Iraq Reconstruciton report card

[charrison]

Linkage

August 3, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Daily attacks on U.S. soldiers, infiltration of terrorists, and mischief-making by Iran and Syria have dominated the postwar headlines over the last two months - creating an image of a quagmire in the making.
But the guerrilla war is only a part of the story of what's taking place in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, according to administration officials and outside experts.

Quietly and steadily, U.S. and coalition forces and the civilian administration have made real progress in rebuilding the Iraqi nation - a society, an economy and an infrastructure shattered by three decades of tyranny, war, neglect and corruption

In just two months, 100 independent newspapers have started, garbage is regularly picked up off the streets, oil fields are running, banks are open and a vast majority of Iraqi university students have finished their final exams.

The humanitarian crisis many experts predicted has been averted.

"Although we might get the impression that our involvement over there is tottering on the edge of failure, the fact is that in two months, we have brought Iraq to a point in recovery that Germany, Italy and Japan after World War II didn't reach until after a year and a half," said Cmdr. Chris Isleib, spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Based on interviews with coalition authorites and experts, here's The Post's report card of the progress in Iraq.

 

[SuperTool]

But what about no child left behind?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But what about no child left behind?

What about it and what does it have to do with this story?

Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But what about no child left behind?

What about it and what does it have to do with this story?

Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

I agree, but only the real hard core Bush haters with no real answers for the future and no insight to what damage it would do to all concerned.

Other than the real hard core Bush haters, I believe anyone whom votes Democratic would rather see substantial improvements in Iraq. Why? Because if any Democratic hopefull does somehow end up winning in 2004, they will be left holding the bag, and trying to find a fix and an out for the US in Iraq, and a quagmire isnt something anyone with 2 cents worth of brains would want to step into office with on day one. I think the Democrats need to start focusing on real issues and stop focusing on Bush bashing and Iraq, and start contributing to the nations future sucesses rather than creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom. It will just drive more people away rather than garner more votes. As the old saying goes, be carefull what you wish for.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But what about no child left behind?

What about it and what does it have to do with this story?

Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

I agree, but only the real hard core Bush haters with no real answers for the future and no insight to what damage it would do to all concerned.

Other than the real hard core Bush haters, I believe anyone whom votes Democratic would rather see substantial improvements in Iraq. Why? Because if any Democratic hopefull does somehow end up winning in 2004, they will be left holding the bag, and trying to find a fix and an out for the US in Iraq, and a quagmire isnt something anyone with 2 cents worth of brains would want to step into office with on day one. I think the Democrats need to start focusing on real issues and stop focusing on Bush bashing and Iraq, and start contributing to the nations future sucesses rather than creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom. It will just drive more people away rather than garner more votes. As the old saying goes, be carefull what you wish for.

I agree. BTW, has anyone else here noticed how the anti-Bush and anti-US rhetoric here has died down with the past couple of weeks? Now the apologists are searching far and wide for more garbage. Recent examples are Bowfinger looking at arab opinion and the frenchie spewing about conspiracy theories.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

I think the Democrats need to start focusing on real issues and stop focusing on Bush bashing and Iraq, and start contributing to the nations future sucesses rather than creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom. It will just drive more people away rather than garner more votes. As the old saying goes, be carefull what you wish for.

The reason you think all the Democrats are doing is bashing Bush is because that's the only thing the media chooses to cover. Sound bites about healthcare reform and economic plans aren't all that exciting. All the major candidates do have healthcare reform plans, economic strategies, and realistic solutions to better the Iraq occupation. There's information out there, and only those who want to see it will. Those who want to sit back and comment on the dire situation of the Democratic party can listen to right wing pundits on the TV and radio all they want. If Democrats are Bush bashing, it seems that all Republicans do is Democrat bash.

Also, which party is actually creating the atmosphere of doom and gloom? I can argue that these weekly terror alerts from the Administration do so. Do we really need to be reminded so often that terrorists can hit us? I think we realized this on 9/11.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Dari

I agree. BTW, has anyone else here noticed how the anti-Bush and anti-US rhetoric here has died down with the past couple of weeks? Now the apologists are searching far and wide for more garbage. Recent examples are Bowfinger looking at arab opinion and the frenchie spewing about conspiracy theories.

I like how you suggest that anti-Bush and anti-US go hand in hand. Fascism rawks!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Dari
I agree. BTW, has anyone else here noticed how the anti-Bush and anti-US rhetoric here has died down with the past couple of weeks? Now the apologists are searching far and wide for more garbage. Recent examples are Bowfinger looking at arab opinion and the frenchie spewing about conspiracy theories.

Bite me, you moronic twit. If you're content to get all your news from Fox and Limbaugh, more power to you. If ignorance is bliss, I suspect you're one of the happiest people here.

For the rest of us, there is real value in understanding how America is viewed around the world. One of the most persistent criticisms of Americans is that we are so ignorant about the rest of the world, so self-centered, and so dismissive of everyone outside of our borders. I started checking foreign media sites in March because I wanted a broader view of our actions in Iraq. I wanted to see more than the homogeneous coverage we get from U.S. media. I found several good sites from around the world, and I check them every week or so to compare notes with our homegrown sources.

