Do you think the US is doing a good job in Iraq?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't want to turn this into another pro/contra war-discussion. Do you think that the US military and reconstruction agency in Iraq is conducting their mission in a satisfactory way?

[BCPVP]

Yes. Could be better, but it is satisfactory.

[shots]

I agree not exceptional but satisfactory.

[slamdunkpro]

On a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being Super Duper Job I give them a 6

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
On a scale of 1 - 10 with 10 being Super Duper Job I give them a 6

[/ QUOTE ]

...meaning a D-. I'd say that's a fair grade (if you ignore the innocent Iraqi lives lost without a good enough reason).

-ptmusic

[Matty]

The military and reconstruction agency get an A.

However that doesn't matter much when Washington's support in the form of actual planning gets an F.

[lehighguy]

No!

Maybe better then the left thought it would be, but not good enoguh to meet my standards, not by a long shot.

[lehighguy]

3/10

[kurto]

I think its really difficult to judge because we get such a small and select picture of what's really going on. On top of that, we get such contrary stories depending on who's telling it.

On the one hand, we can see a great piece showing US soldiers doing reconstructive efforts on 60 minutes. Then the next morning we read about a series of bombings and a General stating that Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists deadlier then what we had in Afghanistan.

[lehighguy]

I disagree. There is no electricity, running water, public services, and there is a 40% unemployment rate. It seems to me you could have solved these problems with some public works projects using the reconstruction aid. That was never done, so they get an F.

[Ray Zee]

no in all ways.
we have stayed too long and spent too much money with no return in sight. they are not our friends.

what needs to be done is arm the shiites and let the country fight their civil war just like we did and most countries have to do to sort out their system.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. There is no electricity, running water, public services, and there is a 40% unemployment rate. It seems to me you could have solved these problems with some public works projects using the reconstruction aid. That was never done, so they get an F.

[/ QUOTE ]

Electricity and running water are very close to pre-war levels either a little more aor a little less depending on who you that's pretty good considering how much infrastructure was destroyed during the war. Let's not forget that it was hardly a great place to live before we got there it's not like everyone had electricity and fresh water before the war. Also if the terrorists didn't specifically target electricity and water supply the levels would surely be much higher then before the war.

[lehighguy]

If the reconstruction aid had been spent immediately then there wouldn't be insurgents on the street attacking the reconstruction projects now. Most of them aren't terrorists, most are just people with no job that sign up to be thugs so they and thier families can eat.

I was raised on the mentality that if your going to do something, do it right.

[shots]

On this point I could not disagree with you more. A lot of the so called 'isurrgents' are not even Iraqis but people that come in from other countries with the sole purpose of causing terror and killing and torturing people I don't understand how you think better reconstruction of Iraq would have changed this. I know some people that grew up in the middle east and they tell me that it doesn't matter what we do, the anti-americanism is so ingrained in the culture and people are brainwashed at such an early age that the only chance we have of not being hated forever in that part of the world is trying to create democracies. Short of that our best option is the show of force because the next best thing to respect is fear. Right now they think we're week and will cut and run if the death toll gets to high or if they do particullarilly brutal things to us. I can't blame them for thinking that after Mogadishu but now we have to prove them wrong and show that the american people are far from spineless.

[lehighguy]

I think you are missing the point of my post. I pose the following.

A lot of the hired thugs, kidnappers, gangsters, hijackers, and other lowlifes wouldn't be on the street today if we had employed them in public works projects fixing the nations infrastructure. Not only would this take them off the street, but the infastructure improvements would have galvanized support for the Iraqi government and an overall satisfaction level in the public that would have served as a dampner on terrorist sentiment.

Congress approved this money to be spent early in the war, however most of it sat there for months and years. It was a failure.

I think you are also misinformed as to the ratio of hardcores to terrorist footsoilders.

