Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein"
Quote | Reply
There is no proof that things are better in Iraq now as compared to when Saddam was in power, but plenty of proof that it is worse.

Let's just hope that we didn't just waste 2,106 American lives, $300 billion, and 3 years.


Associated Press, BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's former interim prime minister complained Sunday that human rights abuses by some in the new government are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein. Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite Muslim, told the London newspaper The Observer that fellow Shiites are responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said brutality by elements of Iraqi security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same thing," the newspaper quoted Allawi as saying. Allawi's allegation of widespread human rights abuses follows the discovery this month of up to 173 detainees, some malnourished and showing signs of torture, in a Shiite-led Interior Ministry building in Baghdad.

"People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse," he said. "It is an appropriate comparison."




Last edited by: tritnow: Nov 27, 05 16:04
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
All of the people that I know that have served over there, including my wife (once as a civil servant and once as a Navy officer) would disagree. I still have friends there who email me all the time with news of all the good things that are going on over there, not to mention that the country is getting ready to conduct its third free and open election in the last 18 months.

Might Iyad Allawi, who failed in his bid for a more permanent election as Prime Minister, also not have an axe to grind?

I'll post this (courtesy CSM):

The Iraq story: how troops see it

The Christian Science Monitor | 11/28/05 | Mark Sappenfield


BROOK PARK, OHIO - Cpl. Stan Mayer has seen the worst of war. In the leaves of his photo album, there are casual memorials to the cost of the Iraq conflict - candid portraits of friends who never came home and graphic pictures of how insurgent bombs have shredded steel and bone. Yet the Iraq of Corporal Mayer's memory is not solely a place of death and loss. It is also a place of hope. It is the hope of the town of Hit, which he saw transform from an insurgent stronghold to a place where kids played on Marine trucks. It is the hope of villagers who whispered where roadside bombs were hidden. But most of all, it is the hope he saw in a young Iraqi girl who loved pens and Oreo cookies.

Like many soldiers and marines returning from Iraq, Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences. Yet as perceptions about Iraq have neared a tipping point in Congress, some soldiers and marines worry that their own stories are being lost in the cacophony of terror and fear. They acknowledge that their experience is just that - one person's experience in one corner of a war-torn country. Yet amid the terrible scenes of reckless hate and lives lost, many members of one of the hardest-hit units insist that they saw at least the spark of progress.

"We know we made a positive difference," says Cpl. Jeff Schuller of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, who spent all but one week of his eight-month tour with Mayer. "I can't say at what level, but I know that where we were, we made it better than it was when we got there." It is the simplest measure of success, but for the marine, soldier, or sailor, it may be the only measure of success. In a business where life and death rest on instinctive adherence to thoroughly ingrained lessons, accomplishment is ticked off in a list of orders followed and tasks completed. And by virtually any measure, America's servicemen and women are accomplishing the day-to-day tasks set before them.

Yet for the most part, America is less interested in the success of Operation Iron Fist, for instance, than the course of the entire Iraq enterprise. "What the national news media try to do is figure out: What's the overall verdict?" says Brig. Gen. Volney Warner, deputy commandant of the Army Command and General Staff College. "Soldiers don't do overall verdicts." Yet soldiers clearly feel that important elements are being left out of the media's overall verdict. On this day, a group of Navy medics gather around a table in the Cleveland-area headquarters of the 3/25 - a Marine reserve unit that has converted a low-slung school of pale brick and linoleum tile into its spectacularly red-and-gold offices.

Their conversation could be a road map of the kind of stories that military folks say the mainstream media are missing. One colleague made prosthetics for an Iraqi whose hand and foot had been cut off by insurgents. When other members of the unit were sweeping areas for bombs, the medics made a practice of holding impromptu infant clinics on the side of the road.

They remember one Iraqi man who could not hide his joy at the marvel of an electric razor. And at the end of the 3/25's tour, a member of the Iraqi Army said: "Marines are not friends; marines are brothers," says Lt. Richard Malmstrom, the battalion's chaplain. "It comes down to the familiar debate about whether reporters are ignoring the good news," says Peter Hart, an analyst at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, a usually left-leaning media watchdog in New York.

In Hit, where marines stayed in force to keep the peace, the progress was obvious, say members of the 3/25. The residents started burning trash and fixing roads - a sign that the city was returning to a sense of normalcy. Several times, "people came up to us [and said]: 'There's a bomb on the side of the road. Don't go there,' " says Pfc. Andrew Howland. Part of the reason that such stories usually aren't told is simply the nature of the war. Kidnappings and unclear battle lines have made war correspondents' jobs almost impossible. Travel around the country is dangerous, and some reporters never venture far from their hotels. "It has to have some effect on what we see: You end up with reporting that waits for the biggest explosion of the day," says Mr. Hart.

To the marines of the 3/25, the explosions clearly do not tell the whole story. Across America, many readers know the 3/25 only as the unit that lost 15 marines in less than a week - nine of them in the deadliest roadside bombing against US forces during the war. When the count of Americans killed in Iraq reached 2,000, this unit again found itself in the stage lights of national notice as one of the hardest hit. But that is not the story they tell. It is more than just the dire tone of coverage - though that is part of it. It is that Iraq has touched some of these men in ways that even they have trouble explaining. This, after all, has not been a normal war. Corporals Mayer and Schuller went over not to conquer a country, but to help win its hearts and minds. In some cases, though, it won theirs.

Schuller, a heavyweight college wrestler with a thatch of blond hair and engine blocks for arms, cannot help smiling when he speaks of giving an old man a lighter: "He thought it was the coolest thing." Yet both he and the blue-eyed, square-jawed Mayer pause for a moment before they talk about the two 9-year-old Iraqis whom members of their battalion dubbed their "girlfriends." The first time he saw them, Mayer admits that he was making the calculations of a man in the midst of a war. He was tired, he was battered, and he was back at a Hit street corner that he had patrolled many times before. In Iraq, repetition of any sort could be an invitation of the wrong sort - an event for which insurgents could plan. So Mayer and Schuller took out some of the candy they carried, thinking that if children were around, perhaps the terrorists wouldn't attack.

It was a while before the children realized that these two marines, laden with arms to the limit of physical endurance, were not going to hurt them. But among the children who eventually came, climbing on the pair's truck and somersaulting in the street, there were always the same two girls. When they went back to base, they began to hoard Oreos and other candy in a box. "They became our one little recess from the war," says Mayer. "You're seeing some pretty ridiculous tragedies way too frequently, and you start to get jaded. The kids on that street - I got to realize I was still a human being to them."

It happened one day when he was on patrol. Out of nowhere, a car turned the corner and headed down the alley at full speed. "A car coming at you real fast and not stopping in Iraq is not what you want to see," says Mayer. Yet instead of jumping in his truck, he stood in the middle of the street and pushed the kids behind him. The car turned. Now, Mayer and Schuller can finish each other's sentences when they think about the experience. "You really start to believe that you protect the innocent," says Schuller. "It sounds like a stupid cliché...." "But it's not," adds Mayer. "You are in the service of others."

For Mayer, who joined the reserves because he wanted to do something bigger than himself, and for Schuller, a third-generation marine, Iraq has given them a sense of achievement. Now when they look at the black-and-white pictures of marines past in the battalion headquarters, "We're adding to that legacy," says Schuller. This is what they wish to share with the American people - and is also the source of their frustration. Their eight months in Iraq changed their lives, and they believe it has changed the lives of the Iraqis they met as well. On the day he left, Mayer gave his "girlfriend" a bunch of pens - her favorite gift - wrapped in a paper that had a picture of the American flag, the Iraqi flag, and a smiley face. The man with the lighter asked Schuller if he was coming back. He will if called upon, he says.

Whether or not these notes of grace and kindness are as influential as the dirge of war is open to question. But many in the military feel that they should at least be a part of the conversation. Says Warner of reaching an overall verdict: "I'm not sure that reporting on terrorist bombings with disproportionate ink is adequately answering that question."



And also this:



Caption: Protesters burn a dummy representing the ousted dictator Saddam Hussein during a demonstration in Najaf, Iraq, Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005. The Saddam Hussein trial is scheduled to resume Monday, Nov. 28. The banner in background reads: 'We promise to the Iraqi people that we will smash terrorism.' The banner is held by supporters of Sunni politician Mathel al Alousi, head of the Iraqi national list, and candidate for the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. (AP Photo/Alaa al Marjani)





T.
Last edited by: big kahuna: Nov 27, 05 20:16
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know if any of that stuff is on point, BK. It's nice to know that our troops think they're doing good work over there, and all, but the question at hand seems to be whether or not the Shiites are running secret torture centers and using methods as bad as Saddam's. I don't know if it's true or not, but it seems possible. (Equally possible this is just campaign posturing by Allawi, I guess.)








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's all on point if you argue from the position that nothing in Iraq as it currently is constituted could be as bad as when Saddam was running things, so-called 'secret torture houses' notwithstanding.

I view it as part-and-parcel of an outlook that tries to equate what we've done over there, and the subsequent effects of our intervention, as being on a moral par with the worst excesses of the Ba'athists and Saddam himself. Take, for example, the attempt at inflating the number of civilian casualties killed in Iraq since our entry. The number I've heard currently being bandied about is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 killed since the start of hostilities in '03.

Below is an interesting piece from Logic Times:



The Civilian Casualty Fable



"Tanks, flowers and civilian casualties"

"The gruesome number of U.S. war dead pales in comparison to the loss of life suffered by Iraqis," the anti-war A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition, which organized a protest last month that drew more than 100,000 demonstrators in Washington, said in a statement marking the 2,000th U.S. death. (here)



One of the foundation blocks of anti-war protest against the United States in Iraq is civilian casualties, which viscerally represents a country in ruin, a tragic human face on Bush’s warmongering. This perspective, of course, ignores the civilian carnage during the reign of Saddam Hussein (see Fuzzy Moral Math) and instead focuses on the perceived chaos in Iraq today. And this newfound concern for Iraqi civilian life is not only a staple of the anti-war Left, it is a convenient club wielded by mainstream Democrats in Washington, who argue that chaos in Iraq represents failed policy.



With so much emphasis on Iraqi civilian death, one would expect the casualty statistics to be very well understood. An uncritical audience, for example, might be inclined to accept at face value the Lancet (a British medical journal) analysis estimating 100,000 civilian casualties, a "study" that has been widely discredited by credible groups on both sides of the debate. Yet the public is still inundated with high casualty numbers, and anti-war protesters continue to carry signs tallying up the massive numbers of civilian dead.

There is indeed a mind-blowing story about collateral damage that needs to be told, but that story is one in which we honor the extraordinary achievement of the United States military: two years of combat since the fall of Baghdad, much of it urban warfare, with less than 1,000 civilians killed as a result of U.S. action:

What is the source for these numbers? The most comprehensive study of civilian casualties is available from a group opposed to the Coalition intervention in Iraq called Iraq Body Count. This summer, the Iraq Body Count project published an analysis of casualties in the Iraq War that must be admired for its meticulous documentation.

This study reports 24,865 civilian deaths in the first two years of the Iraq War, an apparent ringing endorsement of the "Iraq in chaos" position. But a curious statistical anomaly jumps right off page one: over 81% of the civilian casualties are men. Even stranger, over 90% of civilian casualties are adults in a country with a disproportionate percentage of the population under 18 (44.5%). This contradicts a basic tenet of the civilian casualty argument, namely that we are describing collateral damage during a time of war. Collateral damage does not differentiate between male and female, between child and adult. A defective smart bomb falling in a marketplace, stray bullets ripping through bedroom walls, city warfare in Fallujah – all these activities should produce casualties that reflect the ratio of men to women or adults to children that prevail in Iraq as a whole.

This question is particularly relevant when one side in the conflict does not wear uniforms, is predominantly adult and of one gender, and engages in a practice of concealing its combatants within the civilian population. The statistics are further distorted if the Iraqi security forces – essentially the free Iraqi military on the side of the U.S. coalition – are classified as civilians, as they are in this study.

Consider the reported vs. expected gender and age distribution in the Iraq Body Count analysis:

Note: Statistical analysis of confirmed demographic data is projected over the total reported civilians killed. National gender and age data comes from here, here, here and here.

If the death of innocent civilians is at issue, then the gender/age data can be used to estimate the percentage of actual civilians killed. Below, the data for female and underage casualties provides the basis for determining a true, pure civilian "body count" figure of 7,976.

Before any additional analysis, it must be noted that this figure is breathtaking in its limited scope; a nation of 26 million people enduring two years of warfare, much of it urban, has a civilian survival rate of 99.97%. Consider that in one day, September 11, 2001, the United States incurred almost 40% of this number. Also consider that, in the United States of America, you have the exact same risk of dying if you drive a car (survival rate = [1 - two-year car fatality totals/population] or [1 - ((42,815+42,643)/291,000,000)] = 99.97%).

There is further risk of distortion in the Iraq Body Count report related to the timing of casualties. Casualties that arise from the initial invasion of Iraq, for example when the 3rd Army swept into Baghdad in April of 2003, are an expected and tragic consequence of major military action, which had near universal American support at the time. The subsequent focus on civilian casualty counts over the ensuing months is an exercise of a different nature, one designed to portray a ruthless or disorganized army of occupation that is inflicting devastating collateral damage on the civilian population in its hunt for terrorists and non-uniformed combatants. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the fatality distribution over time reveals:

The only way to describe the actions of the U.S. Military in its role of "occupier" is a compassionate and careful army that avoids collateral damage despite its dangerous mandate to hunt for terrorists and non-uniformed combatants hidden within the civilian population. It is nothing short of miraculous that our Armed Forces have been able to eliminate as many terrorists and enemy combatants as they have with so little actual collateral damage. Many seasoned military men, in fact, bemoan the increased danger such modern warfare represents. A cogent argument can be made that mixing warfare and compassion is not wise, but under no circumstances can American warriors be faulted for lacking compassion.

The low level of actual casualties, developed and explained in the Appendix below, is stunning. Over the course of the Iraq invasion and "occupation," only 14.8% of reported fatalities represent actual civilian fatalities caused by U.S. action. Even more remarkable, since the fall of Baghdad the U.S. has been directly responsible for only 3.8% of fatalities reported, as many deaths over almost two years as Saddam averaged in 10 days.

Note: The calculations in this chart are described in the Appendix below.

For those who claim the United States is indirectly responsible for the several hundred deaths a month caused by insurgents and criminals, they would do well to note two facts: 1) just over 32% of the fatalities in the chronological table represent civilians, and 2) that this figure is a 93% decline from the monthly average piled up by Saddam Hussein over 24 years (see Fuzzy Moral Math).





Appendix

The effective civilian casualties are calculated as follows:
  • a Variable - The two top BLUE lines are the results of the gender/age normalization of the casualty data. Using documented gender/age demographic data, the reported female deaths and the reported underage deaths were used to project the actual adult male non-combatants embedded in the total casualty number.
  • b Variable - The two dark RED lines are carried over the report's disclosure of parties responsible for fatalities.
  • x Variable - The first GREEN calculation (a * b) represents the percentage of total reported fatalities that are civilian and for which the U.S. is directly responsible.
  • c Variable - The two PURPLE lines reflect the timing distribution of fatalities looking at two periods: the initial invasion, identified as March 20 through April 30, 2003, and the "occupation," identified as May 2003 through the end of the report time frame in March of 2005.
  • y Variable – The second GREEN calculation (x * c) reveals the percentage of total reported fatalities that are civilian and for which the U.S. is directly responsible during the so-called "occupation" period in the report (May 2003 – March 2005).
  • d Variable – The two BLACK lines detail the breakdown in fatality responsibility between U.S. and non-U.S. forces during the "occupation."
  • z Variable - The third GREEN calculation (d * a) reveals a percentage of total reported fatalities that are civilian and for which the U.S. is directly responsible for any time in the future. The previous "y" calculation is distorted by inclusion of invasion period numbers. The "z" calculation simply projects post-invasion fatalities tendencies into the future.
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That cooked Turkey bought from the supermarket was pretty dry and tasteless, barely edible. How does this Turkey, one third cooked in the oven compare to that. Take it out and try it. Jeez if it's not anymore edible than the bought one why even bother going shopping, spending the money, making the effort to use a good recipe and using up the gas for the oven?

You've got to know that re-building a country doesn't happen over night. Secondly because of outside interference from insurgence forces, it's going to take longer with more effort. This leads to the third point that Iraq is not just Iraq but it represents a much larger stake for both sides. The consequences are so profound that there really must be no walking away from this one before the initial primary objective for Iraq is concluded.

The faster it is settled the better for all. But the way to settle this more quickly is not to lessen the commitment but in fact to strengthen the commitment where necessary.

The whole gist of this comparison you started has no substance, unless the situation is taken in it's entirety.
Last edited by: kangaroo: Nov 28, 05 1:05
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did Allawi actually make that statement that you quote? Is so, please cite it in your comments or please edit it for accuracy.

thanks,

B.

-------------------------------------------------
http://www.teamorganicnyc.com
Sponsored by: TBA
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [Mid Life Trisis] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Looked to me like it was pretty clear that he said it, or that the newspaper the Associated Press was using quoted him as saying it.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that his making that statement and continuing to breathe shows that the statement is not true and that he knows it is not true?
Quote Reply
Re: Allawi "Iraq as bad now as under Saddam Hussein" [tritnow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Iraq's former interim prime minister complained Sunday that human rights abuses by some in the new government are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein



Even if you believe him he said some not all, under Hussein all of them were bad. Proof of improvement.

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a 10 cent rider on a $2,500.00 Bike

Quote Reply