• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Iraq Is Improving

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
http://www.techcentralstation.com/081805E.html
Iraq Is Improving

By Christian Sandstrom Published 08/18/2005
TCS


Monsignor Rabban al Qas, a Chaldean bishop in Iraq, was recently interviewed by a foreign journalist, who asked him, "Twenty-three Iraqis are killed every day in Iraq. Nearly two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, there is no security as yet. Is there still hope in Iraq?"



Monsignor al Qas replied,



"What the media portray is true: explosions, killings, attacks. But if you see how much order, discipline, transport, displacements, and work have improved, there is a change for the better compared to one or two years ago. Now people understand there is a government, the structure of a new state. Thousands and thousands of allied and Iraqi soldiers are present. There is a constitution which is being drawn up, laws are being enacted. The presence of authority is recognized. This was not the case before. And Al-Qaeda integralists and terrorists coming from abroad seek to penetrate Iraq precisely to destroy the beginnings of this social organization."



Almost everyday, we get reports from Iraq that a new terrorist attack has taken place. The pictures of explosions, gunfights and frightened civilians are broadcast over the world. Seeing all this terror it is easy to dismiss the U.S. liberation of Iraq as a complete failure. Apart from the Iraqi election in early 2005, very few successes have been reported in western media.



Of course, the problems in Iraq should not be ignored and it is important to remember that there's still a long way to go until the country is a working democracy where human rights are respected. But nonetheless, Iraq is getting better and we mustn't underestimate the huge improvements that have taken place there.



Any evaluation of development in post-war Iraq must be made in relation to how things were under Saddam Hussein. It is difficult to give an exact figure on how many people were murdered under his regime. But the following examples suggest that he was one of the bloodiest dictators in modern history:



* The Iraqi regime has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors. From 1992 until 2002, Saddam Hussein prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting the country. When looking back at his reign of terror, it is easy to understand why.



* Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's campaign of terror against Kurds in 1987-1988 killed at least 50,000 people. The same organization also claims that "senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."



* Hussein's regime carried out executions frequently. Some 4,000 prisoners were killed at Abu Ghraib in 1984. Between 1997 and 1999 2,500 prisoners were executed in a "prison cleaning campaign".



* Furthermore, an Amnesty International report written in 2001 says "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage.



The killings of civilians in Iraq today due to terrorist attacks must be seen in relation to these violent acts. Human suffering must never be ignored, nor neglected, but it is still obvious that the humanitarian situation in Iraq has improved remarkably since Hussein was toppled. When taking other aspects of human rights into consideration, such as freedom of speech, it becomes even clearer that Iraq has made huge improvements.



More than ten TV channels have been founded since the end of the Hussein regime; there are hundreds of newspapers and the Iraqi people are getting more access to foreign media. Needless to say, this would have been impossible under the reign of Saddam Hussein.



When looking at the political and economic development of Iraq, it becomes even more obvious that things are getting better rapidly. According to The Economist, the Iraqi economy grew more than 30 percent in 2004 and it is predicted to grow at 34 percent this year. Iraq's "New Dinar" currency, introduced in 2003, has been performing strongly and it has appreciated by about 25 percent against the dollar in two years. The country's banking system has been modernized and Iraq is taking steps towards a functioning market economy.



To be sure, a war for the future of Iraq is going on. Terrorists are killing both civilians and soldiers and it is still a violent country. But we mustn't forget that things were a lot worse under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and that despite the terror, Iraq is improving steadily. If things continue to move in this direction, Iraq will emerge as a peaceful and prosperous country in the near future.



Christian Sandstrom has been Vice Chairman of Fria Moderata Studentförbundet, the biggest pro-market student movement in Scandinavia. He holds a B.A. in economics and is currently finishing his studies in Industrial Engineering at Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Let's not forget that Amnesty International has also blacklisted the United States of American for prisoner abuses in Iraq. Does that make you proud to be listed right along with Saddam?

Let's also not forget that 20,000+ Iraqi civilians have been killed in less than three years in Bush's war. Your number of Iraqis killed by Saddam keeps changing, Cal.

Let's also notice that this guy says "...have improved, there is a change for the better compared to one or two years ago.." Well, duh, we've been running the country for the last two years! How is it compared to five years ago? I posted an article on this site recently by a BBC reporter who goes to Iraq every six months. He says security is worse every time he goes.

Keep spinning....
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
Oh if only............................

Iraq could go back to the days of the Rape Rooms of Sadam
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
passin thru said:
Oh if only............................

Iraq could go back to the days of the Rape Rooms of Sadam

Thank you joining this discussion with your usual understanding, intelligence and insightful comments.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
I take that as a confidence vote for Sadam, since you didn't condemn him. Seems you only condemn the US. Your true colors show, no matter what you say. It is what you don't say that tells on you.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
passin thru said:
I take that as a confidence vote for Sadam, since you didn't condemn him. Seems you only condemn the US. Your true colors show, no matter what you say. It is what you don't say that tells on you.