[shots]

I didn't miss the post the point of your post at all you seem to think we should give the terrorists government jobs and then they would become America friendly productive citizens. My post was meant to argue against this line of dellusional thinking.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
what needs to be done is arm the shiites and let the country fight their civil war just like we did and most countries have to do to sort out their system.

[/ QUOTE ]


A very sound idea that stands out in bold relief if only for the reason that sound ideas are so rare on this forum.

America could get some of its expenses back by selling arms to both sides.

-Zeno

[Greg J]

Iraq needs a Marshal Plan. Unemployment is higher than 50% in some parts of the country. The reason many people join the insurgents is b/c they offere MONEY. Frankly, we need to stimulate the Iraqi economy with massive ammounts of aid -- WAY more than we are paying now. We are doing a decent job of repairing and creating infrastructure, but more could be done. It would probably require tax increases... but we should have though about that before we decided to go to war.

[shots]

yes arming everyone and encouraging war is the answer, how about this, we nuke the entire middle east and then everyone is dead so problem solved.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq needs a Marshal Plan. Unemployment is higher than 50% in some parts of the country. The reason many people join the insurgents is b/c they offere MONEY. Frankly, we need to stimulate the Iraqi economy with massive ammounts of aid -- WAY more than we are paying now. We are doing a decent job of repairing and creating infrastructure, but more could be done. It would probably require tax increases... but we should have though about that before we decided to go to war.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't need to do everything for Iraq we need to ensure realitive security and stability and the Iraqi people are responsible for the rest.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
yes arming everyone and encouraging war is the answer, how about this, we nuke the entire middle east and then everyone is dead so problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going overboard with this and not thinking very clearly. A pleasant cathartic civil war in Iraq is probably a good way to go. Wars serve a great and grand purpose in human affairs – it is why we have so many of them.

The nuke the Middle East play is just plan silly and a threadbare comment. We should be playing 'middle east' countries against each other for our own benefit and profit. America should foster a nuclear war but between Pakistan and India, as I have repeatedly stated. It would take very little prodding as they have already fought twice since tossing off the bitter yoke of British Imperialism. They hate each other’s guts in a truly worthwhile manner and such hate should be rewarded.

The only county the US should nuke is North Korea and this should be done only in a few select locations but it is important to make sure we have ‘over splash’ into China. Our nuclear submarine fleet could finally be engaged in something meaningful and progressive to get the ball rolling on this front.

Once all this occurs we can get down into some real butchery instead of this piecemeal small-time gangsterism that so loathsomely takes up the headlines of today. We need WW III and we need it in a big way.

Time to take out the trash.

Have a nice day.

Le Misanthrope

[[censored]]

For the most part yes.

[lehighguy]

A majority of the crime, terrorism, and general mayhem is the result of the disenfranchised. While foriegn fighers perpetrate the worst terrorist acts they represent a small cross section of the insurgency/criminal element. Take Moktadar Al Sadr. His army numbers thousands and its not made up of foriegn terrorists. Most of the people in his army are poor people from the shittiest neighboorhoods of Bagdhad and Najaf. Why do you think they call it Sadr city. Most of them might have some passive dislike of America, but what they really want it a meal for them and thier family. Sadr promises them that meal if they pick up a gun and do what they are told.

There are millions of smaller criminal organizations whos members come from the disenfranchised. The hijackers on the highways, the kidnappers, the extorshionist. Sure there is some [censored] running it but where do you think he gets his muscle from. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals in Bagdahd were often kidnapped and ransomed by these people who don't give a crap about the occupation they just want money. You don't think having all of the countries most educated professionals flee is going to effect reconstruction. You don't think having a bunch of hungry disgruntled people on the street gives an ample supply of manpower to the Sadr's and the gangsters.

