NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." [...]

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html

Wow, what'll be the next reason why America invaded and occupied Iraq?

My guess is whimsy. Either that, or a party shenanigan that got totally out-of-hand.

Anybody who thought you could establish a democratic republic amongst those backward people is either lying, a fool, or completely consumed by political correctness.

Anybody who thought you could establish a democratic republic amongst those backward people is either lying, a fool, or completely consumed by political correctness.

Clearly you are not troubled by this problem.

Clearly you are not troubled by this problem.
If the problem you refer to is their lack of appreciation for liberty and their low regard for human life, I am concerned about it. The solution, however, can not be solved by an army, but by free market capitalism. Western corporations must begin to take a long term look at the Middle East. They must realize the benefits of slowly, over time, getting in a trickle of Western culture, and then slowly increase the pressure over time. Eventually the trickle will be a flood, and those living in that unfortunate part of the world will come to appreciate individualism and human life as much as any Westerner.

If the problem you refer to is their lack of appreciation for liberty and their low regard for human life, I am concerned about it. The solution, however, can not be solved by an army, but by free market capitalism. Western corporations must begin to take a long term look at the Middle East. They must realize the benefits of slowly, over time, getting in a trickle of Western culture, and then slowly increase the pressure over time. Eventually the trickle will be a flood, and those living in that unfortunate part of the world will come to appreciate individualism and human life as much as any Westerner.

I was actually referring to the complete consumption by PC that you are obviously not afflicted with, but to address this post: why is it Western corporations who are responsible for modernizing the Middle East? Wouldn't true freedom be Middle Eastern corporations promoting free-market capitalism within their own borders?

As I see it, though, Western corporations have a lot more to gain from continued dealings with oppressive nations.

If the problem you refer to is their lack of appreciation for liberty and their low regard for human life, I am concerned about it. Funny, somehow I don't see their regard for human life any lower than that of your average American, especially if that human life is Iraqi...

If the problem you refer to is their lack of appreciation for liberty and their low regard for human life, I am concerned about it. The solution, however, can not be solved by an army, but by free market capitalism. Western corporations must begin to take a long term look at the Middle East. They must realize the benefits of slowly, over time, getting in a trickle of Western culture, and then slowly increase the pressure over time. Eventually the trickle will be a flood, and those living in that unfortunate part of the world will come to appreciate individualism and human life as much as any Westerner.

Same with China at the turn of the century, Japan before that, and again when Nixon went to China. Asia is a major powerhouse now. Western beliefs have created a strong economy under the capitialism. The middle east to, in time, WILL become like that only if big businesses take an active interest and settle into the region.

Funny, somehow I don't see their regard for human life any lower than that of your average American, especially if that human life is Iraqi...

Sadly that is true, we hear how 300 iraqi's died in blasts in the last month or two, but we ALWAYS hear about it if a helicopter went down or an american died in the blast.

Though the middle east has been a mess for...what three thousand years? Its because of all the internal problems and the way people's beliefs are firmely planted that they are not too open to change and are infact afraid of it.

I was actually referring to the complete consumption by PC that you are obviously not afflicted with, but to address this post: why is it Western corporations who are responsible for modernizing the Middle East? Wouldn't true freedom be Middle Eastern corporations promoting free-market capitalism within their own borders?
You’re missing the point. Capitalism is a means to an end in this case. Not the end in and of itslef. It is a tool that the West could use to introduce humanism and liberalism.

There is going to be a federal republic, granting enough rights to specific regions. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I find it slightly humurous that some of you people have this belief that your culture is superior to the Mid-Easts culture. Remember, they were making strides in medicine, astronomy and math while your culture was burning people at the stake for not agreeing with the Pope.

Taking the view that one culture is superior to another is an incredibly short-sighted way to view the world, and I don't understand how one can advocate us bringing them "humanism and liberalism" when we at this very moment allow genocides to go on and the raping of Africa's resources. It's all very interesting.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." [...]

<snip>

..."We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html

Oooooo, Unnamed officials! How could we ever doubt *unnamed* "officials"? Why that would be to imply that the reporters might just be making this stuff up out of their collected bellybutton lint! And that would be a bit like doubting Dan Rather, right? :p

*snicker*

Any bets as to whether *any* of these supposed unnamed "officials" actually exist? ;)

The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq...

Compared to most of the world, especially its neighborhood, Iraq was quite modern and secular.

I'm beginning to wonder if Americans are jealous of Iraqis. The Iraqis are getting a new constitution, democracy, plus they get to hang with GIs and really cool heavy weapons (provided they don't go strapping dynamite all over themselves). What do Americans get?

