NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate starting threads about the US foreign policy for obvious reasons, but hopefully this will spark some decent conversation before degenerating into the usual America thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was a detractor of the War in Iraq from day one, I knew the WMD threat was bogus, I knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qeada. I hated the idea from the start.

Now, I am fully prepared to eat humble pie and say that a growth of freedom in the Middle East would make the war worth the sacrifice and in the end a good move, and the recent events in Lebanon make it look like that is a plausible consequence.

But it isn't all roses, and I am not ready to admit that we have performed a service. "Why", you might ask, "It is obvious that democracy is spreading in the Middle East, so how could the war have been a failure?"

The problem is, our leaders have a complete misunderstanding of what freedom actually is. I truly believe that President Bush is doing what he thinks he should to spread freedom in the Middle East, but I believe he doesn't understand the nature of freedom. He thinks that if you spread democracy, you spread freedom, and that is entirely not the case.

Democracy is only a facilitator of freedom. It does not grant freedom, it only allows a free people to guide their government. Freedom can only come through a liberation of society and a freeing of the market. We cannot do much to liberate Arabic society besides educate the people and wait. What we could be doing, however, is liberating the market, which would both spur the economy and help to liberate the society.

But what have we done with our obligation? We have spread a level of corrupt corporatism that is only accentuated by the poor distribution of wealth in the Middle East. We have created an oligarchy which closely resembles the Russian Oligarchy that was set up after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russian Oligarchy was mostly responsible for the failure of capitalism in Russia (it is just now starting to recover) and the eventual failure of Democracy (I wonder if Putin will die in office).

If we don't move immediately to level out the privatization of the Middle East, and spread it out amongst the people, we will accomplish absolutely nothing.

I just finished my second cup of coffee this morning, and am starting to ramble, but hopefully this makes enough sense.

C'mon, the other US foreign policy threads get 20 pages of responses.

That's because what you are saying is a thoughtful concern. Having those around kills threads in their tracks. The trolls and flamers don't know how to handle it.

Exactly. But, yes, you raise very good points. Democracy doesn't automatically equate freedom.

One article I read reading in the Toronto Star said that during the regime of Hussein, Iraqi women had more freedom than their local counterparts. And, there is only 30% representatioon for them in the government, which they fear will have negative consequences, such as the allowance of Sharia law...

Exactly. But, yes, you raise very good points. Democracy doesn't automatically equate freedom.

One article I read reading in the Toronto Star said that during the regime of Hussein, Iraqi women had more freedom than their local counterparts. And, there is only 30% representatioon for them in the government, which they fear will have negative consequences, such as the allowance of Sharia law...

I have also heard that, and with a great deal of the population voting based on the advice of their religious leaders, women could definitely face problems. Education could fix social problems like that in time, but even if it does, I doubt that it will heal deeper economic issues.

EDIT: Good work on your sig.

Bump.

This touches on too many topics to not catch on eventually. I have faith in this thread.

C'mon, the other US foreign policy threads get 20 pages of responses.

Hopefully, Iraq ends up being something better than our previous experiments in the Middle East - such as Egypt.

I'm not sure that Iraq will end up being a corporate oligarchy.

I would, however point out that it is too early to say that freedom of any kind is spreading, too early to say that it's the result of Bush's policies, too early to say that Iraq was a bad idea, too early to say that Bush's policies are a failure, too early to say that Bush even knows what he's accomplished.

We'll have to wait a few years for the dust to settle before we claim it's one way or the other. History seems to work that way.

That's because what you are saying is a thoughtful concern. Having those around kills threads in their tracks. The trolls and flamers don't know how to handle it.
Agreed. Call the US a bunch of Bushie, neocon bastards and you will start to see results.

Hopefully, Iraq ends up being something better than our previous experiments in the Middle East - such as Egypt.

I'm not sure that Iraq will end up being a corporate oligarchy.

I would, however point out that it is too early to say that freedom of any kind is spreading, too early to say that it's the result of Bush's policies, too early to say that Iraq was a bad idea, too early to say that Bush's policies are a failure, too early to say that Bush even knows what he's accomplished.

We'll have to wait a few years for the dust to settle before we claim it's one way or the other. History seems to work that way.

I agree that it is too early to make some assumptions, but from recent events it looks like democracy might take hold, and from our recent actions it looks like we are not overly concerned with setting up a free economic system.

Also, Bush has been more than generous to corporations in our own nation, I would surmise that Iraq would only be an extension of his domestic economic policy.

Agreed. Call the US a bunch of Bushie, neocon bastards and you will start to see results.

Maybe I should ask why all Europeans hate Americans.

Maybe I should ask why all Europeans hate Americans.
That's certainly a way to get a bunch of flame-masters....

But seriously, your concerns are very good concerns, and should be looked at. You get a donut.

http://www.icehouse.net/msjmsj/pics/donut29.gif

But seriously, your concerns are very good concerns, and should be looked at. You get a donut.

http://www.icehouse.net/msjmsj/pics/donut29.gif

Mmmmmm. Sprinkled cakey goodness.

Agreed. Call the US a bunch of Bushie, neocon bastards and you will start to see results.

Alternatively, if you say that Europe sucks, and the US could beat them any day of the week, you'll get similar results.

I find that people have odd expectations of policy results. They (and I mean people on both sides of the issue) expect instantaneous results - and they criticize the operation as though it should have already achieved every goal, and fixed every problem, 24 hours after the US forces crossed the line into Iraq.

I also believe that some people have unusual expectations about modern warfare. To make an analogy, just because a surgical procedure is "bloodless" does not mean that the patient may not die. On the other hand, just because a patient may risk death to undergo surgery, does not mean that the surgery should always be avoided. Or that the patient will be whole and unchanged afterwards.

I'm waiting for the surgical recovery period to be over before I pass any judgment on the success or failure of the operation. Pity that few others have the patience to see how it will come out - they would rather be the first among many to be wrong - one way or the other.

Alternatively, if you say that Europe sucks, and the US could beat them any day of the week, you'll get similar results.

I find that people have odd expectations of policy results. They (and I mean people on both sides of the issue) expect instantaneous results - and they criticize the operation as though it should have already achieved every goal, and fixed every problem, 24 hours after the US forces crossed the line into Iraq.

I also believe that some people have unusual expectations about modern warfare. To make an analogy, just because a surgical procedure is "bloodless" does not mean that the patient may not die. On the other hand, just because a patient may risk death to undergo surgery, does not mean that the surgery should always be avoided. Or that the patient will be whole and unchanged afterwards.

I'm waiting for the surgical recovery period to be over before I pass any judgment on the success or failure of the operation. Pity that few others have the patience to see how it will come out - they would rather be the first among many to be wrong - one way or the other.

But we should be very concerned with insuring that the surgery is in the best interest of the patient, and that the surgeon makes the right steps in the process.

EDIT: And I am not exactly confident in the surgeon's competence either.

But we should be very concerned with insuring that the surgery is in the best interest of the patient, and that the surgeon makes the right steps in the process.
Yep, you are asking questions that should be asked.

And I've had two colas and a large coffee this morning, to go with my glorious donut. I have you beat :D

Yep, you are asking questions that should be asked.

And I've had two colas and a large coffee this morning, to go with my glorious donut. I have you beat :D

You are probably dancing in your seat with that much sugar and caffeine in your system.

But we should be very concerned with insuring that the surgery is in the best interest of the patient, and that the surgeon makes the right steps in the process.

EDIT: And I am not exactly confident in the surgeon's competence either.

Well, in this case, it's not possible to sue for malpractice. Which is too bad, really.

But, like I said, we'll have to wait at least until after they come out of the recovery room.

I'm also not so sure that healing one patient is going to heal the rest of the patients in the hospital.

Agreed. Call the US a bunch of Bushie, neocon bastards and you will start to see results.

did anyone call? :D

we can't do everything at the same time, first one, then the other.

Well, in this case, it's not possible to sue for malpractice. Which is too bad, really.

But, like I said, we'll have to wait at least until after they come out of the recovery room.

I'm also not so sure that healing one patient is going to heal the rest of the patients in the hospital.

The surgeon can be fired, to continue the metaphor, and another surgeon could be brought in mid-surgery.

And if we have to perform this surgery on every ill patient, I say let them all die or heal themselves.

The surgeon can be fired, to continue the metaphor, and another surgeon could be brought in mid-surgery.

And if we have to perform this surgery on every ill patient, I say let them all die or heal themselves.

The French surgeon says he can't come over, but he'll write a check. Some of the other surgeons are willing to send small sets of tools. The UK surgeon has been trying to help - at least the patient isn't bleeding to death (although there are small hemorrages here and there).