[shots]

I don't doubt that poverty is a problem that affects crime, often the people that kidnap innocents are common criminals but then they sell the prisoners to terrorists who are the real problem. They're the ones that commit savage barbaric acts on innocent men women and for all they care children. These are not people that will be stopped by giving them a job I'm not so sure they really count as people for that matter. The original point was that terrorists are hurting the countries infrastructure by blowing things up all the time I doubt that many of the people carrying out these bombings are just your average guy on the street who's broke. The bombings are carried out by trained terrorists. I think the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq would surprise you.

[lehighguy]

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
There are links to at least 50 other journals. Read them.

Your average guy the the street is shooting at Americans and pushing around other Iraqi's for a meal.

Consider a gang in a ghetto of NYC. Does the average kid in the gang join because he is fundamentally evil inside, or because he feels he needs protection/am income/a family etc.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
There are links to at least 50 other journals. Read them.

Your average guy the the street is shooting at Americans and pushing around other Iraqi's for a meal.

Consider a gang in a ghetto of NYC. Does the average kid in the gang join because he is fundamentally evil inside, or because he feels he needs protection/am income/a family etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, there is a reason why crime is so much higher in the US than in countries with better welfare systems. Norway has probably one of the best such systems, and last year it was only 31 murders. That would mean 1,800 in whole US.

[shots]

I don't know exactly what this link is suppose to prove Iknow a lot of liberals love the idea of the redistrabution of wealth and that taking from the rich to give to the poor will solve the worlds problems but that just isn't so. A lot of the people fighting against our troops are foreginers and of the Iraqis fighting the majority of the are bath party members who're fighting because they know they have no future in a democratic Iraq. I don't know what you're proposing we do give every Iraqi the standered of living of the average American? Then after that all we need to do is increase welfare and the poverty problem at home will be solved too. Is that the liberal answer to everything? Handouts and appeasement.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that the US military and reconstruction agency in Iraq is conducting their mission in a satisfactory way?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of worthy effort in the work of a lot of American agencies, both governmental and NGOs, in Iraq. As well as of other, non-American ones.

You do not have to be a supporter of the total idiocy that was the decision to invade Iraq, in order to help, it looks like. There are a lot of people and a number of groups/organisations that are trying to help the worst victims of this war, the Iraqi people. I was reading in Foreign Affairs an exchange of letters between two American scholars, both virulently anti-war. One of them had taken part in an NGO that tried to help Iraqi re-construction and was defending his position in the same manner as Red Cross people do : We oppose the war but we will help those that suffer from the war, on both sides.

And, yes, the American who helped Iraqis knew that the pro-war faction (and possibly Washington itself) would take advantage of his work, in many ways, not the least of them being propaganda. But people are more important than propaganda verbiage, he says.

I found that to be a greatly courageous position to take - especially in today's world of simplistic aphorisms, manichean thinking and TV feedstock; a world excellently represented in this forum.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the hired thugs, kidnappers, gangsters, hijackers, and other lowlifes wouldn't be on the street today if we had employed them in public works projects fixing the nation's infrastructure. Not only would this take them off the street, but the infastructure improvements would have galvanized support for the Iraqi government and an overall satisfaction level in the public that would have served as a damper on terrorist sentiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny but this was precisely what the Army War College explicitly warned about in its Iraqi war plans that were submitted to the Pentagon's political leadership. Among a great number of other warnings.

The appropriate poll in this case would be, Which trash bin do you think the recommendations of the brass ended up in ?

- The trash bin of Rumsfeld?
- The trash bin of George W Bush?
- The nearest trash bin?

[Greg J]

I am heartened to see someone else that could oppose the initial invasion -- I think "total idiocy" was a good way to put it -- while supporting the reconstruction of Iraq, and seeing this thing through to the end. Too many people that opposed the war now refuse to take off the blinders and realize that we allowed this war to happen, and have an obligation to see that Iraq become peacful, stable, and a place where respect for human rights is firmly entrenched.

[lehighguy]

If I had to give a blame for both intelligence failures and postwar planning it would be in this order.

