ANOTHER country owes you its freedom
Discussion
I'll wait to see just how free they really are first. Call me sceptical, but all the rebuilding will be charged to the Iraqi's (oil) and paid to American companies, most of whom had contracts for said work signed well before the invasion started. Any form of elected Govt. will take time to create and Iraq will initially be an American puppet regime. By the time they are capable of running themselves, American businesses will effectively be controlling or exploiting most of their major resources.
Hope I'm wrong on this, but I doubt it.
Andy
Hope I'm wrong on this, but I doubt it.
Andy
andyf007 said: I'll wait to see just how free they really are first. Call me sceptical, but all the rebuilding will be charged to the Iraqi's (oil) and paid to American companies, most of whom had contracts for said work signed well before the invasion started. Any form of elected Govt. will take time to create and Iraq will initially be an American puppet regime. By the time they are capable of running themselves, American businesses will effectively be controlling or exploiting most of their major resources.
Hope I'm wrong on this, but I doubt it.
Andy
You're probably right, at least in the short term, BUT at least they wont be living in fear of SH
They're bound to be better off than they were before...If the world is keeping an eye on aid and human rights there, and something can be done about it now that SH is gone. A poor dictatorship getting taken over by a wealthy democracy is better than the other way around--hypothetically speaking of course, if the US and UK were conquerers, they'd at least be entitled to the same rights that we have. But, it will cost the US more to make Iraq the 51st state rather than have Iraq be self sufficient. There will be business vying for rebuilding, but with new Iraqi leadership, they can steer those earnings toward public infrastructure rather than collecting it for the elite as Saddam did. The world is watching now to make sure the coalition doesn't abuse its position. I'm glad the US didn't go in on its own, otherwise it would be harder to make sure honorable intentions are clear.
seafarer said: They're bound to be better off than they were before...If the world is keeping an eye on aid and human rights there, and something can be done about it now that SH is gone. A poor dictatorship getting taken over by a wealthy democracy is better than the other way around--hypothetically speaking of course, if the US and UK were conquerers, they'd at least be entitled to the same rights that we have. But, it will cost the US more to make Iraq the 51st state rather than have Iraq be self sufficient. There will be business vying for rebuilding, but with new Iraqi leadership, they can steer those earnings toward public infrastructure rather than collecting it for the elite as Saddam did. The world is watching now to make sure the coalition doesn't abuse its position. I'm glad the US didn't go in on its own, otherwise it would be harder to make sure honorable intentions are clear.
It is possible that the Arabic/Muslim/Persian society does not see the ultimate auspiciousness in western (concise: US American) influences in their region. The "American way of life" is (other than many Americans believe, IMO) not regarded as the highest or most desirable achievement in the eyes of the other 6 Billion people.
As the US government did a historic step with its recent war of aggression, eliding the United Nations' decisions, circumstances will change in future; and I'm very interested to watch the long term consequences.
As in Afganistan (11 civilians died there yesterday during an air strike btw), it is not over yet. Yes, it is looking good at the moment but Tikrit is Saddam's home town, populated by his own tribe, and they have a great deal more to lose than most of the rest of the army. Saddam still has not used his alleged WMD, and as he clearly does not give a shit about the Iraqi population there is little to stop him starting. There is also a great danger that Iraq will descend into civil war as the various tribes and religious groups seek revenge and power.
There are no politically honourable sides in this, most of the western world has at some stage propped up or negotiated with Saddam's regime. And all have their own motives for going to war, or trying to prevent it.
The USA appears to be emboldened by it's success, and is already looking for the next country to "liberate". I personally don't believe this is wise or justified, and this arrogant imperialism will lead to more incidents like 9/11. As the little guys are unable to do anything to counteract the sledgehammer might of the US.
IMHO
Deja vu, flame me etc
There are no politically honourable sides in this, most of the western world has at some stage propped up or negotiated with Saddam's regime. And all have their own motives for going to war, or trying to prevent it.
The USA appears to be emboldened by it's success, and is already looking for the next country to "liberate". I personally don't believe this is wise or justified, and this arrogant imperialism will lead to more incidents like 9/11. As the little guys are unable to do anything to counteract the sledgehammer might of the US.
IMHO
Deja vu, flame me etc
Bodo said:
It is possible that the Arabic/Muslim/Persian society does not see the ultimate auspiciousness in western (concise: US American) influences in their region. The "American way of life" is (other than many Americans believe, IMO) not regarded as the highest or most desirable achievement in the eyes of the other 6 Billion people.
As the US government did a historic step with its recent war of aggression, eliding the United Nations' decisions, circumstances will change in future; and I'm very interested to watch the long term consequences.