I've said on this board many times that Saddam was a murderer, a sadistic killer and tyrannical ruler. But George W. Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. The people of the US would not have agreed to an invasion based on Saddam's cruel treatment of his people. There was no outcry from the American people to invade Iraq when he gassed the Kurds. But Bush wanted Saddam, so he lied to the American people, and the world, and claimed he had proof Saddam had a WMD program. Now almost 2000 Americans are dead, thousands more wounded and mained, he's thrown billions of our dollars into a bottomless sand pit and there's no end in sight. That's not acceptable to me.
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
49
Location
With The Herd
Disagreeable said:
passin thru said:
I take that as a confidence vote for Sadam, since you didn't condemn him. Seems you only condemn the US. Your true colors show, no matter what you say. It is what you don't say that tells on you.

I've said on this board many times that Saddam was a murderer, a sadistic killer and tyrannical ruler. But George W. Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a bad man. The people of the US would not have agreed to an invasion based on Saddam's cruel treatment of his people. There was no outcry from the American people to invade Iraq when he gassed the Kurds. But Bush wanted Saddam, so he lied to the American people, and the world, and claimed he had proof Saddam had a WMD program. Now almost 2000 Americans are dead, thousands more wounded and mained, he's thrown billions of our dollars into a bottomless sand pit and there's no end in sight. That's not acceptable to me.

Well, it seems you may live up to your name - but, as I have followed your writings you have yet to do one thing .....

Give us the solution that would satisfy YOU and stiil satisfy the needs of the middle east and the needs of the U.S. of A.

Walls around the U.S. of A.? Whip the Pres? Put Mrs. Clinton in the House? Allow complete and free movement of those in Iraq to come to the U.S. of A. should they so desire? Pat those on the back who would use chemical weapons indiscriminately?

What will solve the problems before they actually come to North America in an even bigger way? What will prevent even more and worse terrorism in the U.S. of A.?

Would you have the Pres be proactive or reactive? How and Why?

There are probably a dozen more questions, but from what I have followed so far you are far more full of vitriol and anger than you are in solutions.

There are many ways to attract attention - but to create a practical solution at the same time does not seem within your grasp.

I am not interested in you asking me for mine - I admit I have none - but you have been vociferous in your complaints and attacks - so surely you must have some type of solution.

Be thankful - truly thankful - that you have the right to say what you say - because I believe you may not realize just how lucky you are.

Your Right to do so? Created by the soldier and his brothers. NOT by folks who will (apparently) happily diss the Country / the Pres and his soldiers for their deeds. While you may not have done so directly in all cases - as a retiree I believe you do so - at the least - indirectly.

Standing by,

Broke Cowboy
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
all you will get out of dis is the same tired old liberal propoganda,

Show her a direct link about terrorists in Iraq prior to US re-entering the war, and she screams WMD's

Show her Saddams direct violations of 1441, and she screams WMDs,

Show her labs, show her precursers, and she fends denial, calls every one a lier, and returns to her anti-military retoric,


It is not about a solution it is about the liberal agenda....and we know what that agaenda is total surrender to our enemies...and nothing less then enslavement under communist dictators...and hollywood elitists...


she will scream, whine and say we are all against her ( which is true) just to bring up her tired old line in a couple of weeks again...
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
all you will get out of dis is the same tired old liberal propoganda,

Not propaganda, Steve. I am able to see the difference in a real news report or an offical government report and the emails that show up in my mailbox telling me that all Saddam's WMDs have been moved to the moon.

Show her a direct link about terrorists in Iraq prior to US re-entering the war, and she screams WMD's

George W. Bush mentioned terrorist once (1) in his State of the Union Speech. He mentioned WMDs many, many more times. He based this invason on WMDs. There are no WMDs. I refuse to allow a change in the rules.

Show her Saddams direct violations of 1441, and she screams WMDs,

See above. WMDs, WMDs, WMDs.

Show her labs, show her precursers, and she fends denial, calls every one a lier, and returns to her anti-military retoric,

What labs? What's a precurser? I'm about the only pro military person on this site. Bush and his ilk sent our troops off without body armor or armored vehicles and shorthanded. I've complained about that; you have supported him.

It is not about a solution it is about the liberal agenda....and we know what that agaenda is total surrender to our enemies...and nothing less then enslavement under communist dictators...and hollywood elitists...

The solution is to bring our soldiers home. Currently the Sunnis are begging the US to stop the Shiites and Kurds from putting an Islamic government into place. Pay attention, now: An Islamic Republic.


she will scream, whine and say we are all against her ( which is true) just to bring up her tired old line in a couple of weeks again...