1) Bush
2) Tenet
3) Bremer
4) Rumsfeld
5) Powell (because I really trusted his UN address)

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq would surprise you.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter. Shahwani said the resistance enjoyed wide backing in the Sunni provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim. Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.

A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

[/ QUOTE ]

1,000 out of 40,000 - that's 2.5 percent. Did you perhaps means surprisingly low?

[ QUOTE ]
Still, the New York Times article also references military data suggesting roughly 80 percent of violent attacks in Iraq were simply criminal in nature –e.g., ransom kidnappings and hijacking convoys- and without political motivation. This figure lends credence to those who cited the CPA’s disbanding of the Iraqi army as an error likely to create a pool of unemployed and discontented young males ripe for absorption into the insurgency. Further, this statistic highlights the importance of reconstruction, and the revitalization of an economy in Iraq that can provide traditional employment opportunities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iraqi Insurgency (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)

[lehighguy]

Thank you for those sources. I knew they existed but I didn't want to go find them to prove my point.

[shots]

That's one source, I could easily post something from a conseravative source that said the numbers were higher. The truth is that no one really knows what the number is, how could they? But if you look at recent suicide bombings the precentage of foreigners to Iraqis is quite high. Yet there still refered to as insurgents despite the fact that they're not even Iraqis. The Iraqis are largely less fanatical then the foreigners they come in to Iraq for the sole purpose of making sure there is no peace and infrastructure isn't improved for the Iraqi people. There's no question that foreign fighters are the vast minority but there's still a lot of them and they're the one's who are most extreme and have the biggest impact.

Getting back to the earlier point of Iraqis joining the insurgency because they're poor I just don't see any evidence to back up this claim. Are many of the insurgents poor? Yes. Is that why they're fighting against the US and the democratically elected Iraqi government? No. As in most battles the reasons people are fighting are overwhellmingly political and religious, the religious reasons being mostly a cover for the people at the top who have a political agenda and use religion to trick people into doing their will.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800838.html

[lehighguy]

These sources have nothing to do with the amount of foriegn fighters relative to the network of support and criminal elements that thrive as a result of the state of Iraq.

The reports he used aren't from some "liberal media source". I've seen those same reports in a number of reputable news publications and studies.

Even if you don't believe them, read about it from people that actually live there. The link I gave you will give you access to perhaps 100 different journals from Iraqi's with a variety of different political leaning and regions of teh country. See what they say about they situation.

[shots]

There is a difference between criminal elements and logistical supporters of terrorists and suicide bombers while the number of foreign fighters may not be astronomically high there are a lot of them and they are the one's doing the real damage, also the entire discussionn of foreign fighters was an offshoot of your comments about the people blowing up things in Iraq doing so because they didn't have jobs and because of our reconstruction efforts being insufficient. If you read the links I provided you will get a clear picture of the people really behind the attacks, foreigners and displaced bathists with a political agenda.

[lehighguy]

We have neo-nazis in America. We have the KKK. Those organizations, which are led and formed entirely of radical terrorists, do not perform terrorist acts. This is because they do not have the support of large swaths of the population.

These terrorists COULD NOT OPERATE if they were not supported or sympathized for by a large cross section of disaffected Iraqi's.

Face it. Bush [censored] this up. Just like he [censored] up fiscal disciplin, education, and virtually every domestic matter. As a war supporter, as a believer in smaller government, Bush has started to piss me off even more then the Dems. Because his INCOMPETENCE is tarnishing our idealogical beliefs and is going to lead to a backlash.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no question that foreign fighters are the vast minority

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that like saying Eyes Wide Shut ?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
These terrorists COULD NOT OPERATE if they were not supported or sympathized for by a large cross section of disaffected Iraqi's.


[/ QUOTE ]

History has shown that you are right. All dictatorships or rebellions that lasted for a while had some popular support(like Hitler, Franco, IRA etc.).

