Why? Read all the gory details here.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/international/worldspecial/12IRAQ.html One of the problems is a lack of interpreters. No, I'm not joking. And just in case you're not puking yet, the new guy is described as a protege of noted war criminal Henry Kissinger.
"the new guy is described as a protege of noted war criminal Henry Kissinger.' Explain that please? I will wait until you can look that up like everything else. I know you have no thoughts of your very own. Also how did your soccer team do this weekend? How about giving us your analysis of the match, and your thoughts on the players performance. I will let you look that up as well. Hey, how's your family? I will let you call up someone to ask them how your family is doing. Ok mister innovative thought.
During his election campaign, Bush II made it very clear that he opposed nation building. This is the proof that he is good to his word. He's never lied to us, right?
Right That was before 9/11 we have to do things differently now don't we? It is a different world now. I personally think we have not taken over enough nations as yet, and we certainly have not killed enough of them as yet. I prefer our kill rate to be 100,000 to 1. Fuccck them all, I hope we kill them all. I mean every fucccking word of it.
OK, now I get it. Richie, it's well known that Kissinger has to check with an attorney before traveling abroad, to make sure he's not wanted in that country for war crimes. I think it's funny that Richie can't figure out how to post the word "fuck."
What countries are those exactly? ---------- I don't think it would work but I will try it. ************ your mother.
You seem to be suffering from an extreme case of "selfembarrassment-itis", it's not fatal if you take action asap. Also, saying "fucck" over and over may release some pent up sexual frustration, but you might want to try getting laid instead.
If guys aren't doing the job, they get fired. That answer your question? Yeeeesh. You should want them NOT to try and make things better? You should want a mistake-free occupation? Then I suggest, you dig a hole, stick your head in it, and start screaming how awful things are.
would it be cynical to discuss why they did such a bad job? or why we can be so good at fighting a war and so bad at winning the peace?
> You should want a mistake-free occupation? No, but the current success-free occupation seems a little less than most parties hoped for.
Are you mad? That would take YEARS! Unless we've been working on a bomb that could do it...multiple warheads, nudge nudge...Weapons of Mass Orgasm....
Wait, I thought the war didn't go very well? You know, feyadeen, supply line problems, getting bogged down, you know, that sort of stuff. Oh, I get it...that was then, this is now. Right. No it wouldn't be cynical , if you could adequately define for me what it means to be "so bad" at winning the peace or better yet, what it means to be "good" at it. No violence? No lawlessless? Fat chance. Some? If some, how much? Do you have a timetable in mind, and some objectives? Could you share them with us? Complete power and infrastructure on immediately, everywhere? Fat chance. Well, some then? If some, how much, how fast, and where? When should it be done? Got a day in mind? This Friday, maybe? C'mon, let's get real here. Some days we willl make progress; other days things will regress. Improvements will be lumpy.
You could go to any major news site and search for articles about Afghanistan. That'd give a pretty comprehensive picture of what being bad at winning the peace looks like. Hey, I'm not saying that war was a bad idea. It was a war we had to fight. But perhaps if we weren't so hawny for the next phase of Bush's reelection campaign, we would have put a lil' more energy into being more popular than the Taliban.
I don't expect perfection, I expect results. I'm glad we made this change because it puts State in charge. It's several months overdue. There wasn't a humanitarian crisis, which was really the result of luck, not anything we did. Now we have severe electricity shortages, power vacuums, and security shortages. We have 150,000 troops there, how can we not even secure Baghdad. We have the ability to plan masterfully for war, but we don't have plans for the peace. That's simply pathetic.
Kissinger, who served under Johnson, Nixon and ford, was perhaps one of the people most responsible for how the Vietnam War was lost It ws kissingers idea to esclate the war into laos and cambodia. For this he and the vietnamese negotiator who he secretly meet in Paris were award the noble peace prize. (the vietnamese guy refused to show up for the ceremony becasue the Vietnam war wasn't over yet, but kissinger still went and collected his prize.) (One of the funniest SNL skits ever was one in which belushi played kissinger. He was asked what his greatest achievement was and he said in 1973 he was awarded the noble peace prize for ending the Vietnam war, he was then asked what his biggest failure was and he replied 1975 when the Vietnam war ended) It was also Kissinger who thought it would be a good idea to overthrow the democratically elected president of chile and replace him with pinoche. If your a con. that's fine but please don't go defending kissinger. He was a power hungery slimebag who personally attributed to the killing of millions of people.
> Who are "most parties" and a "little less" than what? I was trying to be funny because this is one of those situation where if you don't laugh you start crying. Here are the list of people that are happy with the current occupation: Religious imams: because of the immense power vacuum created by the US, they are given a chance to expand their bases of support. Organized crime gangs: because of total breakdown of law and order, they quickly gain power. As there is no serious threat of punishment and patrols are so limited, they don't think twice about setting high-rise government buildings ablaze as a diversion for one of their looting raids. American oil companies: finally have access to middle east oil. It will take a while, but they are patient.