*sound of crickets chirping*

I find it slightly humurous that some of you people have this belief that your culture is superior to the Mid-Easts culture. Remember, they were making strides in medicine, astronomy and math while your culture was burning people at the stake for not agreeing with the Pope.

Taking the view that one culture is superior to another is an incredibly short-sighted way to view the world, and I don't understand how one can advocate us bringing them "humanism and liberalism" when we at this very moment allow genocides to go on and the raping of Africa's resources. It's all very interesting.
I find the idea that you think we “allow” those things to go on, humorous. What do you want us to do? Invade?
Anyway, I think that modern Western Culture far exceeds modern Middle Eastern Culture. Knowing about the past is all well and good, but a lot of time has passed since then. Things have changed.

Anybody who thought you could establish a democratic republic amongst those backward people is either lying, a fool, or completely consumed by political correctness.
Anybody who thought that the US could fufill their declaration of establishing a republic amongst those people is ignorant of how full of deception, foolishness and utter backwardness our government is currently plagued with.

Wow, what'll be the next reason why America invaded and occupied Iraq?

My guess is whimsy. Either that, or a party shenanigan that got totally out-of-hand.

i'm guessing the next reason will be that there is a fundamental unity between bat-shit insane religious fundamentalism, whether it be christian or muslim. and therefore we must aid of fellow fundies in their quest to destroy everything that is good about modern society.

whimsy was a close second on the list though.

What do Americans get?

Thus do you refute the liars who said "It's all about oil!" :D

I'm beginning to wonder if Americans are jealous of Iraqis. The Iraqis are getting a new constitution, democracy, plus they get to hang with GIs and really cool heavy weapons (provided they don't go strapping dynamite all over themselves). What do Americans get?

*sound of crickets chirping*
We get to see our president land a fighter on an aircraft carrier and say “Mission Accomplished.”

I find the idea that you think we “allow” those things to go on, humorous. What do you want us to do? Invade?
Anyway, I think that modern Western Culture far exceeds modern Middle Eastern Culture. Knowing about the past is all well and good, but a lot of time has passed since then. Things have changed.

We allow these things to go on every moment we sit idly by and watch (i.e. Rwanda). Sorry but Western culture is not the beacon of light and hope you make it seem to be. I think you may be confusing extremists with moderates and this leads you to think that most Middle Easterns are terrorists and other stupid stereotypes. They have a strong, good culture that (in my view) has it's problems, just like western culture has it's problems.

Anybody who thought that the US could fufill their declaration of establishing a republic amongst those people is ignorant of how full of deception, foolishness and utter backwardness our government is currently plagued with.

Clarke's Law of Revolutionary Ideas:
Every revolutionary idea -- in Science, Politics, Art or Whatever -- evokes three stages of reaction. They may be summed up by the three phrases:
1. "It is completely impossible -- don't waste my time."
2. "It is possible, but it is not worth doing."
3. "I said it was a good idea all along."

20 years from now the same moonbats who say it can't be done will be trying to claim credit for it. It's interesting that the Left has become so reactionary. :)

Thus do you refute the liars who said "It's all about oil!" :D
Ahhh, the oil. Well, except you're not getting the oil, right? That is to say, it's all about the oil, but at the same time it's nothing to with the oil. It's been advanced on another thread that it's about control over oil. Oil bound for China, oil bound for Russia. America's rivals.
So, it's like one of those lame chocolate-bar wrapper contests: answer the question, win a prize - the prize being the chance to enter another contest. So yay. America wins the chance to have a starring role in more wars in future. Unfurl those flags and play 'Hail to the Chief', I'm going to bed.

Good night America. And remember, "you may already be a winner". Ed McMahon said so.

We allow these things to go on every moment we sit idly by and watch (i.e. Rwanda). Sorry but Western culture is not the beacon of light and hope you make it seem to be.

You really *don't* see the contradiction between that first sentence and the second? :confused:

We get to see our president land a fighter on an aircraft carrier and say “Mission Accomplished.”
I blanked for a moment there - was thinking of Bill Pullman in 'Independence Day'. Wow.

Looked better in the movie.

Is no surprise. Even if a Democratic and free state had come from it. From what has been seen of the middle east it wouldnt have lasted. Will end up with us no doubt once again fighting there.

Is really sad since from what I have read at one point it was a really advanced part of the world compared to current "western" nations.

You really *don't* see the contradiction between that first sentence and the second? :confused:
It's proving my point though? He says that we will bring humanism to the Middle East but we turned our backs on the very people who needed us.

