UN is rotten to the core

[AKA Sam]

http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/12/09/2703253.html

The Toronto Sun - December 10, 2006
UN is rotten to the core
By SALIM MANSUR

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is a prime example, I wrote last week, of Peter's Principle -- "an individual in a hierarchical organization rises to the level of his incompetence" -- at work.

Now, just weeks before his departure from the United Nations, Annan revealed how utterly depraved his politics are when he stated in a BBC interview Iraq is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Annan is of course the ethically void Secretary-General under whose watch the Oil-for-Food program, with Iraq's old regime, turned out to be the worst financial scam in the history of the United Nations.

Annan said, "If I were an average Iraqi obviously I would make the same comparison -- that they had a dictator who was brutal but they had their streets, they could go out, their kids could go to school and come back home without a mother or father worrying, 'Am I going to see my child again?'... And the Iraqi government has not been able to bring the violence under control."

Such a rant coming from a Michael Moore would be predictable.

But when the Secretary-General makes such despicable observations, it is then quite appropriate to assume he is not alone in such thinking inside the United Nations.

In order to appreciate how rotten is the thinking of Annan and his cohort, imagine the Secretary-General transported back in time to the year 1940, and from some corner of Europe under the heels of Hitler's Third Reich he speaks out as the head of an utterly discredited League of Nations.

Britain is under siege, France has fallen, and Hitler's air force, the Luftwaffe, launches the Battle for Britain levelling towns and cities of the island nation standing alone for freedom and democracy against the full tide of German Nazism.

Then read those words of Annan given to the BBC interview, substituting Britain for Iraq, and suggesting how much better England would be were it not for Churchill who has failed to bring violence to an end.

Only the wilfully ignorant will refuse, given the evidence, to comprehend why the UN has been an utter failure when confronted with the evil of our time from Rwanda through Somalia to the Balkans and Darfur.

The United Nations has become the gathering place for the hyenas of our world -- representatives of tyrannies, medieval fiefdoms, dictatorships and Mafia states -- devouring their own people and blackmailing liberal societies by the sheer weight of numbers in a regular mockery of democracy in the General Assembly.

In his magnificent study of the United Nations -- Complicity with Evil: The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide -- Adam Lebor exposes the sheer bankruptcy of an organization founded to preserve the noblest aims of mankind.

Lebor quotes Mukesh Kapila, United Nations resident coordinator in Sudan from March 2003 to April 2004, to illuminate the darkness at the UN headquarters in New York and Geneva.

Kapila observed, "Trying to alert the Department of Political Affairs in New York about what was happening in Darfur was like speaking into a dark well, where your words just disappeared into nothingness."

The ranting against the United States and the singling out of Israel to heap abuse piled high with anti-Semitic bigotry reflect the only area of agreement among these wretched violators of human rights, else they would be tearing each other apart as Saddam's Iraq and Khomeini's Iran so amply demonstrated not too long ago.

The United Nations is depraved and beyond reform.

Indeed, democracies such as Canada should resign from the UN and construct a democratic coalition where victims of the hyenas might at least get an impartial hearing, consistent support and even, on occasion, genuine assistance.

 

[AKA Sam]

Copy of Letter to the Editor - Toronto Sun in response to article

Thanks to Salim Mansur, for publicly exposing the UN for what it truly is; a club where the Third World can get together to blackmail developed countries, (mostly democracies) into providing aid to dictatorships and tyrannical regimes that have no regard whatsoever for their citizens.  Whether in Africa, Asia, Central or South America, these regimes use the cloak of legitimacy and civility provided by the UN to advance their interests, while using their majority in the General Assembly to censure and publicly humiliate nations like the United States and Great Britain for supporting a country like Israel, which is the target of hatred from many of the aforementioned outlaw regimes.

The blackmail goes on and on.  Take the misguided Kyoto Accord, (please!).  Countries like Canada would be forced to sell their standard of living to the Third World in exchange for carbon dioxide credits, while countries like Brazil, Russia and China, raze their carbon dioxide sinks and pollute with impunity.  Who wins?  Not the environment, the tin pot dictators who control the General Assembly are the winners. 

