The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

It's atrocious that such a mistake could be made.

It is. It was a horrible mistake. Mistakes happen however. The really worrying part is the blatant lying. This is not just twisting of the truth, it's direct lying. So how are we supposed to believe anything that the coalition says? Washington Post published documents of sworn statements that general Sanchez not only knew about the prison abuse, but witnessed it on several occasions in person without doing anythig. The coalition is flatly denying it, just like they flatly denied the wedding bombing. Why should we believe them?

And going further, why should we even believe that the wedding bombing is an accident? The prisoner abuse showed that US soldiers are not above comitting war crimes. These violations are on such a level that any human being should know that they are wrong. What's to say that the ""few rotten apples" are all at the bottom of the barrel. What's to say that a general is less likely to become a war criminal than some hillbilly PFC?

It's obvious that we can't trust what the coalition says. Their lies go way beyon putting a happy face on the occupation. This is beyond propaganda. These are straight lies.

So what can we with a good conscience believe?

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

As I said it is the fact of cover up. I would not believe a word that pillock of a mouthpiece Kimmet says.

He is not telling the truth about this and I seriously doubt he tells the truth with any of what he talks about the prisoner abuses.

I just don't trust these people. They remind me of the thieves you see on America's Dumbest Criminals making up phony alibis to hide their crimes.

Kind Regards Walker

[maximilien 0]

The lies from Irak cause some disturbs and secession...

in a small country named Belgium... the country of the "Pralines", waffles, beers... (geography for the dumbs lol)

For example the representant in Belgium for the Republican party (who was an ardent defensor for the Irak intervention ) invite his compatriots to vote for John Kerry...

Regarding to his lasts interviews months ago it's so incredible!

Yes, some "chikenhawks" have buyed some glasses...

He recived some insults by mail and accusations "to be UNPATRIOTIC..." Joseph McCarthy where are you ?

Haa these communists fluids, they are everywhere...

My apologies to be so childish, it's so cynical...

[Goeth 0]

So what can we with a good conscience believe?

Personally i don´t believe a word what they say and i think i never will.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

the country of the "Pralines", waffles, beers...

et Pommes Frittes...ah oh sorry I mean freedom fries!

[Bernadotte 0]

Let's not be too surprised if a cover-up is uncovered.  It's not like this hasn't happened before.

The following is from Wikipedia about Daniel Ellsberg:

Quote[/b] ]

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Daniel Ellsberg</span> (born April 7, 1931) precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities in Vietnam, to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in eroding public support for the war.

History

Ellsberg grew up in Detroit and graduated from Harvard University with a Ph.D. in Economics in 1959. He served as a company commander in the Marine Corps for two years, and then became an analyst at the Rand Corporation. A committed Cold War Warrior, he served in the Pentagon in 1964 under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He then served for two years in Vietnam as a civilian in the State Department, and became convinced that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. He further believed that nearly everyone in the Defense and State Departments knew, as he did, that the United States had no realistic chance of achieving victory in Vietnam, but that political considerations prevented them from saying so publicly. McNamara and others continued to state in press interviews that victory was "just around the corner". As the war continued to escalate, Ellsberg became deeply disillusioned.

The Pentagon Papers

Working again at Rand, Ellsberg managed to procure, photocopy, and return a large number of classified papers regarding the execution of the war. These documents later became collectively known as the Pentagon Papers. They revealed the knowledge, early on, that the war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many times more casualties than was admitted publicly. Further, the papers showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians.

Ellsberg knew that releasing these paper would most likely result in a conviction and sentence of many years in prison. Throughout 1970, Ellsberg covertly attempted to convince a few like-minded Senators to release the Pentagon Papers on the Senate floor. (A United States Senator cannot be prosecuted for anything he says on record before the Senate.) No Senator was willing to do so.

Finally, Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times. On June 13, 1971, the Times began publishing the first installment of the 7000 page document. Although the Times did not reveal the source of the leak, Ellsberg knew that the FBI would soon determine that he was the source of the leak. Ellsberg went underground, living secretly among like-minded people. He was not caught by the FBI, even though they were under enormous pressure from the Nixon Administration to find him.

