Iraq: What Went Wrong?

Courtesy of Holden at Eschaton

Iraq: What Went Wrong?

Maybe this transcript of a speech by Stephen Soldz will finally open the eyes of Bush lovers and supporters of the Iraq War who claim that the situation in Iraq is actually much better than portrayed by the mainstream media. The reality, as Soldz makes clear, is that the situation is actually much worse than portrayed by the media.

The reality is that the media has been cooperating with the Bush Crime Family in suppressing bad news and trying to put the best face on the situation in Iraq. The reality is that the Bush Crime Family has demonstrated total incompetence, and has screwed up Iraq so badly that the situation will never improve until we leave.

The final paragraph of the speech by Soldz is absolutely devastating.

To conclude, imagine yourself an Iraqi. You've suffered terribly under a ruthless dictator. The Americans invade your country under false pretenses. They promise democracy but don't organize elections. They appoint exiles to rule you, exiles who spend most of their time out of the country and the rest in a few highly protected areas. The occupiers break into your homes in the middle of the night and arrest your men, who then disappear, with no accountability. They shoot Iraqis at roadblocks and from convoys. They declare war on the second most popular man in the country, announcing his death in advance. They open the economy to US corporations and give them sweetheart contracts, ignoring local business. Then they write hundreds of laws and establish commissions limiting any future government. They build permanent military bases on your soil. Then they turn your country over to a former associate of Saddam Hussein, also a former CIA agent, known for his ruthless brutality. Imagine that was your country. What would you do?

Don't want to be taken the wrong way, but it ain't my country! Never was, never will. So why should I spend time thinkin about things that little or no meanin to my life?

Iraq was a mistake. We found no WMD. We took Hussein off the throne, but the life of a normal citizen did not improve. The only thing we are currently doing over there is making sure Bush dosen't get elected again. Too many soldiers are dying for the effects we are getting out of the war.

What went wrong in Iraq?

Poor planning from this administration

Revenge played a role in taking Sadam our of power

Interest by Cheney friends and business partners

This administration no giving to up to his mistakes

Greed and power

Wrong information on MWD's and Al-queda connections

Underestimation of terrorist in the country

US ill prepared for nation rebuilding

And finally US went to Iraq to secure manage and consume the region resources (oil)


[edit on 26-7-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by donguillermo
Maybe this transcript of a speech by Stephen Soldz will finally open the eyes of Bush lovers and supporters of the Iraq War who claim that the situation in Iraq is actually much better than portrayed by the mainstream media. The reality, as Soldz makes clear, is that the situation is actually much worse than portrayed by the media.

....and has screwed up Iraq so badly that the situation will never improve until we leave.

Or they will just see it as yet another man's opinion and ignore it like all the other articles and speeches that have said this.

The situation would not improve if we left now, at least not in the short term.

What went wrong in Iraq?
Too little
Too fast

We didn't send nearly enough troops in order to occupy a country that size and with that many people for this long.

For whatever reason we rushed into this. We didn't wait for all our troops to get there before we started moving into Iraq. We rushed the ground war. We took over the country faster than we expected and as a result we didn't have a proper plan in place for a post Saddam government.

Poor planning on our part.
If we weren't staying then the war would have been a great military success. We had little casualties, we easily destroyed their army, and we toppled the gov. If we left it at that, militarily wise it would be mission accomplished. But, we're still there and it's a mess.

And finally US went to Iraq to secure the manage and consume the region the region resources (oil)

So when does this part start to happen, and when will we see our gas prices go down as a result?

What went wrong ?
What was ever right ??

A man who should not have been president used the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to continue old, useless business, with total disregard to the American people, or ANY non-elitist people for that matter.

How many people practically SCREAMED that this was exactly the way the Iraq venture would go ?

Well I of course have objections to invading Iraq, but I also never liked the fact that we supported Saddam in the first place. But the big reason we are losing troops over there is because of poor training and bad intel. The marines and infantry are about the only ones who recieve the proper training, all these support troops dont recieve very good combat training. Plus our military has been turned into a light assault force, meant to take out the enemy fast and effectively, we are not setup for security work.