There are a lot of people in the gallery, shouting suggestions. Due to the din, it's rather hard to hear.

That's certainly a way to get a bunch of flame-masters....
*Imagines a flame-master*
coool.

The French surgeon says he can't come over, but he'll write a check. Some of the other surgeons are willing to send small sets of tools. The UK surgeon has been trying to help - at least the patient isn't bleeding to death (although there are small hemorrages here and there).

There are a lot of people in the gallery, shouting suggestions. Due to the din, it's rather hard to hear.

I think most of the wounds are getting sutured so the bleeding is starting to relent, but I am worried about the manpower strain this is putting on the ER. I have a feeling that more urgent patients are being overlooked.

As for the gallery, I wish most of them would just shut up so that I could hear the ones who actually know what they are talking about.



Anybody else for some metaphor?

Metaphor doesn't attract trolls the same way that a traditional thread does.
Haiku seems to have the same moderating effect.

Anybody else for some metaphor?
The Irish surgeon is staying out of the surgery but says you can use his petrol station on your way to the patient :D .

Ah, so we're working the Friday night shift at the ER...

Working on two patients...

More in the hallway outside....

I was a detractor of the War in Iraq from day one, I knew the WMD threat was bogus, I knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qeada. I hated the idea from the start.

Me too. It actually surprised me - enough that I commented to some friends, I can't believe that I agree with the hippie protestor types. Now I think I've become one.

a growth of freedom in the Middle East would make the war worth the sacrifice

But is it really a growth of freedom? We need to honest with ourselves and realize that the CIA is heavily focusing its efforts on assaulting the governments of the Middle East. This "freedom" business in Lebanon no doubt has local supporters, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we don't think that the CIA is involved and encouraging it. Iran and Syria both have been publically accusing the US/CIA of fomenting local anti-government rallies in the region for over a year now.

our leaders have a complete misunderstanding of what freedom actually is. I truly believe that President Bush is doing what he thinks he should to spread freedom in the Middle East, but I believe he doesn't understand the nature of freedom. He thinks that if you spread democracy, you spread freedom, and that is entirely not the case.

I think President Bush and many of his supporters confuse "Freedom" with American culture. They are not the same. Freedom means being free - free from the domination and control of others. Iraq is hardly free. They can't go to the bathroom without the US there telling them which brand of toilet paper to use. And that isn't a comment on their competency, merely the reality of their so-called "freedom" and "democracy".

iberating the market, which would both spur the economy and help to liberate the society

Liberating the market won't liberate society. If anything it simply gives them a new slave master. (Yes, I'm being deliberately Marxist here.)

We have spread a level of corrupt corporatism that is only accentuated by the poor distribution of wealth in the Middle East.

You don't have to look to the Middle East to see the incredible level of corrupt corporatism inherent to capitalism.

Look at some of the Republican reforms: They prohibit the government from making bulk (and therefore discounted) purchases - this ensures the drug companies have tremendous profits at the expense of the tax payers. The reforms also prohibit large class-action lawsuits - which keeps those harmed by Vioxx for example, from suing as a group. They also put ceilings on the amount of punitive damage the courts can impose - ensuring that those companies that do harm people never have to pay truly punishing court settlements. These things are not accidental. They are incredibly well orchestrated and serve one purpose - to keep the populace at the mercy of the drug manufacturers.

The same type of efforts are being made for other corporate sectors in America, specifically insurance companies, drug companies, oil producers, and weapons manufacturers. We're not spreading "democracy" or "freedom" to anyone. The ideologues are trying to spread American culture, which they confuse with freedom and democracy. At least their attempts are genuine, even if they are mistaken - though as Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." The corporations (and the Bush camp) are spreading American corporatism - economic slavery to favored industries. There's nothing altruistic about that.

Metaphor doesn't attract trolls the same way that a traditional thread does.
Haiku seems to have the same moderating effect.

Ooh. I like it when threads turn to constant haikus. :)

The makers oc vioxx and bextra VOLUNTARILY took them off the market due to their findings that it has a slight risk of causing minor heart damage. They did not put it out there to deliberately kill people. Now that they said something, every person who has ever taken it is walking into the doctor's office complaining of mild chest pains. Even when there is no damage. not to mention that many people who take arthritis meds are older, theefore more prone to heart conditions that may not hv ebeen caused by the drug. Eventually, if class action lawsuits continued the way they did, the pharmeceutical companies will o bankrupt. court costs aloe for ASBESTOS litigation are expected to top $200 billion. What would classa ction lwsuits against a parmeceuticals corporation bring. It would ave been one thing if they saw what was happneing and kept int on the aket, but they VOLUNTARILY recalled it.