Fallout

The publication of the papers greatly detracted from public support for the war in Vietnam. This was a primary reason that President Nixon decided to make discrediting Ellsberg a high priority. Nixon's Oval Office tape from June 14 shows H. R. Haldeman describing the situation to Nixon.

To the ordinary guy, all this is a bunch of gobbledygook. But out of the gobbledygook comes a very clear thing: you can't trust the government; you can't believe what they say; and you can't rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it's wrong, and the president can be wrong.

The release of these papers was politically embarrassing, not only to the incumbent Nixon Administration, but also to the previous Johnson and Kennedy Administrations. Nixon's Attorney General John Mitchell almost immediately issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against them. Although the Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court, an appellate court ordered that the Times temporarily halt further publication. This was the first attempt by the federal government to restrain the publication of a newspaper. Ellsberg released the Pentagon Papers to other newspapers in rapid succession, making it clear to the government that they would have to obtain injunctions against every newspaper in the country to stop the story.

On June 28, Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the US Attourney's Office in Boston, Massachusetts. He was taken into custody believing he would spend the rest of his life in prison.

In one of Nixon's actions against Ellsberg, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt broke into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office [located in Washington's Watergate Building] in September 1971, hoping to find information they could use to discredit him. The revelation of the break-in became part of the Watergate scandal. On May 3, 1972, the White House secretly flew a dozen Cuban CIA "assets" to Washington DC with orders to assault or assassinate Ellsberg. (They backed out because the crowd was too large.) Because of the gross governmental misconduct, all charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped.

Later life

Daniel Ellsberg has continued as a political activist, giving lecture tours and speaking out about current events. Recently he garnered criticism from the George W. Bush Administration for praising Katharine Gun and calling on others to leak any papers that reveal deception regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ellsberg currently serves as a senior research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Donnervogel-

Quote[/b] ]all these regions did have strong  roots of democratic ideals and often strong democratic movements before a democracy could be established. But in the arab world the influebnce of these ideas was always very very limited. The only arab nations that were influenced by European powers and that come to my mind now are Turkey and Persia (basicly Iraq/Iran)

And the last example is not very encouraging.

Actually Arabs are only a small minority in Iran, most are indo-europeans (Aryans) and speak Farsi not arabic. Turkish people are mostly of turkic origin not Arab and speak they speak Turkish not Arabic, they have not used Arabic to write Turkish since the nineteen twenties when Ataturk (nationist leader) westernised the country (i guess this actually reinforces what you were saying about the lack of democracy in the arab world).

Quote[/b] ]Personally I expect Iraq to become a huge failure and to set back the democratic efforts in the region at least a decade

What democratic efforts? Seriously, what major effort at democratisation and liberal reform has been made recently that the Iraq war has disrupted?

I agree nevertheless that the war is most likely (at least for the near future) to increase distrust and dislike of the west (especially the supporters of invasion) and so perhaps also the promoters of western values and ideas of democracy.

Actually though the Telegraph reports that the congress of arab leaders in Tunis have advocated various and quite wide ranging reforms (except about half of their number who refused to cooperate)

.Arab leaders promise to back reform and fight terrorism-(telegraph)

Quote[/b] ]A series of declarations also called for a revival of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians, chided America for trying to "tamper" with the legal basis of negotiations, denounced "crimes and immoral and inhuman behaviour" by US-led forces in Iraq and called for the United Nations Security Council to help end the country's occupation.

But the central issue was the 13-point reform document in which the leaders of the Arab world promised to promote democracy, expand popular participation in politics and public affairs, reinforce women's rights and expand civil society.

They watered it down by insisting that reform would be carried out according to each country's national and cultural requirements, religious values and its own "possibilities".

The summit had been delayed by eight weeks because countries such as Syria have been fighting a rearguard battle against the reform document

Someone wishing to pinpoint positive effects of the toppling of Saddams regime could include this with recent news of Libyas apparent softening stance as possible evidence of the effect the war has had on leaders in the Arab world (and consequently on the efforts of reformers).

