posted on September 22, 2003 04:07:11 AM
AFTER THE WAR
'As Long as It Takes' Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government[/i].
We usually only hear the 'bad' news coming out of Iraq. Well...there arepositive changes taking place there too. Here is a report from our Secretary of State. The article is from The Wall Street Journal.
BY COLIN POWELL
Friday, September 19, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
I have just returned from Iraq. What I saw there convinced me, more than ever, that our liberation of Iraq was in the best interests of the Iraqi people, the American people and the world.
The Iraq I saw was a society on the move, a vibrant land with a hardy people experiencing the first heady taste of freedom. Iraq has come a long way since the dawn of this year, when Saddam Hussein was holding his people in poverty, ignorance and fear while filling mass graves with his opponents. The Iraqi regime was still squandering Iraq's treasure on deadly weapons programs, in defiance of 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions. While children died, Saddam was lavishing money on palaces and perks, for himself and his cronies.
Thanks to the courage of our brave men and women in uniform, and those of our coalition partners, all that has changed. Saddam is gone. Thanks to the hard work of Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq is being transformed.
The evidence was everywhere to be seen. Streets are lined with shops selling newspapers and books with opinions of every stripe. Schools and universities are open, teaching young Iraqis the skills to live in freedom and compete in our globalizing world.
Parents are forming PTAs to support these schools, and to make sure that they have a voice in their children's future.
The hospitals are operating, and 95% of the health clinics are open to provide critical medical services to Iraqis of all ages.
Most important of all, Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government.
All the major cities and over 85% of the towns have councils. In Baghdad, I attended a city council meeting that was remarkable for its normalcy. I saw its members spend their time talking about what most city councils are concerned with--jobs, education and the environment. At the national level I met with an Iraqi Governing Council that has appointed ministers and is taking responsibility for national policy.
In fact, while I was there, the new minister of justice announced the legal framework for a truly independent judiciary.
The Governing Council has appointed a central bank governor who will be in charge of introducing Iraq's new, unified currency next month. It also recently endorsed new tariffs and is now discussing world-class reforms to open the country to productive foreign investment. Now, the Governing Council is turning its attention to the process for drawing up a democratic constitution for a democratic Iraq.
I was truly moved when I met with my counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, free Iraq's first foreign minister. He will soon be off to New York as part of the Iraqi delegation to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly.
Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world. But our commanders also briefed me on their plan for meeting these security threats, and it is a good one.
We also need to complete the renewal of Iraq's electrical grid, its water treatment facilities and its other infrastructure, which were run down and destroyed during the years of Saddam's misrule. Here, too, we are making progress. Electric generation now averages 75% of prewar levels, and that figure is rising. Telephone service is being restored to hundreds of thousands of customers.
Dilapidated water and sewage treatment facilities are being modernized. But it will take time and money to finish the job.
Indeed, that's Iraq in a nutshell. With our support, the Iraqis have made great progress. But it will take time and money to finish the job. President Bush has asked Congress for $20 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
Next month, the international community will meet in Madrid to pledge additional assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. With these funds, and our continued help, I know the Iraqis will take great strides in rebuilding their battered country.
How long will we stay in Iraq? We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.
Anyone who doubts the wisdom of President Bush's course in Iraq should stand, as I did, by the side of the mass grave in Halabja, in Iraq's north. That terrible site holds the remains of 5,000 innocent men, women and children who were gassed to death by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime.
The Iraqi people must be empowered to prevent such mass murder from happening ever again. They must be given the tools and the support to build a peaceful and prosperous democracy. They deserve no less. The American people deserve no less.
posted on September 22, 2003 04:17:03 AM
On the wake of your good news:
The latest deaths brought to 304 the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led coalition launched military operations March 20.
The latest American deaths followed an assassination attempt Saturday against Aquila al-Hashimi, one of three women on the 25-member Governing Council and strong candidate to become Iraq’s representative at the United Nations. She was reported in serious but stable condition following the Saturday attack, which occurred as she was riding in a car near her home in western Baghdad. The assailants escaped.
