NationStates Jolt Archive

Politically and ideaologically, that is.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=647891
An interim president was appointed, and it was a Kurd. That is why such a big deal is being made about Saddam Hussein viewing it from his prison cell. He oppressed Kurds brutally. Now they run the country, if only symbollically.
The president must now appoint a government, and have it confirmed by Iraq's fledgling parliament. It should dissolve itself in about a year, when a pernament government comes into power. Nevertheless, it is a big step for Iraqi democracy.

Yet more proof we're doing it right out there in the Middle East. I hope the troops are aware that not everyone is against what they are doing, and that some of us believe in them, and thank them for it.

It's a step, a small step, however in my opinion, democracy is a long way off, somewhere, years after the soldiers leave. As long as they're there, Iraq is just a puppet state basically, just as Afghanistan is and so many others have been over the years. The President and his government will really have no power except as figureheads and I really wonder how easily the present government will give up power when they're being held up by the States, I don't think very easily really, they might make it look like everything's okay but you know it really isn't. The government will have a hard time getting approved.

It's a step, a small step, however in my opinion, democracy is a long way off, somewhere, years after the soldiers leave. As long as they're there, Iraq is just a puppet state basically, just as Afghanistan is and so many others have been over the years. The President and his government will really have no power except as figureheads and I really wonder how easily the present government will give up power when they're being held up by the States, I don't think very easily really, they might make it look like everything's okay but you know it really isn't. The government will have a hard time getting approved.
Control, however, won't matter. The matter right now is legitimacy. The parliament was elected democratically. They are forming their government in a way that many perfectly democratic parliamentary democracies do. It's not a super democracy, like the US. And it probably will never be. It is easier for factions to negotiate iin a parliamentary democracy.

Yet more proof we're doing it right out there in the Middle East. I hope the troops are aware that not everyone is against what they are doing, and that some of us believe in them, and thank them for it.
Well, the US and UK certainly did give the foreign impetus much needed, but ultimate credit should go to Iraqi citizens. They made this all possible.

Well, the US and UK certainly did give the foreign impetus much needed, but ultimate credit should go to Iraqi citizens. They made this all possible.

Yes, entirely true, and it was remiss to omit them. I am glad their sacrifices are not proving in vain, and I hope the rest of the world comes to see them as worthwhile people (Which they apparently didn't, as the war to free them from a dictator wasn't worth fighting.).

Now, the part that I want to see is the PM election. It's been said for months that Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari will get that post, but it better happen soon.
And btw, does anyone know what powers the president will have? I know most presidents aren't like the US president, who has great power. All other presidents do is attend ribbon-cutting ceremonies and state receptions. But wiill he have any real power, other than the selection of the prime minister?

Yes, entirely true, and it was remiss to omit them. I am glad their sacrifices are not proving in vain, and I hope the rest of the world comes to see them as worthwhile people (Which they apparently didn't, as the war to free them from a dictator wasn't worth fighting.).

Yes, it was well worth fighting, however when people who were under a corrupt dictatorship become free and say life was better before or the liberators are compared to him, you have to ask if they've truly been freed.

Yes, it was well worth fighting, however when people who were under a corrupt dictatorship become free and say life was better before or the liberators are compared to him, you have to ask if they've truly been freed.

Then again, they might sing a different tune 10 years down the line.

It's much too soon to give it a fair judge.

I hope things work out for the better.

They might be singing a different tune ten years down the line if the occupation of said liberators ends and democratic government is in place. And as for hoping for the best, we all do, whether it does any good we'll see ten years down the road.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW10-06-04.jpg

Politically and ideaologically, that is.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=647891
An interim president was appointed, and it was a Kurd. That is why such a big deal is being made about Saddam Hussein viewing it from his prison cell. He oppressed Kurds brutally. Now they run the country, if only symbollically.
The president must now appoint a government, and have it confirmed by Iraq's fledgling parliament. It should dissolve itself in about a year, when a pernament government comes into power. Nevertheless, it is a big step for Iraqi democracy.
The Kurds in Iraq are a minority. The fact that the interim President was a Kurd just goes to show you how it's a puppet democracy, being run by the U.S... It would be the equivalent of invading Palestine, then having a Jew appointed, as head of state. OF COURSE, it's going to be a Kurd. Anti-Hussein and pro-American. ;)

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW10-06-04.jpg

It's sad how true that is.

Pluto has a good point that not even I noticed before, the President is a Kurd. I can't believe I didn't catch on that the moment it came out oh well. Like I said, I doubt Iraq will be any kind of democratic government with the current system which by the standard that the people teaching democracy I'm not really sure if that's not a bad thing, we already have America and Israel we don't need Iraq in the mix too.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/02/07/tomo/story.jpg

lol

Modern World so pwns the Bush apologist cheerleader blood bathers

Yes, entirely true, and it was remiss to omit them. I am glad their sacrifices are not proving in vain, and I hope the rest of the world comes to see them as worthwhile people (Which they apparently didn't, as the war to free them from a dictator wasn't worth fighting.).

Shwhat?

Oh, the Iraqis are a worthwhile people! More worthwhile than the Congolese and everything!

It's just important for all of us to weigh different factors of uncoolness:

Saddam/weapons of mass destruction/vicious minority rule = not cool.
Violation of sovereignty/imposition of government/self-righteous attitudes = not cool.

My conclusion about this all has given more weight to the latter series of uncoolnesses, as you can tell. But I must say...

It was remiss to determine that people against the war don't care about Iraqis; it was also remiss to decide that we had the solution for them--we, one of many nations that lends illegitimacy to nation-building; and it was further remiss to simply ignore the other problems with human faces in the world--granted, this isn't entirely the fault of the government (how are you supposed to drum up sympathy for massive African death when you've already got the people riled up on exciting things like tsunamis?), but militias of doom are less legitimate and more deadly than the government of Iraq.

As for the present democracy... good luck to 'em. I doubt that things will be too pretty until at least say 40 or 50 years from now--democracy is not the sort of thing that can just be forced upon a people. It takes time; I mean, come on, look at France!

Hurray France!

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/02/07/tomo/story.jpg

Vic·to·ry n. - 1. Defeat of an enemy or opponent. 2. Success in a struggle against difficulties or an obstacle. 3. The state of having triumphed.

Holy Jesus. We've already won 'the war'. There's no significant Iraqi military loyal to Saddam Hussein that is still fighting coalition soldiers. I say significant because I suppose that there could still be a few former soldiers acting as guerrillas. I say it loosely because some of the former military has been incorporated into the new military. That's a good sign that we've practically won.

What the cartoonist fails to realize is that each one of those events in itself is a victory. We have an overall objective there to leave the country able to fend for itself and the government able to present itself as legitimate. Having a series of victories in an attempt to complete such an objective is not unheard of.

We have an overall objective there to leave the country able to fend for itself and the government able to present itself as legitimate. Having a series of victories in an attempt to complete such an objective is not unheard of.
What is going to happen when the Iraqi government wants to "fend for itself" much sooner than the US wants her to?

What is going to happen when the Iraqi government wants to "fend for itself" much sooner than the US wants her to?

That would be a good thing. Then we declare victory, thumb our noses at Michael Moore, and go home to a victory parade.

http://www.comics.com/comics/pearls/archive/images/pearls2091550050405.gif

Well I was and still am totally against this stupid war... I mean honestly the US is just replacing one dictatorship with a new one... the Iraqi people should be allowed to do what they want to, not what the US thinks they should... this whole war was started because of massive destruction weapon( I hope this is the correct englisch word ^^) but where are these now? I didn't see any. No-one actually found an illegal weapon, and even if they had such weapons, why does the US think they can start a war because of that, they themselves have nuclear weapons. So they forbid other nations what they have, which I cannot understand, would be pleased if some1 could explain that to me
sorry for the bad language :D

Well I was and still am totally against this stupid war... I mean honestly the US is just replacing one dictatorship with a new one... the Iraqi people should be allowed to do what they want to, not what the US thinks they should... this whole war was started because of massive destruction weapon( I hope this is the correct englisch word ^^) but where are these now? I didn't see any. No-one actually found an illegal weapon, and even if they had such weapons, why does the US think they can start a war because of that, they themselves have nuclear weapons. So they forbid other nations what they have, which I cannot understand, would be pleased if some1 could explain that to me
sorry for the bad language :D

The current Iraqi government doesn't seem to be a dictatorship.

yeah you're right about that but the Iraqi government is still controlled by the US as far as I know... and the US was not elected from the Iraqi ;)

yeah you're right about that but the Iraqi government is still controlled by the US as far as I know... and the US was not elected from the Iraqi ;)

Technically, the US troops on the ground in Iraq cannot perform large scale operations now without approval of the Iraqi government.

They're working on a Status of Forces Agreement that should go into effect this year. At that point, Iraq will not be under US control any more than Germany.

Saddam wasn't "elected", either, unless you want to count votes from people who were told to vote for Saddam on pain of death.

Yes, entirely true, and it was remiss to omit them. I am glad their sacrifices are not proving in vain, and I hope the rest of the world comes to see them as worthwhile people (Which they apparently didn't, as the war to free them from a dictator wasn't worth fighting.).
You are talking the war to free them from wmds, right? The "free the people" spin caught on with you, but i havent forgot that this angle of justification only became important after the search for nbc weapons became more and more desperate. Otherwise i would have slight problems understanding why the unfree and starving people of North Korea arent worth freeing. And Zimbawe isnt without a uncaring and brutal dictator either. Did i mention China already? But maybe Lybia and Iran are next, you are already in the region, right?

You are talking the war to free them from wmds, right? The "free the people" spin caught on with you, but i havent forgot that this angle of justification only became important after the search for nbc weapons became more and more desperate. Otherwise i would have slight problems understanding why the unfree and starving people of North Korea arent worth freeing. And Zimbawe isnt without a uncaring and brutal dictator either. Did i mention China already? But maybe Lybia and Iran are next, you are already in the region, right?

No. We created Saddam. We created the situation in Afghanistan. Both by our meddling during the Cold War. So we went back and cleaned the place up.

The North Korean problem was created by UN Resolution 90. The UN War in North Korea is still ongoing. Not our problem, which is why we keep insisting that the UN do something about it.

European nations, with the exception of France, don't bother cleaning up their colonial messes. So we're not cleaning up Zimbabwe.

Libya has already capitulated - that was another US Cold War mess.

Iran may be next. We screwed that place good during the Cold War.

What is going to happen when the Iraqi government wants to "fend for itself" much sooner than the US wants her to?

That would be a good thing. Then we declare victory, thumb our noses at Michael Moore, and go home to a victory parade.
Yeah....but we both know that won't happen any time soon?

The US is building 14 "enduring" bases in Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm)

That plus a hijacking of the Iraqi economy through the institution of Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations) demonstrates the US's long term plan for dominating the new "democratic" Iraq.

The problem arises though that Iraqis don't want a long term US presence (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html) in "their" country:

"Polls find that at least 80 percent of Iraqis - whatever their views on the insurgency, democracy, the removal of Saddam Hussein, and other issues - want US armed forces to leave their nation. Making the bases permanent could stir up more opposition to the US occupation."

Many posters here, looked to the 60% turnout of voters as a sign that Iraqis were ready to embrace "democracy", and to a certain extent, that is true; however the reasoning for grasping this "democracy" might not exactly line up with long term US ambitions regarding Iraq and the Middle East?

Cleric Al Sistani was pushing the Shiites to the polls for two strong reasons:

Iraq's Shiite Clergy Push To Get Out The Vote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41483-2004Dec6.html)

The January elections are more than just a vote for Iraq's long-oppressed Shiite majority. For the first time in the country's modern history, Shiites stand at the brink of inheriting power by peaceful means.......

Shiite empowerment is just one facet of the clerical campaign, and it is usually couched in coded language. More common are visceral appeals to an electorate that has grown fatigued and disillusioned with the carnage of war......

At one end of the road, banners promised a new era of stability with the vote. At the other, they cast the election as the surest way to end an occupation that has grown increasingly unpopular.

"Brother Iraqis, the future of Iraq is in your hands. Elections are the ideal way to expel the occupier from Iraq," one white banner proclaimed. "Brother Iraqi, your vote in the elections is better than a bullet in battle," an adjacent sign read.