That is to say, it's all about the oil, but at the same time it's nothing to with the oil.

Your ability to believe 2 contradictions without being troubled by the fact that they *are* contradictory says everything we need to know as to what a Liberal mind is worth. :)

We allow these things to go on every moment we sit idly by and watch (i.e. Rwanda). Sorry but Western culture is not the beacon of light and hope you make it seem to be. I think you may be confusing extremists with moderates and this leads you to think that most Middle Easterns are terrorists and other stupid stereotypes. They have a strong, good culture that (in my view) has it's problems, just like western culture has it's problems.
The average Iraqi citizen wants a fundamentalist government. That is extreme in my eyes.
How can you call a culture “good” when it treats women as property?

Oh, and news flash. We don’t sit idly by and watch. Billions are collected in charity and foreign aid to Africa from Western nations.

You really *don't* see the contradiction between that first sentence and the second? :confused:
Exactly. Those bad things are happening because those countries have not been Westernized.

It's proving my point though? He says that we will bring humanism to the Middle East but we turned our backs on the very people who needed us.

But if Rwanda's culture was any good they wouldn't need us in the first place, right? And would they need *us* in particular if we weren't a beacon of light and hope? As for why Iraq and not Rwanda you may as well ask, why wash one dish and not the other when washing dishes. All dishes will get washed eventually if you keep at it but you do have to start *somewhere*.

The average Iraqi citizen wants a fundamentalist government. That is extreme in my eyes.
How can you call a culture “good” when it treats women as property?

Oh, and news flash. We don’t sit idly by and watch. Billions are collected in charity and foreign aid to Africa from Western nations.

Yes and many people consider western culture poor because too them it advocates greed, and moral decline. It's all based on perspective. And I agree with you that the Mid-East culture's main problem is it's attitudes towards women, but let's not forget how it emphasis so many other good things too.

And news flash: Western companies are a major problem for economic growth in African nations. Nigeria in particular is a hot-bed for companies (such as Shell) to act irresponsibly. A week or so ago, it was shown that someone in the company authorized the killing of protesters there. What's that say about "western values"?

But if Rwanda's culture was any good they wouldn't need us in the first place, right? And would they need *us* in particular if we weren't a beacon of light and hope? As for why Iraq and not Rwanda you may as well ask, why wash one dish and not the other when washing dishes. All dishes will get washed eventually if you keep at it but you do have to start *somewhere*.

Rwanda's culture suffered from problems that the Dutch initiated during colonial times. That'd be western culture at it again, eh?

FYI: I'm not saying that our culture is not good. In many ways it is. We advocate for freedom, democracy, secularism(usually) and many other worthwhile causes. But we do have our downfalls, so let's just lose the ethnocentric views.

I have to go to sleep now though, but it was good debating with you and Undelia. It's good having a mature debate ;)

The average Iraqi citizen wants a fundamentalist government. That is extreme in my eyes.
How can you call a culture “good” when it treats women as property?

Oh, and news flash. We don’t sit idly by and watch. Billions are collected in charity and foreign aid to Africa from Western nations.

Still its a culture and it is subject to all the norms of society, these WILL change and just like women's rights early in the US it will be pushed for and done to. You cannot be forceful about these things, what if some superpower or alien race told us to say, become nudists. Wouldn't there be some people for it and some people against it.....ok ALOT against it.

Though we are telling them to change to OUR culture, this is not a good thing and it is damaging and does a reversal of change. Take a hint from star trek. Remove a dangerous leader and let the people develop again on their own with a gentle guidance and not an army to watch them and make sure they do it right. That is just stupid. As Americans we don't understand that our beliefs are not their beliefs, and no matter how much we try to change their beliefs under the thought 'they HAVE to want this' we are only becoming oppressive, which is a bad thing.

Your ability to believe 2 contradictions without being troubled by the fact that they *are* contradictory says everything we need to know as to what a Liberal mind is worth. :)
(Right, I must always remember when addressing Americans in a sarcastic manner to make certain I clearly indicate that I am employing a sarcastic manner lest it go right over their heads - even if it means completely defeating the purpose of sarcasm by assuming the least of someone's capacity for understanding wry wit)
I was parroting the stated Republican position as stated in an earlier thread pertaining to Iraq, oil, and America's economic rivals

Anybody who thought you could establish a democratic republic amongst those backward people is either lying, a fool, or completely consumed by political correctness.I find it funny that one would associate Bush with us "political correctness" types :D

Bush ought to have tried spreading Peanut Butter in Iraq. He'd have stood a better chance at that.