Sorry to say that your good news is not good enough. I really don't give a damned about the Iraqi's getting a new modernized water system (hell, Cleveland's is so old it breaks regularly but Ohio has no money to help replace our system) or anything else. I'm glad the people aren't suffering anymore, but I'm tired of hearing about all the wonderful things the people of that country will now have while the people of this country continue to go without.
While children died, Saddam was lavishing money on palaces and perks, for himself and his cronies.
While American Soldiers died Bush was lavishing OUR money on vendettas and perks, for himself and his cronies.
I'm not saying it's bad that good things are happening. But, what of the cost? Millions here are suffering and like another thread points out, thousands of illegals are crossing our borders everyday. However, there's no money to make changes to the things that are affecting US citizens. Why? Because all the money has gone to Iraq. Forgive me for sounding jealous. I guess that I am. In the end, life in Iraq will be far cushier than life here. Like it or not, things are reversing. We are headed backward not forward.
posted on September 22, 2003 04:40:51 AM
Oh Cheryl - You can't really believe that life in Iraq will ever really be cushier there than here.
To me, the US gives away billions and billions in aid to other countries. I've read we provide 60% of the worlds food to other nations. We are a giving nation. Do you question why those same funds aren't spent here on our own?
The US gives illegals almost the same benefits as it does it's own citizens. This money is making tremendous changes in the Middle East. It's not just about Iraq alone....it's about bring stability to the Middle East. And I think down the road, in say 5 - 10 years the proof will be in the pudding.
posted on September 22, 2003 05:04:01 AM
Meanwhile back in the US
Funds are being cut from colleges so that soon only the wealthy will be able to afford to send their children. But higher education will be available to the children of Iraq.
Children are forced to go to school in dilapitated old buildings where there are too many children and too few teachers. But there will be new school buildings for the children of Iraq and plenty of teachers to staff them.
Millions upon millions go without proper medical care due to the lack of medical benefits. But there will be a universal health care system in Iraq.
Millions of seniors cannot afford the medications they must take on a daily basis to stay alive. Many cut their pills in half in order to make them last.
When will that change? Oh ya, I forgot, it can't right now because WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
The US is facing a 500+ Trillion Dollar deficit in part so that the Iraqi's can have a democracy. Are you really fooled into thinking this will take nothing away from the people of this country? Or, that it hasn't already?
President Bush has asked Congress for $20 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.
Didn't he just ask for $80+ billion? Is this an additional $20 billion? When will that stop?
The Iraqi people must be empowered to prevent such mass murder from happening ever again. They must be given the tools and the support to build a peaceful and prosperous democracy. They deserve no less. The American people deserve no less.
That last line angers me the most. This is all we deserve? The chance to make the Iraqi people safe and happy? What of our people? What of the mother's of the soldiers killed daily over there? What of the children here killed in gunfire on school grounds where they are supposed to be safe? What of the plant worker's that are laid off daily, what are they to do? Does Bush have $20 billion to give to their cause? $20 billion might be enough to keep a plant open. What of the hospitals that are closing everyday because without health care, people don't use them? I won't go on because I do have to get to work.
It's laughable that Bush claims to know what a democratic government truly is. This will be his and his administration's version.
posted on September 22, 2003 05:18:00 AM
You didn't answer my question, Cheryl. Shall we stop providing the billions and billions and billions that we give in aid to other countries in order to fulfil *your* wish list?
There are a million 'pots' that US citizens want filled and only so much money to do that. We each have our own special pots we'd like to see more available funding go into. But any president and our congress has to see that every pot gets a little bit....to please all the citizens.
I believe our number one pot is for the military....to protect this nation of ours. If we don't have a military we won't have to worry about not having enough funds in the other pots.