However we "cannot" just pull out of Iraq, it would mean showing weakness to our enemies (Iran government, North Korea, China, all those terrorists!) and Iran would pretty much take over Iraq. If we do stabalize Iraq and hunt these terror cells down we could build a strong ally and unify our strength in that region (geez I sound like a globalist).

Lets involve the U.N., sorry to burst your idealist bubble but the U.N. is worthless. If U.N. troops come under fire they are not allowed to fight back without having it authorized by their commanders. In fact most of the time the U.N. just stands around and watches but doesn't do anything to intervene. I personally hate the U.N. because they have a bad habbit of ignoring severe human rights issues, as long as they can keep media silence over it.

The problem from the beginning was that Bush's strategic advisors totally dropped the ball and gave him terrible advice on this one. They decided to gamble a solid international position on Iraq and $500 billion of our money on an outcome that only had a tiny chance of success to begin with.

Removing Saddam was always going to be easy going. Transitioning to a democracy was always going to be the real challenge and it seems nobody on Bush's team allowed for the possibility of foreign terrorists entering Iraq at will and causing havoc.

The smartest thing to do would have been to continue containing and monitoring Saddam and bombing every few years when he refused to co-operate with the UN resolutions with full international support.

We have now inadvertantly created a terrorist state that is much more difficult and expensive to contain and we have no international support to help fund or fight this battle. The real test of the US's character will be if we can now admit to our mistake and ask for UN support to come to our aid.

ThatsJustWeird gas prices are in fact very cheap right now in inflation adjusted terms. As Chinese, Indian and Russian demand for oil is growing ever faster with their robust economies and the supply of oil fixed it will only get more expensive. The good news is these countries will be investing heavily in the US in the next 10-20 years and we should see our stockmarket skyrocket from here over this period. If the majority of our population can make the smart decision this November and elect a fiscally responsible government the US dollar should be able to turn the corner as well and we will all be sitting pretty. That's a pretty big if tho.....

ThatsJustWeird says

The situation would not improve if we left now, at least not in the short term.

First of all, I never said that the situation would improve if we left now. I said that the situation will never improve until we leave.

Second of all, how do you know the situation would not improve if we left now? Are you a prophet? This is just another man's opinion, to use your phrase.

And finally US went to Iraq to secure the manage and consume the region the region resources (oil)

So when does this part start to happen, and when will we see our gas prices go down as a result?

You start out quoting me and responding to my post, then you quote a snippet from another poster. You should really indicate that you are quoting a different poster, since most readers will assume that you are continuing to quote me. Did you deliberately quote an ungrammatical passage from another poster to convey the impression that my writing is ungrammatical?



[edit on 7/26/2004 by donguillermo]

So when does this part start to happen, and when will we see our gas prices go down as a result?

That was not the reason, our gas prices will remain the same, and the private interest is the ones benefiting from the oil management Cheney busisness partner and their companies.

What went wrong in Iraq?

Thats a simple one.

We let the U.N. get involved.

Nuff' said.

If you always look for the negative you will find it but there have been good things that have come of the war in Iraq . The thing I wonder is do the democrats fund any of the terrorist because they sure love them.

factfinder38,

Can you elaborated on the good things that came out of Iraq or is all wishful thinking

The last time I check more civilians got capture and terrorist are having no trouble in blowing things around and making American soldiers and civilians casualties, the government in Iraq by US decreed can not even keep their members alive long enough to make an impact.

Originally posted by Croker
What went wrong ?
What was ever right ??

I know! Going into Iraq was not right, and is not now wrong, it was wrong the whole time. Politicans are just wantin us to believe that it is right!

Originally posted by factfinder38
If you always look for the negative you will find it but there have been good things that have come of the war in Iraq . The thing I wonder is do the democrats fund any of the terrorist because they sure love them.

No, Democrats do not fund terrorists, and do not love them. Your logic is faulty here. It is true that, in some cases, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. But the facts that the terrorists are your enemy and the Democrats are your enemy do not logically lead to the conclusion that the terrorists and Democrats are friends.

We didn't send nearly enough troops in order to occupy a country that size and with that many people for this long

yeah but we dont need that many troops to destroy a feeble military and overthrow their busnises. if they took this war seriously then perhaps they wouldve sent 1000000 troops, too bad they didnt.

as for soldz final paragraph, why dont we overthrow television and broadcast that paragraph to the entire nation 24/7 that is probably the only way to get people to see wat is happening. even if everyone in our contry knew the truth, would anything happen? would we have a voice? or would the busness venture be to profitable and we would be shut up like everyone is shut up by those damn republicans. do they have no moral conscience? are they that heartless and evil they will not listen to the will of the american people and slaughter countless people for some lucrative busness deals?! oil is money, money is power, power is unquestionable!!! i dont know where im going with this...im just angry

what went wrong? We invaded

donguillermo

Stephen Soldz, He is a Psychoanalysts, a failed science based on assumptions, probably psychotic himself, Definetly a pacifist.
I do not find him to be correct on many issues. He is entitled to his opinion and ideology however I do not share it.

There seems to be alot of experts available to give liberals there opinion on conditions in Iraq, the question is how many are actually in Iraq. This is just another pacifist who feels you can solve all the worlds problems with group hugs.

Democrats absolutely support terorist , by doing nothing when we are attacked.

Lesson for peace activists;

"With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will
encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we
must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us
all on September 11,2001.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't
know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these
people,or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of
etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike
up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their
ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by
attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more
violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from
political to religious to
humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them
in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very

angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only
brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this
matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent
approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and
negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they
really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you
are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit
them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the
idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an
unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of
people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a

high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about
to do for us and our children.

We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have
no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep
getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over."





[edit on 26-7-2004 by sniper068]

sniper068 says

donguillermo

Stephen Soldz, He is a Psychoanalysts, a failed science based on assumptions, probably psychotic himself, Definetly a pacifist.
I do not find him to be correct on many issues. He is entitled to his opinion and ideology however I do not share it.

There seems to be alot of experts available to give liberals there opinion on conditions in Iraq, the question is how many are actually in Iraq. This is just another pacifist who feels you can solve all the worlds problems with group hugs.

Wow, you have totally refuted Stephen Soldz. He is a psychoanalyst, he is psychotic, he is a pacifist. Obviously, there is no validity to anything he says. So there is no point in dealing with his facts and arguments.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Putting labels on someone is not an argument. Why don't you actually answer the facts and arguments Soldz puts forth in his speech? Because you have no answer.

You Republicans use the same tactics in your criticisms of Kerry. Oh, he is a flip flopper. He is a liberal (the horror!). He is weak on defense. These are the types of arguments used by mental midgets like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. The reason Republicans use this argumentative technique is because they have no ideas, and their policies have been shown to be total failures. As with Ronald Reagan, large tax cuts have been shown to be a recipe for bankrupting the federal government. Preemptive, imperialistic war has been shown to alienate the entire world.

Democrats absolutely support terorist , by doing nothing when we are attacked.

This is a typical Republican statement, baseless and not grounded in reality or sanity. The rest of your post, a lesson for peace activists, is a copy and paste from somewhere, as I have seen it years ago. By doing this copy and paste without acknowledging your source, you have committed plagiarism.

Originally posted by donguillermo

The final paragraph of the speech by Soldz is absolutely devastating.

To conclude, imagine yourself an Iraqi. You've suffered terribly under a ruthless dictator. The Americans invade your country under false pretenses. They promise democracy but don't organize elections. They appoint exiles to rule you, exiles who spend most of their time out of the country and the rest in a few highly protected areas. The occupiers break into your homes in the middle of the night and arrest your men, who then disappear, with no accountability. They shoot Iraqis at roadblocks and from convoys. They declare war on the second most popular man in the country, announcing his death in advance. They open the economy to US corporations and give them sweetheart contracts, ignoring local business. Then they write hundreds of laws and establish commissions limiting any future government. They build permanent military bases on your soil. Then they turn your country over to a former associate of Saddam Hussein, also a former CIA agent, known for his ruthless brutality. Imagine that was your country. What would you do?

Yes as kogigaiden said, that paragraph should be broadcast and covered for at least as long a time as coverage of the latest Hollywood scandal or movie campaign would go on.

As for katt06�s reply to it:

Originally posted by katt06
Don't want to be taken the wrong way, but it ain't my country! Never was, never will. So why should I spend time thinkin about things that little or no meanin to my life?

Iraq was a mistake.

It�s called EMPATHY folks.

The definition of empathy is �Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.� Not Sympathy! Empathy! And there is a sad lack of it in western countries when it comes to the people we call �Arab�.

There is absolutely nothing in that definition that implies �helping the enemy� in any way. Nor is there any implication that it is somehow wrong to understand a people�s plight when our government is at war with them.

That paragraph describes their situation from their point of view. Understanding it is the first step to addressing what is in their best interests if we really want to help them.

How we got to where we are today with a War on �terrorism�, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Palestinians started a long time ago. Which leads me to the brilliant reply from sniper068.

It seems he has a copy of the standard issue schoolyard bully manual. I have heard pages from that manual many times in my life and as with many of them, they are applied on false assumptions of fact or are circular in logic. This one is based on the fact that an unprovoked attack deserves a response. And I agree with that sometimes.

What I don�t agree with in this case is that the attacks are unprovoked because they are, on both sides, responses to previous provocations. The CIA calls this �blowback� for the last fifty years of dirty tricks and meddling that has gone on in the world since the end of the second world war.

I say the following phrase after having experienced personal loss inside the North Tower and the journey of understanding that followed. That day back in the fall of 2001 was one punch in the nose the west had coming.

Fifty years of dirty politics with dictators, warlords, proxy wars etc. finally came back to hit home. The US is not solely responsible; Canada, Europe, Australia and other western �civilized� countries are also culprit.

Think the forced creation of Israel, followed by the propping up of the Saudi Monarchy (and other Kingdoms) after the second world war. All this lead to wars, or proxy wars, with just about every country in the Middle East and North Africa. This back and forth sucker punching has been going on for a long time. The men of this Administration have been around the whole time in high public office (how do you think they got so rich and influential? It was propping up the Saudis) and they now occupy the current White House.

Is it any wonder there are people out to �get us� in the world?

How do we make them want to stop �coming for us�?

Empathy is the first step to answering this question.

So read this slightly modified version of that paragraph:

Quote: "To conclude, imagine yourself an American. You've suffered terribly under a ruthless leader. The Russians invade your country under false pretenses. They promise democracy but don't organize elections. They appoint exiles to rule you, exiles who spend most of their time out of the country and the rest in a few highly protected areas. The Russians break into your homes in the middle of the night and arrest your men, who then disappear, with no accountability. They shoot Americans at roadblocks and from convoys. They declare war on the second most popular man in the country, announcing his death in advance. They open the economy to Russian corporations and give them sweetheart contracts, ignoring local business. Then they write hundreds of laws and establish commissions limiting any future government. They build permanent military bases on your soil. Then they turn your country over to a former associate of Saddam Hussein, also a former KGB agent, known for his ruthless brutality. Imagine that was your country. What would you do?"

Now tell me that the answer to the problem is for the occupier to hunt down and shoot people who are fed up how things are and decide to pick up a gun and become �freedom fighters�.

I think I understand what would drive someone to fundamentalist religion and take up arms. I'm pretty sure I also understand that they may not be appeasable after reaching that point. The trick is to stop driving them to that point. A responsible, transparent and accountable government is a first step.

excellent response gools. the iraq war is only creating more blowback. invading a contry that has done nothing to us can bring no good. im afraid that the blowback this time will be far more intense then the destrucion of our WTC. will the politicians ever learn? even if they did i think their pockets would have so much money in them that they wouldnt care.