The United Nations has become completely irrelevant, as proven by its inability to effectively deal with humanitarian crises in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, East Timor and most recently, Darfur.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died in the past 15 years, while Kofi Annan and his colleagues have dithered in their plush offices and discussed a “measured response” over champagne and caviar on the diplomatic party circuit.

Even UN agencies like UNICEF struggle under the weight of bureaucratic expense, to provide aid to those they were created to help, while private charities deliver the goods at a fraction of the cost.

I agree that Canada should withdraw from the UN.  So should the United States, Great Britain and the rest of the NATO states.  NATO with all of its faults has been far more effective in bringing stability to trouble spots around the world and could form the basis of the democratic coalition Mr. Mansur suggests.  Without the support of democracies like the United States, the UN will wither and be crushed under its own bloated bureaucratic mass, thus to be consumed by the jackals who co-opted it.


Good riddance!

G. R. Jackson

 

[evolutionrules]

But Saddam wasn't attacking neighbours like Hitler.  When he did (first gulf war) we kicked his ass.  He couldn't even fly planes over 2/3 of his own country.  There is absolutely no way to think that the people of Iraq are better off today then with Saddam.  In every category they are worse off today.  Less running water, electriciity, law and order, safety etc.  Say what you will about the UN but USA screwed up Iraq.  Big time. And they are going to have to leave and it will eventually become split between the 3 ethnic groups which will lead to a bigger Iran, a Kurrdish war with Turkey, and a disgruntled Sunni minority.  The USA should have stayed in Afganistan and finished the job there, caught Osama, driven the Taliban into the tribal regions and then pressured Pakistan to control them, all the while building a true government in Kandahar.  Oh hindsight is 20/20.

 

[FredDaHead]

But Saddam wasn't attacking neighbours like Hitler.  When he did (first gulf war) we kicked his ***.  He couldn't even fly planes over 2/3 of his own country.  There is absolutely no way to think that the people of Iraq are better off today then with Saddam.  In every category they are worse off today.  Less running water, electriciity, law and order, safety etc.  Say what you will about the UN but USA screwed up Iraq.  Big time. And they are going to have to leave and it will eventually become split between the 3 ethnic groups which will lead to a bigger Iran, a Kurrdish war with Turkey, and a disgruntled Sunni minority.  The USA should have stayed in Afganistan and finished the job there, caught Osama, driven the Taliban into the tribal regions and then pressured Pakistan to control them, all the while building a true government in Kandahar.  Oh hindsight is 20/20.

You said it yourself.

 

[Kilo_302]

The United Nations has become completely irrelevant, as proven by its inability to effectively deal with humanitarian crises in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, East Timor and most recently, Darfur.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died in the past 15 years, while Kofi Annan and his colleagues have dithered in their plush offices and discussed a “measured response” over champagne and caviar on the diplomatic party circuit.

It was actually the United States who refused to define the Rwandan massacre as a genocide and Kofi Annan does not control the UN, the security council does. There are definitely major problems with the UN. The oil for food program and the current membership of the Human Rights Commission are two issues that come to mind. The UN must undergo some sort of reform if it is to play a role in the 21st century. But we should also remember that since World War II, the UN has essentially fulfilled its main role which was to prevent another war between great powers. The UN is not some homogenous 3rd world conspiracy bent on sucking the wealth out of the West to corrupt dictators. The UN is an organization made up of member nations, and its only the sum of its parts. Don't think for a second that the United States has not used the UN for its own benefit, often at the expense of others. Just about every nation on this planet has done this, its what we call politics.

As for Mr. Annan's comments regarding Iraq, I think its clear that what he is saying is not an endorsement of Saddam's regime (Mansur's parallel with Hitler and the Nazi party also completely misses the mark for what should be obvious reasons).  There is no way anyone can claim that the physical security of the average Iraqi has improved since Saddam. Physical security from a sudden and violent death is probably the most basic accomplishment after food and shelter have been met, and it is quite clear from Iraqi casualty figures that security in many places in non-existent. The argument that Iraqis enjoy more freedom is also flawed. The Kurdish territory in the North is relatively safe since the threat of Saddam has been removed, as is Mosul and some other smaller cities. However this is not the case in the rest of Iraq. Baghdad and particularly Ramadi are essentially war zones. In some of the more contested areas, Iraqis are not free at all. Sectarian violence has meant that many Iraqis are not free to practice their religion. The insurgency also means that Iraqis cannot openly express various political views ( such as those Iraqis who support the fledgling national government and the coalition forces). While these restricitions on political and religious freedom are institutionalized as they were under Saddam, the effect is essentially the same.