If you choose to ignore Arab media because of your racist views, I can't help you. I thought others in this forum -- people more open-minded and enlightened than yourself -- might find the column I posted interesting. As I clearly explained, I thought it offered insight into how the U.S. is being presented to much of the world. I asked how we could refute some of the points raised to people in the Middle East who share the same perspectives and experiences as the writer of that column.

At least two of the traditional Bush supporters were thoughtful enough to contribute constructive discussion. You offered a vacuous comment about ten-cent Romanian hookers. It is the caliber of response we have grown to expect from you. I encourage you to find a forum for 14 year old ditto-heads where your jingoistic drivel will be appreciated.

By the way, your use of the word "apologist" shows you haven't the slightest clue what it means.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: etech
Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

I agree, but only the real hard core Bush haters with no real answers for the future and no insight to what damage it would do to all concerned.

Other than the real hard core Bush haters, I believe anyone whom votes Democratic would rather see substantial improvements in Iraq. Why? Because if any Democratic hopefull does somehow end up winning in 2004, they will be left holding the bag, and trying to find a fix and an out for the US in Iraq, and a quagmire isnt something anyone with 2 cents worth of brains would want to step into office with on day one. I think the Democrats need to start focusing on real issues and stop focusing on Bush bashing and Iraq, and start contributing to the nations future sucesses rather than creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom. It will just drive more people away rather than garner more votes. As the old saying goes, be carefull what you wish for.

I doubt there are many people here who want us to fail in Iraq, no matter what their political ideology. Whether you and your fearless leader can grasp the concept or not, there is a difference between opposing Bush and opposing America. It is quite possible to support this country and our troops while still opposing George W. Bush, the man.

I firmly believe we have no business being in Iraq, but we are there and I cannot turn back time. Given this, I can only hope that our occupation goes as quickly and smoothly as possible. I can only hope it ultimately produces something of value that helps mitigate the loss of lives and U.S. respect: a stable, long-lasting, and free Iraq with a progressive democratic government.

I also believe we need to transition the peace-keeping and reconstruction responsibilites to the U.N. as quickly as possible. It might be even better if we could muster an Arab force, or at least include Arab leadership and a highly visible Arab presence with a U.N. team. The longer this remains a mostly-U.S. mission, the more Americans that will die, and the more we become the first and only target for a thousand Osama-wanna-be's. We cannot abandon Iraq -- that would be reckless and would only make things worse -- but we need to set our pride aside and get some help ASAP.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Originally posted by: etech
Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

I agree, but only the real hard core Bush haters with no real answers for the future and no insight to what damage it would do to all concerned.

Other than the real hard core Bush haters, I believe anyone whom votes Democratic would rather see substantial improvements in Iraq. Why? Because if any Democratic hopefull does somehow end up winning in 2004, they will be left holding the bag, and trying to find a fix and an out for the US in Iraq, and a quagmire isnt something anyone with 2 cents worth of brains would want to step into office with on day one. I think the Democrats need to start focusing on real issues and stop focusing on Bush bashing and Iraq, and start contributing to the nations future sucesses rather than creating an atmosphere of doom and gloom. It will just drive more people away rather than garner more votes. As the old saying goes, be carefull what you wish for.

I doubt there are many people here who want us to fail in Iraq, no matter what their political ideology. Whether you and your fearless leader can grasp the concept or not, there is a difference between opposing Bush and opposing America. It is quite possible to support this country and our troops while still opposing George W. Bush, the man.

I firmly believe we have no business being in Iraq, but we are there and I cannot turn back time. Given this, I can only hope that our occupation goes as quickly and smoothly as possible. I can only hope it ultimately produces something of value that helps mitigate the loss of lives and U.S. respect: a stable, long-lasting, and free Iraq with a progressive democratic government.

I also believe we need to transition the peace-keeping and reconstruction responsibilites to the U.N. as quickly as possible. It might be even better if we could muster an Arab force, or at least include Arab leadership and a highly visible Arab presence with a U.N. team. The longer this remains a mostly-U.S. mission, the more Americans that will die, and the more we become the first and only target for a thousand Osama-wanna-be's. We cannot abandon Iraq -- that would be reckless and would only make things worse -- but we need to set our pride aside and get some help ASAP.

We have support from outside forces.Some 30 countries have currently sent troops to Iraq to aid in reconstructions. I know you will only accept this as a multinational force when the UN sends France into help. Meanwhile, Iraqis are taking control of their goverment and policing their own people.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
We have support from outside forces.Some 30 countries have currently sent troops to Iraq to aid in reconstructions. I know you will only accept this as a multinational force when the UN sends France into help. Meanwhile, Iraqis are taking control of their goverment and policing their own people.

First, you can stick your gratuitous France dig. It's a shame you pollute otherwise intelligent posts with pointless personal attacks.

Having said that, I recognize there is some outside involvement, but you miss the point. The world still perceives this as a U.S. effort, or at best a U.S./British effort. The world still recognizes that the U.S. is calling the shots, and that taints everything that happens. We need to change this to something that is perceived as an international effort.