It would ave been one thing if they saw what was happneing and kept int on the aket, but they VOLUNTARILY recalled it.

This simply isn't true. Glaxo spokeswoman Patricia Seif quoted at Yahoo news (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050308/glaxosmithkline_outlook_4.html)

"Seif said the company had been working with the FDA to address manufacturing issues over the drugs, and in early February had sent a letter to pharmacies recalling the drugs. She said the company didn't issue a release or start a patient recall because it believed it could address the problems."

They knew, and they kept it secret from the public, hoping that they "could address the problems". That said, I don't think the Vioxx case is any super-evil conspiracy exposed. I'm just using it as an example of class action suits.

Limits on class action lawsuits themselves are not a bad thing. The shopping around aspect that Bush mentions is entirely legitimate. People shouldn't be able to poke and prod until they find out which court is willing to pay them the most.

However, if you look at the intentions behind the Bush administrations' push for this bill, you can see an overall plan to protect certain industries from liability.

The largest supporters of this bill have been the US Chamber of Commerce (protect commercial interests) and the MBNA credit card company (measures to prevent personal bankruptcy passed this week - notice that it wasn't corporate bankruptcy). MBNA is also Bush's largest contributor. (Consumer Affairs (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/class_action_bush.html))

It's not one bill here or there that shows any kind of problem. It's the agenda as a whole that exposes the real intent- and that real intent is to shelter certain American industries and maintain the public's dependance upon them. Social issues are secondary to this drive and help serve as a smokecloud for it.

And that is what we're exporting to the Middle East in the guise of freedom and democracy.

I was a detractor of the War in Iraq from day one, I knew the WMD threat was bogus, I knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qeada. I hated the idea from the start.

Now, I am fully prepared to eat humble pie and say that a growth of freedom in the Middle East would make the war worth the sacrifice and in the end a good move, and the recent events in Lebanon make it look like that is a plausible consequence.

But it isn't all roses, and I am not ready to admit that we have performed a service.


Good lord, and I thought I was alone. I started off opposing the war before most people knew there was going to be one, and then... about 8 months ago, I became neutral, and recently I've just accepted it as sortof necessary. I've mostly shut up about it, I've been nibbling (not eating) that humble pie, but I'm waiting to see what the long-term good is, as well. Mostly I'm hoping Iraq doesn't slip into religious conservatism.

What depresses and confuses me - and I think all liberals - is the fact that while Bush clearly believes what he says about freedom, he's still ridiculously socially conservative:

The Global Gag Rule came back on Day 1 of his first term, he's opposing progress on gay marriage, his environment policies are the most easily recogniseable corporations-in-sheep's-clothing I've ever seen, etc, etc, etc.

Despite what may become an admirable record on freedom abroad, I still find it impossible to support him, for his religious-zealot-backed policies at home in the US, which he forces on Africa.

Does anyone else find it ironic that his most fervent backers at home are generally religious and hate liberals, but in the Middle East, Bush makes it clear he wants more liberalism (of course, he dodges the L word, but still)?

Me too. It actually surprised me - enough that I commented to some friends, I can't believe that I agree with the hippie protestor types. Now I think I've become one.

I was a registered Republican for the 2000 elections, I voted for McCain in the Primary and refused to vote in the General. Now it assumed I am a democrat, even though I despise political parties.

But is it really a growth of freedom? We need to honest with ourselves and realize that the CIA is heavily focusing its efforts on assaulting the governments of the Middle East. This "freedom" business in Lebanon no doubt has local supporters, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we don't think that the CIA is involved and encouraging it. Iran and Syria both have been publically accusing the US/CIA of fomenting local anti-government rallies in the region for over a year now.

I was assuming that our principle goals in the Middle East would be to spread a democracy. Covert actions towards this goal would be permissable by me, if it goes towards furthering that goal. That is, as long as we withdraw our power after the new governments have become stable.

