How's it going in Iraq? Let's ask the Iraqis

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
It taints his objectivity and without corroborating evidence

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's illogical and dumb. Corroborating evidence is one matter, but there's no "taint" imposed by the fact of resignation under protest.

[ QUOTE ]
"So, I spent a half hour on their site and all I saw were articles bashing Bush, links to anti-occupation sites, headline quotes against the invasion, and articles about american hegemony."

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you've resorted to lying outright on an easily verifiable fact. Here's today's headlines for islamonline:

Legislator Proposes Teaching Islam in Philippine Colleges
Hamas Election Bid Expedites Fatah Reforms: Expert
First Palestinian Atlas Launched
"Hopeless-Case" British Baby Improving: Experts
Mass Pro-Opposition Rally in Beirut
The Assassination of President Maskhadov (Article)
Hamas and the Future of Palestine
Balancing the Life of a Muslim
Is Paradise Just Spiritual Pleasure?
Family From Sanya to Geneva
Tighter Immigration Laws in Britain
Can Women Lead People in Friday Prayer?
A Muslim Is Faithful with all People
The Qur’an: A Way of Life
Do Not Belittle Sins
Fiqh of Muslim Minorities (Live Fatwa)
Inside the Fire: An American Journalist in Turbulent Iraq
Politics in Post-Tsunami South East Asia
“Not-Too-Islamic” Muslims
Protecting Women’s Rights in New York
Men… One Degree above Women?
Boys Will Be Boys
The Story of Mary
A Religion of Balance and Moderation? (Live Dialogue)
My Journey to Islam
Iraq in Transition
Sgrena’s Ordeal Highlights World’s Racist View of Iraq
Inside the Fire: An American Journalist in Turbulent Iraq
An Iraqi’s Perspective: A Letter to George W. Bush
We Added Stress to Our Lives
Surviving Tragedy Long Distance
To Homeschool or Not to Homeschool?
Life on the Streets (Pt 2)
A Week in Society
Religion & Democracy: Face-to-Face (Live Dialogue)
A Conversation With Chechen Author Apti Bisultanov
Multiculturalism in Medieval Islam
Threats to the Taj Mahal
Live Clinic: Urology and Male Infertility
AIDS: “The Greatest Weapon of Mass Destruction”
Fibonacci Numbers: A Measure of Beauty

[zaxx19]

and that proves....what exactly.???

Look the fact is there has been considerable progress in Iraq and in the entire middle east as a whole since the invasion.(Hard to deny this given what is going on in Israelstine, Lebanon, S.A. and even Syria.) While saying ALL THE PROGRESS was a direct result of Bush's actions in the region would be overstating what happened to assert that his policies have in fact had a positive role on the transformation of the Mid East(which is still in its infancy and very vulnerable to reactionary forces) is not only responsible but also what alot of moderate liberals are slowly coming to admit on the pages of the NYT, Economist..etc etc.

Some here simply choose to ignore it and bury there head in the sand, and quibble over which paper says what and so on.

There is nothing reasonable backers of Bush can do to silence them.

Thus is life on the 2+2 politics board.

To those who love to tear down the policies of the neo cons I would ask one simple ?

If in 15 yrs the Mid East is a more stable region, if Palestine is a state or quasi state at relative peace with its neighbors, if Syria is out of Lebanon and Lebanon is not embroiled in a civil war, if Egypt holds some sort of quasi election, if some form of womens rights take hold in S.A., if Iraq is a stable and relatively peaceful country and if Iran doesnt have nuclear weapons are you prepared to call Bush's policies from this period a stunning success?

If most of these things happen would you admit his policies were a moderate success?

OR Will you still whine about WMD not being found and how preemptive military action was imperialistic and chavinistic?

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
but there's no "taint" imposed by the fact of resignation under protest

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making an assumption that is the reason he resigned. How do you know that? I believe it taints his comments considerably.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you've resorted to lying outright on an easily verifiable fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay douche bag lets verify shall we:

Of all the articles that you listed name one that comments positively on Bush or the occupation.