My take on all of this, is that the US will be asked to leave probably much sooner than they would want to leave (never?), and that will be an interesting development when it does happen.

I am sure that the Shiites are happy to see the departure of Saddam, and will be as equally happy to see the departure of the US.

No. We created Saddam. We created the situation in Afghanistan. Both by our meddling during the Cold War. So we went back and cleaned the place up.
The place was being cleaned up, a US invasion was not requested nor desired. IMHO the US has created an even larger mess by invading.

The North Korean problem was created by UN Resolution 90. The UN War in North Korea is still ongoing. Not our problem, which is why we keep insisting that the UN do something about it.
I can't finding anything in UN Resolution 90 (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1951/scres51.htm) that addresses your concern.


Libya has already capitulated - that was another US Cold War mess.
Much of the "capitulation" was a result of the Lockerbie incident that was resolved between the UK and Libya.

Iran may be next. We screwed that place good during the Cold War.
And now you are going to "fix" that country too? Say sometime in June????

Yes, I have no doubt the Shi'ites will be happy to see us go-but not as happy as American Soldiers will be to get out of there, with a good chance of never having to go back.
Simply put, that's the Definition of 'Victory' in the Iraq/Afghanistan mess. Never having to go back, never having to maintain a bottomless state of siege on a country because said country has a psychotic leadership and modern weapons-and happens to be the enemy.

Like WL said, Saddam was partly our fault, removing him, and that glorified street-gang that served him from power became our responsibility as soon as we sold him the first rockets, bullets, arms to fight the Iranians.
Taking him out of power, and putting together a working government afterward (and restoring water, power, etc. etc. so the people have something with which to live) became our responsibility as soon as we dropped the first bombs.

this is the fundamental difference between a 'great power' and a 'Great Power'-with 'Great Power' comes a responsibility to deal with the damage you cause in pursuit of your goals.
Most of the European Colonial powers were content to subdue the natives and take what they wanted, leaving when it became inconvenient and leaving a chaotic mess behind them.

Look at the Congo,Uganda, Angola, Ethiopia, or the Sudan, or the twenty-some years of madness in Cambodia and Laos.
Those were messes that nobody bothered to clean up and fix before they left. MOST of the Third World is like that either directly or indirectly as a result of European Policies-the conquerors came, gutted the local leadership, ruled for a while while they stripped the place bare of anything of value, then left it for the survivors' descendents to try and cope with.

(come on, you know I'm right here, dammit.)

Well... we had our little bit of that, and it was and is shameful-the only real 'restitution' is to correct the mistakes we make-we made the mistake of ignoring Afghanistan when our cold-war was finished, and they were taken advantage of, turned into a terrorist-training ground and Pakistani Client-state under a brutal and ignorant regime.

We tried to let the U.N. handle Iraq-for twelve years, common people starved under endless oppression that we put there. Removing the bastard, and his internal support structure, then putting something better in there to give them the goddam chance for something better-is our responsibility, because a lot of the suffering over those twelve years was our doing in the first place-we sold him the mustard gas he used on the kurdish villagers we incited to rebel during the first gulf-war, we enforced the blocades that he used as an excuse not to rebuild infrastructure, we looked the other way while other Nations made deals to enrich the SOB in the oil-for-food scam.

Leaving Iraq able to choose (and choose without going law-of-the-jungle) is OUR responsibility-we made the mess, we're cleaning it up as best we can, just like we did in Germany and Japan after the second world-war. Would you say that Japan has suffered unduly since that time, or that Germany should have been left broken and in ruins after Hitler's defeat?

I think maybe the Iraqi people are worthy of the same status that the Deutsch and Japanese are-they deserve at LEAST equal treatment-as human beings if nothing else.

Cadillac-Gage
Member:


(( Yes, I have no doubt the Shi'ites will be happy to see us go-but not as happy as American Soldiers will be to get out of there, with a good chance of never having to go back.
Simply put, that's the Definition of 'Victory' in the Iraq/Afghanistan mess. Never having to go back, never having to maintain a bottomless state of siege on a country because said country has a psychotic leadership and modern weapons-and happens to be the enemy.

Like WL said, Saddam was partly our fault, removing him, and that glorified street-gang that served him from power became our responsibility as soon as we sold him the first rockets, bullets, arms to fight the Iranians.
Taking him out of power, and putting together a working government afterward (and restoring water, power, etc. etc. so the people have something with which to live) became our responsibility as soon as we dropped the first bombs. ))



Well to this I would just that it would be easier to belive in this and the goodheartness of USA, if USA stopped there loyale allied dictatorship, not just allied dictatorship that stoped being loyale to the USA....

Holy Jesus. We've already won 'the war'. There's no significant Iraqi military loyal to Saddam Hussein that is still fighting coalition soldiers. I say significant because I suppose that there could still be a few former soldiers acting as guerrillas. I say it loosely because some of the former military has been incorporated into the new military. That's a good sign that we've practically won.

Would it be too far fetched of me to conceive of the Republican Guard going underground, waiting out the Coalition occupation, and then staging a military coup once Coalition troops had been completely withdrawn? After all, we never actually had full-scale combat with them, they just melted away and disappeared. They had to go somewhere, and if you go back and look at the footage of our troops rolling into Baghdad there are quite a few men of military age in the crowd cheering our arrival...you'd think they'd be in uniform and in our way.

Otherwise i would have slight problems understanding why the unfree and starving people of North Korea arent worth freeing. And Zimbawe isnt without a uncaring and brutal dictator either. Did i mention China already? But maybe Lybia and Iran are next, you are already in the region, right?
One big difference is that Saddam didn't have the ability to exterminate hundreds of thousands if not millions of israeli citizens if we moved to attack him. Kimmie has that ability concerning South Korean civilians even without the nukes. As for Zimbabwe, every major first world country excluding Canada has had bad luck interefering there. At least, I don't think Canada has. Anything concerning africa must be approached very cautiously.

Yes, I have no doubt the Shi'ites will be happy to see us go-but not as happy as American Soldiers will be to get out of there, with a good chance of never having to go back.
Simply put, that's the Definition of 'Victory' in the Iraq/Afghanistan mess. Never having to go back, never having to maintain a bottomless state of siege on a country because said country has a psychotic leadership and modern weapons-and happens to be the enemy.

Like WL said, Saddam was partly our fault, removing him, and that glorified street-gang that served him from power became our responsibility as soon as we sold him the first rockets, bullets, arms to fight the Iranians.
Taking him out of power, and putting together a working government afterward (and restoring water, power, etc. etc. so the people have something with which to live) became our responsibility as soon as we dropped the first bombs.

this is the fundamental difference between a 'great power' and a 'Great Power'-with 'Great Power' comes a responsibility to deal with the damage you cause in pursuit of your goals.
Most of the European Colonial powers were content to subdue the natives and take what they wanted, leaving when it became inconvenient and leaving a chaotic mess behind them.

Look at the Congo,Uganda, Angola, Ethiopia, or the Sudan, or the twenty-some years of madness in Cambodia and Laos.
Those were messes that nobody bothered to clean up and fix before they left. MOST of the Third World is like that either directly or indirectly as a result of European Policies-the conquerors came, gutted the local leadership, ruled for a while while they stripped the place bare of anything of value, then left it for the survivors' descendents to try and cope with.

(come on, you know I'm right here, dammit.)

Well... we had our little bit of that, and it was and is shameful-the only real 'restitution' is to correct the mistakes we make-we made the mistake of ignoring Afghanistan when our cold-war was finished, and they were taken advantage of, turned into a terrorist-training ground and Pakistani Client-state under a brutal and ignorant regime.

We tried to let the U.N. handle Iraq-for twelve years, common people starved under endless oppression that we put there. Removing the bastard, and his internal support structure, then putting something better in there to give them the goddam chance for something better-is our responsibility, because a lot of the suffering over those twelve years was our doing in the first place-we sold him the mustard gas he used on the kurdish villagers we incited to rebel during the first gulf-war, we enforced the blocades that he used as an excuse not to rebuild infrastructure, we looked the other way while other Nations made deals to enrich the SOB in the oil-for-food scam.

Leaving Iraq able to choose (and choose without going law-of-the-jungle) is OUR responsibility-we made the mess, we're cleaning it up as best we can, just like we did in Germany and Japan after the second world-war. Would you say that Japan has suffered unduly since that time, or that Germany should have been left broken and in ruins after Hitler's defeat?

I think maybe the Iraqi people are worthy of the same status that the Deutsch and Japanese are-they deserve at LEAST equal treatment-as human beings if nothing else.


Both sides are on crack imo. You go from "we are removing WMD" to we are cleaning up the mess we made earlier during the cold war. WTF? thats bullshit, why didnt the USA clean up the philippians, nam or other former USA wars or puppet states when they had the chance? Your making up completly BS excuses. Just admit you fucked up and clean up your current mess.

And the liberal side is nuts as well. So what if it was mistake going into Iraq, do you think the guys trying to blow up yanks are happy sunshine filled good guys? They are terrorists, they should be blown up. The USA is doing a good job blowing up these crazies. i just hope they are making a net gain in the population of terrorists, the amount they are killing IMO is less than the amount of NEW terrorists they are making by being in IRAQ...

Well, they appoint Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari for PM. The new government is well on its way.

The Kurds in Iraq are a minority. The fact that the interim President was a Kurd just goes to show you how it's a puppet democracy, being run by the U.S... It would be the equivalent of invading Palestine, then having a Jew appointed, as head of state. OF COURSE, it's going to be a Kurd. Anti-Hussein and pro-American. ;)
Er... no.

The three major posts, speaker, PM, and president, were filled by three men, one from each of Iraq's major groups: Shia, Sunni and Kurd.

The Kurds in Iraq are a minority. The fact that the interim President was a Kurd just goes to show you how it's a puppet democracy, being run by the U.S... It would be the equivalent of invading Palestine, then having a Jew appointed, as head of state. OF COURSE, it's going to be a Kurd. Anti-Hussein and pro-American. ;)
The last government was negotiated between the US and the UN, giving both far more power that time. A Sunni was appointed as President, and a Shi'ite as PM. Neither group is exactly pro-American.
The Iraqis came up with this mostly by themselves. They probably did want each ethnic group represented, and chose accordingly. Remember, however, thatthe president's only real power is to hire and fire the PM, and that needs approval by parliament. Other than that, he only attends ribbon cutting ceremonies and the like. In a few months, most people will forget him. I don't even know his name right now.

Both sides are on crack imo. You go from "we are removing WMD" to we are cleaning up the mess we made earlier during the cold war. WTF? thats bullshit, why didnt the USA clean up the philippians, nam or other former USA wars or puppet states when they had the chance? Your making up completly BS excuses. Just admit you fucked up and clean up your current mess.

And the liberal side is nuts as well. So what if it was mistake going into Iraq, do you think the guys trying to blow up yanks are happy sunshine filled good guys? They are terrorists, they should be blown up. The USA is doing a good job blowing up these crazies. i just hope they are making a net gain in the population of terrorists, the amount they are killing IMO is less than the amount of NEW terrorists they are making by being in IRAQ...

Well... shows what you know-I've been using the same argument for a long time before this second round of the Gulf War even kicked off. WMD wasn't even an issue-leaving a murdering, torturing asshole in power to soothe the U.N. on the other hand...

No. We created Saddam. We created the situation in Afghanistan. Both by our meddling during the Cold War. So we went back and cleaned the place up.

What about Cambodia, where you lot helped Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge into power because they promised to be mean to North Vietnam? Are you going to go back there and fix the mess they created? Such as educating a few people (educated people having been executed)?

After that, would you please sort out Indonesia (oh wait! THEY didn't need you to get Suharto out!).

And I'm sure the bits of the Carribean that don't involve Cuba are up soon?

And in the case of Iraq, why the hell didn't you do it during your first war when you had a clear road to Bagdad?

European nations, with the exception of France, don't bother cleaning up their colonial messes. So we're not cleaning up Zimbabwe.

Because freedom-loving people everywhere only clean up their own mess when they do the heroism bit? If you're so into 'freedom for all', why should you care who caused the problem in the first place?

Iran may be next. We screwed that place good during the Cold War.