Anton La Guardia writes for the somewhat pro-war Telegraph but bearing that in mind this could nevertheless be interpreted as a concession to Bush by arab leaders (I would want more evidence of that explanation before i interpreted it thus). On the flip side the war has certainly increased the strength of negative feelings amongst those conservatives who already disliked the western value system and has surely polarized many peoples positions in the arab world(though opinions may be more mixed in Iraq itself).

quicKsanD-

Quote[/b] ]"Although the results of any poll in Iraq's traumatised society should be taken with caution, the survey highlights the difficulties facing the US authorities in Baghdad as they confront Mr Sadr, who launched an insurgency against the US-led occupation last month."(-Financial Times)

I seem to recall that previous polls from war torn Iraq have recieved little credit in this forum. It would seem inconsistent then to attribute too much to this one. Certainly until we know the questions asked (plus the manner in which they were asked), who asked the questions and how many from each region were asked, were there Sadr militia men in the vicinity when the questions were asked etc.

Nonetheless it doesnt seem likely that support for the coalition will have drastically increased and im pretty sure myself that the coalition will have lost support and Sadr will likely have garnered some since last year.

Quote[/b] ]68% of Iraqis are supportive of Al-Sadr,equalling 15 million Iraqis a bit much for a bunch of thugs wouldn`t you say.Even more surprisingly it counts for more then the entire Shia population(60-65%)

15 million Iraqis also want US soldiers out of their country while 20 million see them as occupying forces.

The coalition are occupying forces in Iraq. Though what you or i or Average Ali take that to mean may differ, coalition currently occupy Iraq, im surprised not more Iraqis see it that way.

On the support of Sadr, theres support and then theres support. Given unrest and civilian blood shed in a holy city, who would support foreign invaders over young local men who can claim they are defending holy sites (Well apart from Sunni muslims with a grudge)?

Does this mean that 68% of Iraqis will be taking up arms or materially supporting Al-Sadr though? In my opinion probably not, unless things get drastically worse most will attempt to continue with their lives as normal (for Iraq) and just hope all these foreigners bugger off as soon as possible.

[miles teg 1]

The sickening thing about this wedding party bombing is this. The US says they found no evidence of musical instruments and stuff from any wedding party.

However both the wedding video AND the AP video shot right after the bombing show musical instruments (remains of them in the AP video) along with the same water truck in both videos.

The weight of the evidence seems to heavily support the notion that the US forces are lying about what happened and are trying to cover it up.

Sure some of these guys may have been involved in smuggling but to bomb them just because they're having a wedding party is sickening.

I'm sure that those who support the bombing can say that all the videos were fraudulent videos, but the US military has shown not a shred of evidence to refute either of these videos. The mentality of the US military in the region is likely that all of the people in this region are smugglers who you can't trust and who all are the enemy....and that they don't live in the city, thus don't really matter.

But like the AC-130 gunship attack on the wedding party in Afghanistan, it looks like it'll all be whitewashed and no apologies given. They're all terrorists after all the war on terror is brutal which is why we have to treat these bad people brutally like those bad people in the prisons who we had to treat brutally according to some Senators and Congressmen in Washington DC.

It's a sickening mentality and absolutely disgraceful.

I am ex-US Army and to me it is really really shameful that people who dare call themselves officers would act in such a dishonorable manner. They are a disgrace to their country, their military, and do grave injury to those brave men and woman in the US armed forces who are doing their jobs in a honorable and professional manner.

They also hurt the larger war on terror in way worse then any AL-Qaeda bombing by causing our allies and the rest of the world not to trust America.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Goeth[kyllikki]-

Quote[/b] ]Quote-(denoir @ May 24 2004,13:23)

So what can we with a good conscience believe?

Personally i don´t believe a word what they say and i think i never will.

We cant trust politicians or political briefings?!

Oh my god.

Rarely have most people in one country ever instictively trusted the proclamations made by another countries government ever. If such a trust has developed its been quite a recent development probably oweing to the ease of international communication and information transfer and thus the ease with which journalists can discredit blatant lies or half-truths.

TBA is aware of this ability so they seem to have little to gain from a transparant untruth (as the lack of WMD indicates). I think its possible they genuinely didnt know they had bombed a wedding until the media reported it but its pretty obvious in press briefings that they will have an official 'line' to follow in briefing and answering the press which can lead to absurd attempts to defend the indefensible which seem to me to do more harm than good.