I listed specific allegations so I will answer them just to show you how big of a douche bag you really are:

Headline section quote: "the unspoken truth is that behind the bloody conquest of Iraq is the conquest of us all; of our minds, our humanity, and our self respect at the very least" John Pilger Australian Journalist

articles bashing Bush: "A Letter to George W. Bush", "Still Crushed Under the "Bremer Orders", "Art vs. Monopoly of Truth...all of which were motivated by a sense of outrage at the invasion of Iraq.", "Iraq Elections: Farce of the Century", "Does Legitimacy Count?", "An Apology to the Iraqi People", "Iraqi Journalists Liberated, From U.S."

Links provided: Against Hegemony, Shock and Awe Gallery (showing the dead and wounded),FAQ (see below), Comments and replies, and useful anti-occupation sites.

Comments and replies:
1)Creative Writing....Thank You, Mr. America....You came along and took away our tyrant man Then took away our oil and wealth – what’s your real plan
2)Listen to me, blockhead...You didn’t hear a word I said.
I told you to be tolerant....and not to be a tyrant

Okay. Now go find one pro Bush article. Maybe there is one but I sure as hell didnt see it. This site provides nothing but an anti-occupation agenda.

You really are an idiot and you should be careful of accusing people of lying when they can back up there claim. It really does make you look like an [censored].

FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq

- Was the war about oil?

- But why invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or Iran?

- But wouldn’t a US invasion cause more instability?

- How will the US be able to get Iraq to release more oil than it previously did?

- What are the other reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq?

- Does the US truly want to help the people of Iraq?

- Will the US be successful in creating a stable Iraq?

- Who is attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq?

- But what about the accusations that foreign infiltrators are behind the attacks?

- Why though do the guerrilla groups also target multinational (e.g. Italian) troops, and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross?

- What would happen if US troops left Iraq?

Was the war about oil?

There are many reasons why the Bush administration decided to march to war in Iraq, one of them being concerns over the global energy supply. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. The Middle East has about 65% of the world’s total oil resources. With this in mind, it becomes clear that any instability in the Middle East would threaten the global oil trade. If the global oil trade were disrupted, it would cause a shortage in supply which would cause oil prices to skyrocket. Skyrocketing oil prices hamper global economic growth and threaten the world’s economies. At worst, it could cause a recession in many of the world’s oil dependent countries.

But why invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Saddam Hussein, an individual who at one time wanted to become the leader of a pan-Arab movement, endangered stability in the Middle East. Saddam expressed a desire to harness the outgoing flow of oil in the region, possibly turning it into an economic and military powerhouse with himself at its helm. Such a situation would make oil-importing countries, such as the United States, dependent on the whims of Saddam, a situation that policymakers in Washington sought to avoid.

Therefore, after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, subsequent US administrations have recognized the danger he posed to their interests and worked to stifle his growth. Finally, with the September 11 attacks, the current Bush administration was able to justify an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power by tying Saddam’s government to the “war on terrorism.”

But wouldn’t a US invasion cause more instability?

Indeed, in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, oil prices rose sharply as investors feared that instability would ensue following a US attack. But Bush administration officials were quick to reassure investors that a US invasion of Iraq would be good for the economy, as in the long run the Middle East’s oil supply would become much more stable.

There was also the hope that a new Iraqi government would release more oil into the global supply, pushing prices down and therefore acting as a boon to the economies of oil dependent countries. As the Economist magazine stated before the invasion of Iraq, “In the short term… cheaper oil would be beneficial for the world economy. At a time when recovery is at best sluggish, anything that helps boost demand would be welcome.”

How will the US be able to get Iraq to release more oil than it previously did?

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million barrels per day - a rate that was limited by UN sanctions. American oil industry executives predicted that after Saddam was removed from power, and Western companies were able to upgrade Iraq’s oil infrastructure, the country would be able to produce as many as 5 billion bpd. This prediction caused Larry Lindsey, the former top economic advisor to President Bush, to state last fall: “When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

Furthermore, by installing their own government in Iraq, the Bush administration was hoping to guarantee that, on matters of foreign policy, the Iraqi government would toe the US line. Many of the individuals who the administration planned on putting in charge of Iraq, such as Ahmed Chalabi, were Iraqi exiles who had lived in the US for many years and have good relations with senior members of the Bush administration. This would ensure that in matters of oil production, Washington would always have an open ear in Baghdad.

What are the other reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq was also launched for strategic reasons. Based upon historical precedent, when the US invades a country, it usually establishes military bases there and in the surrounding area. These military bases can then be used to project US influence into the region. For example, the US invasion of Afghanistan led to the establishment of US military bases throughout the country. It also gave the United States more influence in other Central Asian states, such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. This put the United States in a strategically important location in Central Asia, close to the borders of Russia and China. These actions have prompted alarm in Russia, as the country still remains a strategic rival to the United States.

By establishing military bases in Iraq, the Bush administration has been able to remove the burden of stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, a country that frequently placed stipulations on US military operations. With bases in Iraq, the Bush administration has put the US in a good strategic position to influence events all throughout the Middle East. The Bush administration has increased Washington’s foreign policy leverage when dealing with other states in the region that are considered potential threats, such as Iran and Syria.

Does the US truly want to help the people of Iraq?

Rarely do heads of state make decisions based upon moral concerns. The United States is interested in creating a stable Iraq not because Washington is concerned about Iraqi society, but because a stable Iraq would work in the interests of the United States. A stable Iraq, built by the guiding hand of Washington, would most likely pursue policies that followed US interests. An unstable, chaotic Iraq would not be in Washington’s interests since it would threaten to destabilize the entire region; an unstable Middle East will mean higher oil prices; higher oil prices will hurt the US economy and hamper economic growth.

Will the US be successful in creating a stable Iraq?

The Bush administration has two goals in Iraq: creating a stable Iraq, and having the Iraqi government fit in line with US interests. These two goals may not be mutually exclusive. A stable, democratic Iraq could make decisions that would work counter to US interests. This difficulty is now being realized by the Bush administration, which has been trying to find a way to achieve both of these goals despite the rising anti-American sentiment in the country.

Who is attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq?

The Bush administration has been quick to blame former members of Iraq’s Baath Party as being behind attacks against US and coalition troops. While it is certainly plausible that former Baathists are behind some attacks, they are certainly not behind all. Various guerrilla groups in Iraq have told media outlets that they are fighting against the “US occupation” but have nothing to do with Saddam’s Baath Party; indeed, these groups claim that they will fight Baathists just as hard as they are currently fighting the US

This implies that in the buildup to the war in Iraq, various repressed political and militant groups were waiting for a power vacuum to develop. Once Saddam’s government fell, these groups came out into the open hoping to establish themselves in post-Saddam Iraq and to gain power in any new government that forms.

But what about the accusations that foreign infiltrators are behind the attacks?

Once again, it is quite plausible that foreigners have infiltrated Iraq and are carrying out attacks against US and coalition troops. But this does not mean that there are not also plenty of Iraqi guerrilla groups fighting against the US occupation for their own motives.

Members of the Bush administration continue to assert that the resistance is only made up of former Baathists and foreign fighters simply because it would be a political blunder to have to admit that regular Iraqis were resisting the US occupation.

Why though do the guerrilla groups also target multinational (e.g. Italian) troops, and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross?

Guerrilla fighters in Iraq realize that they will not be able to defeat US troops militarily. The technology gap between the two sides is simply too large to overcome. Because of this, guerrilla fighters are hoping to isolate Washington politically. In order to achieve this objective, they have attacked international organizations such as the United Nations and Red Cross with the hopes of causing these groups to leave the country. Indeed, so far this strategy has worked, as the UN and Red Cross have limited their staff in Iraq. By attacking small troop contributing countries, such as Italy, guerrillas are hoping to cause the populations of these countries to demand that their troops be withdrawn.

Through this strategy, it is hoped that international organizations and troop contributing countries will flee Iraq, leaving the United States as the sole enforcer and contributor to the occupation. If this would occur, the US population would become growingly disenchanted with the objectives in Iraq and may demand a withdrawal of US troops.

What would happen if US troops left Iraq?

If US and coalition troops left Iraq, there is a high probability that the country would fall into civil war. Iraq is made up of three distinct ethnic groups: Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the center, and Shiite Muslims in the south. This strange national makeup can be blamed on post-WWI British manipulation of the three Ottoman Empire provinces that now make up modern-day Iraq. Throughout Iraq’s modern history, the only leaders that have been able to keep these three disparate groups from fighting have been powerful authoritarian leaders, such as Saddam Hussein. It is not clear whether such a leader would immediately rise following a pullout of US and coalition troops. If no strong leader immediately came to power, the three ethnic groups would likely end up fighting each other in hopes of filling the power vacuum.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you tend to believe an employee at face value if they have an axe to grind towards their boss?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think?..