They weren't the only ones, UK and Australia, and a small group from Poland, were among those who freely went along with them. I wasn't meaning to suggest that it would be good for Arab/Muslim/Persian culture for the US to Americanize it. I just meant that at the least there wouldn't be as much in the way of human rights violations. I don't think the ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, are exclusively American. If you mean that democracy will lead to capitalism which may lead to a decline in the conservative religious culture, that is entirely up to the voting Iraqis to decide what their laws allow. Maybe they feel that separation of church and state (or, in their case separation of Mosque and state?) will lead to dilution of Iraqi culture, but I don't think that has to be so. There are plenty of Muslims, and Jews for that matter, in the US that don't seem to have trouble maintaining their culture despite the Christian, capitalist majority. I really don't believe that the US wants to "conquer" Iraq, as the other 50 states here don't want to fund it...but I was just saying that they wouldn't be treated as badly as they were before.
mechsympathy said: As in Afganistan (11 civilians died there yesterday during an air strike btw), it is not over yet. Yes, it is looking good at the moment but Tikrit is Saddam's home town, populated by his own tribe, and they have a great deal more to lose than most of the rest of the army. Saddam still has not used his alleged WMD, and as he clearly does not give a shit about the Iraqi population there is little to stop him starting. There is also a great danger that Iraq will descend into civil war as the various tribes and religious groups seek revenge and power.
There are no politically honourable sides in this, most of the western world has at some stage propped up or negotiated with Saddam's regime. And all have their own motives for going to war, or trying to prevent it.
The USA appears to be emboldened by it's success, and is already looking for the next country to "liberate". I personally don't believe this is wise or justified, and this arrogant imperialism will lead to more incidents like 9/11. As the little guys are unable to do anything to counteract the sledgehammer might of the US.
IMHO
Deja vu, flame me etc
well, hopefully they'll clean up this mess first before they start something else. If they can keep their promises and legitimately set up an Iraqi democracy and then get out (may take more than 6 months, some say), after all that trouble they might give it a rest for a while. It's supposed to cost 75 billion from the US to pay for the war plus rebuilding, I don't think they'll be in a hurry to do this again.
They will pay their own way.
I hope British firms will also be used in the rebuilding process.
I hope countries that opposed the war will not be able to have any say on the rebuilding process. That includes the back stabbing countries that sold banned items to Iraq during the embargo. What were they thinking? Business as usual in the land of the EEC.
The people of America do not care about occupation of a country, our country is large enough, life is good.
What is important to us is that other people, namely trouble makers will take our warnings as credible and not mere retoric. Maybe they will keep us out of their conflicts and leave us alone. The world is watching how this turns out. Many wanted us to lose.
Many still think about the time of weakness. Iran embassy hostages, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia. The failures were governed by the rules and whims of the democrats. The Republicans party and poilcy is now in power and have brought back credibility to our warnings.
Many thought the 1st Gulf war and Afgahnistan was a fluke. This time with even a smaller force with our staunch allies which we will not forget and have much thanks for. Now maybe the trouble makers will think twice before threating us.
If not we will just have to eliminate the threat.
We just want to be left alone.
Many say that this action will create more 9/11 situations. If we don't do anything there will be more of them anyways. They understand military might and consider appeasement as a sign of weakness.
The world is on notice. If people do this type of acts, even remotely associated, assist or harbor these people in anyway there will be a price to pay.
Calvin
>> Edited by cnh1990 on Wednesday 9th April 22:07
I hope British firms will also be used in the rebuilding process.
I hope countries that opposed the war will not be able to have any say on the rebuilding process. That includes the back stabbing countries that sold banned items to Iraq during the embargo. What were they thinking? Business as usual in the land of the EEC.
The people of America do not care about occupation of a country, our country is large enough, life is good.
What is important to us is that other people, namely trouble makers will take our warnings as credible and not mere retoric. Maybe they will keep us out of their conflicts and leave us alone. The world is watching how this turns out. Many wanted us to lose.
Many still think about the time of weakness. Iran embassy hostages, Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia. The failures were governed by the rules and whims of the democrats. The Republicans party and poilcy is now in power and have brought back credibility to our warnings.
Many thought the 1st Gulf war and Afgahnistan was a fluke. This time with even a smaller force with our staunch allies which we will not forget and have much thanks for. Now maybe the trouble makers will think twice before threating us.
If not we will just have to eliminate the threat.
We just want to be left alone.
Many say that this action will create more 9/11 situations. If we don't do anything there will be more of them anyways. They understand military might and consider appeasement as a sign of weakness.
The world is on notice. If people do this type of acts, even remotely associated, assist or harbor these people in anyway there will be a price to pay.