Say, was it the US who sold Saddam his original WMD, and was it them who told him where the Irani Army was during the Iraq-Iran War, so that they could use chemical weaponry? No wonder they're screwed good!

The North Korean problem was created by UN Resolution 90. The UN War in North Korea is still ongoing. Not our problem, which is why we keep insisting that the UN do something about it.

Actually it is our problem. We never signed a peace treaty with them. The Korean War never ended.

What about Cambodia, where you lot helped Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge into power because they promised to be mean to North Vietnam? Are you going to go back there and fix the mess they created? Such as educating a few people (educated people having been executed)?

Um... Khmer Rouge... Nope, we didn't make that one, ask the Soviets or the Chinese. Pol Pot's bunch were hardcore Maoists, we've NEVER liked those. The Cambodeans themselves got rid of those.
We're sending aid, peace-corps people (that'd be your Teachers and stuff, mind), and money. That particular war's over.


After that, would you please sort out Indonesia (oh wait! THEY didn't need you to get Suharto out!).

And I'm sure the bits of the Carribean that don't involve Cuba are up soon?



Indonesia fixed itself.

Most of the Caribbean nations we didn't create-and the American owned bit seems to be doing just fine thanks. Talk to the French and the Spanish.

And in the case of Iraq, why the hell didn't you do it during your first war when you had a clear road to Bagdad?

Because, son, we had an IDIOT in the White House-George Senior thought the United Nations was actually going to do something.
(also, because unlike his son, he actually cared about 'world opinion'. The cartoons from the early '80s showing GHWB carrying a purse were dead on. No spine...)


...Because freedom-loving people everywhere only clean up their own mess when they do the heroism bit? If you're so into 'freedom for all', why should you care who caused the problem in the first place?

We only clean it up if we made the mess.

We didn't screw it up. You're thinking "Ideals" the argument is "Responsibility and Interests". Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) is a British mess. We had ZERO to do with it in the overall scheme of things, we didn't even provide foreign aid to the regime that's screwing things up down there at the moment. Sudan... sudan might become interesting to us-when hell freezes over. Again, European created problem, if they won't deal with it, it's not our issue-no matter how repugnant it gets. You can't fix everything, you have to try and fix what you broke.


Say, was it the US who sold Saddam his original WMD, and was it them who told him where the Irani Army was during the Iraq-Iran War, so that they could use chemical weaponry? No wonder they're screwed good!

Essentially correct, which is why we're fixing it now-see, we could actually go after the same guy we sponsored (kinda like Pineapple face? You know who Pineapple Face is, right??? Noriega, you know, the dude from Panama? had smurfs on his jeeps? Thought his red underwear would save him?), because his own folks couldn't. American intervention really only works if the bastard you're pulling down was an American Client, (as was demonstrated in Somalia...), and hasn't already got his ass pulled down by his own people. (why interfere in Indonesia now? They don't need it, it's too late.
Venezuela, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, and Argentina are all attending their own affairs just fine without American help-you can ask them! They don't need us, and that's just fine with me.

Africa... the only one we might have a responsibility to, is Liberia. We did that one. Of course, even under the heaviest conditions, Liberia has absolutely zip for resources, strategic position, or weapons to threaten the neighbours with. Eventually, maybe, it will come around on its own-otherwise, it's just another hole like Haiti-you can't fix what won't be fixed, and we didn't give them those civil wars or sponsor those dictators. They did all by their dam-selfs.

[Serious]We did, on the other hand, arm Saddam Hussein, and we did leave that prick in power when we should've toppled him. We also did ignore the worst bits of the Taliban and sent 'em money when we should have been arming the hell out of their enemies for free, and providing support. We didn't do that, so we ended up having to go in and do it. I understand they had elections, and Women voted in those elections. Maybe with a bit of prodding and assistance, that basket-case region can come into the 20th Century, instead of lingering eternally in the 7th-if they do, it wont' be because of us, but them-we just got the damn vampires off of them. What comes next is their problem.

The idea that we should have gone into Afghanistan and Iraq because we caused whatever messes developed is simply ludicrous.

Have we invaded Liberia at any point? I mean, we did sort of create it, and it has sort of had problems with brutal dictators which actually helped destablize the region, something that Saddam Hussein did not do after the Iran-Iraq War.

And what's with comparing Afghanistan to Iraq? It hasn't happened extensively in this thread, but it's enough for me to talk about. Afghanistan was warranted and necessary while Iraq was not. Why?

1) Afghanistan was the most significant base for terrorist operations that we knew of.
2) The Afghan government was complicit in the actions of these terrorists and did not hand them over.
3) Afghanistan's state-of-being at the time and its unwillingness to change it constituted a significant threat to a) the region and b) all nations with considerable economic and/or political value, including the United States of America.
4) Afghanistan's government was relatively new and unestablished; it removed more stability than it created and was based on an idea, not a person.
5) The United States of America had support for this war both domestically and internationally, and it was widely acknowledged that any problems caused by an invasion would pale in comparison to those of nearly all conceivable futures where the Afghan government was allowed to proceed.

For Iraq, on the other hand:

1) Iraq was the most significant base for terrorist operations.
2) Iraq did not have a government that was tied to the actions of terrorists in any substantial amount.
3) Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate did not threaten the security of the United States, nor did it threaten the security of the region, as perceived by its neighbors (other than Israel).
4) Iraq's government had been in power for a long time and had taken root. It was, in essence, a stablizing factor.
5) The United States did not have overwhelming support for this war either domestically or internationally.
6) By carrying out the invasion, the United States lost credibility in the eyes of many foreign nations and has further solidified its image as an imperial actor.
7) The United States did not have an effective plan to deal with the aftermath of life with Saddam, leading to considerable uncertainty; regardless of how one perceives the situation now, to call Iraq's future in any measure certain is to be a fool.

Iraq just was not a good idea. Bad, bad idea says I.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world screams in agony. Why are they worth less than the Iraqis? Or is war there somehow less justified?

p.s. i luv behistun

Iraq's unwillingness to cooperate did not ...threaten the security of the region, as perceived by its neighbors (other than Israel).
4) Iraq's government had been in power for a long time and had taken root. It was, in essence, a stablizing factor.
The continuing tension between Iraq and Iran was a VERY destabilizing factor in the region. Iran was building nukes to protect itself against Iraq, and Iraq was trying desparately to convince the world that it had a nuclear program and WMD to deter Iran. Thats part of why we screwed up so badly. I imagine that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would also consider Saddam's Iraq to be very threatening and destabilizing.

Meanwhile, much of the rest of the world screams in agony. Why are they worth less than the Iraqis? Or is war there somehow less justified?

I WISH that the world would act on other dictatorships. The UN won't do it, and everyone screams at the US when we do something.

You are talking the war to free them from wmds, right? The "free the people" spin caught on with you, but i havent forgot that this angle of justification only became important after the search for nbc weapons became more and more desperate. Otherwise i would have slight problems understanding why the unfree and starving people of North Korea arent worth freeing. And Zimbawe isnt without a uncaring and brutal dictator either. Did i mention China already? But maybe Lybia and Iran are next, you are already in the region, right?

No, I'm talking about freeing them from the happy lollipop sun-drenched freedom Saddam brought them. :rolleyes: I've supported taking Saddam out since I was old enough to understand what even happened in the Gulf War; and yeah, there were no WMDs. Big effing deal. A brutal dictator is in prison and Iraq is making the slow, but sure, move towards democracy.

Anyway, I've addressed the points about other nations in a thread I started entitled 'I'm a little confused...', so track that down for more. In short though; if everyone whining about the war wants to manufacture weapons and equipment, and go off and fight in Zimbabwe/N. Korea/etc.etc., then they're welcome to. Until they do that, or come up with some other means of providing infinite manpower and resources, then we'll do it one at a time, kplzthx.

WTF China? China's coming along in leaps and bounds. It's more westernized and capitalist every day. Democracy will come without the need for outside intervention.


My take on all of this, is that the US will be asked to leave probably much sooner than they would want to leave (never?), and that will be an interesting development when it does happen.

What the fuck are you on?! Could you be any more fixated on this idea of '14 Enduring bases' without being a physical part of them?! (As in part of the structure itself, buried to the waist in concrete or something.)

Jesus H. Christ, do you think the US wants to be there? The soldiers don't. The administration don't. Nobody wants to fight a war, but sometimes you have to fight a war. The US wants out ASAP. If the Iraqis democratically elect someone who wants the US out, the only chance of US intervention in the political proceedings would be to support that person. (Of course, the fact that they would advise the Iraqis to ensure they could maintain the security and integrity of their nation would immediately mean to you they want to stay there FOREVER, for no apparent reason, other than delusional beliefs that the US has the desire to occupy a dangerous place with frag all short term profit or even gratitude.).

Would it be too far fetched of me to conceive of the Republican Guard going underground, waiting out the Coalition occupation, and then staging a military coup once Coalition troops had been completely withdrawn? After all, we never actually had full-scale combat with them, they just melted away and disappeared. They had to go somewhere, and if you go back and look at the footage of our troops rolling into Baghdad there are quite a few men of military age in the crowd cheering our arrival...you'd think they'd be in uniform and in our way.

I don't think it's impossible that elements of it would try to stage a coup within a short time of us completely withdrawing. The fact that some of their leadership at least, presumably with some of the lower ranking soldiers, have joined the new military tells me that there isn't a whole lot left of the old Iraqi military willing to carry out that coup. This wouldn't be an issue if the military hadn't been disbanded, but that's been gone over more then enough times.

Of course this all depends on a complete withdrawl of coalition forces. I think as long as there are still elements of troops there that they'd fight any attempts at rebellion and they'd win. If Kosovo tells us anything it's that we more then likely will not see a complete withdrawl for some time. A relatively hasty withdrawl isn't out of the question, but I'll believe it when I see it.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW10-06-04.jpg

I'm surprised the classic Bush quote from 2003 isn't in there : ""Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers."

What the fuck are you on?! Could you be any more fixated on this idea of '14 Enduring bases' without being a physical part of them?! (As in part of the structure itself, buried to the waist in concrete or something.)

Jesus H. Christ, do you think the US wants to be there? The soldiers don't. The administration don't. Nobody wants to fight a war, but sometimes you have to fight a war. The US wants out ASAP. If the Iraqis democratically elect someone who wants the US out, the only chance of US intervention in the political proceedings would be to support that person. (Of course, the fact that they would advise the Iraqis to ensure they could maintain the security and integrity of their nation would immediately mean to you they want to stay there FOREVER, for no apparent reason, other than delusional beliefs that the US has the desire to occupy a dangerous place with frag all short term profit or even gratitude.).
A tad agitated are you? :eek:

You may call it a “fixation” with these “enduring” bases and I call it reality. You on the other hand are living in denial, if you honestly believe that the US wants to leave Iraq anytime soon.

There are 4 main reasons the US would want to remain in Iraq:

1. A strategic location to advance further imperialistic endeavours (Iran next?), and block any possible communist expansion.

2. Assist in the defence of Israel.

3. OIL!! Oil is the lifeblood of US business and by occupying Iraq, the US will be guaranteed an uninterrupted supply of oil, until there is no more oil, or at least as long as it is necessary to drive the US economic engine.

4. With Bremer’s Orders, many high profile US companies, stand to make a shit load of money. I am sure that Bush’s cronies will be pleased.

Um... Khmer Rouge... Nope, we didn't make that one, ask the Soviets or the Chinese. Pol Pot's bunch were hardcore Maoists, we've NEVER liked those. The Cambodeans themselves got rid of those.
We're sending aid, peace-corps people (that'd be your Teachers and stuff, mind), and money. That particular war's over.
You might want to brush up on your history. I know it was a long time ago but the US has made some unholy alliances to say the least:

Pol Pot And Kissinger (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hermansept97.htm)

More: (http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/Pol_Pot)

Pol Pot, an enemy of the Soviet Union, also gained support from Thailand and the US. In particular, the US and the PRC vetoed the allocation of Cambodia's United Nations General Assembly seat to a representative of Heng Samrin's government. The US directly and indirectly supported Pol Pot, including for example funneling aid raised for Cambodian relief to the Khmer Rouge.