I also believe that if people weren't so quick to vote for [or elect officials] representatives that are continually funding so many social projects, we wouldn't have the budget problems we face today. It's spend, spend, spend and they they complain the states can't meet their budgets.
posted on September 22, 2003 05:49:49 AM
And to those so outraged about the money being spent on Afghanistan, Iraq and to support our military efforts there, I'd like to offer the results of eight studies that were done to calculate the economic impact of 9-11:
Eight studies were done on the economic impact of 9-11. The attacks on the two World Trade Centers alone cost $83B (in 2001 dollars).
Jersey metropolitan area sustained income loss of about $2.7 billion, while all the metropolitan areas in the country sustained losses of about $191 Billion.
So...if you think the money being spent is outrageous, just how many 9-11 type incidents do you think American CAN afford? I'd rather spend the money to work at preventing the aftermath of more 9-11s.
posted on September 22, 2003 06:45:42 AM
very well said Linda!
I do think the States need to accept some resposibility for their own lack of monies...
Its all to easy to keep blaming the federal government for their woes.
Wonder how high the squeal would be if we did cut off foreign aid to pay for all of the social programs here in the US and pay for Iraq and Afghanistan?
on another note... those soldiers volunteered for service, every bit of training received is for combat against an enemy, this not a elective action, you join you fight and some die. That is war... by those that died, lessons learned are taking place.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
And in addition to all those lost or deferred funds to America there is also a cost to the troops.
Linda
While troops are being wounded and killed daily, you are doing them a serious injustice by trying to spread the LIE
that all's well in Iraq. The troops are facing increasing opposition from terrorist attacks in a guerrilla land war with no end
in sight. Right now it's a battle zone. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth when you jump from the message
that all is so very rosy to a request for billions of funds that America can't easily afford to provide.
... Most Americans no longer support this war and an overwhelming number oppose the escalating cost both in money
and human tragedy. Iraq may never be a democracy but rather a bottomless pit into which money is endlessly poured
while lives are lost and disrupted.
posted on September 22, 2003 06:56:54 AM
Helen - You appear to be using 'selective' reading. Powell's speech did speak to the issue of the challenges we face. They are being dealt with.
posted on September 22, 2003 07:25:03 AM
They are being dealt with? Mind telling me how? The human shields now seem to be wearing US military garb.
Yes, Linda, to answer your questions, I think we do need to stop filling some pots until ours is full because they way things are going ours will soon be empty. Who do you think is going to fly to our rescue? If there was anyone before, they're surely isn't now. This administration saw to that. While this administration is busy trying to take care of Iraq, who is taking care of America? What of Afghanistan? Just what in the hell are we doing for them besides bombing and leaving - AGAIN? Oh, yes, I forgot they discovered a new oil well. Seems the US and the UK want to get to it before the Russians do. It's about the oil, not the people. And yes, I think there is tons of money wasted in this country by poiticians and "their pet" projects. Cheney is one that comes to mind. Think he's not "helping" some projects along using our money?
How do I support our troops? By standing by anyone willing to "Get them the Hell out of Iraq". That's how.
Edited to add: A store owner by where I work is from Syria and is a US citizen. His wife just got back from visiting his family there. We just had a short chat about Iraq and the Middle East. Think people are "happy" in Iraq? And I suppose you believed Chicken Little who ran around saying "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Sep 22, 2003 07:36 AM ]
posted on September 22, 2003 08:12:49 AM
If your old enough you heard these same statements during the Vietnam Conflict. We're winning the war, the war will be over soon, there are positive signs that we are winning the hearts and minds of the people of South Vietnam, etc., etc.
To fall for the political BS again is too much.
It like it if the US were to take full control of all Iraqi oil rights and give them only a 10% allowance till every cent of war debt and maintence was paid. It's not like the country doesn't have wealth.
-------------- sig file ----------- Most costume jewelry is unsigned. After all, the vast majority of it was made to be worn a few times, then discarded. It wasn't made to be durable. --- The Fluffster
posted on September 22, 2003 08:37:01 AM
LOL - boy....that's a lot to respond to.