I think President Bush and many of his supporters confuse "Freedom" with American culture. They are not the same. Freedom means being free - free from the domination and control of others. Iraq is hardly free. They can't go to the bathroom without the US there telling them which brand of toilet paper to use. And that isn't a comment on their competency, merely the reality of their so-called "freedom" and "democracy".

I believe that the Bush administration confuses the freedom with the ability to vote, not American culture. I am sure he uses the American culture as his measuring stick, but I don't truly think he is interested on pushing that on other nations.

As to the nature of freedom in Iraq, you are completely correct. They are not very free right now.

Liberating the market won't liberate society. If anything it simply gives them a new slave master. (Yes, I'm being deliberately Marxist here.)

I never said that liberating the market would liberate society, I said it would help.

It is obvious that we will not impose socialism on Iraq, and your emotive talk about the free market being a new slave master is completely unfounded.

First the problem with socialism in Iraq. The Iraqi people are very used to being dependent and subservient to the government. Adding socialism to the mix would be the perfect recipe for a corrupt communism. That and it will be a cold day in hell when the US sets up anything other than a capitalistic system.

As for the free market effects on Iraq, it will loosen up society by freeing it up from government, and provide the people with an autonomy that they have never known. And the autonomy of the people is the most important thing in a society and is key for the free growth of a society.

You don't have to look to the Middle East to see the incredible level of corrupt corporatism inherent to capitalism.

*snip*

Corruption is a government problem, not a capitalistic problem. With proper government regulation, corruption would not be such a problem. A free market system is very badly hurt by corruption and corporate power. A true free market is what I want given to Iraq.

As for the rest, it was off topic, but remember that I said we should level out the privatization, meaning that the hierarchy should be lessened. We are setting up a system of capitalism that is based from the top down, when it should be from the top out.

With the way we are doing it now, it is privatized but it is not pervasive. For a free efficient market it must be both.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also you will notice that in my initial post I never used that nasty C word, "Capitalism". I stated that there must a free market, and the two are different. Socialism can operate on a free market as well.

Exactly. But, yes, you raise very good points. Democracy doesn't automatically equate freedom.

One article I read reading in the Toronto Star said that during the regime of Hussein, Iraqi women had more freedom than their local counterparts. And, there is only 30% representatioon for them in the government, which they fear will have negative consequences, such as the allowance of Sharia law...


Sharia Law....shudder

Good lord, and I thought I was alone. I started off opposing the war before most people knew there was going to be one, and then... about 8 months ago, I became neutral, and recently I've just accepted it as sortof necessary. I've mostly shut up about it, I've been nibbling that humble pie, but I'm waiting to see what the long-term good is, as well. Mostly I'm hoping Iraq doesn't slip into religious conservatism.


First off, I don't think Iraq can slip into religious conservatism. I am pretty sure it is already there.

I would say that a great deal of people who are politically active are more concerned with sides than issues, liberals and conservatives alike. They will stick to arguments from their own side rather than making an honest judgement as to where they really stand on the issue.

I still am not particularly sold on the war in Iraq, but I will admit that the recent turn of events have me optimistic to a certain extent.

As for his domestic policies, I find them deplorable, but that is not the subject of this thread.

A few of the most recent posts have been heavily laden with comments on President Bush's domestic policies. Such comments are off topic and I would rather shut this thread down, than let it become a tread about the President.

I'm just afraid that all the government cares about in Iraq is opening another market. The WTO and World Bank are just as corrupt. They don't care about the condition of the average Iraqi, but about how much money can be made. Though there's not really anything nice you can say about Husseins government, the average Iraqi may actually have things worse in the future, especially when it comes to standard of living.

I'm just afraid that all the government cares about in Iraq is opening another market. The WTO and World Bank are just as corrupt. They don't care about the condition of the average Iraqi, but about how much money can be made. Though there's not really anything nice you can say about Husseins government, the average Iraqi may actually have things worse in the future, especially when it comes to standard of living.

If we free it up I am sure that US multi-nationals will take it over shortly anyway.

If we free it up I am sure that US multi-nationals will take it over shortly anyway.


I wouldn't doubt it.

What does Iraq have to do with Lebanon? Unless we killed their former prime minister, we had nothing to do with it.

Going off of post one.

I agree, democracy does not in and of itself entail freedoms. However, it does entail one, the freedom to decide whether a country will oppress itself, or grant freedom. It puts the power of choice with the people.

Boy howdy, would ya lookit all the hogwarsh in this thread!

