher, your the catcher.
He's obviously got more balls than you.
Did mommy and daddy use up all the good genes on your brother and leave you with scraps????
August 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pmTracy_5 Says:
No problem my brother is a major in the USAF AWACS. BTW I sure hope that you don’t consider “stirring up trouble” when someone voices a different opinion.
####
No, of course not - in fact it's encouraged. We've just had trouble in the past with people who want to go purely political (ie. Hillary has cankles, Obama doesn't wear a flag pin, defeatocrats want to lose, etc.) instead of staying on topic and addressing military/veteran/Iraq issues.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pmDieNowForPeace Says:
So now were blaming Herbert Walker for the current fiasco?
You have to remember that Tracy is a Reagan brat. They never did like poppy Bush. But, they love, love, love junior almost as much as they worshipped Reagan.
Near as I can figure, the Reagan Youth didn't take to Bush Sr. because he didn't dress up and play cowboy.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pmRepublicans arent even going to the trouble to make up believable lies anymore. They just toss out whatever nonsense floats to the top of the sump they have between their ears that is ideologically serviceable. They have learned that rightwingnuts are trained to believe whatever they are TOLD to believe by the appropriate Masters no matter how stupid, illogical, and contrary to reality it is and its too much trouble to try convince people who think for themselves.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:30 pmFunny I haven’t heard from them for a few months now.
Whatever girly boy, I've been here for years and ain't going anywhere.
But you know, you've done a bang-up job reinforcing the fact that McBush's supporters ARE ACTUALLY STUPIDER THAN HIM.
Heckuva job loser. Now go cash in your McBush tokens for a free colostomy bag.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:48 pmWe've just posted ringtone-ready audio from this interview over at Entertonement.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am