Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

" In Reality, Iraq Already is a Failure"!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 07:52 AM
Original message
" In Reality, Iraq Already is a Failure"!
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=600366&category=OPINION&newsdate=6/25/2007

Cool the rhetorical heat and you uncover a single goal that President Bush, congressional Democrats and the presidential candidates from both parties emphatically agree upon: Iraq, they say, must not become a "failed state."

You know the riff. A failed Iraq would become a "terrorist haven." It would be a magnet for mischievous players from throughout the Middle East. It would be another oozing sore in a region already seized with seemingly unsolvable crises. No, the Republicans say, we must keep American troops in the country indefinitely so that Iraq does not fail. No, the Democrats say, we must pull back so the Iraqis can pull themselves together and rescue themselves from this failure.

There's a problem with this unanimity: Iraq already is a failed state.

"Basically, Iraq is on a course to violent disintegration," says Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace. Along with Foreign Policy magazine, the Fund for Peace takes an annual look at nations that are most vulnerable to violence, ethnic strife, economic turmoil and social disintegration that are the markers of "failed states." Iraq now ranks second, behind only Sudan and its catastrophe in Darfur.

<snip>

Iraq's descent into violent chaos is known to anyone who watches the news. But it is rarely described, in our hackneyed politics, as anything other than a problematic surge in sectarianism or the handiwork of "insurgents." In fact, all of Iraq's social, economic and civic indicators are pointing down, according to the Fund for Peace analysis.

Consider the crises the report documents, but which do not make for good television footage: A food crisis has left half of pregnant women in Baghdad and 60 percent of schoolchildren anemic. The Iraqi government reports that "growing numbers of sick and wounded Sunnis" are abducted from hospitals when they seek treatment. In Basra, "doctors report that rotting piles of garbage left on the streets where children play are causing high rates of typhoid fever as well as fungal and bacterial skin diseases." There is no officially recognized count of Iraqi civilian casualties.


<snip>



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Has been for years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. See - what our illustrious leaders really don't want is the blame for
Edited on Mon Jun-25-07 08:03 AM by Solly Mack
that failure. Iraq can be a failed state as long as the US doesn't wear the blame for it. Now, many would be happy to blame Americans for it - the lack of suport and all that other bullshit.


So they'll keep pouring gas on the fire in order to say they tried everything to get the fire under control...and then blame the Iraqis for the house burning down.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. You got that right, was from the beginning for all the wrong reasons.
Also, has steadily got worse, the needless death & destruction far exceeds previous wars.

This is the reason this congress which talked talked about getting us out of Iraq needs to do what they promised the American people. It is understood about the numbers game of the congress. However, what is wrong with Edwards suggestion of repeatedly sending back the bill for Bush?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. but but we have "VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS"!!!
aka: corporate profits to consider

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yeah, I know, just a thought. Guess we wouldn't want to interfere with
those Halliburton and Black something or other profits would we.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC