whosinpower
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 11:06 AM
Original message |
There was a short period of time |
|
After the fall of Baghdad, that the insurgency was non existant. While I am not on the side of the insurgents - let us not forget that it was Paul Bremer who started the whole mess. And for this - he recieved a medal from Bush. Why am I so convinced that Bremer is the cause?
In the days after Baghdad fell, we will recall rampant looting. Al Sadr set up a militia to protect the poor and stop the looting. He gave money to the needy, food to the desperate and attempted to bring law where there was lawlessness thanks to the American invasion. To this - Paul Bremer stated he could not have Al Sadr doing what he was doing as this was undermining his legitimacy. Protests outbroke. Bremer shut down Al Sadr's newspaper and issued a warrent for his arrest. It was shortly after this that the anger towards America began to really show itself with insurgent attacks.
Do you all recall the history? It was Sistani that negotiated to quell the violence.....but it was Bremer who started it all. Bremer - the guy who issued hundreds of decrees meant to privatize Iraq and bring in foreign corporations to run the banks, infrastructure. It was Bremer that insisted that the occupation forces be immune to any war crimes and that the corporations could take all profits out of Iraq without consequence. Even now, the interim government is forced to comply with Bremer's edicts.
|
ChairmanAgnostic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message |
1. no wonder he got a medal |
|
without his help, Haliburton would not have made billions.
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 11:14 AM
Response to Original message |
2. the whole thing was mismanaged |
|
I totally disagreed with going into Iraq, but once they went in, they should have, first of all, secured the country. That they didn't is the main reason that we have a lot of the problems we have now. Bushco should have listened to their generals, who have had a wee bit more experience with fighting than any of them have. But no. They wouldn't commit the troops needed to have success in Iraq-they were too anxious to get on with the war of aggression.
|
European Socialist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-20-05 11:20 AM
Response to Original message |
3. That was part of the problem... |
|
But the main problem is how much were hated in that part of the world and how effective those car bombs and ied's are at disrupting any kind of nation building.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:06 PM
Response to Original message |