I got to ask, is you is or is you ain't Americans? Cause all this
business about the "wrong kind of freedom" sounds kinda like you're
one of them college kids back from hitchhiking around Europe.

There ain't no "wrong kind" of freedom. Either you free, or you isn't
free. The good people of Iraq are a lot more free now than they were
before we got in there, Abu Grape and that all aside.

"From day one, I was a detractor. . ." Well, anybody can be a Monday
morning quarterback (that's a football term, in case you liberals
didn't get it), but let me tell you a thing: Since day one, and by day
one I mean back in 92, I said "Don't lets put a band-aid on this here
thing. Get in there and get that Saddam out of there. He's no good.
Get him out, get freedom in. Period." But no, we hadda go and lissen
to Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and hand the whole mess over to the
UN. Oil for Food my fat ass.

The question is, who's free now? I swear, you liberals is like a gas
in a vaccuum. You got a natural state--that's complainin'--and you
ain't happy unless you in that natural state. By which I mean
complainin'. But it's alright. We still got enough America-loving,
God-fearing citizens to get a thing or two done in this country.

Going off of post one.

I agree, democracy does not in and of itself entail freedoms. However, it does entail one, the freedom to decide whether a country will oppress itself, or grant freedom. It puts the power of choice with the people.

People can be oppressed in other ways, even with a vote. To use the Russia example again, look at both Yeltsin and Putin. Yeltsin was a puppet of the oligarchs for most of his term, with the oligarchs using their control of the media to create a landslide victory. Under Putin the Kremlin forced out many of the oligarchs and gained control of the media themselves. Even though the Russian elections are free, there really is no chance of Putin getting ousted.

I agree that it is too early to make some assumptions, but from recent events it looks like democracy might take hold, and from our recent actions it looks like we are not overly concerned with setting up a free economic system.

Also, Bush has been more than generous to corporations in our own nation, I would surmise that Iraq would only be an extension of his domestic economic policy.

the facts thus far suggest that Iraq in no way seeks to mirror Bush's ideals... so why then would you surmise that Iraq would be an extension of his domestic ceconomic policies ? Just the very fact that the opposition party took majority power over the American back political party suggests Iraqis are far more independent then you are suggesting. I simply see no evidence to make the claim that they will be running to have corporate powers take over their country.

As for their economic system, why should we be overly concerned with this when basic security hasn't even been set up. We need not put precious time into promoting a free economic system when they already have one, and have had one since before Saddams rule, when they were one of the most prominent of the worlds economies.

As well.. dont forget about Egypt.. who has recently stated that multiparty elections will be held in the next election cycle seemingly bringing democracy there as well.

People can be oppressed in other ways, even with a vote. To use the Russia example again, look at both Yeltsin and Putin. Yeltsin was a puppet of the oligarchs for most of his term, with the oligarchs using their control of the media to create a landslide victory. Under Putin the Kremlin forced out many of the oligarchs and gained control of the media themselves. Even though the Russian elections are free, there really is no chance of Putin getting ousted.

Your claim on Putin not having a chance of being ousted is folly at best, and not reflective of factual results. Putin up until now had been largely popular because he ousted Oligarchs from political control... however, only now (after the Russian Elections) has his popularity starkly droped as he consolidated power around the presidency to have more control. The more Putin takes more power into his own hands, the greater his popularity dwindles and the greater the probability of him being ousted.

I'm just afraid that all the government cares about in Iraq is opening another market. The WTO and World Bank are just as corrupt. They don't care about the condition of the average Iraqi, but about how much money can be made. Though there's not really anything nice you can say about Husseins government, the average Iraqi may actually have things worse in the future, especially when it comes to standard of living.

when you talk about average iraqi .. do you mean one of the 80% who were apart of the supressed masses ? who were victims of the Sanctions because of their leaders actions (not just the war but the corruption of the oil for food program)... I really dont see how it is possible after undergoing brutal oppression, secrete police, genocide... how their future could be worse.

And EVEN if you submit to the idea that the international community only cares about opening another market... the market is best served by having the standard of living increase dramatically in favor of the Iraqi people, as it makes them consumers. Otherwise you simply have another China, in which the stand of living of the people remains stagnant while the economy grows... Do you think western countries like the US would still be investing so heavily in China if they didn't think at some point the standard of living of the populas would atlast begin to raise opening up a new 1 billion person market to sell to ?