Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

What Has Gone Right In Iraq

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

blueridge71

Outlasted two companies
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Posts
2,261
What has gone right in Iraq
By Jeff Jacoby, 4/1/2004

WITH ALL the news coming out of the Middle East, here is a detail you might have missed: A few weeks ago, the United Nations shut down the Ashrafi refugee camp in southwestern Iran. For years Ashrafi had been the largest facility in the world housing displaced Iraqis, tens of thousands of whom had been driven from their homes by Saddam Hussein's brutality. But with Saddam behind bars and his regime crushed, Iraqi exiles have been flocking home. By mid-February the camp had literally emptied out. Now, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees reports, "nothing remains of Ashrafi but rubble and a few stones."

ADVERTISEMENT

Refugees surging to Iraq? That isn't what the antiwar legions told us would happen if George Bush made good on his vow to end Saddam's reign of terror. Over and over they warned that a US invasion would trigger a humanitarian cataclysm, including a flood of refugees from Iraq. This, for instance, was Martin Sheen at a Los Angeles news conference a month before the war began:

"As the dogs of war slouch towards Baghdad, we need to be reminded that as many as 2 million refugees could become a reality, as well as half a million fatalities."

Writing on the left-wing website AlterNet last March, senior editor Tai Moses expressed dread of the coming of a war that "could create more than a million refugees." The BBC, citing a "confidential" UN document, predicted that up to 500,000 Iraqis would be seriously injured during the first phase of an American attack, while 1 million would flee the country and 2 million more would be internally displaced -- all compounded by an "outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions." The Organization of the Islamic Conference foresaw the "displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees," plus "total destruction and a humanitarian tragedy whose scale cannot be predicted."

Wrong, every one of them, along with all the other doomsayers, Bush-haters, "Not In Our Name" fanatics, and sundry "peace" activists who flooded the streets and the airwaves to warn of onrushing disaster. How many have had the integrity to admit that their visions of catastrophe were wildly off the mark? Or that if they had gotten their way, the foremost killer of Muslims alive today -- Saddam -- would still be torturing children before their parents' eyes? Instead they chant, "Bush lied, people died," and seize on every setback in Iraq as proof that they were right all along.

But they were wrong all along. Operation Iraqi Freedom stands as one of the great humanitarian achievements of modern times. For all the Bush administration's mistakes and miscalculations, for all the monumental challenges that remain, Iraq is vastly better off today than it was before the war.

And the Iraqi people know it.

In a nationwide survey conducted by Britain's Oxford Research International, 56 percent of Iraqis say their lives are better now than before the war; only 19 percent say things are worse. Because of "Bush's war," Iraqis today brim with optimism. Fully 71 percent expect their lives to be even better a year from now; less than 7 percent say they'll be worse. Iraq today may just be the most upbeat, forward-looking country in the Arab world.

With hard work and a little luck, it may soon be the best governed as well. The interim constitution approved by the Iraqi Governing Council protects freedom of speech and assembly, guarantees the right to privacy, ensures equality for women, and subordinates the military to civilian control. It is, hands down, the most progressive constitution in the Arab Middle East.

Nearly a year after the fall of Baghdad, Iraq is hugely improved. Unemployment has been cut in half. Wages are climbing. The devastated southern marshlands are being restored. More Iraqis own cars and telephones than before Saddam was ousted. Some 2,500 schools have been rehabbed by the US-headed coalition. Spending on health care has soared thirtyfold, and millions of Iraqi children have been vaccinated. Iraqi athletes, no longer terrorized by Saddam's sadistic son Uday, are training for the summer Olympics in Greece.

Above all, Iraq's people are free. The horror and cruelty of the Saddam era are gone forever. In the 12 months since the American and British troops arrived, not one body has been added to a secret mass grave. Not one woman has been raped on government orders. Not one dissident has been mauled to death by trained killer dogs. Not one Kurdish village has been gassed.

Is everything rosy? Of course not. Could the transition to democracy still fail? Yes. Do innocent victims continue to die in horrific terror attacks or at the hands of lynch mobs like the one that dragged the corpses of four Americans through the streets of Falluja yesterday? They do.

But none of that changes the bottom line: In the ancient land that America liberated, life is more beautiful and hopeful than it has been in many decades. Bush's foes may loudly deny it, but the refugees streaming homeward know better.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/04/01/what_has_gone_right_in_iraq/
 
blueridge,

I don't think many people will dispute or argue that removing Sadam et al from power was a good thing for the Iraqi people...however most people say Bush is guilty of lying about why we went there in the first place. What WMD? What real ties to al Quida? We certainly were not there for altruisitic humaniterian reasons.

I was a Bush supporter but he really screwed up Iraq in a big way. His administration seemingly had no exit strategy to get out, and looks as if he still does not. Also, not finding and WMD after close to a year of looking for them kind of contridicts all his statements for going there in the first place. What ties to al Quida has anyone found? I think he has nothing but egg on his face at this point. He should stand in front of America and admit he screwed the pooch on this and that his intelligence was bad, and get us the hell out.