Supporting Pol Pot (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Support_PolPot_RS.html)

THE LONG SECRET ALLIANCE (http://www.users.bigpond.com/nlevine/khmer_alliance.htm)

Indonesia fixed itself.
Such a simple statement to such a complex nightmare?

Enjoy this one from the House of Representatives (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r105:H13MY8-1029:):

"Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the time is now to end U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. I will be sending a letter to the President tomorrow with a number of signatures from my colleagues to urge him to help us do that.

History has taught us that it is not in the best interest of this country or for the people of affected countries that the United States back corrupt, authoritarian regimes whose leaders are opposed by the vast majority of their people.

It was wrong for us to have supported the Mobuto government in Zaire, the Saddam Hussein government in Iraq, the Noriega government in Panama, and many other dictatorships that we have backed over the years. It is wrong for us to support the Suharto government today.

As a result of our support for these corrupt and detested governments, our credibility in the world community suffers and our commitment to freedom and human rights is rightfully challenged."

I think he is right too!!

Thank you Canuck.

Another source for the Indonesian and Cambodian parts: The New Rulers Of The World - John Pilger

(Yes, it's a book not a site)

One big difference is that Saddam didn't have the ability to exterminate hundreds of thousands if not millions of israeli citizens if we moved to attack him.
Bullshit. Either the intel knew beforehand that there were no wmds, in which case the whole cause for the war breaks down, or they didnt, in which case the war started nonetheless, accepting that Israel might be attacked by nbc weapons. That Saddam illegally owned missiles with enough range to hit Israel was a known fact. Using hindsight isnt making a strong point.

Actually it is our problem. We never signed a peace treaty with them. The Korean War never ended.

It's not a US problem. It's a UN problem. See Resolution 90. The UN is at war with North Korea.

It's not a US problem. It's a UN problem. See Resolution 90. The UN is at war with North Korea.


Quite correct.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/072/09/IMG/NR007209.pdf?OpenElement

http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1951/scres51.htm

Well, they appoint Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari for PM. The new government is well on its way.
Well on its way to what? A nation that will lean more towards theocracy than the previous regime, and a nation that still despises her occupiers?

Washington's Waning Influence in Iraq
Shiite Demands Outweigh U.S. Preference for Prime Minister (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43673-2005Feb22.html)

Jafari is the leader of the Dawa Party, "a conservative religious Shiite group that is one of the country's largest political parties," reports Voice of America He gets good press in Iran where he spent 10 years in exile. The conservative Tehran Times recently ran a favorable Agence France Presse profile describing Jafari as a "Shiite modernist" who was "among the first to organize demonstrations opposing the presence of U.S.-led troops on Iraqi soil."

From the same article:

In what the Post calls a "remarkable turnaround," Chalabi allied himself with Iraq's religious Shiites and resurrected himself as a nationalist. He embraced radical anti-American cleric Moqtada Sadr as part of his bid to become prime minister

It gets worse/better, depending upon your outlook on the emerging “democracy” in Iraq:

Iraq's next prime minister will face conflicts with Washington on two key points, says Dilip Hiro, an Indian-British writer, in the newsweekly Outlookindia At stake are the nature of the Iraqi constitution that the new assembly will write and the presence of U.S. troops in the country.

Hiro notes that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and Hussein Shahristani, a leader of the UIA, have endorsed calls to make Islam "the sole source of legislation in the permanent constitution."

"While Shiites overwhelmingly favor specifying the Sharia as the sole source of legislation, the Kurdish leaders are not so keen. And the Americans are decidedly against it," says Hiro. "But such a provision in the constitution could be an effective way to conciliate the Sunni militants who want 'the flag of Islam to fly in Iraq.'"

I don’t think that this is what the US had in mind when trying to install a pro US “democracy” in Iraq? By the time the dust settles, Iraq may end up being more anti US than the regime under Saddam? How ironic that would be.

Again, from the same article:

Hiro also notes that the UIA's 22-point platform includes a demand for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq."
President Bush is opposed.

Now why would Bush be opposed to a “democratic” government exerting “their” own determination, and exercising “their” sovereignty? And what does Bush say about all this “self determination”?

"We will not set an artificial time table for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out," Bush said in his State of the Union speech on February 2. "We are in Iraq to achieve a result: a country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself."

That comment surely looks like Bush is hedging on his previous statement regarding Iraq? In other words, the US will leave Iraq when the US decides, and not when the Iraqi government decides. So much for “freedom”?

All of this, creates the following dilemma:

Hiro says "the new government seems set on a collision course with the American occupiers regarding the presence of foreign troops in Iraq."
Jafari has downplayed the conflict, telling AFP that U.S. troops are necessary for the time being. But the goal remains.

"Improving security -- so Iraq can ask foreign troops to leave -- and forming a government that can satisfy the aspirations of the Sunni minority, will be two key tasks for the next government," he said, according to AFP.

If the last two years are any guide, Washington's wishes may not prevail over Shiite demands.

Yes, it does appear that the “new, improved” government is moving forward; however, without the ultimate blessing of the Bush administration.

Politically and ideaologically, that is.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=647891
An interim president was appointed, and it was a Kurd. That is why such a big deal is being made about Saddam Hussein viewing it from his prison cell. He oppressed Kurds brutally. Now they run the country, if only symbollically.
The president must now appoint a government, and have it confirmed by Iraq's fledgling parliament. It should dissolve itself in about a year, when a pernament government comes into power. Nevertheless, it is a big step for Iraqi democracy.

The only reason they are offering a conciliatory position to a Kurd is that it is widely expected that the President will have no real powers when the Constitution is drafted and that his role will be largely ceremonial and diplomatic. It's simply designed to 'stop those annoying Kurds who are asking for an independent State'. Ever noticed the difference between the 'Good' Kurds in Iraq and the 'Bad' ones in Turkey?

A tad agitated are you? :eek:

You may call it a “fixation” with these “enduring” bases and I call it reality. You on the other hand are living in denial, if you honestly believe that the US wants to leave Iraq anytime soon.

There are 4 main reasons the US would want to remain in Iraq:

1. A strategic location to advance further imperialistic endeavours (Iran next?), and block any possible communist expansion.

2. Assist in the defence of Israel.

3. OIL!! Oil is the lifeblood of US business and by occupying Iraq, the US will be guaranteed an uninterrupted supply of oil, until there is no more oil, or at least as long as it is necessary to drive the US economic engine.

4. With Bremer’s Orders, many high profile US companies, stand to make a shit load of money. I am sure that Bush’s cronies will be pleased.

Yes, I'm a tad aggravated. Mainly because you're only looking at one set of things, you ignore the responses posted to your claims, and you continue in hard-headed unabating hatred of any action America takes.

1) Yes, hopefully. Though even more hopefully we won't need to, if it comes to it, I'd hope we do. And yes, we need to stop the spread of 'Communism' (As many people seem to think Communism =/= Communism. :confused: ) - it's a brutal, corrupt, and philosophically indefensable system.

2) Doesn't seem necessary, given that the tiny, occupied state of Israel has resisted Muslim attacks for some time now. Still, I have no objections.

3) Uhuh... again with the oil. As though it were economically viable (Been disproven countless times.), or as though there aren't plenty of other sources we can get it from before we have to invade Iraq. (And why're we not busting up the Sudan, if it's about oil?)

4) Goddamnit. Here we go AGAIN. This is what aggravates people, CH. Your insistence on things like Bremer's Orders, when the Iraqi government can do whatever the hell it likes with them.

1) Yes, hopefully. Though even more hopefully we won't need to, if it comes to it, I'd hope we do. And yes, we need to stop the spread of 'Communism' (As many people seem to think Communism =/= Communism. :confused: ) - it's a brutal, corrupt, and philosophically indefensable system.

As is Capitalism.

2) Doesn't seem necessary, given that the tiny, occupied state of Israel has resisted Muslim attacks for some time now. Still, I have no objections.

'Resisted'? It has done nothing to address the real concerns in the Arabic World concerning its occupation of Palestine. In fact, its gone pretty far in purposefully NOT addressing them.

3) Uhuh... again with the oil. As though it were economically viable (Been disproven countless times.), or as though there aren't plenty of other sources we can get it from before we have to invade Iraq. (And why're we not busting up the Sudan, if it's about oil?)

For at least 18 months now, Western governments have quietly stood by as the non-Arabic-speaking black farmers of the Darfur region in western Sudan have borne the brunt of a vicious ethnic-cleansing campaign carried out by state-sponsored bandits known as the janjaweed.

Refugees report that attacks on farming villages are often preceded by raids by Sudanese air force fighter-bombers and attack helicopters. The janjaweed, recruited from Arabic-speaking pastoralist tribes, then routinely murder any male villagers they can get their hands on, systematically rape or kidnap the women, and plunder and destroy the villages and crops. The attacks and their consequences have resulted in the deaths of up to 50,000 people and the displacement of 1.5 million; aid agencies warn that hundreds of thousands may die from disease or starvation in the coming months.

Why then have the governments of the United States and the European Union (EU) only now begun to express concern over the fate of the people of western Sudan and demand that the Islamist military regime in Khartoum bring the janjaweed under control? The answer - as it most often is when rich countries threaten to intervene in the Middle East and Africa - is access to invest in and extract profits from Sudan's burgeoning oil export industry. Pressure on Khartoum

Beginning in earnest in July, Washington, backed by the EU, began to ratchet up the pressure on Khartoum to rein in the janjaweed. On July 1, US Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Khartoum, where he sternly warned Sudan's government: "Unless we see more moves soon ... it may be necessary for the international community to begin considering other actions, to include Security Council action."

Three days later, with Powell's threats still ringing in their ears, Sudan's rulers issued a joint communique with UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in which they promised to "immediately start disarming the janjaweed and other armed outlaw groups", "allow the deployment of human rights monitors" and "ensure that all individuals and groups accused of human rights violations are brought to justice without delay".

The Sudanese government committed itself to "ensure that no militia are present in areas surrounding internally displaced persons camps" and pledged to "deploy a strong, credible and respected police force in all areas where there are displaced people, as well as areas susceptible to attacks". It was also agreed that an African Union military force of 300 troops would be allowed into Darfur to protect AU officials there to monitor a cease-fire negotiated in April between Khartoum and the main rebel groups, the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

In mid-July, Powell circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution that threatened Khartoum with unspecified "sanctions" unless it implemented the July 3 UN-Sudan communique.

Despite the fact that the draft UN resolution did not authorise the use of military force and there were no public plans for a UN intervention force in Darfur, the British and Australian governments added to Washington's pressure on Khartoum by letting it be known that they were prepared to send troops to the region if called upon. Britain's top commander, General Mike Jackson, said on July 26 that he could send 5000 troops to Sudan if needed, while on July 25 Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, claiming to have received a "request from the United Nations", declared that "there's a good chance that [Australia] will send some troops to Sudan".

On July 22, the US Congress unanimously called on President George Bush to consider "multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should the United Nations Security Council fail to act".

Agreement on a Security Council resolution remained stalled until late on July 29 when Washington finally dropped specific mention of the imposition of "sanctions" from the fourth draft. Eight of the UN Security Council's 15 members - including veto-wielding China and Russia - had opposed the specific threat of sanctions.

In its final form, the resolution warned that unless Khartoum made progress in implementing the July 3 communique within 30 days of the resolution's adoption, the Security Council would "consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article 41 [of the UN Charter]". Article 41 excludes military action but allows economic and diplomatic sanctions. The resolution was passed on July 31, by a margin of 13-0, with China and Pakistan abstaining. Oil

Some left-wing commentators have interpreted the motive behind Washington's newfound concern for Darfur - as well as the British and Australian governments' volunteering of troops for a phantom UN intervention force - as an effort by Washington to justify an Iraq-style invasion of Sudan to achieve "regime change" and seize control of its potentially massive oil reserves.

While US and European governments' goal is renewed access by their countries oil corporations to Sudan's oil wealth, Washington's latest threats against Sudan are part of a "carrot and stick" approach that it has pursued with Khartoum since the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that Sudan is desperate to "normalise" relations with the US, Washington is attempting to lure Khartoum back into the neocolonial fold using the "carrot" of promises to lift US economic sanctions imposed in 1997 and the "stick" of the threat of further sanctions. Such an approach was successful with neighbouring Libya.