Yet there is some obvious political value in what could be termed propaganda and the practice of adopting an official position. It always convinces some people so politicians will tend to employ it until it becomes more harmful than useful (by gradually calling into question the honesty of the propagandists).

[walker 0]

Hi all

The problems from the wedding party massacre are many.

US Millitary intelligence was obviously at fault.

US Millitary investigations by JAG are ineffective.

US Millitary have been involved in a cover up.

US Millitary briefings lie especialy that pillock of mouthpiece Mark Kimmitt. To blame the wedding guests for their being killed and say they are bad folks so they deserved it is sick.

I just do not believe a word that man says I wont give him a millitary rank he does not deserve it that man should be court martialed for saying such insencetive rubish.

P**ed off walker

[MLF 0]

just a question, has it been 100% certified that the video was actually from that wedding?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

tataaaa: here finally comes a NON-political refernce to the Iraq-war. Read it, it is realy interesting...and SCaaaary!

Camel spiders threaten US soldiers in iraq

And yes...(based on my sophisticated research) those spiders create the impression to attack soldiers. They easily run 30km/h and that over hours. Why would they attack a soldier? Imagining you a spider and you like shadow and you see a soldier from far away..well in that case you might consider it as the only potential source of shadow. Therefore those spiders run screaming (as they always do) towards the soldiers. Pretty pretty scary indeed!

[MLF 0]

US Millitary briefings lie especialy that pillock of mouthpiece Mark Kimmitt. To blame the wedding guests for their being killed and say they are bad folks so they deserved it is sick.

I just do not believe a word that man says I wont give him a millitary rank he does not deserve it that man should be court martialed for saying such insencetive rubish.

P**ed off walker

lol, he actually said Bad ppl have celebrations too, he was merelt stating the fact that if they were having a party it did not mean they were nice ppl. because he reads out a briefing given to him he does not deserve his rank? lol, why dont you check his background before slagging him off.

[MLF 0]

tataaaa: here finally comes a NON-political refernce to the Iraq-war. Read it, it is realy interesting...and SCaaaary!

Camel spiders threaten US soldiers in iraq

erm IIRC that was from the 1st GW and that link is awfully old.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Ahh you Mr. Know-it-all. It is not the picture that counts but the fact that the rumor about them currently creates a great scare amongst US-soldiers in IRaq.

Did you see this [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

[MLF 0]

Ahh you Mr. Know-it-all. It is not the picture that counts but the fact that the rumor about them currently creates a great scare amongst US-soldiers in IRaq.

Did you see this  [Collected on the Internet, 2004]

yes but that link has been used many ties before the GW2 and the camel spider myth of them eating the faces off of US troops has dated many years, including extensively on some awful forums in the past many years, although albert it never gets old and is always amusing

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Thank you Thank you! You see you must see things more positively. Since I am always the last to post a link to a NEW article you should at least value my willingness to contribute!

[walker 0]

Dear MLF

Any gentleman with an ounce of honour would have made damn sure he got the facts right; before making such a disgusting remark designed to impune those men women and most importantly children seen first dancing then later in the same clothes killed in the videos.

As to what Mark Kimmitt has said I saw a couple of pair of binoculars some AKs common as flies in Iraq, some passports that were suposedly from foreigners Hello Iraq/Syrian border town suprise me, syringes which you can buy in chemists, they have diabetics in Iraq too; I can list a thousand other legitimate uses for them. From this Mark Kimmitt implies they are bad people.

The man is an unadulterated pillock. He could quite easily have kept his mouth shut but what he has done; possibly at the behest of his superiors as you say MLF but never the less smacks of atempted cover up he must have known so hence I totaly disrespect the man.

As to the wedding video it aired on the BBC.

Do I think the wedding video is genuine? Yes it is; both parts right down to the same T Shirt worn by the wedding singer playing the keyboard and later dead in his coffin. Ditto the children, the instruments that same keyboard in the ruins the tents carpets the water bowser the building. The lot.

My anger is at a millitary intelligence so inept that it continuously engages the wrong targets.

My anger is at those who are so stupid they see all Iraqis and arabs as terrorists and who in so doing drive many more to be so.

My Anger is at those in JAG failing to do a proper investigation.

My anger is at one wearing a uniform saying something that despicable.

My Anger is at an administration engaged and caught red handed in a cover up.

Seriously pi**ed off walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Unfortunately we will never know how it feels when you get near such a wedding celebration. Can those flying bullets realy be perceived as an attack by an experienced soldier. Well I dont know! But I am sure the soldier in charge has indeed deep remources and a very bad conscious right now. Abu Ghraib should not make us belief that american soldiers are born devils!

What the administration did however was maybe logical but dishonourful

[Bernadotte 0]

My anger is at a millitary intelligence so inept that it continuously engages the wrong targets.

My anger is at those who are so stupid they see all Iraqis and arabs as terrorists and who in so doing drive many more to be so.

My Anger is at those in JAG failing to do a proper investigation.

My anger is at one wearing a uniform saying something that despicable.

My Anger is at an administration engaged and caught red handed in a cover up.

"It is not solved by people saying the other side are bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc.

or that they are doing something bad/nasty/evil/wrong/etc.

That just adds another six months to the time it takes for things to heal.

It is like picking a scab it never heals.

I keep out of it cause I dont like picking the scab."

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

Interesting having my own words quoted back at me but my anger is completely consistant with that statement for it is not at a people my anger is at specific people who have done wrong.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

In case anyone is interested, Andy Rooney's segment at the end of last nights 60 Minutes...

Quote[/b] ]If you were going to make a list of the great times in American history, you'd start with the day in 1492, when Columbus got here.

The Revolution when we won our independence would be on the list.

Beating Hitler.

Putting Americans on the moon.

We've had a lot of great days.

Our darkest days up until now have been things like presidential assassinations, the stock market crash in 1929, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11, of course.

The day the world learned that American soldiers had tortured Iraqi prisoners belongs high on the list of worst things that ever happened to our country. It's a black mark that will be in the history books in a hundred languages for as long as there are history books. I hate to think of it.

The image of one bad young woman with a naked man on a leash did more to damage America's reputation than all the good things we've done over the years ever helped our reputation.

What were the secrets they were trying to get from captured Iraqis? What important information did that poor devil on the leash have that he wouldn't have given to anyone in exchange for a crust of bread or a sip of water?

Where were your officers? If someone told you to do it, tell us who told you. If your officers were told – we should know who told them.

One general said our guards were "untrained." Well, untrained at what? Being human beings? Did the man who chopped off Nicholas Berg's head do it because he was untrained?

The guards who tortured prisoners are faced with a year in prison. Well, great. A year for destroying our reputation as decent people.

I don't want them in prison, anyway. We shouldn't have to feed them. Take away their right to call themselves American - that's what I’d do. You aren't one of us. Get out. We don't want you. Find yourself another country or a desert island somewhere. If the order came from someone higher up, take him with you.

In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to seem dramatic tonight, but I've lived a long while, and for the first time in my life, I have this faint, faraway fear that it could happen to us here in America as it happened to the Greek and Roman civilizations.

Too many Americans don't understand what we have here, or how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had, and I sense it slipping away.

Have a nice day.

[NavyEEL 0]

In case anyone is interested, Andy Rooney's segment at the end of last nights 60 Minutes...

Quote[/b] ]If you were going to make a list of the great times in American history, you'd start with the day in 1492, when Columbus got here.

The Revolution when we won our independence would be on the list.

Beating Hitler.

Putting Americans on the moon.

We've had a lot of great days.

Our darkest days up until now have been things like presidential assassinations, the stock market crash in 1929, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11, of course.

The day the world learned that American soldiers had tortured Iraqi prisoners belongs high on the list of worst things that ever happened to our country. It's a black mark that will be in the history books in a hundred languages for as long as there are history books. I hate to think of it.

The image of one bad young woman with a naked man on a leash did more to damage America's reputation than all the good things we've done over the years ever helped our reputation.

What were the secrets they were trying to get from captured Iraqis? What important information did that poor devil on the leash have that he wouldn't have given to anyone in exchange for a crust of bread or a sip of water?

Where were your officers? If someone told you to do it, tell us who told you. If your officers were told – we should know who told them.

One general said our guards were "untrained." Well, untrained at what? Being human beings? Did the man who chopped off Nicholas Berg's head do it because he was untrained?

The guards who tortured prisoners are faced with a year in prison. Well, great. A year for destroying our reputation as decent people.

I don't want them in prison, anyway. We shouldn't have to feed them. Take away their right to call themselves American - that's what I’d do. You aren't one of us. Get out. We don't want you. Find yourself another country or a desert island somewhere. If the order came from someone higher up, take him with you.

In the history of the world, several great civilizations that seemed immortal have deteriorated and died. I don't want to seem dramatic tonight, but I've lived a long while, and for the first time in my life, I have this faint, faraway fear that it could happen to us here in America as it happened to the Greek and Roman civilizations.

Too many Americans don't understand what we have here, or how to keep it. I worry for my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren. I want them to have what I've had, and I sense it slipping away.

Have a nice day.

Good article--I agree.

[Chill 0]

Tehran warns US over Iraq policy

Sunday 23 May 2004, 10:40 Makka Time, 7:40 GMT

Iranians protested against US soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners

Related:

Huge Iranian demos against US, UK

US seeks Iranian help in Iraq

Iran has sent a formal warning to the United States about Washington's policy in neighbouring Iraq.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, speaking at a press conference on Sunday, said the situation in Iraq is "serious and this is why we have addressed the necessary warning".

Washington has no diplomatic relations with Tehran and the warning was passed by diplomatic channels through the Swiss embassy in Tehran, which represents US interests in Iran.

Shia-dominated Iran has voiced alarm in recent days at fighting around the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala between US occupation forces and followers of Iraqi Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army.

Iran opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq, with which it fought a bloody war from 1980 to 1988 that left hundreds of thousands killed, and has called for an end to the occupation.

Violent demonstrations have been staged recently outside the British embassy in Tehran against the actions of the US and its main ally Britain in Iraq.

"We want several things for Iraq, the most important of which are the departure of the occupation forces as quickly as possible and the restitution of authority to the Iraqi people themselves," Asefi said.

The US accuses Iran of influencing Iraq's Shia population to destabilise the country, and allowing foreign fighters to cross its borders into Iraq. Tehran denies the accusations.

[Donnervogel 0]

Donnervogel-

Quote[/b] ]all these regions did have strong roots of democratic ideals and often strong democratic movements before a democracy could be established. But in the arab world the influebnce of these ideas was always very very limited. The only arab nations that were influenced by European powers and that come to my mind now are Turkey and Persia (basicly Iraq/Iran)

And the last example is not very encouraging.

Actually Arabs are only a small minority in Iran, most are indo-europeans (Aryans) and speak Farsi not arabic. Turkish people are mostly of turkic origin not Arab and speak they speak Turkish not Arabic, they have not used Arabic to write Turkish since the nineteen twenties when Ataturk (nationist leader) westernised the country (i guess this actually reinforces what you were saying about the lack of democracy in the arab world).

Quote[/b] ]Personally I expect Iraq to become a huge failure and to set back the democratic efforts in the region at least a decade

What democratic efforts? Seriously, what major effort at democratisation and liberal reform has been made recently that the Iraq war has disrupted?

To the first remark. Yes. You're right. Ethnically tose people are different. Nevertheless they are closely connected to the arab people. Maybe the expression "arab world" is not correct but I think they are compareable to their neighbouring countries in some ways. Also they, for a long time, were part of the of the same power, the Ottoman Empire (in the case of Iran it was only a part of today's Iran) and thus they share a long common history with the arab people.

To the secound remark.

What democratic efforts? Well Not many - sadly. But some arab nations, like Jordan, are transforming slowly. They try to get closer to western political ideals. This is an encourraging movement. But I fear that the horrible example of "western ideology" shown in Iraq (especially by the US - remember that the US as the first modern democracy and for a long time defender of democratic ideals has a sybolic value) will change the minds of the people in the region to be even more anti western and therefor anti democratic. The efforts of the leaders of the region will be useless when the people fall into radical propaganda and it'll increase the danger of uprising in those countries. And don't forget the boost this war gives to terroristic groups and radical fudamentalistic islam. Those movements are extremly anti democratic.