Hindsight may be 20/20, but there is no reason the United States shouldn't have predicted the current situation in Iraq. In fact many military commanders DID. It was Rumsfeld and other Bush appointees that made Iraq a priority, and they are responsible for the situation they have created.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... the UN has essentially fulfilled its main role which was to prevent another war between great powers.

Rubbish!

There was, indeed, no war between the great powers.  But we can thank Harry Truman and Dean Acheson (and a modest handful of others - 95% of whom spoke English as their mother tongue) for that.  The UN was, for 60 years, and remains irrelevant.  It cannot be disbanded or, to any useful degree, reformed because its current irrelevance, ineptitude and corruption serve the best interest of 85% of its members.

That being said, the UN is a harmless way to keep 160± countries out of mischief, on most days.

 

[Kilo_302]

While the contributions of post-war American leaders are important, I still think the UN deserves some credit.  Before the UN formation in 1945, it was perfectly legal for a nation to attack another without provocation.THe "brinkmanship" practiced by both the United States and the USSR was made possible by the UN. The UN made it possible for both sides to come extremely close to conflict and then back down citing international law, therefore not losing face. This is not to say international law was, or is never broken. It is broken all the time, but the UN has played an important role nonetheless. The pre-war era of legal aggressive warfare was not feasible once nuclear weapons were introduced into the mix. The UN was not made to spread democracy or capitalism or freedom. It is even illegal under UN law to attack a nation because it is ruled by a ruthless and murderous dictator. The very reason it treats liberal democracies in the same manner that it treats dicatorships is that it was formed to prevent a third world war. Nothing more. Now obviously its mandate has expanded, and this has caused severe problems. But these problems stem mostly from the fact that member nations (particularly those on the security council) are rarely inclined to commit resources and manpower to solve problems that do not affect them directly unless they get something tangilble in return.

 

[3rd Horseman]

Edward,

  Good points.

  I would also suggest that most if not all the issue that have made the UN so poor in the past 15 years Kofi has either been head of the Peace Keeping Operations department or the head of the UN. Thus it is his problem, lets give it another chance under the new leadership. If the same continues then lets do away with it.

 

[exsemjingo]

But Saddam wasn't attacking neighbours like Hitler. 

Tell that to Kuwait

When he did (first gulf war) we kicked his ***.  He couldn't even fly planes over 2/3 of his own country.  There is absolutely no way to think that the people of Iraq are better off today then with Saddam.  In every category they are worse off today.  Less running water, electricity, law and order, safety etc. 

Even Mussolini could keep the trains running on time.  But, then again, the Iraqi people would be in an even better position now if Saddam had not defied his former American Allies.  Maybe a democratic reform or two might have helped?  (Who knows).
It is absolutely astounding that Iraq was able to win moral superiority after the first Gulf war.  Saddam was to one to invade Kuwait, Saddam was the one that lob Scud missiles at Israel, and Saddam was the one who set off an ecological disaster by setting Kuwait's oil wells on fire and dumping crude into the Persian Gulf.
Or did you forget that?

Say what you will about the UN but USA screwed up Iraq.  Big time.

The previous posts did not bash the UN blindly; it addressed the actual corruption, ineptness, and willfull blindness of the institution.  Only your assertions depend on holding a particular political opinion.
But since you do like the United Nations so much, you should also remember that the United States is: host country for it's headquarters, a permanent security council member, and one of the largest contributors to the UN's budget.

And they are going to have to leave and it will eventually become split between the 3 ethnic groups which will lead to a bigger Iran, a Kurdish war with Turkey, and a disgruntled Sunni minority. 

If they did pull out, their action would be in line with what other anti-military liberals have been advocating for some time.  Their reluctance to fight and inability to stomach the harsh truths of warfare are the very things undermining the mission.
As far as a 3-way partitioning of Iraq, that is not such a bad idea.  But you did not bother to elaborate on this idea since it is a plausible solution, so neither will I.  Many of us here like to discuss ways to bring success to the mission; you are eager to see the mission fail because you cannot remember whose side you are on.