Washington too is eager to lift its economic sanctions. Since 1997, US oil companies have been excluded from profiting from the massive expansion of Sudan's oil industry since 1999, which has been dominated by Chinese, Malaysian, Indian, Canadian and some European companies. Fighting in the 21-year-long civil war in Sudan's oil-rich south, as well as pressure from human rights activists, has forced Canadian and most European firms to sell off or suspend their operations in southern Sudan over the last two years.

Upon coming to office in 2001, one of the Bush administration's earliest foreign policy objectives was to secure a peace agreement between the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and Khartoum, allowing Washington to lift sanctions. Bush appointed former US senator John Danforth, now Washington's UN ambassador, as his "special envoy for peace in Sudan".

In July 2002, Danforth, who led an international "Trioka" made up of US, British and Norwegian officials, succeeded with bribes and threats in convincing the SPLM and Khartoum to sign a draft peace agreement that promised a referendum six years or so after a final peace agreement is signed and an autonomous secular government in the south (while Islamic law would continue to govern the northern two-thirds of the country). An informal cease-fire agreement was reached in October 2002.

In May this year, Khartoum and the SPLM agreed that government revenue from the export of oil from the southern oil fields would be split between the SPLM-dominated southern regional government and the central government in Khartoum. All that remained was for further talks, which were scheduled to begin on June 22, to finalise procedures for an internationally monitored cease-fire agreement and a timeline for implementing the peace deal.

Since February 2003, when the Darfur rebellion erupted, Washington and the EU all but ignored the atrocities taking place in Darfur in the hope that they would not impact on the main game. Only when the escalating crisis in Darfur threatened to derail the north-south peace deal and prevent the opening up of Sudan's lucrative oilfields to Western exploitation did the US start waving the threat of UN sanctions against Sudan.

According to the July 23 issue of Middle East International, SPLM leader John Garang "recently warned there would be no deal that ignored Darfur... Far from completing arrangements for a formal cease-fire by the middle of July as planned, substantive talks have yet to commence."

Washington's underlying policy approach was summarised in an article in the June 10 International Herald Tribune co-written by Chester Crocker, a former assistant US secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration: "Implementing Sudan's complex, six-year transition agreement will be far more difficult than negotiating it... The agreement will fly apart without sustained international attention... Peace will only have a chance in Sudan if there is active US leadership. The United States has the needed leverage, including through the potential to lift sanctions and normalise diplomatic relations. It can also provide serious resources and play a key role on the UN Security Council."

In this framework, Crocker recommended that the US "address the immediate crisis in Darfur, while aggressively nailing down the broader north-south peace agreement". `African solution'

Apart from a few face-saving outbursts from Sudanese government ministers and army leaders soon after the Security Council resolution was passed, the Sudanese regime seems to have fallen into line. On August 5, Reuters reported that Jan Pronk, Annan's special representative in Sudan, was already telling reporters that "the government has to be commended for keeping its promise [on action in Darfur]. We have full access [for relief supplies]... They have deployed many more police in the region and they have stopped their own military activities against villages."

That same day, Brigadier Jamal al Huweris, police commissioner in northern Darfur, told the Sudanese Media Centre, a pro-government newsagency, that the janjaweed would soon be disarmed.

Meanwhile, the African Union announced on August 4 it will send up to 2000 troops, drawn from Nigeria, Rwanda and Tanzania, to Darfur with an expanded mandate to protect refugees, "disarm and neutralise" the janjaweed and allow the deliveries of aid supplies.

Sudanese foreign minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told Reuters on August 5 that Sudan would cooperate with the AU force. The rebel SLM/A and JEM, as well as the opposition National Democratic Alliance, have also endorsed the "African solution" of an AU peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Norm Dixon writes for Australia's Green Left Weekly, where this essay originally appeared.

Yet more proof we're doing it right out there in the Middle East. I hope the troops are aware that not everyone is against what they are doing, and that some of us believe in them, and thank them for it.
There is no “proof” that you are “doing it right” in Iraq. Most of the world didn’t want the US troops there in the first place, and now it appears that a majority of Americans would agree:

56 Percent in Survey Say Iraq War Was a Mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14266-2004Dec20.html)


President Bush heads into his second term amid deep and growing public skepticism about the Iraq war, with a solid majority saying for the first time that the war was a mistake and most people believing that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld should lose his job, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting" -- an eight-point increase from when the same question was asked this summer, and the first time a decisive majority of people have reached this conclusion.

Another consideration regarding the “new” Iraq, is concern from Turkey (http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-06-voa18.cfm) about the Kurds in Iraq:


Turkish anxiety has only increased since Iraqi elections a week ago, in which Kurds turned out in large numbers, especially in the ethnically-mixed northern oil center of Kirkuk, seen as the potential capital of a Kurdish state.
At a closing news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, Ms. Rice reiterated the U.S. commitment to the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, an implicit rejection of Kurdish statehood, and to an Iraq, in which all its religious and ethnic factions are welcome and respected.

Again, does this not appear that the US intends to dominate the politics of the “new democracy” of Iraq? If the Iraqi people decide to divide up “their” country, wouldn’t that be “their” decision?

As is Capitalism.

But capitalistm doesn't pretend to be otherwise, for one. And for another, capitalism enables at least a damn large proportion of people to be well-enough off, if not better than well-enough off.

'Resisted'? It has done nothing to address the real concerns in the Arabic World concerning its occupation of Palestine. In fact, its gone pretty far in purposefully NOT addressing them.

Yeah, so, by what justification does Muslim occupation of Jewish land make the Jews responsible for bringing things to the peace table? Moveover you show a lack of knowledge about the situation; not only have the Israelis tried to bring the whole thing to a reasonable end, they've given far more concessions than they ought to have, but that still wasn't enough for the terrorist Arafat. Hopefully the new political structure in Palestine will lead to more reasonable debate from the Muslim side of the fence.

For at least 18 months now, Western governments have quietly stood by as the non-Arabic-speaking black farmers of the Darfur region in western Sudan have borne the brunt of a vicious ethnic-cleansing campaign carried out by state-sponsored bandits known as the janjaweed.

Yeeees, and this is largely the result of the U.N., who continue to deny the existence of the genocide. How the hell is the US supposed to take action in a place the UN doesn't even recognize the condition of, when the well-documented atrocities of Iraq weren't enough?

~Long-assed snip~

Basically all that shows is that the US, UK, and Australia are the good guys, and the ones competent enough to be taking action when it is needed. Why is it a crime against humanity to take out one despotic regime, but a crime against humanity to NOT act immediately to take out another?

CH - The majority isn't always right. Moreover, I am in full support of forcing Iraq to remain a single state, and the point of a nuke if need be. (The whole world should be integrated into a single state, but the only likely way to do so is through force, which would inevitably lead to the wrong kind of government afterwards.) Nonetheless, what's to do if they do split up? I don't see how US disapproval of such an action is going to stop such an action, but hey, maybe all those Iraqis who voted in the Iraqi election in Iraq were actually Americans wearing turbans and with heavy tans.

Yes, I'm a tad aggravated. Mainly because you're only looking at one set of things, you ignore the responses posted to your claims, and you continue in hard-headed unabating hatred of any action America takes.
Well if you are “aggravated”, take a deep breath and calm down?

Yes, I tend to focus on what I perceive to be a large mistake in US foreign policy, namely the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent fallout of that decision. I have not “ignored” responses to my claims (mostly supported by news articles), and I have read ALL the posts in this thread......have you?

You are damn right that I am “hard headed” in debating these issues, which I think are extremely important, and you are equally “hard headed” in your support of Senor Bush. And contrary to your assertion, I do not have “unabated hatred” of any kind, so you can look for another flag to run up the pole.
1) Yes, hopefully. Though even more hopefully we won't need to, if it comes to it, I'd hope we do. And yes, we need to stop the spread of 'Communism' (As many people seem to think Communism =/= Communism. :confused: ) - it's a brutal, corrupt, and philosophically indefensable system.
Ahhh, I open the door regarding the possible spread of communism and you rushed through it, while disregarding the first part of the statement?

1. A strategic location to advance further imperialistic endeavours (Iran next?)

2) Doesn't seem necessary, given that the tiny, occupied state of Israel has resisted Muslim attacks for some time now. Still, I have no objections.
Occupied state of Israel? Please explain that one.

And of interest to back my claim:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html)

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

I imagine that this guy is selling pencils somewhere now?

3) Uhuh... again with the oil. As though it were economically viable (Been disproven countless times.), or as though there aren't plenty of other sources we can get it from before we have to invade Iraq. (And why're we not busting up the Sudan, if it's about oil?)
How has it been disproven countless times? It might have been stated countless times, but never disproven.

The fact remains that Iraq has the worlds’ 2nd largest reserves of OIL!! Do you remember what happened in the 1970’s when OPEC turned off the tap? Get your head around the issue…Iraq is about OIL!!

Moreover, I am in full support of forcing Iraq to remain a single state, and the point of a nuke if need be.
And how does an ideology such as this, make you any different than a "terrorist"?

The whole world should be integrated into a single state, but the only likely way to do so is through force,
So this is why you support US imperialism? Are you one of those "Rapture Ready" (http://www.raptureready.com/) people?

A tad agitated are you? :eek:

You may call it a “fixation” with these “enduring” bases and I call it reality. You on the other hand are living in denial, if you honestly believe that the US wants to leave Iraq anytime soon.
As opposed to building 14 "cheap, flimsy, vulnerable" bases.... Had it crossed your mind that the Iraqi Army might want to use these "enduring bases" when we leave?

There are 4 main reasons the US would want to remain in Iraq:

1. A strategic location to advance further imperialistic endeavours (Iran next?), and block any possible communist expansion.
Sorry... the Cold War ended a while ago. We found out that the USSR was every bit as nasty as we had thought, BUT we also found out that Global Communism was not the organized coherent movement we had feared. We're no longer afraid of the evil communist movement conquering the world. We do however promote free-market economies.

2. Assist in the defence of Israel.
Israel needs no additional help from us.... our foreign aid is more than enough.

4. With Bremer’s Orders, many high profile US companies, stand to make a shit load of money. I am sure that Bush’s cronies will be pleased.I JUST read a BBC article on this. Bremer's orders ARE reversable by the current transitional government, and were reversable even under the interim government. They drastically lower taxes, thereby encouraging Iraqis to pay them. They change Iraq from a command economy to a western free market economy. The pros and cons of globalization really deserve another thread.

Bullshit. Either the intel knew beforehand that there were no wmds, in which case the whole cause for the war breaks down, or they didnt, in which case the war started nonetheless, accepting that Israel might be attacked by nbc weapons. That Saddam illegally owned missiles with enough range to hit Israel was a known fact. Using hindsight isnt making a strong point.
Edit: Okay, I get your post now.

Maybe the fact that we bombed the crap out of all of Saddam's military before we invaded had something to do with it? I don't think there were any SCUDs to chase around this time. If he had functional missiles pointed at Israel, you can bet your ass we bombed them very early on.

2 years after the "end of the war", with 34 US soldier dead in the last 30 days, it look like Iraqi are not so greatfull of American.

Huge crowds rally in Iraq against occupation

Last Updated Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:08:33 EDT
CBC News

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - Tens of thousands of followers of a radical Shia cleric marched through Baghdad Saturday, demanding the end of the U.S.-led occupation on the second anniversary of Saddam Hussein's ouster.

In the largest anti-American demonstration since the invasion began, the supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr streamed into Firdos Square, where the statue of Saddam was toppled two years ago.


Tens of thousands of Iraqis wave flags of Iraq during a rally in Baghdad, Saturday. (AP Photo)
Waving Iraqi flags and chanting slogans against the occupation, they placed three effigies representing Saddam, U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on a pedestal, then knocked them down.

"I do not accept having occupation forces in my country," protester Ali Feleih Hassan, 35, told the Associated Press.

"No one accepts this. I want them out. They have been here for two years, and now they have to set a timetable for their withdrawal."

One group of protesters burned a U.S. flag, while others acted out scenes of abuse that U.S. soldiers carried out in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, captured in photographs that shocked the world.

Another 5,000 protesters rallied west of the capital in Ramadi, demanding an end to the occupation.

The rallies showed increasing frustration with both the continued presence of foreign troops and the slow pace of transferring control to a new Iraqi government.


Iraqi demonstrators stage a mock reenactment of Abu Ghraib Prison abuses during a rally in Baghdad, Saturday. (AP Photo)
Iraqi troops and police kept watch throughout the city, while militiamen from al-Sadr's Mahdi Army searched people for weapons before they entered the square in Baghdad. No major injuries were reported.

Al-Sadr didn't attend the demonstration, and his spokespeople cited security reasons.

The cleric was once a key target of U.S. troops because he urged insurrection.

However, he's kept a relatively low profile since signing a peace deal with U.S. troops that ended an uprising last August.

Yes, I'm a tad aggravated. Mainly because you're only looking at one set of things, you ignore the responses posted to your claims, and you continue in hard-headed unabating hatred of any action America takes.


Unistate, this is typical CanuckHeaven, his opinion and "facts" are the only relevant information. I wouldn't waste time trying to educate CH, who doesn't dare take off his "rose-colored" glasses!

Unistate, this is typical CanuckHeaven, his opinion and "facts" are the only relevant information. I wouldn't waste time trying to educate CH, who doesn't dare take off his "rose-colored" glasses!Lay personal attacks aside. And it's the people who are looking at the Iraqi future optimistically who are wearing rose-coloured glasses. Me and Canuck? We're cynics. AKA realists.

Lay personal attacks aside. And it's the people who are looking at the Iraqi future optimistically who are wearing rose-coloured glasses. Me and Canuck? We're cynics. AKA realists.

How is assuming the worst in all possible situations, and assuming the worst of everyone, realistic?


Well if you are “aggravated”, take a deep breath and calm down?

Yes, I tend to focus on what I perceive to be a large mistake in US foreign policy, namely the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent fallout of that decision. I have not “ignored” responses to my claims (mostly supported by news articles), and I have read ALL the posts in this thread......have you?

You are damn right that I am “hard headed” in debating these issues, which I think are extremely important, and you are equally “hard headed” in your support of Senor Bush. And contrary to your assertion, I do not have “unabated hatred” of any kind, so you can look for another flag to run up the pole.

Nah, it's much more fun to be hot-heated and reply without thinking :p

I can see arguements against the invasion. I agree with some of them. Namely, this would be that WMDs were touted as a prime concern (Indeed here in Britain they were the only concern.), and have not yet materialised. Putting aside that we're trying to find things the size of suitcases in a country the size of Ohio, and putting aside that Saddam himself was making plenty of claims about his NBC capabilities (Or at least BC), this has turned into a blunder, and has made the US and UK administrations look very bad. Secondly, I think it would have been prudent to wait at least a few more months. However, there are two objections to this. 1) What guarantee was there the UN would not provarocate for another 10 years, just as it had been doing? 2) Making it plain war was intended, but giving Saddam time to actually get some WMDs, fortify his defenses, and lay his plans etc. was not a good strategy, but it would have been impossible to gain international support for the war without making it very plain war was intended.


Ahhh, I open the door regarding the possible spread of communism and you rushed through it, while disregarding the first part of the statement?

1. A strategic location to advance further imperialistic endeavours (Iran next?)

HOES NOES, WE'S BIN TRIKKED! ;____; Seriously though, you got me there. Communism is hardly a threat anymore, and I shouldn't have bitten that. However; it is a region which needs peace, stability, and strength. If Iraq can provide even one of these, it will be a step forwards.

I could argue against the idea it is imperialistic, or I could argue that it is imerperialist but there's nothing wrong with that. Neither would accomplish anything; you know the case I would make and you know you would disagree.


Occupied state of Israel? Please explain that one.

And of interest to back my claim:

Iraq was invaded 'to protect Israel' - US official

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

I imagine that this guy is selling pencils somewhere now?

Couldn't say where he is now; never heard this before. However, I would point out that if America really did invade Iraq to help defend Israel, that makes them far better than invading for imperialist or economic reasons. They helped a friend and ally. That casts the administration in a good light.

K; occupied state of Israel. Basically, the Arabs in the area have 6 million square miles ish of land (Admittedly, a fair bit of desert, but nonetheless that's a lot.) The Palestinian people are, strictly speaking, Jordanians, so it isn't as if an entire nation was wiped out when we dumped the Jews there; the West gave a portion of land to the Jews for them to have a nation to where they could go in the event of another Nazi Germany affair. Now, I don't think either side is right here, they've both commited atrocities. But Israel has commited fewer, and less abhorrent ones; Israel has also offered far, far more concessions than they should ever have to unless they're suing for peace against an army which has essentially already won (See; Versailles Treaty). Not good enough for the Palestinians. That's why I side with the Israelis; they've undergone far more oppression and were it not for the UK and US, would have far less than they do even today. The ideal solution, in my eyes, would be to give the Jews Israel, relocate the Palestinians to Jordan, and make Jerusalem an independant city-state, free from either side's direct control.


How has it been disproven countless times? It might have been stated countless times, but never disproven.

The fact remains that Iraq has the worlds’ 2nd largest reserves of OIL!! Do you remember what happened in the 1970’s when OPEC turned off the tap? Get your head around the issue…Iraq is about OIL!!

Unfortunately, I have no clue what the link was, I read the site about a year or more ago, lots of cache and cookie clearences since then =/ I did read several places showing it was economically inviable, but as I can't find any of them, feel free to disregard my claim.

Nonetheless, I can't believe it is about oil. I can believe oil was a factor; that it is a pleasant side effect, but not that it was the sole or prime purpose for war. The numbers simply don't add up.

And how does an ideology such as this, make you any different than a "terrorist"?

Hands up, I slipped into 'extremist' mode there. Guilty as charged, statement withdrawn, apologies to relevant parties. Fact is I would really like to see a single-state world based on libertarian principles. And if I were a dictator, I might well set about doing so. (I'm aware of the lack of coherence between 'libertarian' and 'dictator', but I personally don't care what people do as long as they don't stop others doing their own thing either. Which again, sounds like hypocrisy. Unfortunately I'm too tired right now to accurately elaborate. Suffice it to say, I believe freedom and democracy can be forced onto people, although it ought to be a last resort.) I'm not dictator though, and I doubt I ever shall be. Probably good for a lot of people, bad for a lot of others.

So this is why you support US imperialism? Are you one of those "Rapture Ready" people?

Hehe, apparently I've not been doing enough bashing of religion around these parts (Believe me, I'm more anti-religion than most others are.). I happen to agree with the US ideologies more than other nation's, and as I also happen to support the idea of a one-world state, I don't see how my logic could follow in any other way. *Shrugs* I ought to point out, I want a legal and economic system like the US' across the world. I could care less about the culture, that's for people to choose for themselves. If they choose McDonald's and iPods, as they seem to be doing, then American culture must be doing something right.

The Kurds in Iraq are a minority. The fact that the interim President was a Kurd just goes to show you how it's a puppet democracy, being run by the U.S... It would be the equivalent of invading Palestine, then having a Jew appointed, as head of state. OF COURSE, it's going to be a Kurd. Anti-Hussein and pro-American. ;)

Are you saying that the Iraq people, if left totaly to their devices would have appointed/elected a pro-Hussein person as interim President? Is that within the realm of possibility? Boy, that is hard for me to believe.

I'm glad such spirited debate has resulted. Fortunatly, I am not reading one post.
I'd like to pose another question: when do you expect the Iraqi parliament to draft the new constitution? Once it does, what will it contain? Will it have the language of a liberal democracy, or that of a Taliban-style theocracy?

As opposed to building 14 "cheap, flimsy, vulnerable" bases.... Had it crossed your mind that the Iraqi Army might want to use these "enduring bases" when we leave?
Actually, no, it hasn't but then again, it probably is not even a consideration of the US either. The US is "digging in" (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=enduring+bases+in+iraq&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) in Iraq. This will be the new centerpiece of US presence in the Middle East, nothing less.

Sorry... the Cold War ended a while ago. We found out that the USSR was every bit as nasty as we had thought, BUT we also found out that Global Communism was not the organized coherent movement we had feared. We're no longer afraid of the evil communist movement conquering the world. We do however promote free-market economies.
That would be FREE market economy in Iraq. Many would suggest it is a steal and that is pretty close to the truth!!

Israel needs no additional help from us.... our foreign aid is more than enough.
I guess you didn't read the article I posted on this?

I JUST read a BBC article on this. Bremer's orders ARE reversable by the current transitional government, and were reversable even under the interim government. They drastically lower taxes, thereby encouraging Iraqis to pay them. They change Iraq from a command economy to a western free market economy. The pros and cons of globalization really deserve another thread.
I did a Google search and read the same article, and it appears that there TWO differing views on the subject.

Here, try some of these out:

The effect of other regulations could last much longer. Bremer has ordered
that the national security adviser and the national intelligence chief
chosen by the interim prime minister he selected, Ayad Allawi, be given
five-year terms, imposing Allawi's choices on the elected government that is
to take over next year.

Bremer also has appointed Iraqis handpicked by his aides to influential
positions in the interim government. He has installed inspectors-general for
five-year terms in every ministry. He has formed and filled commissions to
regulate communications, public broadcasting and securities markets. He
named a public-integrity commissioner who will have the power to refer
corrupt government officials for prosecution.

Bremer Order #40: Banking Privatized (http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44)

Banking Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system over night by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50 percent of an Iraqi bank. Specifically, it permits six foreign banks over the next five years the right to enter the Iraqi market.

About reversal, Bremer states:

"You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and
momentum on their own -- and it's harder to reverse course," Bremer said in a recent interview.

Greg Palast (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/257) even talks about how most of this was formulated BEFORE September 11.

The Handover That Wasn't (http://www.alternet.org/story/19293)

Order #39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers' rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.

From the same article:

Clearly, the Bremer Orders fundamentally altered Iraq's existing laws. For this reason, the Bremer Orders are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country's laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), and the U.S. Army's Law of Land Warfare.

Leaving Iraq poor and vulnerable:

There are two primary pots of money earmarked for Iraq's reconstruction. The largest is the approximately $24 billion of U.S. taxpayer money appropriated by Congress last year. The second is known as the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) worth about $18 billion. This is primarily money from Iraq's oil revenues and was controlled by the CPA until authority for the fund was handed over to the new Interim Government on June 28.

While the CPA controlled the DFI, it spent approximately $13 billion from the fund. On the other hand, it only spent about $8.2 billion of the U.S. appropriation. Thus, the DFI is almost out of money, while the U.S. appropriation has hardly been touched. Control of this money now shifts to John Negroponte, the new U.S. Ambassador to Iraq . In addition to the largest pot of money in Iraq , Negroponte will exercise control over one of the largest embassies in the entire world with some 1,500 employees with offices throughout Iraq .

How about taking over Iraqi agriculture? (http://www.peaceredding.org/Dan%20Amstutz%20and%20the%20Looting%20of%20Iraqi%20Agriculture.htm)

The US, however, has decided that, despite 10,000 years practice, Iraqis
don't know what wheat works best in their own conditions, and would be
better off with some new, imported American varieties. Under the guise,
therefore, of helping get Iraq back on its feet, the US is setting out to
totally reengineer the country's traditional farming systems into a US-style
corporate agribusiness. Or, as the aforementioned press release from
Headquarters United States Command puts it: ŒMulti-National Forces are
currently planting seeds for the future of agriculture in the Ninevah
Province'

Iraqs' economic "freedom" is being stolen by US multinationals who WILL control Iraqi trade and commerce. This is criminal behaviour to say the least!!

Unistate, this is typical CanuckHeaven, his opinion and "facts" are the only relevant information. I wouldn't waste time trying to educate CH, who doesn't dare take off his "rose-colored" glasses!
I don't see any of your "facts" posted here? I have inserted tons of links....go ahead and blow your brains out trying to refute it all.

As far as "rose-coloured" glasses are concerned, I will leave those for the Bush apologists. Why should the world expect the US to "fix" Iraq, when they had such a dismal track record over the past 60 years?

I know that at least one US Representative (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r105:H13MY8-1029:) agrees with me, or should I say that I agree with him?