Just my two cents....
 
however most people say Bush is guilty of lying about why we went there in the first place. What WMD? What real ties to al Quida? We certainly were not there for altruisitic humaniterian reasons.

None and he will be held accountable for his $crewups come this november. It is hard to buy into the propaganda that is being sold, harder to dispute "facts" as well. It is comical however to read what some write on this board in support of him though.



3 5 0
 
tlax, you're entitled to your opinion but it seems that most of the lies are not from the Bush Administration.

Prior to the invasion, there was no intelligence service in the world that disputed the belief that Saddam Hussein was not building a WMD arsenal. Even the French did not dispute that. They only disputed the methodology of convincing him to give them up. And they were on his payroll!

None of the Democrats who currently accuse Bush of lying disputed it either, even though they had access to the same intelligence. Even further back, they believed it when Clinton was president. I can give you a whole list of quotes that show it.

If our intelligence was off, then the peacenik strategy of delaying an attack until intelligence reported an attack was imminent make no sense.

Saddam had 12 years to cooperate and allow inspections. The war is on his head.

Furthermore, even John Kerry (as quoted in Time magazine) said that WMDs may still be found. Iraq is a big country and Saddam had 12 years to hide them. And it doesn't take a lot of room to hide a lethal amount of chemical or biological weapons.

Even if Saddam didn't have any stockpiles, he still retained the information and knowledge that would allow him to rebuild his stocks at a future date.

Secondly, Bush never said that Saddam was in on 9-11. He said that Saddam supported terrorism. That is a documented fact. The man tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush and invited Abu Nidal to live in Baghdad on the Baathist dole.

Al Quaeda may or may not have been in Iraq earlier, but they are sure as heck there now. And personally, I'd rather have them there, where we can kill them easily, than taking flight training in Florida or somewhere.

As for an exit strategy, we still don't have one from Germany or Japan, but WWII is considered successful. Getting out is not as important as getting the job done.

In my opinion, and the opinion of most Americans according to recent polls, Bush did the right thing by invading Iraq. They only problem is that it should have been done in 1991.
 
Hey, 20 years from now no one will remember this WMD snafu, but they'll certainly remember the fall of Saddam, and hopefully the Western foothold in an otherwise hostile landscape.
 
Sure the world MAY be better w/o Saddam...

but GW looks like an idiot for the WMD thing. That was his sell, and he cant produce. simple facts.

And the joking last week about looking for the WMD's?? yes, it may have been a joke - but an INCREDIBLY tasteless one...did he forget the US deaths that occcur every day there? how do these families feel about these "jokes"...unreal....

Its too bad the dems cant drum up anything but that idiot Kerry - or GWB would suffer a serious loss in Sept.

bush -vs- kerry -- talk about a painful decision.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
To repeat:

THE WHOLE D-MN WORLD was sure he had weapons.

Listen you sophists:

If a cop asks you to submit to a breathalyzer and you refuse, they are allowed to assume you were drinking, and you will be penalized to a sometimes greater degree than if you took the test and failed.

Saddam refused to submit to real inspections.

Therefore we are allowed to assume he had them.

Therefore Bush was justified. Besides, it needed doing anyway.

Final score, Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life.

Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for.
 
100LL... Again! said:
Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for.
Cowards? Nothing we'd be willing to die for? Wow, strong language. Tell me, how long did you serve in which armed service?

There's no doubt that Saddam "needed killin'," but there are larger threats we needed to be addressing. I'm offended that the President put the hunt for bin Laden (et al) on the back burner so he could take time out to settle a grudge for his father. C'mon, even Flightinfo conservatives don't see a connection between Saddam and bin Laden.

Am I sorry we got Saddam? No. Do I think we should have been taking care of other matters first? Yes!
 
I'm offended that the President put the hunt for bin Laden (et al) on the back burner so he could take time out to settle a grudge for his father.


Wow, you are obviously very well informed...by the news media!
 
It doesn't matter....

....how many facts you may bring forth regarding Iraq, and terrorism.....it doesn't matter how this whole situation was handled from the very beginning...nothing you can say will matter to people (liberal dems) who refuse to look objectively at the entire picture. They cannot see nor think though their anger over a messy election.

If Bush would have caved in to the UN and done nothing...you would be hearing Kerry and all the liberal hate mongers trashing him for being too soft and not going after Sadaam and Bin Laden.

Kerry or any other potential nominee would have propped themselves up as the answer to our foreign policy failures. You see....they have to say something..no matter how obviously ignorant it may seem. They have to attack Bush....so they would have attacked him no matter what his policy....PERIOD.

So go back and read the original post without hatred or bias towards either party or candidate and then tell me we are not a better world because of it. You can make all the blasphemous comments you wish towards Bush or Kerry or whomever.....but you must use common sense to thread your way through the jungle of spin and subliminal messages that the party's use to influence the people.

So the question comes down to a very simple,basic one....are we, as a sovereign republic.....that still must survive in a world changing before our eyes.....better off with Bush running our foreign policy, or Kerry?

That my friends is what we insiders call ...a no brainer.

W
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top