Do I think the majority of Iraqi's are happy? Yes. I've read many reports from our soldiers and from reporters in Iraq who say things are looking up and that the majority are glad we liberated them from Saddam. They'd like to rule their own country, and that will happen, is happening, as we speak. In another month or so they should have their own national constitution written. They will then have elections. It's going according to plan. It's only been a few short months, can't expect miracles...there's lots that the people needed to adjust to after almost 4 decades under Saddam's rule.
They are being dealt with? Mind telling me how?
Sure, as areas get settled and there are fewer problems, the US has been handing over those areas to our allies there, to patrol. As the commanders have said, the more [peaceful] areas that can be turned over to our allies, the more time our soldiers have to go after these isolated groups that are still fighting against us.
Yes.....I think we do need to stop filling some pots until ours is full because they way things are going ours will soon be empty.
While I'd agree, this will never happen. Has never happened and isn't likely to ever happen. There are too many who have their own ideas of what's most important. Just as you said there are *SOME* you'd stop filling. My point was I believe [maybe incorrectly] you'd be willing to decrease the military spending, but wouldn't want to stop the aid we give say to Africa or other poor nations. That's what I meant...we each have our own priorities.
Who do you think is going to fly to our rescue? Not sure if you're speaking economically or more military support. If military support, our commanders have said they don't need more troops. If economically, that I'm aware of NO ONE has ever given the US financial help.
While this administration is busy trying to take care of Iraq, who is taking care of America? The same administration. Are you under the impression that only one issue can be dealt with at a time? There are always hundreds of issues being dealth with all at once. Always have been.
What of Afghanistan? I believe about 1/2 of the $87B is for reconstructing Afghanistan. I know the $20B we both spoke of earlier is for reconstruction of Iraq alone.
It's about the oil, not the people. I just don't agree. I think it's about a lot of different issues. Removing Saddam, removing the treat the last three administrations felt he posed to the US and the world, helping to bring more stability to the middle east, freeing the Iraqi's and yes, I'd agree it's also about oil. BUT not in the way most of those on the far left see it. We're not taking over their oil wells and keeping them and taking the funds from the sale of oil to use for ourselves. It's been stated many times by this administration that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq. To allow them to establish their own government, and have funds to pay for their own needs.
How do I support our troops? By standing by anyone willing to "Get them the Hell out of Iraq". Well, what is the point of even having a military then if they're not for protecting the interests of the US? Maybe you are one of those who believe we don't need a military at all....we can just 'talk' things out with our enemies? Or maybe you believe the military spending can be reduced so much to a point that they'd be almost worthless? These men and women chose to serve. Even with the war going on the recruitment offices are still getting volunteers than their quotas require.
The first priority any president has it to defend and protect this country. NO candidate who is anti-war will be elected. Your Mr. K doesn't have a chance of getting the democratic nomination. Why do you think the dems are jumping with joy over Clark? Because they KNOW if they don't at least appear to be willing to defend this country's interests.....there's no chance of a dem being elected president this time.
posted on September 22, 2003 08:39:39 AM
Bring Back the Embeds
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war (in Iraq) only after the embedded reporters pulled out. [b]Back when we got the news directly from Iraq, there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and destruction and
quagmire."[/b]
- Columnist Ann Coulter
“The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
posted on September 22, 2003 08:55:30 AM
That's true, bear. She's, once again, called it like it really is.
And with the exception of Fox News, the other media and print continues to ONLY show the challenges we face, not the positive things. Fox still has reporters over there who give good insight to what's happening...the good along with the little 'uprisings'. They interview the soldiers too.
Main stream media is almost entirely left slanting, AND we do have an election coming up next year. Just gives more reasons why the dems want to focus on only the negative, and not any of the positives. They continue to compare it to Vietnam, when it's nothing like Vietnam. They continue to post daily the deaths of our soldiers. Like somehow they've been under the impression that soldiers don't die in wars?
But most discouraging to me is that it's almost like they HOPE our soldiers fail, so they can say they were right. To pull out now would be to admit defeat....and the left would LOVE nothing more. It's not going to happen while this President is still in control. Before next years elections, I believe we will have seen LOTS of progress and the issues of today will have been dealt with.
posted on September 22, 2003 08:58:31 AMThe first priority any president has it to defend and protect this country
Yes, over all those WOMD. You know the ones . . all those they found hiding in Iraq. I'm sure there is a rock or two they haven't turned over yet. Or maybe, they got thrown into the ocean or are hiding in some school marm's cellar. Wait, I know. Saddam took them with him.
I guess the words "fly" to our rescue were the wrong ones. I meant monitarily not militarily. We see how willing they are to help now.
Edited to add: Main stream media is almost entirely left slanting
You're joking, right?
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Sep 22, 2003 09:01 AM ]
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
posted on September 22, 2003 09:01:16 AM
Once again we have the left screaming like little girls at a slumber party, because things aren't going exactly as planned... war and battle is like that... flowing one way then the other, however once Iraq has their government in place and can readily take over, I believe we will then leave.
If we get tougher on the guerillas, then we would have the left saying we ar killing innocents... which has and will continue to happen until such time as that activity is stopped. The Iraqi people can stop that...
If the UN was the organization they claim to be, we should have to ask them for assistance, it should of been there this whole time.
We need the draft in country in the worst way...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on September 22, 2003 09:04:14 AM
Yes, Cheryl, the same WOMD the UN had been trying to get Saddam to prove he had destroyed. How easy that would have been for him to do, IF true. But he didn't. And I'll continuing repeating myself by saying the US was NOT alone in the belief he still had womd and he was seeking to build nuclear weapons. Clinton too, the past Bush administration too believed Saddam was doing so and was a threat to world peace.
This president does not stand alone in what was believed prior to this invasion.
posted on September 22, 2003 09:14:46 AM
Yes, Helen....and President Bush 1 has since said the reasons why he made that statement. FIRST of all it was BEFORE 9-11. Second the UN mandate was ONLY for the US to go in and get Saddam out of where he had invaded and was killing people by the thousands. He's since stated IF he had done that *at that time*, he believed it would have angered the world. Guess after 9-11 things changed and President Bush II didn't really care what other's thought. The UK and the US believed they needed to act. They acted, under TOTALLY different circumstances.
------------------
then we would have the left saying we are killing innocents...
That's the truth...and they did when we went into Afghanistan.
posted on September 22, 2003 09:16:35 AM "Yes, Cheryl, the same WOMD the UN had been trying to get Saddam to prove he had destroyed. How easy that would have been for him to do, IF true. But he didn't. And I'll continuing repeating myself by saying the US was NOT alone in the belief he still had womd and he was seeking to build nuclear weapons. Clinton too, the past Bush administration too believed Saddam was doing so and was a threat to world peace."
Well, they were all wrong, Linda...including and chiefly George W. Bush because he lied about them. George saw them as an imminent danger. He saw nuclear weapons that were not there. He saw drones that were not there. He saw weapons ready to deploy in 45 minutes that were not there. George has now managed to set a chaotic stage on which terrorists depend for survival and in doing so has increased danger to America and the world.
posted on September 22, 2003 09:28:32 AM
You couldn't be more wrong, helen.
Hindsight is 20/20. I still believe we will find out what happened to them.
And I sure don't hold this president to blame for believing what most of our intelligence, Congress, UN and other world leaders also believed. But...hey don't hold ANY of those *democrats* responsibile for giving him the power to go to war.
