West Point Professors Lecture in Baghdad.

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
West Point Professors Lecture in Baghdad

Fri Jan 16,12:17 PM ET


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - To the U.S. Army, flying eight West Point professors to lecture at Baghdad University was a chance to showcase the military's scholarly and humanitarian credentials.

For the Iraqi students and professors in attendance, the lectures smacked of education at the wrong end of an M-16.

"We don't want them inside our university or inside our country," said Fuad Hamdan, 24, a political science student, watching as U.S. troops frisked those entering the lecture hall.

This week's series of guest lectures from the U.S. Military Academy turned out to be another example of what the U.S. Army considers its good works being misunderstood by those living under its occupation.

Although the lecturers were unarmed, their American security escorts carried M-16s into the classroom. Students and professors complained to a reporter afterward about the presence of armed occupation troops on the grounds of a center of learning.

"I can't stand it when they put their guns in my face," said a woman professor who asked that her name not be used. "This is a university, not a battlefield."

The woman professor sat through a lecture Wednesday on recent trends in political science from Col. Robert Gordon, who directs West Point's American Politics department. The Iraqi professor said she found Gordon's material divorced from Iraq's reality.

More relevant, she said, would have been an academic discussion on Americans' views of Arabs, a popular topic on this campus of 40,000 that sprawls across a thumb of land bordered by the Tigris River.

"We don't have anything against Americans, but we don't like the Zionist ideas they use against us," said Ahmed Qasim, a political science professor at the university.

Army Brig. Gen. Dan Kaufman, West Point's silver-haired academic dean, acknowledged that university students are a tough audience anywhere, especially in a proud country chafing under military occupation.

"It's nothing new. American college kids don't like soldiers on their campuses either," said Kaufman, wearing desert camouflage fatigues as he stood near a hand-painted banner demanding an "end to the occupation."

"Intellectual freedom means you get what you get. We regard that as a victory," he said. "They're free to criticize."

The Army also acknowledged that firebrand college students are among their most virulent potential enemies. Bringing them face to face with some of the U.S. military's top professors, the Army hopes, will temper the influence of the inevitable campus radicals.

Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a deputy commander of the Army's 1st Armored Division, said the lectures were born in a division brainstorming session on winning the minds of potential recruits for the guerrilla cells currently mounting attacks in Baghdad. Former members of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Baath party are thought to make up most of those cells.

"We asked ourselves, 'Where could the recruits come from that would buy into the jihad mentality or the former Baath mentality?'" Hertling said. "Then, as a pre-emptive counter, we decided to start engaging them."

The Army's counterinsurgency effort at Baghdad University also extends to rebuilding women students' dorms, installing a computer lab donated by Saudi Arabia and contributing 14 tons of used West Point textbooks, Hertling said.

But the rebuilding successes relentlessly touted by Americans were spurned by Iraqis bitter about the state of postwar Baghdad, where phones don't work, daily blackouts darken swaths of the city and garbage-choked streets have been carved up by blast barriers and razor wire.

"The Americans haven't changed anything since they arrived in the country, so how are a few lectures going to help?" asked Enaas Jihad, 25. "You Americans managed to bring your tanks here by airplane very quickly. Can't you do anything about the electricity?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_west_point_2
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
I thought the electricity problem was gone?

Electricity was not in good shape before we got there.



Go tell that to the Iraqis.

About 3 months ago, electrical production was at prewar levels, I am sure it is above that now.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
I thought the electricity problem was gone?

Electricity was not in good shape before we got there.



Go tell that to the Iraqis.

About 3 months ago, electrical production was at prewar levels, I am sure it is above that now.

Enaas Jihad and the article have a different opinion.

"The Americans haven't changed anything since they arrived in the country, so how are a few lectures going to help?" asked Enaas Jihad, 25. "You Americans managed to bring your tanks here by airplane very quickly. Can't you do anything about the electricity?"
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
I thought the electricity problem was gone?

Electricity was not in good shape before we got there.



Go tell that to the Iraqis.

About 3 months ago, electrical production was at prewar levels, I am sure it is above that now.

Enaas Jihad and the article have a different opinion.

"The Americans haven't changed anything since they arrived in the country, so how are a few lectures going to help?" asked Enaas Jihad, 25. "You Americans managed to bring your tanks here by airplane very quickly. Can't you do anything about the electricity?"