I don't think it's impossible that elements of it would try to stage a coup within a short time of us completely withdrawing. The fact that some of their leadership at least, presumably with some of the lower ranking soldiers, have joined the new military tells me that there isn't a whole lot left of the old Iraqi military willing to carry out that coup. This wouldn't be an issue if the military hadn't been disbanded, but that's been gone over more then enough times.

Of course this all depends on a complete withdrawl of coalition forces. I think as long as there are still elements of troops there that they'd fight any attempts at rebellion and they'd win. If Kosovo tells us anything it's that we more then likely will not see a complete withdrawl for some time. A relatively hasty withdrawl isn't out of the question, but I'll believe it when I see it.

This is actually one of the things that scares me the most: how amazingly n00bish (excuse the term) the insurgency was. It has been shown on multiple occasions that a native, guerilla force is quite able to beat an overwhelmingly superior traditional foriegn army. Sometimes I fear the whole thing since the end of "major combat operations" was just a farce to make us think we'd finally beat the bad guys. Then, when we leave...half the military rises up, various elements that had gone underground leading them...

I shudder at the thought.

2 years after the "end of the war", with 34 US soldier dead in the last 30 days, it look like Iraqi are not so greatfull of American.
Thanks for the post. Perhaps this more accurately reflects the truth than all the political posturing that has been exhibited by Bush apologists.

How is assuming the worst in all possible situations, and assuming the worst of everyone, realistic?I don't think you've been paying attention to this thing I call humanity, and this story it tells, called history.

How is assuming the worst in all possible situations, and assuming the worst of everyone, realistic?
If anyone is being unrealistic, it would be the ones that think that the US can invade Iraq, remove Saddam, wave the magic wand of "freedom", and all is well.

Realism comes from reading about increased terrorism, mounting US casualties, election of a government that will not see eye to eye with Washington, that the country is still in shambles, that flattening Fallujah would not make Iraqis grateful, that business and commerce will be controlled by the US, and that the US is building 14 bases and getting settled in.

Many people (Bush supporters) falsely try to draw a parallel between the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WW2, and the takeover of Iraq.

They should note that Germany had experience with rebuilding after WW1, and that they were more oriented to the western world and western culture. Iraq on the other hand is a whole new ball game, or have they forgotten that the west has always been viewed as the land of the "infidels"? I am sure that the US invasion of "their" country has done little to dispel their fears?

I don't think you've been paying attention to this thing I call humanity, and this story it tells, called history.
Ahhh yes history!! :)

Just a response to two things that Unistate has said; I will not quote because I am a lazy asshole.

1) In regard to "that terrorist Arafat" not signing on to the many concessions made by the Israelis...

Independent of whether Arafat was or was not a terrorist by whatever standards are being used, the man was the icon of the Palestinian people. He was the Palestinian, and the only one who would stand up for them. He had to work in the interests of peace in the region, certainly, but he also had to look out for his own.

Mr. Barak and Mr. Clinton did not allow him to do that when they made their proposal with the numerous concessions. Yes, yes--the concessions were all very important and very necessary; the proposal amounted to a grand olive branch on the surface. Unfortunately (here things gets fuzzy, because I can't remember what the sticking point was, exactly--hopefully someone more well-versed in the topic can assist me), there was one particularly huge concession that Barak did not make. Arafat knew this before the proposal was publicized and Arafat knew that he could not go back to his people and tell them that he signed it, because it essentially gave away that one single thing that they very much needed.

When Arafat informed Barak and Clinton about this, they both nodded their heads and said sorry, but their hands were tied; both men, you see, are politicians, and both men were heading parties that nursed very slim majorities in the legislative bodies of their respective countries. They needed to do something. Even if it meant discrediting Arafat, they had to make it look like they were trying. And so the proposal was made public, Arafat refused it, and now Arafat is a terrorist. Damn.

And 2) In regard to Palestinians...

No non-Palestinian Arab likes the Palestinians except for a few Syrians and a handful of others. In the Arab world, Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens or worse except in Syria, where they get it a bit better (because Syria is trying to promote Arab unity).

Palestinians are viewed as a severe drain on economies, because for the most part they are unskilled refugees that are going into areas that are not economic strongholds. They cannot be expelled because that would, quite frankly, look very bad for the Palestinians' case and it would lower the reputation of the expelling country. They are the problem that no nation wants.

So to say that the Palestinians should all go to Jordan or anything like that is... infeasible. Even if the Jordanians wanted the Palestinians, they would never be able to find a suitable number of jobs for them--hell, feeding them would be difficult enough.

The Palestinians did live there. They've been forced out. They need a place to go, and that place ought to be somewhere where they at least feel like they're not among folks that don't want them.

(Note that much of this information is sourced from lectures and conversations of Dr. Murhaf Jouejati. Look up the name if you're interested in any of this stuff--he pops up on Google like nobody's business.)

I know this is gonna post really deep here, but I guess I just wanted to give you a perspective from a person who knows many, many people who are Iraqi and have their families over there.

They are APPAULED( however you spell it, it is 2 am here ) at how people are saying it was better under So-Damn Insane. They have actually appoligized to ME for this. You would not BELIEVE the humiliation they bear because of their country men and women acting like that. But, then again, the media only shows you what they think will bring the ratings. So, instead of the Iraqi popular opinion, they give you the drivil who had more privilage( I would assume ) under Sadam. I could really rant all day about what I've heard from people who've seen their children for the first time in YEARS!

Yes, war is terrible. Yes, idiots just can't let things be and do it right. Yes, it is still racking up a terrible cost. But, as we've seen with Hitler, you cannot have a dictator like that and live free ANYWHERE! Our gift is to be shared for God, for the world, for freedom. Remember, history has shown that it only takes ONE to bring the world to war.

BTW, I still think we should tatoo an American flag to Sadam's chest and a Texas flag( since we're the ones who found him ) to his back and parade him down the street somewhere in Iraq to see how long he'd last. :)

I know this is gonna post really deep here, but I guess I just wanted to give you a perspective from a person who knows many, many people who are Iraqi and have their families over there.

They are APPAULED( however you spell it, it is 2 am here ) at how people are saying it was better under So-Damn Insane. They have actually appoligized to ME for this. You would not BELIEVE the humiliation they bear because of their country men and women acting like that. But, then again, the media only shows you what they think will bring the ratings. So, instead of the Iraqi popular opinion, they give you the drivil who had more privilage( I would assume ) under Sadam. I could really rant all day about what I've heard from people who've seen their children for the first time in YEARS!

Yes, war is terrible. Yes, idiots just can't let things be and do it right. Yes, it is still racking up a terrible cost. But, as we've seen with Hitler, you cannot have a dictator like that and live free ANYWHERE! Our gift is to be shared for God, for the world, for freedom. Remember, history has shown that it only takes ONE to bring the world to war.

BTW, I still think we should tatoo an American flag to Sadam's chest and a Texas flag( since we're the ones who found him ) to his back and parade him down the street somewhere in Iraq to see how long he'd last. :)
Who here is saying that it was better under Saddam?

I guess an American flag on Saddam's chest would be appropriate because he was after all a US puppet.

I'm glad such spirited debate has resulted. Fortunatly, I am not reading one post.
I'd like to pose another question: when do you expect the Iraqi parliament to draft the new constitution? Once it does, what will it contain? Will it have the language of a liberal democracy, or that of a Taliban-style theocracy?

wtf?!#l0lz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

If anyone is being unrealistic, it would be the ones that think that the US can invade Iraq, remove Saddam, wave the magic wand of "freedom", and all is well.

Realism comes from reading about increased terrorism, mounting US casualties, election of a government that will not see eye to eye with Washington, that the country is still in shambles, that flattening Fallujah would not make Iraqis grateful, that business and commerce will be controlled by the US, and that the US is building 14 bases and getting settled in.

Many people (Bush supporters) falsely try to draw a parallel between the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after WW2, and the takeover of Iraq.

They should note that Germany had experience with rebuilding after WW1, and that they were more oriented to the western world and western culture. Iraq on the other hand is a whole new ball game, or have they forgotten that the west has always been viewed as the land of the "infidels"? I am sure that the US invasion of "their" country has done little to dispel their fears?
Neither of you are being realistic. Both of you are being rather one-sided. The best answer lies in the synthesis of the two extremes.

While neither of you are necessarily wrong, you consistently ignore the other side of the coin. There are bad things happening, and there are good things happening. Mistakes have been made, and positive steps have been taken. They are not mutually exclusive, as one might assume after reading posts like these.

I am personally a cynic, an idealist, and an optimist. I ackowledge the mistakes, problems, and hardships in Iraq, but I believe that in the end, Iraq will achieve stability, freedom, and sovreignty.

-snip-
Well said!!! They are all politicians, constrained by politics at home. Nearly everyone wants peace, no one side deserves to be singled out as the "problem".

I guess an American flag on Saddam's chest would be appropriate because he was after all a US puppet.

ROFL!!

I guess that makes India a Canadian puppet since they "jump-started" India's nuclear weapons program. Good to know!.

Neither of you are being realistic. Both of you are being rather one-sided. The best answer lies in the synthesis of the two extremes.

While neither of you are necessarily wrong, you consistently ignore the other side of the coin. There are bad things happening, and there are good things happening. Mistakes have been made, and positive steps have been taken. They are not mutually exclusive, as one might assume after reading posts like these.

I am personally a cynic, an idealist, and an optimist. I ackowledge the mistakes, problems, and hardships in Iraq, but I believe that in the end, Iraq will achieve stability, freedom, and sovreignty.

I suppose that stability, freedom and sovreignty will happen just because the United States wants it to happen, right? We'll just have to see what really happens. If the Iraqis standard of living goes up then maybe...

There seems to be the idea that the Iraq war was wrong because it was about WMD and we didn't find any. So there for everyone assumes that the Leaders in favour of the War lied. If not saying this couldn't be true but, What about the idea that they actually thought there were WMD's in Iraq, because i think if that is the case the calls against the war are wrong. (same way we justifed John Kerry voting for the war in the US he didn't know they didn't have WMD's so he is ok but, Bush who thought the same thing is evil) How about the fact that Saddam wanted us all to think he had WMD's so we and his other problems Iran Saudi Arabia would attck him. Also the fact that the Presidents own intel said that saddam had WMD's and so did Russias and britians intel as well as many other private inteligence groups. The fact is that Bush Jr. Called his bluff plain and simple. Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD's so thats what we thought.

There seems to be the idea that the Iraq war was wrong because it was about WMD and we didn't find any. So there for everyone assumes that the Leaders in favour of the War lied. If not saying this couldn't be true but, What about the idea that they actually thought there were WMD's in Iraq, because i think if that is the case the calls against the war are wrong. (same way we justifed John Kerry voting for the war in the US he didn't know they didn't have WMD's so he is ok but, Bush who thought the same thing is evil) How about the fact that Saddam wanted us all to think he had WMD's so we and his other problems Iran Saudi Arabia would attck him. Also the fact that the Presidents own intel said that saddam had WMD's and so did Russias and britians intel as well as many other private inteligence groups. The fact is that Bush Jr. Called his bluff plain and simple. Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD's so thats what we thought.

So the war was ok because everyone thought he had WMD's and were wrong so, oops?

No i'm simply saying that it is your idea that the war was wrong because it was over WMD's and we havn't found any. So you are useing hind sight to justify your actions. what is the difference from those who felt that saddam was bad for the reigion and for his country. Just because the country says it's about WMD's doesn't mean that people supported it for that reason. many thought it should have been done in the first gulf war.

No i'm simply saying that it is your idea that the war was wrong because it was over WMD's and we havn't found any. So you are useing hind sight to justify your actions. what is the difference from those who felt that saddam was bad for the reigion and for his country. Just because the country says it's about WMD's doesn't mean that people supported it for that reason. many thought it should have been done in the first gulf war.

For myself, I have never supportd the war, I have felt that Bush was lying to the world from the very beggining and that he always inteded to invade. (I suppose he'd send all those troops over and not use them?) The entire reason for the war was to rid Saddam of his WMD's with the PR side bit of "freeing the Iraqi people." Since no WMD's were found, now the entire war is about making Iraq's people better. This is a noble goal however it is not a good enough reason to invade by itself. If it was we'd be figting dozens of countries around the world. Since he didn't have any WMD's to begin with the war was even more obviously wrong. I do not support the idea of preemptive strikes anyway.