Please....continue with your left slant. Continue with your support of Saddam, who I guess you think was a good leader to his people. Continue to blast an American president who has been successful in removing a tyrant from power. Continue to place NO BLAME what-so-ever on Saddam for failing to comply with the UN sanctions all those years. No, don't blame Saddam.....he was so honest, trustworthy and wouldn't support any terrorist groups at all. With the exception of those families of the suicide bombers he gave checks of $25,000.00 to for their good deeds. AND don't blame clinton for his bombings there either, for exactly the same reasons. lol
There were pictures posted in print of the drones.
He didn't say HE knew....he said the UK report said.
You have such a great way of twisting what you *think* was said vs what was REALLY said. lol
posted on September 22, 2003 09:39:24 AM
Everything that I have written is factual, Linda. There is no slant to the truth
that no weapons were found in Iraq. The fact that I see the truth does not indicate
that I support Saddam.
The premise that "Everywhere that democracy takes hold, terror will retreat." is false.
Look at Pakistan...one of the world's leading terrorist sanctuaries. On the other hand,
Saddam's oppressive regime left very little maneuvering room for terrorists
Al Qaeda, the most dangerous terrorist organization requires chaotic conditions
in a weakened environment such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has provided that
environment for them and in doing so has increased danger to America and the world.
As we are finding out in Iraq, military power does not always decrease terrorism.
It can, in fact, inspire it as you can see by the number of terrorists swarming into Iraq,
including members of Al Qaeda, who weren't there before.
posted on September 22, 2003 10:02:34 AM
I agree with the President when he said "Bring them on"....and "it's better to fight these terrorist groups in Iraq than on our soil". They're not going to go away helen. They must be dealt with. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Backing off has only given them encouragement to continue with their attacks against us.
The womd has not been found *YET*. They've been just a tad busy. Just like they found those planes buried under all that sand. There's thousands of miles of sand. And we don't know that these weapons weren't taken out of the country while we were in the process of trying to appease those of you on the left by working with the UN.
IMO, you do give aid and support to our enemies. To withdraw our troops now would mean that they won. Exactly what you'd like to see...our troops withdrawn rather than being given time to complete the mission and leave Iraq when they are able to run a government of their own.
I certainly don't expect you to agree. lol But that's how I see your constant siding against what this administration and our Congress decided was in our country's best interests. I don't see you saying clinton was wrong for his bombing of Iraq. Is that different to you...or just holding to your party line? But you NEVER have blamed Saddam for NOT cooperating with the UN and handing over the documents that were required...that would have put an end to all this. Nor have I seen you blame him for anything. But you sure are able to find fault with everything your own country does/has done.
"But you sure are able to find fault with everything your own country does/has done."
Yes, Linda, along with the majority of Americans now I find fault with everything that George Bush has done. You are in the minority, still believing the lies and remarkably still believing that weapons will be found aimed and ready to fire in 45 minutes.
posted on September 22, 2003 10:37:46 AM "I agree with the President when he said "Bring them on"....and "it's better to fight these terrorist groups in Iraq than on our soil". They're not going to go away helen. They must be dealt with. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Backing off has only given them encouragement to continue with their attacks against us."
I haven't mentioned negotiating with terrorists, Linda. I have simply pointed out that in creating the chaotic conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush has created an environment in which terrorists thrive. What will happen when the well runs dry and Bush's war is simply unaffordable. What will happen when the US military is so weakened that we are left without defense against REAL enemies?
posted on September 22, 2003 11:07:11 AM
Linda, Ann has it the target on the head again.
How to Beat W's War Record
"Mr. Bush led the country through the horrific days after September 11 with remarkable strength and resolve. He drove the Taliban and much of al Qaeda from Afghanistan. He organized a worldwide effort to cut off funds to terrorist organizations and capture terrorist leaders. And he won the war in Iraq - even if he has not yet totally secured the peace there. The only way the Democrats can beat this record is by convincing the American people that:
(a) it didn't happen;
(b) if it did happen, Mr. Bush had nothing to do with it;
or
(c) it shouldn't have happened in the first place."
- Columnist Linda Chavez
“The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
