What has gone right in Iraq

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
58
North of Titletown AKA Boston
The following article was surprisingly taken from the liberal Boston Globe

What has gone right in Iraq
By Jeff Jacoby, 4/1/2004

WITH ALL the news coming out of the Middle East, here is a detail you might have missed: A few weeks ago, the United Nations shut down the Ashrafi refugee camp in southwestern Iran. For years Ashrafi had been the largest facility in the world housing displaced Iraqis, tens of thousands of whom had been driven from their homes by Saddam Hussein's brutality. But with Saddam behind bars and his regime crushed, Iraqi exiles have been flocking home. By mid-February the camp had literally emptied out. Now, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports, "nothing remains of Ashrafi but rubble and a few stones."

Refugees surging to Iraq? That isn't what the antiwar legions told us would happen if George Bush made good on his vow to end Saddam's reign of terror. Over and over they warned that a US invasion would trigger a humanitarian cataclysm, including a flood of refugees from Iraq. This, for instance, was Martin Sheen at a Los Angeles news conference a month before the war began:

"As the dogs of war slouch towards Baghdad, we need to be reminded that as many as 2 million refugees could become a reality, as well as half a million fatalities."

Writing on the left-wing website AlterNet last March, senior editor Tai Moses expressed dread of the coming of a war that "could create more than a million refugees." The BBC, citing a "confidential" UN document, predicted that up to 500,000 Iraqis would be seriously injured during the first phase of an American attack, while 1 million would flee the country and 2 million more would be internally displaced -- all compounded by an "outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The Organization of the Islamic Conference foresaw the "displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees," plus "total destruction and a humanitarian tragedy whose scale cannot be predicted."

Wrong, every one of them, along with all the other doomsayers, Bush-haters, "Not In Our Name" fanatics, and sundry "peace" activists who flooded the streets and the airwaves to warn of onrushing disaster. How many have had the integrity to admit that their visions of catastrophe were wildly off the mark? Or that if they had gotten their way, the foremost killer of Muslims alive today -- Saddam -- would still be torturing children before their parents' eyes? Instead they chant, "Bush lied, people died," and seize on every setback in Iraq as proof that they were right all along.

But they were wrong all along. Operation Iraqi Freedom stands as one of the great humanitarian achievements of modern times. For all the Bush administration's mistakes and miscalculations, for all the monumental challenges that remain, Iraq is vastly better off today than it was before the war.

And the Iraqi people know it.

In a nationwide survey conducted by Britain's Oxford Research International, 56 percent of Iraqis say their lives are better now than before the war; only 19 percent say things are worse. Because of "Bush's war," Iraqis today brim with optimism. Fully 71 percent expect their lives to be even better a year from now; less than 7 percent say they'll be worse. Iraq today may just be the most upbeat, forward-looking country in the Arab world.

With hard work and a little luck, it may soon be the best governed as well. The interim constitution approved by the Iraqi Governing Council protects freedom of speech and assembly, guarantees the right to privacy, ensures equality for women, and subordinates the military to civilian control. It is, hands down, the most progressive constitution in the Arab Middle East.

Nearly a year after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq is hugely improved. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages are climbing. The devastated southern marshlands are being restored. More Iraqis own cars and telephones than before Saddam was ousted. Some 2,500 schools have been rehabbed by the US-headed coalition. Spending on health care has soared thirtyfold, and millions of Iraqi children have been vaccinated. Iraqi athletes, no longer terrorized by Saddam's sadistic son Uday, are training for the summer Olympics in Greece.

Above all, Iraq's people are free. The horror and cruelty of the Saddam era are gone forever. In the 12 months since the American and British troops arrived, not one body has been added to a secret mass grave. Not one woman has been raped on government orders. Not one dissident has been mauled to death by trained killer dogs. Not one Kurdish village has been gassed.

Is everything rosy? Of course not. Could the transition to democracy still fail? Yes. Do innocent victims continue to die in horrific terror attacks or at the hands of lynch mobs like the one that dragged the corpses of four Americans through the streets of Falluja yesterday? They do.

But none of that changes the bottom line: In the ancient land that America liberated, life is more beautiful and hopeful than it has been in many decades. Bush's foes may loudly deny it, but the refugees streaming homeward know better.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.

? Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
If Saddam is in jail. Why not go home. Were not talking millions.
How about 10 to 11 thousand. And yes I would to. But I would look for a good hole to jump in at any time. Bullets and bombs seem to be killing many everyday. It's just a peacefull vacation spot.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
TYPICAL

TYPICAL

There is a price to pay for freedom.

But then, anything good in life has a cost, it's not free. That's what is not understood, and never will be.

Awesome post Blitz:D
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
In fact I think I would go home to Fallujah. But I would have to camp outside the city. Fallujah is now in circled by our military.
This is another sign how good things are in the homeland.
No Blitz if I was safe in Iran. I would be a fool to go to Iraq at this time. Maybe it will be truley a save place in another 3/4 years. Why take my family to such a unsafe place. What was it just this weekend. 9 U S solldiers and 15 Iraqis killed. And 200 more Iraqis wounded.
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
Where in that post did you read "Iraq is safe"?:rolleyes:

You have to do better to negative twist that positive post:nono:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
IO fair enough. The ? was what has gone right in Iraq. Simple answer. Not Much. It's a mess. Would you like to vacation there or take your family and live there? Not if your honest with your answer. But then again would you like to live in south LA. In other words we can go there tear things up but it don't mean were going to get things right. After all we can't keep it right here at home.
 

Blitz

Hopeful
Forum Member
Jan 6, 2002
7,540
46
48
58
North of Titletown AKA Boston
djv said:
IO fair enough. The ? was what has gone right in Iraq. Simple answer. Not Much. It's a mess.

Again, as usual, you missed the POINT of the entire article!!

The media in general reports negative news. Not just Iraq, but news in general. Bad news is more sexy than good news...

The fact is a lot of positive things are happening in Iraq and only a handful of reporters are reporting it. A lot of areas in Iraq are very quiet. Do I want to bring my family there on vacation, of course not, that is an idiotic comment...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
blitz,

i'm also shocked that the boston globe would write that article. here is an e-mail that i received that is along the same lines of the globe article.

Subject: Buildings that aren't burned in Irak


"They have a saying in the news business," Geraldo Rivera related this week. "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn." And with that introduction, he told a TV audience about the story that is being systematically denied to our entire nation: the success story of post-Saddam Iraq.

Are we losing some soldiers each week? Yes.
Is there some frustration in the public about electricity and water
service? Yes.
Are some Saddam Hussein loyalists throughout the land, making trouble? Yes.
Has this opened a window for some terrorist mischief? Yes.
But that's ALL we hear. No wonder the country is in a mixed mood about Iraq. If you hear about the buildings that are not burning, though, it is a different story indeed.

Rivera is no shill for George W. Bush. But Bush, Condi Rice and Colin Powell together could not have been as effective as Geraldo was Thursday night on the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes program.

"When I got to Baghdad, I barely recognized it," he began, Comparing his just-completed trip to two others he made during and just after the battle topple Saddam. "You have over 30,000 Iraqi cops and militiamen already on the job. This is four months after major fighting stopped. Can you imagine that kind of gearing up in this country? Law and order is better; archaeological sites are being preserved; factories, schools
are being guarded." But what about the secondhand griping that the media have been so efficiently relating about power, water and other infrastrure.

"To say that Iraq is being rebuilt is not true." answered Rivera.
"Iraq is being built. There was no infrastructure before; we are doing it.
I just think the good news is being underestimated and underreported."
At this juncture, one must evaluate how to feel about the voices
telling us only about the bad news in Iraq, whether from the mouths of news anchors or Democratic presidential hopefuls. At best, they are underinformed. At worst, their one-sided assessments of post-Saddam Iraq are intentional falsehoods for obvious reasons. If I hear one more person mock that "Mission Accomplished" banner beneath which President Bush
thanked a shipload of sailors and Marines a few months back, I'm going to spit. That was a reference to the ouster of Saddam's regime, and that mission was indeed accomplished, apparently to the great chagrin of the American left. No one said what followed would be easy or cheap, and that's why the dripping-water torture of the cost and casualty stories is so infuriating.

Remember we pay our soldiers whether they are in Iraq or in Ft Bragg, North Carolina. We should all mourn the loss of every fallen soldier. But context cries out to be heard. Our present news media is not performing this task. As some dare to wonder if this might become a Vietnam-like quagmire, I'll remind whoever needs it that most of our 58,000 Vietnam war toll died between 1966 and 1972, during which we lost an average of about 8,000 per year. That's about 22 per day, everyday, for thousands of days on end. Let us hear NO MORE Vietnam comparisons. They do not equate. What I hope to hear is more truth, even if we
have to wrench it from the mouths of the media and political hacks predisposed to bash the remarkable job we are doing every day in what was not so long ago total wasteland. Local elections are under way across Iraq, Rivera reported. "Where Kurds and Arabs have been battling for decades, things have been settling down. Administrator Paul Bremer is doing
a great job."

So does Geraldo think his media colleagues are intentionally painting with one side of the brush? "I'm not into conspiracy theories,..but there's just more bang for your buck when you report the GI who got killed rather than the 99 who didn't get killed, who make friends, who helped schedule elections, who helped shops get open for business, who helped
traffic flow again. "The vast majority of Iraqis are very happy to have us there. I would like to see a bit more balance." This needs tobe reported to the American Public who are presently being duped. I expect the dominant media culture to nitpick and attack Bush, and Democrats to blast him with reckless abandon. But when that leads to the willfull exclusion of facts that would shine truthful light on the great work of the American armed forces, that level of malice plumbs new depths.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
The few people that were worried about refugees were assuming a long, fierce drawn out war. They were definitely in the minority.

Most people, no matter what side they fall on, knew that this would be a short, easy occupation in regards to resistance from the Iraqi army. The problem, as noted by many, always was and indeed is, the lack of a plan for exiting the country. Rummy didn't tell us that we'd either be there for at least five/ten years or that we would leave a huge vacuum that would/will undoubtedly result in mass chaos is we leave too soon. Which do people prefer?