The USA should have stayed in Afghanistan and finished the job there, caught Osama, driven the Taliban into the tribal regions and then pressured Pakistan to control them, all the while building a true government in Kandahar.  Oh hindsight is 20/20.

A true government where?  Those with insight to the mission in Afghanistan would do well to remember certain trivia, like where the capital is.

 

[Edward Campbell]

While the contributions of post-war American leaders are important, I still think the UN deserves some credit.  Before the UN formation in 1945, it was perfectly legal for a nation to attack another without provocation.THe "brinkmanship" practiced by both the United States and the USSR was made possible by the UN. The UN made it possible for both sides to come extremely close to conflict and then back down citing international law, therefore not losing face. This is not to say international law was, or is never broken. It is broken all the time, but the UN has played an important role nonetheless. The pre-war era of legal aggressive warfare was not feasible once nuclear weapons were introduced into the mix. The UN was not made to spread democracy or capitalism or freedom. It is even illegal under UN law to attack a nation because it is ruled by a ruthless and murderous dictator. The very reason it treats liberal democracies in the same manner that it treats dicatorships is that it was formed to prevent a third world war. Nothing more. Now obviously its mandate has expanded, and this has caused severe problems. But these problems stem mostly from the fact that member nations (particularly those on the security council) are rarely inclined to commit resources and manpower to solve problems that do not affect them directly unless they get something tangilble in return.

Both Kilo_302 and outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan are wrong.  (See: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/news/annan.htm and http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=deeadfd7-c6d6-4cd5-ae74-ff81af5ee916&k=12129 for Annan's nonsense at the Truman Library in Independence , MO)

The UN was, from it very inception, toothless and ineffectual.

The Charter was important because it set out principles to which powers (nation-states), great and small, agreed to adhere.  The UNSC, however, from its very inception, was neutered by the USSR – the new aggressor on the world stage.  A Security Council unable and unwilling to lead meant that the UN, itself, could only founder about on the sidelines.

The beginning of the end for the USSR was on 12 Mar 47 when US President Harry S. Truman addressed the Congress.  That speech - available here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/trudoc.htm - is the origin of the Truman Doctrine which was responsible for 45± years of relative peace.  While the Truman Doctrine may have doomed the Soviet Union's expansionist goals it did not do anything to make the UN effective.

(The speech also set the stage for the Marshall Plan.  Helping Greece was decidedly unpopular in the (Republican controlled) Congress.  The Republicans wanted to draw down US actions in the world: cut taxes and ignore the travails of Europe and (to a lesser degree) Asia.  The Greece which Truman, at Acheson’s behest, wanted to help was a sleazy military dictatorship – hardly a ‘light amongst the nations’ of the free world.  It was, however, in Acheson’s view, one of two ‘linchpins’ (the other being Turkey) which connected (then unstable) Paris to Iran, and buffered by India, beyond.  There was a compelling requirement for America to do what the United Nations could not: bring real ‘peace’ (more than just the absence of war) to a shattered, weak, unstable world.)

Note the mentions of the UN in the speech (Beisner* reports there were none in the penultimate (9th) draft sent by Acheson to the White House): there are four:

1. Page 2, line 22: a reference, only, to a UNSC commission investigating incidents – much as the UN does now

2. Page 3, lines 11/13: says, explicitly, that the UN cannot help

3. Page 5, line 12: explains that the UN cannot, in and of itself, provide peace, freedom, etc, etc – only great powers can do that

4. Page 6, lines 17/20: explains that the UN Charter is being threatened but only a great power can ‘give effect’ to the platitudes in the UN Charter

Truman and, especially, Acheson and Marshall, wanted the UN to succeed.  They helped design it and pressed hard for its funding.  The UN Charter was, as it had to have been, a compromise between sovereignty and Responsibility to Protect.  Sovereignty won, hands down.  Sovereign nations can make their own decisions including, most often in the UN, the decision to obstruct, delay and derail plans to protect the weak and abused of the world.  Acheson, Marshall and Truman saw, in 1947, that which eluded and still eludes the commentariat: the UN is a toothless, ineffectual debating society - harmless enough but, still and all, quite useless.**  So it was in 1947, so it will be, still in 2007.

Had Truman not persuaded a reluctant Congress to act, quickly and decisively then Greece would have fallen into the Soviet’s arms, followed by Turkey, Italy, Iran and, most likely France, too.  The UN was, in 1947, unable to take any action – even ineffectual action.  Nothing has changed.

----------
* Beisner, Dean Acheson, Oxford & New York, 2006

** That doesn't mean it ought to be disbanded - just ignored when matters of import arise.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The UN is an organization made up of member nations, and its only the sum of its parts.

The same old tired excuse.  Success at the UN has a thousand fathers, all filling important suits with a business address at Turtle Bay, but failure at the UN is an orphan named "United States".

The UN is actually less than the sum of its parts: not only does it fail to take action when it should, but it impedes action which might be taken by the willing.  If we agree the UN is the sum (concensus) of its members, then it's a short path of reasoning to conclude that groupings of fewer like-minded nations can and do more easily achieve concensus and take action; coalitions of the willing should be in every instance favoured over endless debates at the UN.

 

[evolutionrules]

What I said was that USA screwed up in Iraq.  Do you think they did a good job?  Seriously.  No post war plan, "we'll be treated as liberators", bush didn't know the difference between the three ethnicities, etc. etc. etc.  The list goes on and on.

You said..."If they did pull out, their action would be in line with what other anti-military liberals have been advocating for some time.  Their reluctance to fight and inability to stomach the harsh truths of warfare are the very things undermining the mission."

How is an anti-military liberal undermining the war?  How about incompetance in the bush administration?  How about ingnoring General Zinni's call for 300,000 troops and then retiring him?  You want the harsh truth?  The soldiers could have won thin war but the politicians lost it.  And I for one don't think it's salvagable.  But hey, they could stay in there another 10 or 15 years and see what happens.  And I'm not eager for the mission to fail asswipe, it HAS failed.  I know what side I'm on.  I'm on the side of REALITY.  Let's hope we keep making progress in the conflict we're in because we're in Afghanistan and not Iraq.  Or did you forget (which side you're on).  Ironically the ill fated adventure in Iraq may cost us dearly in Afghanistan.  Oh yeah, I didn't defend the UN.

 

[FredDaHead]

What I said was that USA screwed up in Iraq.  Do you think they did a good job?  Seriously.  No post war plan, "we'll be treated as liberators", bush didn't know the difference between the three ethnicities, etc. etc. etc.  The list goes on and on.

Typical leftist "Bushitler is an idiot" statement that has no basis.

You said..."If they did pull out, their action would be in line with what other anti-military liberals have been advocating for some time.  Their reluctance to fight and inability to stomach the harsh truths of warfare are the very things undermining the mission."

How is an anti-military liberal undermining the war?  How about incompetance in the bush administration?  How about ingnoring General Zinni's call for 300,000 troops and then retiring him?  You want the harsh truth?  The soldiers could have won thin war but the politicians lost it.  And I for one don't think it's salvagable.

You're right; it's unsalvagable, because the cowardsDemocrats have much more control now. How easy it will be for them to go ahead, deny the military everything it needs and say "look at how flawed this mission is!"

Ironically the ill fated adventure in Iraq may cost us dearly in Afghanistan.  Oh yeah, I didn't defend the UN.

Explain? Or are you just going for another "Bushitler is evil and he's at fault for everything that can possibly go wrong in the world, including my cat dying" argument?

 

[peaches]

The UN is a complete waste of time, I could not agree more with the Sun reporter.  The ONLY thing that kept the USA & USSR from going to war was nukes, plain and simple.  Cooler heads prevailed because neither the Americans or Russians wanted to die enmass.  As for Iraq, yes mistakes have been made, but lets cut the USA a little skack here, millions, even billions of pr=eople live in freedom & democracy today because of what the Americans have done for them.  The US may not always get it right, but I'd rather live in a world with them than without them.  No USA, God save us all....

I beleive the UN should be disbanded and perhaps a new org formed wher membership was only open to democratic nations.