I.e. Justsjentko in Ukraine that leaded the revolt now in Ukraine. If you would talk to him or his hard core followers you would want to throw up. They are extremist nationalists. Yet they gained popular support in Ukraine since the leadership was less popular. In Iran likewise, many pro-democrats supported the Islamist Revolution.

If you would be an Iraqi, who would you support? The cynical non-moslem superpower that killed your sister in a bomb attack and created a country in mayhem or a insurgency "representing" you?

[shots]

While it's true that terrorists need some support to opperate at an effective level that support no longer needs to be in the country they carry out their attacks we live in a global world and it's pretty easy nowadays for people outside the country where terrorists are operating to give them all the logistical support they need. While we do have neo-nazi's and the KKK here the reason they aren't killing people left right and center is not because they don't have the support of the population at large it's because even our extremists here are for the most part a bunch of stupid ass-backwords hillbilies that are all talk, they're not animals like Al-queda. And the one's that do crazy stuff like blowing up abortion clinics or something are hunted down and prosecuted by our government, were as the governments of many midlle-east countries secretly applaud the work of terrorisat scum.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
That's one source, I could easily post something from a conseravative source that said the numbers were higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one more source than you've quoted giving any hard figures on the proportion of foreign fighters amongst the insurgency. If you're implying that Global Security is generally seen as a liberal source, you're wrong.

"Getting back to the earlier point of Iraqis joining the insurgency because they're poor I just don't see any evidence to back up this claim. "

Actually there is plenty of evidence that people are planting bombs etc on behalf of the insurgency simply for cash.

If your point is that the foreign fighters have a disproportionately large impact to their numbers, I agree; but the question remains why so many Iraqis are joining the insurgency and why the country is so violent, and the answers to those questions poin to the fact that the US has not done a good job in Iraq.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800838.html

[/ QUOTE ]

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

It's one more source than you've quoted giving any hard figures on the proportion of foreign fighters amongst the insurgency. If you're implying that Global Security is generally seen as a liberal source, you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_fight_061005,00.html
(edit: if link doesn't work copy and paste it)

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there is plenty of evidence that people are planting bombs etc on behalf of the insurgency simply for cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this evidence? People do get money for terrorist acts but do they do it simply for the money? Are these the kind of people that would go out and get a job if the employment rate was higher? I really doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
If your point is that the foreign fighters have a disproportionately large impact to their numbers, I agree; but the question remains why so many Iraqis are joining the insurgency and why the country is so violent, and the answers to those questions poin to the fact that the US has not done a good job in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence is there that a lot of Iraqis are joining the insurgency? There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground or islamic fundamentalists that want to kill their own countrymen because they worship in a slightly different way they're not people who were hopeing to get a job and then when they couldn't decided to become terrorists.

[nicky g]

Your article mentions no numbers at all other than its claim that 40 percent of suicide bombers are from Saudi Arabia. It acknowledges that the vast majority of insurgents are Iraqis, although claims the proportion of foreigners is increasing.

"Where is this evidence?"

See Greg J's post "From the Iraq Press Monitor" for instance. .

"There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"

Really? I have a blank where my memory of 40,000 Iraqis clamouring to seek out the US army and attack it prior to the invasion should be.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I have a blank where my memory of 40,000 Iraqis clamouring to seek out the US army and attack it prior to the invasion should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shots has special insight into the Iraqi mind. He knows those 40K Iraqis were preparing to invade the US prior to 9/11. We saved them some traveling time and expense by bringing the fight to them.

[shots]

The article says that milatary anylists think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase you didn't get it the first time. It also says that that number was an assessment made in the past when less foreign fighters were coming into the country how you missed that part of the article is beyond me.

As for the Iraqis planning on fighting us before we got there I never said they were going to seek us out if we didn't go in I said they were planning to fight us. When we announced we were going into Iraq we made it very clear that one of our main objectives was to remove the Bath party from power. Do you think all the Bath party loyalists intended to give us hugs and candy? I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds about that long before reconstruction efforts started.