Oh, you'll never hear me complain that you're all against me. I couldn't sleep at night if I thought I agreed with Cal in attacking a grieving mother or you in comparing the Iraqi war to a high school game. But I sleep very well.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
Dang Steve.................................

I think you rattled her Cage
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
The Broke Cowboy said:

Well, it seems you may live up to your name - but, as I have followed your writings you have yet to do one thing .....

Give us the solution that would satisfy YOU and stiil satisfy the needs of the middle east and the needs of the U.S. of A.

Why? I'm not an elected official of any kind. My goal on this board has always been to show Bush lied to get us into this war, that we can't win the peace because they ignored professional military men's advice, and get our troops out now.

Walls around the U.S. of A.? Whip the Pres? Put Mrs. Clinton in the House? Allow complete and free movement of those in Iraq to come to the U.S. of A. should they so desire? Pat those on the back who would use chemical weapons indiscriminately?

Foolish questions that you're throwing out for effect only. But I'll answer. No walls around the US, but a stronger border control. Iraqis should have absolutely no more right to come to the US than any other nationality asking to migrate. No one is patting anyone on the back for using chemical weapons. But the US government gave Saddam his first WMDs, chemical weapons. Bush's weapons inspectors (both of them) said there were no WMDs in Iraq. Both of them. Now our military has found a potential chemical weapons plant built since the invasion. Does that tell you something. Anything about how inept this whole advernture has been handled by the Bush Bunch?

What will solve the problems before they actually come to North America in an even bigger way? What will prevent even more and worse terrorism in the U.S. of A.?

Every expert says we're in more danger today in the US from terrorist than we were on 9-12. When Bush called this a Crusade, he woke up every Islamic Fundamentalist in the Middle East and they have flocked to Iraq for the chance to kill an American. There was possibly one terrorist training camp in Iraq, today there are many. They've learned to shape the chargers; weapons are being brought in from Iran. Things are much worse for the world than before Bush chose to invade a soverign country that posed no threat to the US.

Would you have the Pres be proactive or reactive? How and Why?

There are probably a dozen more questions, but from what I have followed so far you are far more full of vitriol and anger than you are in solutions.

There are many ways to attract attention - but to create a practical solution at the same time does not seem within your grasp.

I'm not an elected official of the US government. It's not my job to find solutions to anything. As I said above: "I'm not an elected official of any kind. My goal on this board has always been to show Bush lied to get us into this war, that we can't win the peace because they ignored professional military men's advice, and get our troops out now.


I am not interested in you asking me for mine - I admit I have none - but you have been vociferous in your complaints and attacks - so surely you must have some type of solution.

I don't give a hoot about your plans for getting us out. Bush is the Commander in Chief. He's the only person who can tell our troops to come home. You're just some background noise.

Be thankful - truly thankful - that you have the right to say what you say - because I believe you may not realize just how lucky you are.

I know how lucky I am. I've lived in other countries where things weren't so good. If we allow the Bush Bunch to continue to steal our rights, we won't be able to have these discussions. You do know that he's held American citizens for up to two years without charges or a lawyer? American citizens. Amazing that when the Trade Towers were bombed the first time, people were caught, tried, with the full benefit of the American legal system and went to jail. Osama Bin Laden is still free. Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9-11, is in jail! Shows you where Bush's priorities lie. Bush has secreted people here and there, approved torture, refused them any counsel, desecrated their religious icons. Everyone knows that under torture, prisoners will tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't stop these monsters. Why won't they release the rest of the prison abuse photos?

Your Right to do so? Created by the soldier and his brothers. NOT by folks who will (apparently) happily diss the Country / the Pres and his soldiers for their deeds. While you may not have done so directly in all cases - as a retiree I believe you do so - at the least - indirectly.

A retiree, huh? Glad to meet you. One of those checks arrives at my house every month, too. All my family is jealous of the fact I can go on post and see a doctor, free, and get all my meds free. Their medical insurance is eating them alive. Do you think Bush would ever have agreed to go billions of dollars into debt so Americans could have roads, free medical attention, or 5 cent gasoline? But we're going deeply into the red for Iraq to have all those things.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Dis wrote (again)

But the US government gave Saddam his first WMDs, chemical weapons.

have any facts to back that up?

Nope just your opinion and the liberal propoganda....

the truth...Just facts.....

"As the table clearly shows, the overwhelming majority of the arms imported by Iraq during the 1970s, when the regime was building up the armies which were to attack Iran in 1980, were supplied by the Soviet Union and its satellites, principally Czechoslovakia. The only substantial western arms supplier to Iraq was France.

France continued to be a major arms supplier to Iraq until 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait and all legal arms transfers to Iraq ended. With the fall of the Soviet Union and of the communist regimes in its former satellites, and with the alienation of Egypt from Iraq following the invasion of Kuwait, France became Iraq's principal diplomatic ally. This helps explain much of the antagonism between France and the United States over Iraq during the years between the first and second Gulf Wars.