 

[CougarKing]

I beleive the UN should be disbanded and perhaps a new org formed wher membership was only open to democratic nations.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, what would you call such a new organization?

Peaches,

In spite of the previous posts about the current UN being 85% corrupt- what's wrong with just REFORMING the UN to only include genuine democratic nations with legitimate, democratically elected, constituent assemblies? There are lot of nations that fall into the gray area you know in the spectrum between despotic autocracies/oligarchies and genuine democracies.

Canada, the USA and the rest of the West (and the "Free World") does trade with non-democratic nations like Saudi Arabia- which has a despotic monarchy (the House of Saud) who is not really symbolic unlike those of Thailand, Japan or the UK. And Saudi Arabia is not on the warpath or chanting anti-Western slogans- IT IS TRADING with the West and strong Economic ties. The same could be said for Brunei, another OPEC member. Should WE KICK THEM OUT of any UN-like world organization just because they are NOT genuinely democratic? 

How about Pakistan, a supposed ally in the War on Terror? Should we kick them out even if they helped the US and their allies with the Afghanistan conflict? (such as allowing US planes to use Pakistani airspace and launch operations in the early part of Operation Enduring Freedom and the more recent Pakistani Army operations searching for Al Qaeda sympathizers in the Waziristan tribal areas along the Afghan border? Should we kick out Pakistan just because of GENERAL MUSHARAFF the dictator?


The same could be said of mainland China, which is trading with the rest of the world- the benefits are mutual in spite of China's human rights violations. SHOULD we kick them out just because they are not democratic? For any Americans on this board, be aware, that the US currently has a trade deficit with China and it would hurt the American economy to cut off trade with China.

I am sure there are other nations in this gray area that I overlooked- who may have symbolic assemblies (and kangaroo courts) with military juntas or obligarchies or some dictator pulling the real strings of power.

If you want someone  TO KICK OUT, then kick out North Korea and give Kim Jong Il's diplomats the boot!

 

[1feral1]

There is absolutely no way to think that the people of Iraq are better off today then with Saddam.  In every category they are worse off today.  Less running water, electriciity, law and order, safety etc.  Say what you will about the UN but USA screwed up Iraq.  Big time. And they are going to have to leave and it will eventually become split between the 3 ethnic groups which will lead to a bigger Iran, a Kurrdish war with Turkey, and a disgruntled Sunni minority. 

Been to Baghdad lately or just listening to some media source?

Another SME has surfaced on the scene.

The US will NOT be leaving, thats assured. Okay, one day yes, but not for a long time. Forget about 2008! The west will NOT leave this place not even half baked. Leaving would create a huge power vacuum, and things would be much worse for the west (not just the USA) in time, if the whole country radicalised from shiite Irainian influence. Iran is going to be a bigger problem for us, and you!

Running water, all the time here, and for a long time its never quit here. Coalition Forces are obviously encouraged to drink bottled water, but many brush our teeth with it, and wash in it. Overall its good water.

Electricity outages, I've had more power failures in my home town in the same time period I have been here. Its pretty much the same in any major urban area, and the country areas, many places have never had power, so nothing changes.

The IP are coming along fine, but plenty of corruption and loyality to various militias, but in reality, after a complete collaspe of infrastructure, the training and assistance the IP are getting from the west, its going along as can be expected.

The New iraqi Army is also coming along slowly, and daily get more responsibility. I often see them patrolling without any Coalition help.
Yes there is growing pains, and more good happens than bad here. REMEMBER that. It will take a long time to get things stable.

Don't forget there are more countries here than the US, GB, and Australia, all with a common goal. Rehabillitate, assist, guide, train, and get out. We are occupying their country, and want out once it is appropiate to leave.

YOU sure paint a bleak picture of the place for NEVER being here, predicting more wars and all.

Freedom is just an infant here, and with this new freedom comes struggle and unrest. These people have never hasd true freedom. Its nice to see people have an opinion and say it without fear. I speak to locals all the time, adn the overall picture is thanks for liberating us, help us the then leave as soon as you can.

The militias have formed in a power struggle. Sunni vs shiite. Both sides want the Coalition out, and in time that will happen, bugt for decades to come, ther will be a western presence.

