Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On 5/15/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:34 PM 5/12/2005 -0700,Nick Arnett wrote: Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? I said one of the top 5, because I think that it would be difficult to place Saddam Hussein's Iraq lower than 5 among the worst regimes on Earth. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that the DPRK or Zimbabwe is/are worse. After that, Iraq is in a mix with places like Turkmenistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, Togo, and Sudan. I think you'd be straining to place all of those as worse than Iraq, though, so Top 5 is about right. I could agree he was in the top 20. There are awful places that don't make American news and many of which Bush is embracing. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:34 PM 5/12/2005 -0700,Nick Arnett wrote: Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? I said one of the top 5, because I think that it would be difficult to place Saddam Hussein's Iraq lower than 5 among the worst regimes on Earth. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that the DPRK or Zimbabwe is/are worse. After that, Iraq is in a mix with places like Turkmenistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, Togo, and Sudan.I think you'd be straining to place all of those as worse than Iraq, though, so Top 5 is about right. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 10:43 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. I'm thinking data are. We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data into what we already know is true. So, proposing absurd tests, like comparing economic growth during the Great Depression to economic growth during World War II is fitting theory to data??? To me it smacks of doing precisely the opposite, pigeon-holing the data to support what you already know to be true. That's the danger of baiting of people with proposed tests of validity when you already know the results of those tests - we can reasonably assume that you would not be proposing those tests if they directly contradicted your positions. The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years when they answer this. If most people thought the country was going in the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider things a lot better. I disagree. If the results of the survey had not supported my proposition, would it have been reasonable to assume that things are worse in Iraq than under Saddam Hussein?Or reasonable to assume that things are worse in Iraq than at some intermediate point in the past?I would think the latter. In fact, I think that is exactly what we see in comparing the poll following the formation of the new Iraqi government with the poll during the assault on Fallujah. Thus, even though the data arguably supports my position, I don't think that it is valid. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better off on the floor of Congress. Whenever the administration is challenged regarding the success of the Iraq war, or regarding the false information used to justify the war, the retort is: Aren't the people of Iraq better off? The insinuation is that anyone who expresses any reservations about supporting the war is an apologist for Saddam Hussein and every ruthless act he ever committed. The short answer to the question of whether the Iraqis are better off is that it's too early to declare, Mission Accomplished. But more importantly, we should be asking if the mission was ever justified or legitimate. Is it legitimate to justify an action that some claim yielded good results, if the means used to achieve them are illegitimate? Do the ends justify the means? The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we're now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or supporting terrorists. It's implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn't support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized. However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein's removal from power. The real question ought to be: Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information? Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened. How much better off are the Iraqi people? Hundreds of thousands of former inhabitants of Fallajah are not better off with their city flattened and their homes destroyed. Hundreds of thousands are not better off living with foreign soldiers patrolling their street, curfews, and the loss of basic utilities. One hundred thousand dead Iraqis, as estimated by the Lancet Medical Journal, certainly are not better off. Better to be alive under Saddam Hussein than lying in some cold grave. Praise for the recent election in Iraq has silenced many critics of the war. Yet the election was held under martial law implemented by a foreign power, mirroring conditions we rightfully condemned as a farce when carried out in the old Soviet system and more recently in Lebanon. Why is it that what is good for the goose isn't always good for the gander? and more here http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/000973.html Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 12:13 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Gary Denton wrote: Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better off on the floor of Congress. Does it fit? They Might Have To Remove Some Of The Representatives' Desks Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On May 13, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:13 PM Friday 5/13/2005, Gary Denton wrote: Republican libertarian Ron Paul answered the question is Iraq better off on the floor of Congress. Does it fit? An Iraqi's place is in the house. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:13:35 -0500, Gary Denton wrote we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; Not quite. Wes (who was with the very first troops into Baghdad and later, Tikrit) told me that in Baghdad they were greeted with cheers from small groups... at first. However, he said that one of the difficult things was that as soon it was dark, they were sure that some of those cheering people became their enemies. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. Oh, please. I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to know if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with it right now. You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as to why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to any of that. Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is are things going in the right direction? The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On 5/12/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. Oh, please. I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to know if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with it right now. You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as to why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to any of that. Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is are things going in the right direction? The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? Dan M. Several of these polls have been taken. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:00 AM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? Several of these polls have been taken. Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be done. But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are supposed to be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of them are not feeling helped by our continuing presence. The inhabitants of Sadr City, for example. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:07:09 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) I spoke too soon, apparently. Not the first time. Here's the most hopeful figure of all -- 73 percent of Iraqis looking forward to our departure. The majority say that our invasion and occupation did more harm than good. Polls looking for optimism show that it has been decreasing. http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040628-045523-2426r.htm And some words on using and misuing polls: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6114 And more general information about Iraqis' attitudes toward the United States: http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11353 Large majorities of Iraqis - 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis - want U.S. soldiers to get out of Iraq quickly, according to an Abu Dhabi TV/ Zogby International poll earlier this year. Over half of Sunnis considered insurgent attacks to be a legitimate resistance to U.S. presence. This follows polling last year that showed that 71 percent of Iraqis considered U.S.-led forces 'occupiers' rather than 'liberators.' Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be done. It has been done, and I have results from several polls, spread out over the last year. :-) You said it could be meaningful; why wouldn't it be. In particular, why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate that most people are worse off? But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are supposed to be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of them are not feeling helped by our continuing presence. This sets the bar very high, doesn't it. Everyone must approve of the change in goverment? The inhabitants of Sadr City, for example. The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the local grown attacks are from Sunnis. Right now, there are negotiations with Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni tribal leaders to work out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents. You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of jobs, housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday. Planning Minister Barham Saleh, during a ceremony in Baghdad, blamed the dire living conditions in most of the country on decades of war but also on the shortcomings of the international community. The survey, in a nutshell, depicts a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq, Saleh said in English at the event, attended by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy representative in Iraq, Staffan de Mistura. The 370-page report entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 was conducted over the past year on a representative sample of 22,000 families in all of Iraq's 18 provinces. Eighty-five percent of Iraqi households lacked stable electricity when the survey was carried out. Only 54 percent had access to clean water and 37 percent to sewage. If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481 -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote: BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of jobs, housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday. Wow. So Iraq really IS like the US now! Woot! Mission, indeed, accomplished! -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
More seriously... On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote: If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481 This isn't particularly useful, unfortunately. The logical conclusion is that Iraqis, naturally, were miserable after 1.5 decades of Hussein, sanctions and so on; and only a few years of change won't have addressed the slow decline their country was led into by Saddam. As an indictment of Hussein the survey might be effective; but it could also be used as a chastisement against the US and UN and the years of sanctions, no-fly, etc. A more useful survey (more relevant to this discussion, that is) would be to compare living conditions in 2000 to those found in 2005. But that might not be possible. The problem I see is that you'd actually have had to take the first part of the survey in 2000. Anyone you asked today about how life was in 2000 will be doubly biased -- memory, which is not a particularly reliable tool, will contain its own slants; and whatever opinion is voiced today is going to be colored at least in part by current events as well as the last half decade of history. If you were to ask me how I liked Iraq now, and I was living there and a US soldier had accidentally shot my brother, I would probably have a very negative outlook, even if (in 1999) Hussein's goons had once threatened to shoot me if I didn't stop printing subversive pamphlets (or whatever). Sure, those days were hard, I'd probably think ... but at least my brother was still alive. You knew what the rules were and you knew what lines not to cross. Now, with those hair-trigger troops everywhere, even getting some bread and goat's cheese is a life-risking venture. But if you were to ask me, in 1999, how I liked Iraq, I might spit and say, The sooner that son of a jackal Hussein is out of power, the better. Population surveys aren't necessarily objective. (Opinion surveys are NEVER objective.) That's a problem. The other problem is (I think) that when you ask a given person his opinion, he's likely to tell you what he thinks at that moment, not what his overall sense of a thing is. In that respect you might only be getting something like a daily temperature reading, not any useful measure of a climatic trend. So you need a longitudinal study as well. This suggests to me that such polls can't necessarily be used to reach firm conclusions, especially if they're taken after the fact and given to people conscious of many competing political agendas, conscious that how they answer might well have a lasting impact on the quality of their lives in the foreseeable future. The one objective thing I can think of that might be used to argue life in Iraq has improved is the elections and their (still developing) results. As measures go that's not necessarily a bad one, but I think I've done a fairly thorough job of expressing that, in my view, the ends do not justify the means, as well as why I have that view. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate that most people are worse off? I didn't suggest that. I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying that they would be better off it we left. The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the local grown attacks are from Sunnis. Right now, there are negotiations with Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni tribal leaders to work out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents. Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni. That was my point -- these are the people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam. If the Shiites, of all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there? They're the ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the streets on April 9th. You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. First, so what if Sadr is working politically? That is no indication of whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are following him, lots of people. As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr directly to the violence in Sadr City. He's a cleric, not a soldier. Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the most dangerous places in the country for our troops. I don't think anyone questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the only incident there. What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:26:19 -0500, Gary Denton wrote If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago. And to my surprise, as I looked at some of these issues, one of the best national health care systems in the world. Not that I'm advocating a the trains ran on time mentality. But I've seen that one up close, in Chile, after Pinochet. Some of the unhappiness in Iraq is the inevitable result of people trying to figure out how to take responsibility for things that have long been dictated to them. How much would be impossible to quantify, I suspect. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate that most people are worse off? I didn't suggest that. I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying that they would be better off it we left. But, the question was whether the people in Iraq was better off. Why make this arguement if it wasn't relevant? I googled for that demonstration, and saw multiple quotes that put anti-US demonstrators in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. That immediately suggested who was behind it, and what was the political motivation...it was people on the outside of the present government trying to put that government in a bind. That government knows it is not prepared to provide security, so it doesn't want the US to leave immediately. It has said so. Yet, the US soldiers are resented. What is interesting is that the organizers could only get one middle size demonstration going. I think that the word went out from influencial figures (such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani) that these type of demonstrations were not useful. Everything that I see indicates that Sistani could get millions on the street by sending out the word. Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni. That was my point -- these are the people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam. If the Shiites, of all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there? The elected government for one. Ayatollah Sistani for another. They both wants us out, but not right now. Heck, _we_ want us out, but not right now. They're the ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the streets on April 9th. I tend to doubt the 300,000 number for an anti-American demonstration. I looked it up at multiple places and didn't get that number. A good example of what I read is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40509-2005Apr9.html you see that Sadr, the one who's millita fought the US for a month around a year earlier, organized that demonstration. Personally, I think the change from fighting at the shrine of Ali for a month to a one day demonstration is a hopeful one. You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. First, so what if Sadr is working politically? That is no indication of whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are following him, lots of people. As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr directly to the violence in Sadr City. He's a cleric, not a soldier. You don't remember the big fight in Najaf of about a year ago? It was with _his_ militiamen. They have stood down, and he has chanced tactics from military to political. He now organizes demonstrations, instead of gun battles. Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the most dangerous places in the country for our troops. I don't think anyone questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the only incident there. Which was during the time that Sadr was fighting US troops. Since his militamen have stood down, what fraction of attacks have been by Shiites and what fraction by Sunnis? What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave? I think that there are a few things involved. First, occupation troops are never popular, even if they are simply providing security. Second, we really screwed up both security and infrastructure. I think the average Iraqi cannot believe Americans are that inept. Third, the politics in Iraq is complicated. I wouldn't doubt that Sadr would call for US troops out _now_. Its a smart political move. The government knows it cannot maintain any semblance of stability without US help, so it cannot comply. He can turn resentment of the US into support for him in the future. The person I've been watching _extremely_ carefully for the past two years is Ayatollah Sistani. He is clearly a far more influential figure than Sadralthough no part of Baghdad is named after his dad. :-) During the fighting near the shrine of Ali, he happened to have a medical condition that required