I suppose that stability, freedom and sovreignty will happen just because the United States wants it to happen, right? We'll just have to see what really happens. If the Iraqis standard of living goes up then maybe...
Are you saying that the Iraqi people want instability, oppression, and subservience?

Stability, freedom, and sovreignty will happen because the people of Iraq, the Middle East, the US, and the rest of the world, want them to happen.

There seems to be the idea that the Iraq war was wrong because it was about WMD and we didn't find any. So there for everyone assumes that the Leaders in favour of the War lied. If not saying this couldn't be true but, What about the idea that they actually thought there were WMD's in Iraq, because i think if that is the case the calls against the war are wrong. (same way we justifed John Kerry voting for the war in the US he didn't know they didn't have WMD's so he is ok but, Bush who thought the same thing is evil) How about the fact that Saddam wanted us all to think he had WMD's so we and his other problems Iran Saudi Arabia would attck him. Also the fact that the Presidents own intel said that saddam had WMD's and so did Russias and britians intel as well as many other private inteligence groups. The fact is that Bush Jr. Called his bluff plain and simple. Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD's so thats what we thought.
This is a good point. Saddam wanted the world to think that he had WMD to protect himself from Iran (a justified fear since Iran was also making noise about nuclear weapons). The US did not just fabricate this intelligence, nor were we alone in believing that Iraq was developing or in posession of WMD.

It is a sad statement about the previous actions of world leaders that Saddam decided to call GWB's bluff on attacking Iraq.

For myself, I have never supportd the war, I have felt that Bush was lying to the world from the very beggining and that he always inteded to invade. (I suppose he'd send all those troops over and not use them?) The entire reason for the war was to rid Saddam of his WMD's with the PR side bit of "freeing the Iraqi people." Since no WMD's were found, now the entire war is about making Iraq's people better. This is a noble goal however it is not a good enough reason to invade by itself. If it was we'd be figting dozens of countries around the world. Since he didn't have any WMD's to begin with the war was even more obviously wrong. I do not support the idea of preemptive strikes anyway.
I don't doubt that Bush intended to do something about Iraq.

I don't believe that he intentionally lied about intelligence regarding WMD. As you might have noticed, that "lie" has come back to bite him in the ass in a big way. His ratings would be significantly higher without the "lie". I don't think he would have made such a politically damaging move on purpose.

Here's a little question. Now that the Iraqi parliament will do little but draft a new constitution, what will it contain? And the thorniest issue of all is also the best to speculate on: what will be the status of Kirkuk?

I don't doubt that Bush intended to do something about Iraq.

I don't believe that he intentionally lied about intelligence regarding WMD. As you might have noticed, that "lie" has come back to bite him in the ass in a big way. His ratings would be significantly higher without the "lie". I don't think he would have made such a politically damaging move on purpose.
Perhaps you may have forgotten the earlier controversy (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/) surrounding Paul O'Neill?

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

Five times during his speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html), at the Cincinnati Museum Center on October 7, 2002, did Bush try to draw a parallel to September 11, 2001 and Iraqi WMD.

"The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly."

Bush even played the Communist card, comparing Saddam to Stalin:

"The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family."

Nowhere in his speech, did Bush acknowledge that the US administration (Reagan/Bush) helped Iraq (by removing Iraq off the US list of terrorist nations) during the war with Iran, that the US turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of gas against the Iranians, that the US maintained diplomatic ties with Iraq throughout the process. Nor did Bush talk about the miscommunication (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html) between April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, that Saddam took as a green light to invade Kuwait.

This is such a deceitful piece of work, to say the least.

A month later (November 2002), UN inspectors would re-enter Iraq and start the tedious task of looking for and disabling WMD. So what transpired? More deceit:

Stumbling Into War (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504-p30/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html)

What actually happened, however, was the fourth scenario, one for which Washington was wholly unprepared: partial compliance. Iraq did not accept that it bore the burden of proof of showing that it had disarmed, and it gave the UN a preposterously implausible declaration of its weapons programs (comprised, in part, of previous reports to the UN). But it did allow inspectors unfettered access to suspected sites, and it generally cooperated with them. Iraq granted inspectors access to presidential palaces and other locations that they had been barred from or where they had been harassed in the past, and it destroyed dozens of al Samoud missiles after the UN declared that they exceeded their allowed ranges. Some key scientists were also allowed to be interviewed, and new methods were proposed to prove the past destruction of banned weapons. Washington, however, was caught flat-footed by these developments, and the result was disastrous.

The right way to deal with partial compliance would have been to develop a timetable for completing the verification of Iraq's disarmament and a way to judge whether Baghdad had actually met it. To achieve such an outcome would have required careful multilateral diplomacy. The Bush administration could have approached all the key players at the outset to discuss this method and all the other options. Putin, for example, would have viewed summit-level discussions about how to respond to different scenarios as a sign of respect for Russia and a demonstration of real partnership. According to key Russian officials, he would then have agreed in advance to setting a deadline for Iraq's compliance. French officials similarly claim that Chirac would have gone along with the use of force if a nine-month schedule had been set at the beginning.

Yet the Russians, and French get blamed for not co-operating, setting off all kinds of US backlash aimed primarily at the French.

Then the final straw, the US and UK, decide to invade Iraq without UN Security Council support, which violates the UN Charter and UN Resolution 1441 itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lancamore, you suggest that you are an optimist regarding Iraq, yet I cannot see any reason for optimism. Almost everything that I thought would happen when the US invaded Iraq in 2002, is happening, and it is mostly negative. The US has an abysmal record regarding intervention into other countries politics, especially when using armed forces or employing CIA initiatives. I remain convinced that the US is in Iraq for all the wrong reasons, and I see it getting worse not better. The sad part is this translates into death, destruction, and injury to all parties.

There was a better way to disarm Iraq of WMD (which they didn't have), but the US then wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq, which was the goal all along.

Time to turn the thread back over to the Bush apologists.

Here's a little question. Now that the Iraqi parliament will do little but draft a new constitution, what will it contain? And the thorniest issue of all is also the best to speculate on: what will be the status of Kirkuk?
You just going to pop in here once in awhile posing questions, without responding to the many that responded to your initial posts?

And especially since this comment of yours:

I'm glad such spirited debate has resulted. Fortunatly, I am not reading one post.
What is up with that?

Well, to be frank, it's a lot to read, and it IS his post.

Well, to be frank, it's a lot to read, and it IS his post.
Perhaps you are unaware of his past practices. He would start a thread, and if no one responded, he would continually bump the thread.

However, you are correct, he did start this thread.

-mother of all snips-

Er... you might have noticed that I had said "I don't doubt that Bush intended to do something about Iraq"

I don't disagree with you that there were early plans to attack Iraq. You find it reprehensible. I don't. We disagree on whether the war was justified and neccessary. I can accept that disagreement. Can you?


Regarding WMD and the "lie", you believe he knew all along that there were no weapons. I believe the intelligence services of the US (along with much of the rest of the world!!) was confused by: emigrees who wanted an invasion, cronies who reported progress in programs that did not exist (to placate Saddam), and the lack of human intelligence on the ground. We were wrong, but we didn't know beforehand.

Why would Bush intentionally lie if he KNEW the truth would come out after the invasion was over? It is damaging to his political position, even today!! It wouldn't have been that hard to dig out the old pictures of mass graves and gassed kurds, and talk about freedom, democracy, dictatorship, and oppression.


You complained about the fact that Bush didn't once mention the US role in supporting Saddam. What politician has ever painted a complete picture at his own expense? What country has ever gone out of its way to condemn itself? Your complaint, however valid, is COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.

Lancamore, you suggest that you are an optimist regarding Iraq, yet I cannot see any reason for optimism. Almost everything that I thought would happen when the US invaded Iraq in 2002, is happening, and it is mostly negative. The US has an abysmal record regarding intervention into other countries politics, especially when using armed forces or employing CIA initiatives. I remain convinced that the US is in Iraq for all the wrong reasons, and I see it getting worse not better. The sad part is this translates into death, destruction, and injury to all parties.

There was a better way to disarm Iraq of WMD (which they didn't have), but the US then wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq, which was the goal all along.
In one fell swoop, your cynicism labels every step taken toward democracy and freedom as meaningless under "US imperialism and suzerainty". Since you refuse to acknowledge any positive effects whatsoever, I think I'm more than entitled to doubt some of your sensational proclaimations about the US and our motives.

Maybe disarming Iraq wasn't the issue after all!!! Maybe it was the 25 million people he had opressed and the hundreds of thousands he had tortured and killed! Sure we had supported him in the past. We made a mistake! Why did we have to stand by and allow his dictatorship to continue?

Here's an Idea for all you who complain about the US actions not having the sanctions of the UN. First how do you view the action taken by Europe and the US against Yugoslavia under prsident Clinton when they were cleansing the ethnic Albanians. That happened with out the UN approval and unlike the US invasion of Iraq the action was at first condemed by the UN citing that action should be military peacekeepers not Air raids that cause large amounts of colateral damage. Also the fact that we were still technical at war with Iraq no peace treaty being signed and the fact that Iraq was in violation of 8 different parts of the of the UN resolution which ended the first Gulf War. Examples long range missiles, unmaned aircarft that fly over range specified in UN resolution. and the fact that they continualy fired at aircraft patrolling the no fly zone. I know the last one is true because my best friend patrolled it for 3 years.

I'm not sure how you can say it is getting worse. That sort of defys the logic of the situation (And remember people We did not create the vaunted U.S. constitution in 1775 or 1789 but in 1796 (I might be off but the right decade) after the abysmal articles of confederation.

Now then, for invasion well it turned out Saddam did not have any WMD's just all the stuff to make WMD's including personel.

Sort of like walking into a store looking for weapons and finding boxes of AK-47 parts, the instruction manuals for AK-47's and a gunsmith. But no AK-47's. So invading Iraq wasn't urgent...but Hussain would have rearmed if Russia and France had gotten the sanctions lifted (oops we all forgot that fact didn't we people)

Currently, after some months of backroom deal making, the Iraqi's got a temporary government in place to start work on their Constitution. Is it likely going to be a liberal democracy?

Nope, but then again show me anything nearing a liberal democracy south-east of the Black Sea in the first place.

Now recently I watched the BBC program on the Iraqi national museum...you know the one that was looted because American Forces didn't protect it but they did the Iraqi oil ministry.

*Sarcasm* We all know the BBC is just another arm of the Fox media network *end sarcasm.* But after a few weeks of investigating they found the following facts:

The Iraqi museum was used as a military command post with snipers positioned in some 'secured' store rooms. And military bunkers in the grounds.

Some secured store rooms were looted but also strangely locked. And the items looted were only specific 'high value' items.

In general the entire storage facilites of the National M. were so badly disarrayed that you couldn't tell what items were or were not looted.

There is no apparent list of items that the National M. held before the war. (Which makes all claims otherwise very difficult)

Based on the fact that the personel of the Iraqi National M. were so reluctant to deal with people, ecept to level charges (that changed when the U.S. sent a platoon in to find out what was missing), the BBC correspondant in the end came to the conclusion that the looting was an inside job and the 'cultural protections' of the Iraqi National was seriously comprimised by Iraqi forces.

Now then...when was this report shown on CNN? (Or even Fox for that matter?) never. It isn't newsworthy in their eyes.

In the end were are all in the dark. The reporters are all wanting to find the next watergate and ignoring half the real issues (and slectivly finding facts)or their bosses are. Both political parties are so busy spinning that they've dug into their postions a mile deep each and can't leave them. It is a bloody mess...

I'd say the mess in Iraq over the constitution is no different really then the problems the EU with have when France votes down the EU constitution (or if not France the UK will) or the troubles that the english faced during the reformation which was how to deal with issues that are political and religious at the same time, and in a religious country.

You just going to pop in here once in awhile posing questions, without responding to the many that responded to your initial posts?

And especially since this comment of yours:


What is up with that?
Because the debate has gotten extremely redundant.