Yes, the U.S. will still play a role. We may even still play the biggest role. However, we cannot continue to be seen as having the dominant role. It undermines our efforts to stabilize the country, and it exposes the U.S. to increased terrorism around the globe.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Dari
I agree. BTW, has anyone else here noticed how the anti-Bush and anti-US rhetoric here has died down with the past couple of weeks? Now the apologists are searching far and wide for more garbage. Recent examples are Bowfinger looking at arab opinion and the frenchie spewing about conspiracy theories.

Bite me, you moronic twit. If you're content to get all your news from Fox and Limbaugh, more power to you. If ignorance is bliss, I suspect you're one of the happiest people here.

For the rest of us, there is real value in understanding how America is viewed around the world. One of the most persistent criticisms of Americans is that we are so ignorant about the rest of the world, so self-centered, and so dismissive of everyone outside of our borders. I started checking foreign media sites in March because I wanted a broader view of our actions in Iraq. I wanted to see more than the homogeneous coverage we get from U.S. media. I found several good sites from around the world, and I check them every week or so to compare notes with our homegrown sources.

If you choose to ignore Arab media because of your racist views, I can't help you. I thought others in this forum -- people more open-minded and enlightened than yourself -- might find the column I posted interesting. As I clearly explained, I thought it offered insight into how the U.S. is being presented to much of the world. I asked how we could refute some of the points raised to people in the Middle East who share the same perspectives and experiences as the writer of that column.

At least two of the traditional Bush supporters were thoughtful enough to contribute constructive discussion. You offered a vacuous comment about ten-cent Romanian hookers. It is the caliber of response we have grown to expect from you. I encourage you to find a forum for 14 year old ditto-heads where your jingoistic drivel will be appreciated.

By the way, your use of the word "apologist" shows you haven't the slightest clue what it means.

ouch, a bit sensitive aren't we? While I won't race you to the bottom, I'd like to remind you to be more open-minded as you virtually travel around the globe and post articles that show us in a good light, ok? And you glorification of arab editorial opinion (and perhaps french and north korean opinions as you complete your world tour) shows how little you understand the history of arab editorial opinion.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
We have support from outside forces.Some 30 countries have currently sent troops to Iraq to aid in reconstructions. I know you will only accept this as a multinational force when the UN sends France into help. Meanwhile, Iraqis are taking control of their goverment and policing their own people.

First, you can stick your gratuitous France dig. It's a shame you pollute otherwise intelligent posts with pointless personal attacks.

Having said that, I recognize there is some outside involvement, but you miss the point. The world still perceives this as a U.S. effort, or at best a U.S./British effort. The world still recognizes that the U.S. is calling the shots, and that taints everything that happens. We need to change this to something that is perceived as an international effort.

Yes, the U.S. will still play a role. We may even still play the biggest role. However, we cannot continue to be seen as having the dominant role. It undermines our efforts to stabilize the country, and it exposes the U.S. to increased terrorism around the globe.

Sorry that was not a gratuitious dig at France. It was not even a dig at France. The US does have a multinational force in Iraq and that cannot be denied. Yes the US is in control and does not have a perfect record at nation building, but it is better than the UN record of rebuilding countries.

Even if the US let the UN "have the Lead:", it will still be us footing the bill and providing the most of the manpower for reconstruction. You only have to look at past UN operations to see that has been the case. The fact is, the UN had their chance to be involved and they choose not to.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: SuperTool
But what about no child left behind?

What about it and what does it have to do with this story?

Iraq is making progess towards a stable democratic country. Somehow I think that many people on this board hopes it does not suceed in that goal.

Well, for sure I'm not one of them. The sooner, the better. :beer:

 

[Siwy]

ouch, a bit sensitive aren't we? While I won't race you to the bottom, I'd like to remind you to be more open-minded as you virtually travel around the globe and post articles that show us in a good light, ok?

The sad part is that it is much easier to find articles around the world that show USA in a bad light when it comes to the American foreign policy. Hmmm...I wonder what does it tell us?

And you glorification of arab editorial opinion (and perhaps french and north korean opinions as you complete your world tour) shows how little you understand the history of arab editorial opinion.

I believe that the whole point of that Arab editorial was to show the Arab side of the issue, as many of the Arab people see it. Is it really that hard to grasp? Isn't it how one shapes an informed opinion?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Siwy

ouch, a bit sensitive aren't we? While I won't race you to the bottom, I'd like to remind you to be more open-minded as you virtually travel around the globe and post articles that show us in a good light, ok?

The sad part is that it is much easier to find articles around the world that show USA in a bad light when it comes to the American foreign policy. Hmmm...I wonder what does it tell us?

And you glorification of arab editorial opinion (and perhaps french and north korean opinions as you complete your world tour) shows how little you understand the history of arab editorial opinion.

I believe that the whole point of that Arab editorial was to show the Arab side of the issue, as many of the Arab people see it. Is it really that hard to grasp? Isn't it how one shapes an informed opinion?

the arab side is full of conspiracy theories and what not. Arab hatred of American foreign policy is not new. So what is so damn special about that article except that its the same old bullsh!t?