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 09:09 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word. I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are better in Iraq today than before we invaded. Come on Nick!I can't *believe* that I have to help you out with this. Either you are being dishonest about your ability to come up with one measurable thing, or you are woefully unable to see other points of view. Well, let me help you out: -number of political prisoners -number of people subjected to torture (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib) -number of people able to practice their religion freely -number of people able to petition their government for redresss of grievances -number of people who cast free ballots in the last election -number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing And I am sure you can come up with more. Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:55:07 -0400, JDG wrote Well, let me help you out: Thank you. I was asking *because* I was having a hard time with it. More below. -number of political prisoners Definitely. -number of people subjected to torture (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib) Indeed. -number of people able to practice their religion freely Hmmm. I guess. I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor how free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but they're certainly free in principle. -number of people able to petition their government for redresss of grievances I don't know anything about that in the past or current situation. -number of people who cast free ballots in the last election Well... we'll see how that works out for them. It is a step in the right direction, however. -number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing Hmm. But more people are dying. And I am sure you can come up with more. Now that you've helped me -- I really was looking for help, not an argument. Believe me, I want to see every bit of good that we're doing over there -- our family paid a high price, after all. I've been having a hard time seeing the good in it all... which isn't unusual when something hits home so hard... and I wish you'd believe that I wasn't just trying to argue, but really wanted your help in seeing. Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. It really had nothing to do with honesty in the usual sense. It has to do with the world looking like a lousy rotten place when a wonderful 21-year old gets blown to bits, whatever the reasons. I don't want to see the world that way, I want to find joy and whatever comfort I can take in the mission he was on... it's just hard. I wish I could explain better, but I don't think anybody can really grasp it unless some real tragedy like this has hit them. Surely, however, there have been times in your life when you struggled to see the bright side of things? That's why I said, enlighten me. It wasn't sarcastic, it was a bit of a pun... the whole thing seems heavy and oppressive these days and I don't sleep all that well the more I read about the situation over there. Clear enough? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) Hmmm. I guess. I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor how free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but they're certainly free in principle. Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
Dan M. wrote: Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent of baiting?Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is are things going in the right direction? I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor - though I don't know for sure.) The right direction question is inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) Dan M. wrote: Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent of baiting? No, I've just tried to get people to commit to their understanding of the validity of a type of data independent of it supporting or countering their viewpoint. Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure what you are thinking here. I'm thinking data are. We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data into what we already know is true. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is are things going in the right direction? I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor - though I don't know for sure.) The right direction question is inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein. The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years when they answer this. If most people thought the country was going in the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider things a lot better. The quote from http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/afp/20050506/wl_mideast_afp/iraqpollpolitics_050506175337 is And 67 percent of Iraqis now think the country is going in the right direction, the most optimistic response in the last year, the poll showed. Some 22 percent said Iraq was going in the wrong direction. Sentiment hit an all-time low in early October 2004, as US forces started pounding Fallujah from the air ahead of a November ground assault on the town, 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Baghdad, the poll showed.Some 45 percent of Iraqis said the country was going in the wrong direction at the time, edging past the 42 percent who felt more positive. This poll was taken in mid-April. A poll taken a year ago asked about whether Iraq was better off than before the war. And, 56% said Iraq was better off before the war, while 70% were optimistic about the future. The source isn't as good for this poll, it is: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004319.asp which looks a bit biased. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On May 12, 2005, at 7:12 PM, JDG wrote: I have to wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent of baiting? Considering the source, this question's pretty damn funny. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go. Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good reason to stay home. And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC). Now please finish that second sentence... ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On 5/13/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go. Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good reason to stay home. And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC). Saddam was a secularist and oppressed the religious fanatics. He later politically embraced some elements of Islam but still it was a political decision and fantastical Shites especially were oppressed. I am not sure if I see ceremonies of religious ecstasy with blood running in the streets from self-mutilation necessarily a step in the right direction. I am not sure it is a step in the wrong direction but it is a step in a different direction about as bad. It remains likely that Iran will get the most benefit from this war: A friendly Shiite state opposed to the Saudi monarchy and with personal knowledge of the worth of American promises. - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:47:48 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote How much was right about it before GW2? Is the average Iraqi better off or worse off now than then? Or, for another measure, is the number of Iraqi people who are better off without SH in charge greater than the number who were better off with him and his sons and cronies in charge? The death rate has risen -- 100,000 more civilians have died since the invasion, based on the death rate before the war. The rate is 12.3 per thousand per year, compared with 4 per thousand per year in surrounding countries (Lancet/Johns Hopkins). Acute malnutrition among children has almost doubled, from 4.4 percent to 8 percent (Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science). Twenty-five percent of Iraqi children don't get enough food to eat (UN Human Rights Commission). Health care is less available. Clean water is less available (we targeted the hospital and water supply in Fallujah and elsewhere). Hundreds of thousands still live in refugee camps. We shut down the newspaper in Sadr City (welcome to democracy?). Does anybody have a measure by which life is better in Iraq today than it was before we invaded? And it has been two years! At the very least, this points to unbelievably poor or non-existent planning. After doing what we've done in Iraq, I cannot find any way to have faith that we can bring peace or to rebuild the infrastructure that we destroyed. Even if the Iraqis believe we have their best interests in mind, we have demonstrated enormous incompetence at doing anything positive. We've shown that we know how to charge ahead without international consensus, which can be a good thing. We've shown that we know how to remove the bad guys with force, which can be a good thing. We've shown that we know how to destroy, which can work to good. However, we haven't demonstrated that that the United States is competent to nurture, heal and restore, which I find tragic and humbling. What is required for us agree as a nation that we have screwed up massively, that the way we went about this was wrong, that we must invent better ways to deal with such situations, which aren't just about destruction, but also about building? Is what Pax Americana will continue to look like -- successful operations that leave the patient crippled and bleeding? Our leaders may have had noble intentions, but there's more to bringing freedom and peace than knowing how to destroy. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On May 11, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Our leaders may have had noble intentions, but there's more to bringing freedom and peace than knowing how to destroy. Noble intentions are nullified by arrogance. Until we start seeing some genuine humility -- starting from the top down -- we won't see any improvement as a nation. But it's much easier to give medals to nitwits than it is to confess to f*cking up. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:56 AM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Does anybody have a measure by which life is better in Iraq today than it was before we invaded? Not only does anybody have such a measure, but I can state the precise person who does. You do. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:10:06 -0400, JDG wrote At 07:56 AM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Does anybody have a measure by which life is better in Iraq today than it was before we invaded? Not only does anybody have such a measure, but I can state the precise person who does. Enlighten me, please. I've been thinking about this one a fair bit today. If it's not clear, I did mean quantitative measures, not qualitative things like Saddam is under arrest. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 05:16 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Enlighten me, please. I've been thinking about this one a fair bit today. If it's not clear, I did mean quantitative measures, not qualitative things like Saddam is under arrest. I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. After all, you've spent a lot of time talking about honesty in the presentation of arguments, so I'll let you take this opportunity to be honest about the arguments of others. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 20:25:08 -0400, JDG wrote I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. Oh, please. I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to know if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with it right now. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. Oh, please. I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to know if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with it right now. You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as to why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to any of that. Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. JDG - Its not difficult at all, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:30:47 -0400, JDG wrote You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, I didn't intend disdain. A provable likelihood of success is a wonderful thing, but I don't think it can be a requirement. Faith calls for more than limiting ourselves to what we can understand, doesn't it? Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word. I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are better in Iraq today than before we invaded. While Saddam was in charge and nobody was trying to contain or remove him, surely there was less hope, in worldly terms. I have no problem joining you in observing that from our point of view, there is greater hope for peace in that country than there was when Saddam was in power. But is that measurable? To me, it is based on our faith in this country's ability to do good, which I don't think is shared by the Iraqi people, especially after they've seen that we were totally unprepared to heal, nuture and restore their country after we invaded. That has diminished my hope, too. I do appreciate the clarification you offered. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