Here's what the REST of the article said. "Mr. Ghadhban said that only 40 percent of the country's gasoline demand was being met so far, but he predicted that supplies would reach normal levels by the end of June." "Mr. Ghadhban said the ministry's plan, announced last week, to import gasoline and cooking gas from nearby Arab countries could soon begin to shorten the lines for fuel. He was also optimistic that major refineries would be able to increase output soon. "Hopefully by this week or the end of next week," Mr. Ghadhban said, "there will be a clear and marked change in the situation." "The interim head of the Iraqi Electricity Commission, Dr. Kareem Wahid Hassan, told reporters at the same news conference that although most of Iraq now had the same levels of electricity as before the war, (emphasis mine) damage to high-voltage transmission lines around Baghdad from bombing and looting had left the city with only 40 percent of its usual supply of power, and that the power available was unreliable. Dr. Hassan estimated that full capacity would be restored in two months."(emphasis mine) Horrible anecdotes. But anecdotes. Let's see what the articles say 30 days from now...60 days from now...90 days from now. If they are writing the SAME story, then we have something to worry about. Good...glad to hear it. But "several months?" How long have we been "occupying?" 45 days? Luck is the residue of design. Look, I bet some things have gone great, and other things suck. Frankly, I remain skeptical of lot of media reports because they simply provide and very narrow view of the situation, and not a whole lot of broad context. I would also bet there is not a lot of patience on the part of Bush and his team for guys who aren't getting the job done is a timely and as complete a fashion as is needed. You know, a business-like approach from the administration that's just WAY too close to business, right?? Again, mark your calendars, and come back to the issue in 30 days.
Oops, I stopped reading right after I saw your source was the NY Times. Why should I believe anything that comes from that paper when they've admittedly been making up stories all these years?
"Organized crime gangs: because of total breakdown of law and order, they quickly gain power. As there is no serious threat of punishment and patrols are so limited, they don't think twice about setting high-rise government buildings ablaze as a diversion for one of their looting raids" That is what I call organized crime. Like a big score is stealing a truck use it to crash through the doors to a shopping mall after midnight. Then drive into the mall and crash into a a closed jewelry store steal what is laying around. Then drive out again. A big score and very organized Once the police force is in place "that organized type crime" will have to be a whole lot smarter to make any future money. This always happen when an oppressive government falls. It is minor disturbance for the people of the country when you compare it on what the average person had to deal with before.
Here's what the REST of the article said. "Mr. Ghadhban said that only 40 percent of the country's gasoline demand was being met so far, but he predicted that supplies would reach normal levels by the end of June." "Mr. Ghadhban said the ministry's plan, announced last week, to import gasoline and cooking gas from nearby Arab countries could soon begin to shorten the lines for fuel. He was also optimistic that major refineries would be able to increase output soon. "Hopefully by this week or the end of next week," Mr. Ghadhban said, "there will be a clear and marked change in the situation." "The interim head of the Iraqi Electricity Commission, Dr. Kareem Wahid Hassan, told reporters at the same news conference that although most of Iraq now had the same levels of electricity as before the war, (emphasis mine) damage to high-voltage transmission lines around Baghdad from bombing and looting had left the city with only 40 percent of its usual supply of power, and that the power available was unreliable. Dr. Hassan estimated that full capacity would be restored in two months."(emphasis mine) It's ok that the nation with the second highest oil reserves in the world is importing oil and gas? That's success? But we've been told that Iraq would have the capabilities to cover the costs of reconstruction. Considering that there wasn't a humanitarian crisis to deal with, we've had more time to focus on electricity, but still have done it too slowly. And the fact that a lot of the damage that occurred was done through looting shows we didn't do a good job of establishing security. Horrible anecdotes. But anecdotes. Let's see what the articles say 30 days from now...60 days from now...90 days from now. If they are writing the SAME story, then we have something to worry about. So we should reserve all complaints until we passed the point of failure? Good...glad to hear it. But "several months?" How long have we been "occupying?" 45 days? Once again, the decision to give control of reconstruction to DoD happened months ago, thus the decision to move it to State is months over due. Luck is the residue of design. Yeah, we got lucky Saddam provided 3 months of food for people to stockpile before the war began. There are several problems here. 45 days after the war we finally introduce a resolution to lift UN sanctions against Iraq. Now we can start the discussions at the security council. Why didn't we have a resolution ready to drop as soon as the war was over. The UN sanctions are hurting right now and we should have realized it was going to take some work to get them lifted. Yet we took so long to begin the process. A larger problem is people will contrast their lives under Saddam with their lives now. If they start to think that life was better under Saddam, we have real problems. This process will be forever influenced by the short term. We promised a lot to the Iraqi people, if we don't deliver, if they don't see us helping they'll want us gone. And neither you nor I want us gone right now.