[shots]

Very typical Kurto post, you make a pompus and pointless argument against something I never said.

[kurto]

What are milatary anylists?

[ QUOTE ]
think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase

[/ QUOTE ] Its so unclear what you're trying to say. Try typing slower and thinking about what language you're using before you respond.

[ QUOTE ]
how you missed that part of the article is beyond me

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not discussing the article. I'm discussing your ridiculous omniscience. "There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"... how you know what 1000s of people planned to do is just amazing.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Iraqis planning on fighting us before we got there I never said they were going to seek us out if we didn't go in I said they were planning to fight us.

[/ QUOTE ] Again.. this is so muddled. You're missing that the funny part is you thinking you know about the plans and motives of thousands of people on the other side of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you've done nothing to show that the current insurgents are members of the Bath party. What percentage of the people are attacking the US because they've been paid to? What percentage are angry because families were killed in the invasion? How many are attacking because they simply want the US out?

Better just to use your incredible gifts of guessing and then pretending your guess is reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think all the Bath party loyalists intended to give us hugs and candy?

[/ QUOTE ] I believe we were promised parades. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not discussing the article. I'm discussing your ridiculous omniscience. "There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"... how you know what 1000s of people planned to do is just amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you check my post you'll see that it was a response to a poster who was talking about the article. If you think that when we told the Bath party that we were coming for them and they would all be arrested, that they didn't intend to go underground and fight us then clearly you've abandond all logic what other options did they have? They're thugs and murderers, we'll throw them in jail if we can and if they had tried to fight us openly at the time we took Baghdad they would've been slaughtered. That you refuse to accept this proves once again your lack of intellectual honesty.

[ QUOTE ]
Again.. this is so muddled. You're missing that the funny part is you thinking you know about the plans and motives of thousands of people on the other side of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's muddled about it? I said they were planning to fight us when we got there through a simple logical thaught process. You then insinuated that I said they were all going to storm America. It seems you're incapable of argueing against the points I make so you argur against things I never said, in that areana you seem to do pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, you've done nothing to show that the current insurgents are members of the Bath party. What percentage of the people are attacking the US because they've been paid to? What percentage are angry because families were killed in the invasion? How many are attacking because they simply want the US out?

[/ QUOTE ]

And you've done nothing to show that the people attacking us would not be doing so if the reconstruction had gone better.

[ QUOTE ]
Better just to use your incredible gifts of guessing and then pretending your guess is reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used deductive reasoning and common sense to come to my conclusions concepts that are clearly beyond you.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we were promised parades.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were told that the majority of the people would be happy that we had overthrown Saddam and they were. No one ever said there wouldn't be a violent minority who thaught otherwise.

[nicky g]

"The article says that milatary anylists think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase you didn't get it the first time."

It says " a small percentage _ perhaps one in ten". That's not what I call a hard number; it's also still a tiny proportion, coming from a source in whose interest it is to cite as high a number as possible.

"I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds about that long before reconstruction efforts started. "

I misunderstood what you were saying and take your point - yes there were probably always some people who intended to fight no matter what, and there would have been some violence no latter how well reconstrruction went. Nevertheless it seems clear to me from articles such as the one I pointed to that there are a lot of people involved that wouldn't be if the country and its economy were not in such a mess and if the coalition forces hadn't alienated so many Iraqis. The fact that 80% of the violence in Iraq is simply criminal in nature confirms the catastrophic handling of the country post-invasion, as does the fact that the insurgency grew enormusly in in size as the occupation prgoressed - prior to the Fallujah shootings for exape there was very little in the way of an insurgency; although as a recent article on Informed Comment (http://www.juancole.com) points out the whole project was so flawed that things were bound to go wrong and offer little in the way of grand solutions no matter what.

[fjcomm02]

Is this still really a question? Anyone who debates this for more than two seconds must be on another planet.