If it was not reliable before, it will not become reliable in a short period of time.
It could takes years to completely rebuild the needed infrastructure.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
If it was not reliable before, it will not become reliable in a short period of time.
It could takes years to completely rebuild the needed infrastructure.
Especially with a regime in charge that insists that countries rebuilding the infrastructure played some role in mangling the previous infrastructure.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If it was not reliable before, it will not become reliable in a short period of time.
It could takes years to completely rebuild the needed infrastructure.
Especially with a regime in charge that insists that countries rebuilding the infrastructure played some role in mangling the previous infrastructure.


So whcih party not involved in regime chage in iraq could miracle power generation into place overnight?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
West Point Professors Lecture in Baghdad

Fri Jan 16,12:17 PM ET


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - To the U.S. Army, flying eight West Point professors to lecture at Baghdad University was a chance to showcase the military's scholarly and humanitarian credentials.

For the Iraqi students and professors in attendance, the lectures smacked of education at the wrong end of an M-16.

"We don't want them inside our university or inside our country," said Fuad Hamdan, 24, a political science student, watching as U.S. troops frisked those entering the lecture hall.

This week's series of guest lectures from the U.S. Military Academy turned out to be another example of what the U.S. Army considers its good works being misunderstood by those living under its occupation.

Although the lecturers were unarmed, their American security escorts carried M-16s into the classroom. Students and professors complained to a reporter afterward about the presence of armed occupation troops on the grounds of a center of learning.

"I can't stand it when they put their guns in my face," said a woman professor who asked that her name not be used. "This is a university, not a battlefield."

The woman professor sat through a lecture Wednesday on recent trends in political science from Col. Robert Gordon, who directs West Point's American Politics department. The Iraqi professor said she found Gordon's material divorced from Iraq's reality.

More relevant, she said, would have been an academic discussion on Americans' views of Arabs, a popular topic on this campus of 40,000 that sprawls across a thumb of land bordered by the Tigris River.

"We don't have anything against Americans, but we don't like the Zionist ideas they use against us," said Ahmed Qasim, a political science professor at the university.

Army Brig. Gen. Dan Kaufman, West Point's silver-haired academic dean, acknowledged that university students are a tough audience anywhere, especially in a proud country chafing under military occupation.

"It's nothing new. American college kids don't like soldiers on their campuses either," said Kaufman, wearing desert camouflage fatigues as he stood near a hand-painted banner demanding an "end to the occupation."

"Intellectual freedom means you get what you get. We regard that as a victory," he said. "They're free to criticize."

The Army also acknowledged that firebrand college students are among their most virulent potential enemies. Bringing them face to face with some of the U.S. military's top professors, the Army hopes, will temper the influence of the inevitable campus radicals.

Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a deputy commander of the Army's 1st Armored Division, said the lectures were born in a division brainstorming session on winning the minds of potential recruits for the guerrilla cells currently mounting attacks in Baghdad. Former members of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Baath party are thought to make up most of those cells.

"We asked ourselves, 'Where could the recruits come from that would buy into the jihad mentality or the former Baath mentality?'" Hertling said. "Then, as a pre-emptive counter, we decided to start engaging them."

The Army's counterinsurgency effort at Baghdad University also extends to rebuilding women students' dorms, installing a computer lab donated by Saudi Arabia and contributing 14 tons of used West Point textbooks, Hertling said.

But the rebuilding successes relentlessly touted by Americans were spurned by Iraqis bitter about the state of postwar Baghdad, where phones don't work, daily blackouts darken swaths of the city and garbage-choked streets have been carved up by blast barriers and razor wire.

"The Americans haven't changed anything since they arrived in the country, so how are a few lectures going to help?" asked Enaas Jihad, 25. "You Americans managed to bring your tanks here by airplane very quickly. Can't you do anything about the electricity?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_west_point_2
If it wasn't so pathetic this situation with the W.P. Instructors would be funny. God and this is suppose to give us confidence that those who are in charge of normalizing things in Iraq actually have a clue?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If it was not reliable before, it will not become reliable in a short period of time.
It could takes years to completely rebuild the needed infrastructure.
Especially with a regime in charge that insists that countries rebuilding the infrastructure played some role in mangling the previous infrastructure.
So whcih party not involved in regime chage in iraq could miracle power generation into place overnight?
Germany? France? One of Iraq's neighbors?

I think this is another example of potentially intelligent discussion subverted by a lack of factual information. We have speculation from the right insisting things in Iraq are rosy, supporting it with bits and pieces of information (e.g., the report that power generating capacity is back to pre-invasion levels). We have equal speculation from the left that things in Iraq are horrible, supporting this with other bits and pieces of information (e.g., the comment by Enaas Jihad). So what is the truth?

What I'd really like to see is an informed, honest assessment from someone who's been there for years, who has first-hand experiece with Iraq's electricity infrastructure including distribution, and ideally, who can back up his or her assessment with real statistics showing how much electricity Iraq produced over what periods of time, and how well the distribution infrastructure did or did not work.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If it was not reliable before, it will not become reliable in a short period of time.
It could takes years to completely rebuild the needed infrastructure.
Especially with a regime in charge that insists that countries rebuilding the infrastructure played some role in mangling the previous infrastructure.
So whcih party not involved in regime chage in iraq could miracle power generation into place overnight?
Germany? France? One of Iraq's neighbors?

I think this is another example of potentially intelligent discussion subverted by a lack of factual information. We have speculation from the right insisting things in Iraq are rosy, supporting it with bits and pieces of information (e.g., the report that power generating capacity is back to pre-invasion levels). We have equal speculation from the left that things in Iraq are horrible, supporting this with other bits and pieces of information (e.g., the comment by Enaas Jihad). So what is the truth?

What I'd really like to see is an informed, honest assessment from someone who's been there for years, who has first-hand experiece with Iraq's electricity infrastructure including distribution, and ideally, who can back up his or her assessment with real statistics showing how much electricity Iraq produced over what periods of time, and how well the distribution infrastructure did or did not work.

No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
Come on Cad, that's beneath you. They chose NOT to support the invasion because they disagreed with it. They continue to choose NOT to support the occupation because of all the terms and restrictions and obstacles imposed by the Bush administration. It is not because they don't want to. It is because they refuse to let Bush&Co dictate unfavorable conditions.

It is within the power of the Bush administration to change this, but they don't want to give up power and control. You cannot blame other countries for Bush's failure to encourage cooperation and collaboration.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
At this point, throwing more groups/resources is not going to improve the recovery any faster.

Every-one would be the same technology to rebuild.

Problem is either logistics, palm greasing and/or internal interference by the natives.

A France/german/Russian company would still face the same obstructions. It is not the nationalityof the company that is the problem; it is the attitude of who we are trying to help and the state of the system being rebuilt.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
By the way, this thread has been hijacked from the original post intent.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
Come on Cad, that's beneath you. They chose NOT to support the invasion because they disagreed with it. They continue to choose NOT to support the occupation because of all the terms and restrictions and obstacles imposed by the Bush administration. It is not because they don't want to. It is because they refuse to let Bush&Co dictate unfavorable conditions.

It is within the power of the Bush administration to change this, but they don't want to give up power and control. You cannot blame other countries for Bush's failure to encourage cooperation and collaboration.

No - you can't blame the US for other's not participating. They had every opportunity to do so - if they didn't like it - they chose not to join. You can whine about this or that - but it WAS their choice. So anyway the whole question about it being done better/faster is mute - no? If they didn't "agree" with it then they aren't part of the equation for better/faster. We have done things as fast and as good as we could with the support we've had to this point. Now if other countries want to see things progress further faster - they need to be a team player - not just suckle off the Iraqi or Coalition teet.
IMO there is no one for the Bush Administration to "give up power" to. Give it to the UN? Didn't they turn tail and run?;)

Bottom line - yes things could have been done better/faster - hind sight always shows this. But to only blame the US for it is assinine - things have progressed in a quick fashion. Hell it took YEARS for Germany and Japan to be rebuilt and yet here we sit less than a year into this and people are whining about things not being perfect. Nice -real nice.

CkG
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?


So if the UN cant do anything until it is secure, what could they have done? Only the US and supporting countries has had the fortitude to get the job done.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?


So if the UN cant do anything until it is secure, what could they have done? Only the US and supporting countries has had the fortitude to get the job done.

Like I said before and should be bloody obvios by now, under the UN falls all member countries, including the US, France, Russia, Germany and so on, a change would change the authority in Iraq under the UN, forces would include US and more supporting countries than the US has now alone.

How does this crystal ball of yours work?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?


So if the UN cant do anything until it is secure, what could they have done? Only the US and supporting countries has had the fortitude to get the job done.

Like I said before and should be bloody obvios by now, under the UN falls all member countries, including the US, France, Russia, Germany and so on, a change would change the authority in Iraq under the UN, forces would include US and more supporting countries than the US has now alone.

How does this crystal ball of yours work?

Like I said, the UN has not had the fortitude to step in help.