[ QUOTE ]
You once argued that we can’t take the word of soldiers on the front line because they cant be objective. Interesting reversal of positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I argued that we couldn’t construct a war's history solely on the account given about that war by the front-line soldiers, even though their testimony is highly important. This was my argument and you can check it out.

I also added that the (infamous) fog of war indeed muddles most accounts given by persons directly involved in combat -- but I also argued that the collective testimony does assist the historian.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess that I am just very sceptical in general. I just think ex employees in general are not very credible sources and I think they are even less credible when they have appear to have other motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot agree more! Of course, a disgruntled ex-employee tends to be ..well, disgruntled. What else is new?

I'm saying that the (admittedly not easy) task of a serious manager/leader is to make the effort and try to gauge one last bit of company-related information from an employee who recently departed.

There's a ton of literature devoted to the subject. I recall some HBR material I've come across years ago. And, if it's relevant at all, during the time I've been practicing exit interviews, I have waded through a lot of mud but I also discovered some precious diamonds!..

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. Now go find one pro Bush article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, I hope you realize that this was not your original claim! You did not claim that the Islamic websites "do not have pro-Bush articles".

Of course they don't! Why should they? They are anti-Bush alright, but they are not exclusively posting anti-Bush articles! This is what Chris Alger demonstrated.

For the record, here's your original contention :

[ QUOTE ]
I spent a half hour on their site and all I saw were articles bashing Bush, links to anti-occupation sites, headline quotes against the invasion, and articles about american hegemony. My analysis of them is accurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. (See post.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay douchebag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you are getting upset. Calm down. It's only an argument online.

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Chris Alger]

The paper Al-Sabah Al-Jadeed was founded by the disgruntled editors of Al-Sabah, which was and apparently still is run by the Harris Corp. pursuant to U.S. government contract. The source for the alleged poll reported by Power Line was "Al-Sabah." Sorry for the confusion.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You are making an assumption that is the reason he resigned. How do you know that? I believe it taints his comments considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you obviously still don't understand, after it's been explained to you (and all the other 'bias' kooks) ad nauseum, why this is illogical. A worker quits in protest and you claim that the protest is invalid or dubious based on nothing more than the fact of the protest, which you imagine creates an incentive for unfair or unreasonable bias. You're using the logical inference that follows from the fact of a premise to defeat the fact of a premise. (I.e.: "he quit saying he didn't like it. Since he didn't like it, his reason for quitting is tainted.") It makes no sense.

The same thing applies to your attack on IslamOnline on the grounds that it reports news critical of the U.S. in Iraq. It's no better than saying "if I disagree with a paper's editorial standpoint, that makes the paper unfairly biased so that anything in it can be attacked as presumptively invalid due to 'bias.'"

[Utah]

You didnt accuse me of making a bad argument. You accused me of lying and being stupid because it was easily proved. When I proved you wrong you switch over to a different stance. You were dead wrong and you looked stupid. You might want to be more careful the next time you accuse someone of being a liar. however, to be honest, it would be next to impossible for you to look like a bigger dumb [censored] then you already do so I guess it doesnt really matter.

[Chris Alger]

I said you made a bad argument and you lied. You said that "all I saw" on IslamOnline were articles opposing the war and attacking Bush, trying to give the impression that the site was exclusively devoted to these positions. It's a general interest site for Muslims and holds the view predominant among Muslims that the war was wrong. That was a lie. When your lying was exposed, you reverted to the argument that any site which says the war is wrong is unfairly biased against the war, and therefore every fact offered for that position is suspect for that reason alone.

Stop being silly.

[IrishHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the articles that you listed name one that comments positively on Bush or the occupation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that like asking someone to sprout wings and fly?

Try to find that in a newspaper article anywhere outside the US. Heck, even inside this country it's not that easy. Why? It's tough to comment positively on Bush without being really sarcastic and an occupation is just that - a foreign military controlling another nation by force of arms. That's never something to comment positively on. At best, it's a necessary evil - and the current situation is far from "at best" (see eg. Germany 1945 for a rare situation where a nation and it's people isn't wholeheartedly opposed to being occupied by a conqueror).