Iraq worse off than befoer the War, GAO says.Follow

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9041465.htm


WASHINGTON - In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents Monday is worse off than before the war began last year, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday.

The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May.

But, we DID win the war.

Didn't we?


Yes, WE did. The people of Iraq and the US troops lost. You and I, though, we won! We got to see a shooting war on TV, a President land on an air craft carrier, US troops dragged through the streets, and the occasional beheading!

Without the war we'd have to had watched "Freinds" reruns.

Smashed wrote


No we'd be watching a nuclear or biological weapon be detonated inside a major city.

Varus

You have to give it time, Smash. You can't just give up because we haven't gotten everything perfect yet. How do you know that, in a year, things won't be much better?

Or, if in a year things are worse, we should just give it more time. We can't call something a loss before it's even finished yet. The liberals would have you think that because things weren't perfect immediately, they never will be. It might just need another year.

Or, if in three years time, it's still a mess, we need to give it time to see what happens. It'd be foolish to just quit after three years without seeing what the results are...


Who said anything about quitting?

What's so fuc[/b]kin difficult about reading what I post and responding to what I post as opposed to creating random arguments I haven't made?

You're so right, though. Lets give it 20 years, no wait, fuc[b]k it, let's give it an even 100. It'll be impossible to judge it as a success or failure untill at least 2104, so untill then, no one's responsible for it, nothing that happens can be judged and everythings....


COMING

UP

ROSES!!!


Where's Ethel Merman whan I need her.

Well, I'm new to it and all.

Heh. Or you should have just prefaced it with "Heh" as slightly smug "come on this obvious guys" before the satire bit.

See? Totem does an excellent Gbaji! He just needs to work on length.

Yeah? So what? Dresden and Hiroshima were substantially worse off after the war than before it as well. That's what happens during and after a war. What's your point? I suppose John Kerry would have broken out his magic wand and sprinkled pixie dust over Baghdad and made things all better moments after major combat operations ceased?


One, John Kerry wouldn't have invaded acountry that posed as much threat to US National Security as Brazil.

Two, had he done so, he would certainly have listened to advisors that told him over and over that he needed to have more troops in place to deal with the reconstruction.

Three, he would have built UN support and the burden for rebuilding the nation wouldn't be falling ENTIRELY on US Tax payers.

I think it's fantastic that you wouldn't give a homeless US person a "handout" from your tax dollars, but you're more than willing to give wealthy Iraqi's as much money as they want to charge for subcontracts without blinking an eye.

You forgot #4, Smash-- he'd've used his magic wand and bag of pixie dust if he needed it too.

Totem

And you are wrong about welfare, Smash. I am very willing to help out the poor and needy with money and food, but they need to reciprocate in kind by working. Call it my Miles Standish policy.

Totem

And you are wrong about welfare, Smash. I am very willing to help out the poor and needy with money and food, but they need to reciprocate in kind by working.


Ahh, I see. So you're willing to pay more taxes then, because requiring work for welfare costs about twice of what just mailing a check does.

Intresting. Didn't realize you were in favor of raising taxes.

I'll make a note of it.

Miles Standish

Is this the Miles Standish you are referring to. Is there a thread I should be reading to get some background here?