Are things in Iraq that bad?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by miloblithe, Dec 19, 2004.

  1. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #1
    I find if baffling when conservatives whom I encounter wonder if things in Iraq are "really that bad." To me, the question has always seemed kind of pathetically trusting of the good face the administration has to put on the war. I want to jump up and say, "of course it's going that bad! Are you insane?"

    I bring this up because I'm wondering how much of a doomsayer I've been. Yes, I think the war is a mess and can't be won, but I'm also pretty sure I've been overlooking the few positive stories that do exist. I was just looking at oil production data

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/supply.html

    and while Iraqi oil production remains down from pre-war (and way down from pre-1990s) totals, it's in the same ballpark--an accomplishment when people are trying to blow up the pipelines. Of course, it shouldn't be much of a surprise that oil production is one of the things the U.S. has done well on. Also, the accomplishment of nearing pre-war levels in a country that had been devestated before the war isn't exactly amazing either. But still, it's better than low oil production.
     
  2. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #2
    The Administration prefers a rosy version of the Iraq situation. The media thrives on sensationalizing every negative occurence in the world. The truth likely is somewhere in between.
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    It's not about it being bad over there, but the fact that it's worse than it should be, and the administration will not admit to it's mistakes. In order to fix your mistakes, you must at first admit to them. It's no surprise that oil is more important than the protection of our troops or getting the guy who actually attacked us, which I thought was the reason we were supposed to be over there in the first place. Which is why a lot of us are pissed off at how bad things are going and that everytime we bring it up, we are attacked for not being patriotic enough or somehow being against the troops.
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #4
    Hmm...why did the name "Kerry" pop to mind when you said that? Oh, right...because he was vilified for saying the same damn thing!

    Meanwhile, it's December and...


    (Link)

    Gee, what happened to those scads of Iraqis who were supposed to be ready by now?

    Yup. Things are just swell.
     
  5. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #5
    That's why I voted for him (for all the good it did). Can't stand the man, but he had a good point when he brought it up. Too bad he couldn't convey his message better. And, you know, stop sucking. That, and it was better the first time I heard it... when it was coming from Howard Dean.

    I remember when my friend told me he was being sent over there, and I was watching Bush give a speech about terror with his then pregnant wife (my surrogate little sister), and wondering why he was pushing Iraq when the terrorist were in Afganistan (among other places). We kept saying, "why is he talking about Saddam?" and "why are we pulling troops from other places to go to Iraq?". "What about Al Qaeda?" As I'm watching him buy his own gear with what little money he has (among other things), while his wife has to go on food stamps, even though she works too, and wondering why people say Bush is for the troops and I am not simply because I'm asking questions.

    As it gets worse, I just keep getting more pissed off. Especially after she and I both lost our jobs (but hey, the economy's doing great right?), no WMDs found, no ties to Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden's still out there ready to attack us again (which he will). But people voted for Bush because he's strong and will protect us.

    Pardon me if I'm not so convinced.
     
  6. Mr_Ed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    North and east of Mickeyland
    #6
    Amen to that.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    In answer to the question: YES. And they're going to continue to be that bad until this godawful Administration "fesses up" and deploys enough troops there to keep a lid on it and provide security for the occupied country. This is an OBLIGATION onder the GC, not some soft option you can discard. Without another 100,000 troops, the anarchy will continue. But George has chosen Occupation Lite, which doesn't have all the necessary industrial-strength features of the full-size Professional Edition. I guess he's just too proud or too stingy to upgrade.
     
  8. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-pullout22dec22,1,761501.story
     
  9. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    I love the irony. "Oh, but it's so much cheaper to hire outside contractors and let our forces concentrate on their core duties, blah, blah, blah...." Well, for better or worse, the forces can't just pull out when it so pleases them. So much for rummy's "new" armed forces. When are he and gw gonna understand that you can't apply private business practices to the majority of government functions?!?
     
  10. miloblithe thread starter macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #10
    We should be paying Iraqis to rebuild the Iraqi transportation system, not US contractors.
     
  11. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #11
    Then how would companies profiteer?
     

Share This Page