Are they better off? Well no more UN sanctions, so medicine and drugs, trade, etc is getting through. The economy is booming here. Many have jobs, but sectarian violence is big now, and that dampens things, still many people have work, and get by daily, making ends meet, however many do not have work, and the slums here are a shocker, but wait, those slums where in in Saddam's day, long before any invasion or war. Poverty is just a way of life here.

Ya, its violent, murder, kidnapping, extortion, corruption (hey sounds like Toronto, Sydney, London, Winnipeg, or any big city), deliberate attacks (IEDs etc) and ambushs planned against civilians, IP, Iraqi Army and the Coalition, but mainly directed at the people.

I sense a lot of anit-Bush feelings here, but just remember, 9-11 came after 8 yrs with the Democrates. Was it right to invade? Looking back, in my opinion, yes, for at that time we thought WMD, and I would rather be safe then sorry.

As for Vietnam (this is often unfairly compared to that war), that was a Kennedy thing, and guess what, he was a Democrat too. 10 yrs of war, and 60,000 US lives.

I have come to the conclusion no matter who is in the US President's chair, it will be rough ride, regardless of this war or not.

Fact is, we are here. Deal with it pal. At times its bad here, and people die, but lets get the job done professionally and as best we can, then get out and get home. Its not a failure here, things just have to balance out. You can't leave a baby unattended in the woods, can ya.

Regards from Baghdad,

Wes

EDITed for spelling

 

[evolutionrules]

sure are a lot of sensitive right wing bush lovers here.  please tell me something he got right.  i don't care what party he belongs to, i care that he keeps screwing things up.  you want to blame clinton for 9/11...fine.  i could care less.  seriously.  but what good does it do to defend people who don't desrve to be defended.  they couldn't have screwed it up worse.  can anyone explain how it could have been screwed up worse?  they were never actually going to lose the war part, but man the freedom part couldn't have gone worse.  usa has been in iraq longer than WW2.  army reserve tapped out.  it is a mess.  the soldiers have kicked ass.  the mission is worthwhile.  but seriously people...come on.  i'm not advocating "cut and run".  i'm not even saying we can't turn it around (although i believe it's probably too late). i'm saying we should be having an honest conversation here.  since when do over 20 retired generals all agree that the administration has screwed up?  is that historic?  even the new secretary of defense admited under oath that they weren't winning.  Come on people.  if bush had let the generals wage this war don't you think the outcome would be different?  why do you think the democrats won both houses?  they even won in montana for gods sake.  so here's the question...would the generals have won?

 

[FredDaHead]

Oh how I love leftists. If you don't swallow their bullshit, you're a "sensitive right wing Bush-lover." Ever heard of that nifty little thing called "reality," bud?

Guess those clouds of smoke and those mirrors kinda hide it, uh?

 

[Shamrock]

Sophistry.  When your information comes from a biased and unreliable source, any opinions you form are very likely to be partially informed and most likely invalid.

From where to you get your information, Evolutionrules?  Having an opinion is fine, indeed (and excuse my cliché) many people here are willing to lay down their lives to preserve your right to express it, but using your opinion as fact is just plain silly.

It's like bringing a knife to a tank fight.

 

[evolutionrules]

what part is opinion?  the part about the generals criticizing the politicians?  the part about being in iraq longer than WW2?  since when did frontline soldiers without body armour start taking the side of politicians.  want some more facts?  bush admin has cut veteran benefits.  why do they call the humvees watermelons?  jesus people.  why are soldiers in iraq salvaging scrap metal?  this isn't opinion it's facts.  where are you getting your info.  and a real right wing conservative would be fighting for the rights of soldiers, demanding that citizens make sacrifices too.  where is the fiscal responsibility that goes along with a war?  tax cuts?  bring back the taxes and give the soldiers every god damn thing they want and send in 100,000 more troops and get the job done.  you think i'm a lefty.  dumbass.  when people are wrong they should be criticized.  the democrats haven't been in charge.  the republicans have.  so when the dems screw up we should rip them a new one too.  but that doesn't mean we shouldn't rip the republicans as well.  and just for the record the violence in iraq isn't an opinion, it is a fact.  look up the number of dead iraq civilians in just the last 2 months.  and finally...72% of soldiers in iraq think usa should leave.  but don't believe me look it up

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075