Does anybody truly believe that we can leave that country and that it won't immediately turn into one huge 'tribal' war? At that point, are the Iraqi's really that much better off than they were?


Of course, overall, the Iraqi's are better off without Saddam around. Similarly, about 5 dozen other countries would be better off without their current leadership. So what, exactly, is the point here? Isn't it obvious and common sense that they are better off without him?

I guess we're calling this a humanitarian event again, huh? I suppose we've batted around and we're back at the top of the order of reasons for the occupation.

Somebody/anybody, please tell me why you are so concerned about the Iraqi people and when this 'concern' started. When George said to, i'll bet. I'd be shocked beyond belief if any one of us spent 2 seconds over the course of our lives feeling bad for Iraqi civilians before George told us to.

Please tell me whether we should go down the list of bad, mean governments around the world and knock them off, one by one, with absolutely no regard to costs in our lives or our dollars. Humanitarian reasons and all.

I assume that if Kerry wins the election and invades Iran and Syria, then nobody that supports this Iraqi farce would have any problem with it. Humanitarian, that's all.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
How about a simple, black and white question.

We know all about the enormous, collective costs of this debacle (lives, dollars, goodwill around the world...etc).

Does anybody have any opinion on the benefits to AMERICA that have come as a result of our occupation?

Are there any?
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
61
Alberta, Canada
Number one....REGIME CHANGE.....

avoiding another 4 years of G W Bush in the White House....

that's gotta benefit the US in so many ways

cheers

ozball
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Kosar since you asked your question. To be fair I thoguht about it for several hours. The only thing I can think of is the oil. But we didn't go there becasue of that. ;) However it's flowing but funny thing is. Them bad ass French that would not back us in this. There getting there share. Amazing how the world works.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
djv said:
Kosar since you asked your question. To be fair I thoguht about it for several hours. The only thing I can think of is the oil. But we didn't go there becasue of that. ;) However it's flowing but funny thing is. Them bad ass French that would not back us in this. There getting there share. Amazing how the world works.

DJV,

Well, of course. The oil. That whole idea is all twisted to begin with. If we did go there to get the oil, well, I would hope that any half-conscious person would agree (Dr. Freeze excepted) that this was not a good reason to occupy a country. We had no problem getting oil for the last 30 years or so. Our gas prices are at the highest levels ever.

So far, we have as benefits to our country:

1. It might get Bush out.

2. Oil. Except, we haven't benefited in the least and our gas prices are at an all-time high. And if in the end we do actually steal the oil, then why? We don't need to spend hundreds of billions and countless lives and turn the world against us just to steal some oil that we don't need at this cost.

So nobody has any benefits of this war? I'm not even talking about in comparison to the costs. Just a benefit. For OUR country. Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
kosar said:


So nobody has any benefits of this war? I'm not even talking about in comparison to the costs. Just a benefit. For OUR country. Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

BESIDES the positive trends being created in Iraq...

Libya=SCARED
N Korea=SCARED
Iran=SCARED
 

IntenseOperator

DeweyOxburger
Forum Member
Sep 16, 2003
17,897
63
0
Chicago
ozball said:
Number one....REGIME CHANGE.....

avoiding another 4 years of G W Bush in the White House....

that's gotta benefit the US in so many ways

cheers

ozball
They only aim at those who count.

I love when people of over countries can have opinions on the greatest country on Earth.
 

ozball

Registered User
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2000
484
0
0
61
Alberta, Canada
Hey the US is a great place,

It's just that the Bush Administration has done more damage to the USA's standing in the world than any administration I can think of in your history. He has turned the collective support and sympathies of the free world after 911 totally around, and sown the seeds for a century of terrorism against your country.

He has used the tragedy of 911 to further his own agenda, pursuing a vendetta in Iraq, on false pretences and put the USA's security at far greater risk.

You have a great country, and the sooner you get this clown out of office, the better for your country and the world

respectfully

ozball
 

seymour

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 12, 2002
78
0
0
Oz, you are right - I think most of the world knows what's going on is Bush rather than the United States - unfortunately, we have so many religous freaks in our country too that we may see him for another 4 years.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
IntenseOperator said:
BESIDES the positive trends being created in Iraq...

Libya=SCARED
N Korea=SCARED
Iran=SCARED


'Positive trends in Iraq' have nothing to do with us. Our country. Who cares if Iraq has new schools? When did you start caring about 'trends' in Iraq?

So we'll add to the list that we've possibly made some countries scared. I'm sure we've made *every* country scared.

So far:

1. Possibly will be Bush's downfall
2. Potential for stealing their oil somewhere down the road
3. Made countries scared

That's not exactly a list that bowls you over.

Where are all the usual suspects? Can anybody come up with a benefit for America? It's not a question that requires any long write-ups or a lot of time. There should be tons of reasons right on the tips of a lot of your tongues.

So how has this war helped the USA or how do you see it helping us down the road?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top