During the controversy over the April 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, it was frequently alleged the United States had supported the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq during the period of the Iran-Iraq War between 1980 and 1988. The figures above suggest that the United States was a relatively minor supplier, and did not play a major role in arming Iraq for its attack on Iran. However, the US was officially neutral during the Iran-Iraq war,

http://web.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.htm

but lets see what we did supply Iraq with.
MD 500 defender (scout helo)
http://ice.prohosting.com/wmnet/helicopters/md500defender/md500defender(1).jpg

MD 530F
http://www.mdhelicopters.com/Rotorcraft/Models/MD530FF.htm

Hughes 300 TH55
http://futurshox.net/viewer.php3?id=734

Bell 214ST
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/getimage.htm?id=7373

But then again it is clear you will find some opinion piece to show your conclusion is right and that the facts I presented are lies.....
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
dis wrote:
One of those checks arrives at my house every month,

don't confuse your welfare check with that of the "retired" Service members.

Just because a check "arrives" at your house and you recieve "free" medical, does not imply that you served or sacrificed for your country. My wife also recieves "free medical" and if I was deceased or divorced she would recieve "one of those checks" also...you could even recieve one of those checks if you were a "cheating wife", of a dedicated service member as outlined by the courts, it doesn't make you one of the proud to have served, only serving does....But I have never read one word to claim you served just innuandos that hint or infer you wanted US to believe that you are in the same catagory as the retired members of the US Armed Forces..

So unless you "Served", then quit twisting the facts to support your lies and twisted statements....

and quite simply serving does not make any one a better person ( Kerry proved that) or not serving a lesser person ( cliton proved that) it is when one eludes to facts saying they served ( like Ward Churchhill) that show how low a person can stoop.....
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,392
Reaction score
49
Location
With The Herd
Steve said:
all you will get out of dis is the same tired old liberal propoganda,

Show her a direct link about terrorists in Iraq prior to US re-entering the war, and she screams WMD's

Show her Saddams direct violations of 1441, and she screams WMDs,

Show her labs, show her precursers, and she fends denial, calls every one a lier, and returns to her anti-military retoric,


It is not about a solution it is about the liberal agenda....and we know what that agaenda is total surrender to our enemies...and nothing less then enslavement under communist dictators...and hollywood elitists...


she will scream, whine and say we are all against her ( which is true) just to bring up her tired old line in a couple of weeks again...

You were correct.

This is a person to avoid - loud, vexatious and willing to complain with no willingness to attempt to provide solutions. Using the excuse s/he is not an elected official. That does not seem to stop the siren from howling though. "Not my job"? Loved that line.

Oh well, glad this person is not my neighbour.

I will go back to reading.

Best regards,

B.C.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Dis wrote:
Currently the Sunnis are begging the US to stop the Shiites and Kurds from putting an Islamic government into place. Pay attention, now:

Dis "pay attention" when you get ready to lie (twist half truths) at least get the major players right.

"Pay attention" The Kurds want a secular , not an Islamic state,

"The American-sponsored idea of an Iraqi federal republic, which would feature a relatively autonomous Kurdish region, currently appears to be the most popular among Kurds,,

CONCLUSIONS

As political realists, Iraq’s Kurds do not seek separation from Iraq. Their goal is to share in the establishment of a viable regional government for Iraqi Kurdistan in a unified Iraq under a federal system, with a governing document that provides written principles concerning structures and rules for governance and appropriation of federal funds. Federal systems flourish around the globe and the establishment of such a structure in Iraq should not be viewed as a threat, A unified, democratic and federally organized Iraq would not only address the legitimate right to self-determination of the Kurdish community but also guarantee the rights of all communities within Iraq.

in case you misunderstood what federalism is: Federalism is a system of government in which power is constitutionally divided between a central authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). The two levels of government are interdependent, and share sovereignty.

(yep thats a bad thing?)

"Pay Attention"

"The sides are divided above all on issues of federalism -- how to share power and resources in areas such as the mainly Kurdish north and the Shiite south, where local leaders want autonomy from Baghdad and control of oil wealth."

"While Shiites want an Islamic republic and Kurds are for a secular, federated state"

isn't it interesting how you type out the lie. twist it and then ask US to "pay attention" thank GOD we are!

"Also, Kurdish and Shia groups have dropped demands that the country should be called federal or Islamic, and agreed that the official name should be the Republic of Iraq."

Kurds want a Federalist Goverment,
Shites want an Islamic State,
Sunnis want a it back the way it was,,,

Disagreeable wants you to believe that compomise is impossible.....History will prove her wrong Again And Again,,,,,,,,
 

Latest posts

Top