Calvin
>> Edited by cnh1990 on Wednesday 9th April 22:07
many good points, Calvin. So...I'm guessing you voted Republican? I'm a Republican, and have felt that some of the previous Democratic administrations were, um, not the best the Democrats had to offer, let's just say. There's a balance to standing up for yourself vs. being a bully, and showing backbone vs. trying to please everyone. I'm glad we have an administration that could make a better use of the military than in previous times such as you've mentioned. And, there's always going to be angry upstart terrorist groups, but you've got to land one hard on them to keep them in check and properly afraid.
mechsympathy said: Words fail me Calvin. Our views are clearly poles apart.
well, shite, I guess I'm very middle of the road/moderate. I can see both your points. I don't think we need to go stomping around, crushing nuts unnecessarily, but you do have to stand up to despots. At the same time, if you're going to try to "help" its only help is long as the recipient thinks it is.. so we have to be careful not to be forcing Americanism when we're trying to "help" a democracy.
>> Edited by seafarer on Wednesday 9th April 22:18
The need for a war was clearly created by the US government.
seafarer said:
They weren't the only ones, UK and Australia, and a small group from Poland, were among those who freely went along with them.
I wasn't meaning to suggest that it would be good for Arab/Muslim/Persian culture for the US to Americanize it. I just meant that at the least there wouldn't be as much in the way of human rights violations. I don't think the ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, are exclusively American. If you mean that democracy will lead to capitalism which may lead to a decline in the conservative religious culture, that is entirely up to the voting Iraqis to decide what their laws allow. Maybe they feel that separation of church and state (or, in their case separation of Mosque and state?) will lead to dilution of Iraqi culture, but I don't think that has to be so. There are plenty of Muslims, and Jews for that matter, in the US that don't seem to have trouble maintaining their culture despite the Christian, capitalist majority. I really don't believe that the US wants to "conquer" Iraq, as the other 50 states here don't want to fund it...but I was just saying that they wouldn't be treated as badly as they were before.
I was not referring to your opinion; more on the current situation: the build of a free society. Democracy or similar constitutions do only work with a properly educated society. As I assume, the current situation needs to be looked after for a longer time; and as the US government doesn't see the necessity of a UN controlled reconstruction, it is very likely that the methods will be influenced by US ideals.
seafarer said:
mechsympathy said: Words fail me Calvin. Our views are clearly poles apart.
well, shite, I guess I'm very middle of the road/moderate. I can see both your points. I don't think we need to go stomping around, crushing nuts unnecessarily, but you do have to stand up to despots. At the same time, if you're going to try to "help" its only help is long as the recipient thinks it is.. so we have to be careful not to be forcing Americanism when we're trying to "help" a democracy.
>> Edited by seafarer on Wednesday 9th April 22:18
I don't think my views differ hugely from yours. Saddam needs removing, I am not convinced that going to war was the best solution but as the we (the world) had singularly failed to do anything productive about him for more than a decade, we could at least have waited until a fresh UN mandate was sorted. That way this would not be seen by many as US adventuring with the English lapdog, but as a concerted effort. This in itself would reduce the "Great Satan attacks the poor Arabs" effect.
The problem I see is that the US under this administration is mind buggeringly selfish. They have torn up Kyoto (Not in US business interests FFS), continue to allow Israel a free rein(cos of a powerful/rich expat lobby), continue with a wholly pointless (IMO) embargo against Cuba (cos of a powerful/rich expat lobby)... (I know these are all complicated issues). The US is the most powerful country in the world, could you not show some magnanimity.
The reason given for the war Iraq was because it was a threat to the US because of WMD, not world security, not cos he's an evil little psychopath, but because he posed a potential threat to the US as a salesman of dodgy chemicals. The fact that by taking control of the post war government, as it appears the Bush administration was originally planning, a healthy oil supply could be guaranteed was icing on the cake.
The US is rich and powerful, beyond the aspirations of many poorer countries, so why could it not be a tad more sensitive and a little less arrogant.
atg said: Those are legitimate concerns, but keep in mind that Japan (and Germany) were reconstructed by the USA and one could hardly say that either Japanese or German culture was eradicated or Americanised by that intervention.
>> Edited by atg on Wednesday 9th April 22:40
ATG, Japan and Germany are different to Iraq, because Germany already had a similar society then, and Japan hadn't had equal strong ties to a religion like the middle east has - see Israel:Palestine.
A simplistic view perhaps but I can't help think that both Afghanistan and Irag were weak targets from a military perspective while North Korea has a strong military. So they kick the crap out of the two wee guys and leave the 'big' guy alone.
I teach my kids not to bully. Who's going to teach America.
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Wednesday 9th April 22:50
Coz ma gramir toss
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Wednesday 9th April 22:54
I teach my kids not to bully. Who's going to teach America.
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Wednesday 9th April 22:50
Coz ma gramir toss
>> Edited by Del Sydyway on Wednesday 9th April 22:54
True to an extent, but I think our fear of militant Islam in Iraq is significantly overstated. I think it seriously undrestimates the Iraqis to assume they can't govern themselves. Since the Gulf War the country's economy has been dashed, but prior to that, particularly through the 70s, it was fairly affluent and had a pretty good education system.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a fight over disputed land. Iraq really isn't equivalent.
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a fight over disputed land. Iraq really isn't equivalent.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff