Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
It seems Iraqis have been doing some post-election "voting", dealing with terrorist threats in their own direct way.
ABC News article
Free Iraqi article
ABC News article
Free Iraqi article
The Iraqi Elections
- Thread starter Brooker
- Start date
Censport: Good article. Gave me a glimmer of hope.
When Iraq is stable, we leave. This is the normal pattern of US occupations. About your above post, I mostly agree, but disagree on the occupation part. I think most people would look at the US invaders as an occupation force whether they agree with policy or not. I don't necessarily see the words invasion and occupation as loaded terms with any type of negative connotation, but I could be persuaded to change.
I also agree that Bush would not leave Iraq under pressure, just like Kennedy and LBJ couldn't leave Vietnam. This may actually be a character flaw. Remember that Nixon finally brought our boys home and also that public (and republican) pressure persuaded Clinton to leave Somalia. Why did Reagan leave Lebanon?- oh something about three hundred marines and a building being bombed. Ending an occupation can always be a dicey proposition especially if your exit strategy is poorly articulated.
IMHO Bush got us into a war that was not only illegal, but unnecessary and poorly thought out. Leaving abruptly would be a bad idea, and rebuilding and fostering some kind of democracy is the best option we have. It is my hope that democracy takes hold in Iraq, and that more Iraqi's get tired of insurgents killing Iraqi civillians, and army and police recruits. (We will leave, I promise--- see US occupation of Cuba, Phillipines, Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, North Africa, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea -- although a small US military presence is maintained in some of these lands...)
So far we have spent hundreds of billions to conquer and subdue a nation with fewer than 30 million people-- whose per capita gross domestic product is in the thousand dollar range. I haven't done the math yet, but wouldn't it be cheaper to buy Iraq?
Every time I hear of another death, I keep thinking I hope this is worth it, I hope it is worth it....
When Iraq is stable, we leave. This is the normal pattern of US occupations. About your above post, I mostly agree, but disagree on the occupation part. I think most people would look at the US invaders as an occupation force whether they agree with policy or not. I don't necessarily see the words invasion and occupation as loaded terms with any type of negative connotation, but I could be persuaded to change.
I also agree that Bush would not leave Iraq under pressure, just like Kennedy and LBJ couldn't leave Vietnam. This may actually be a character flaw. Remember that Nixon finally brought our boys home and also that public (and republican) pressure persuaded Clinton to leave Somalia. Why did Reagan leave Lebanon?- oh something about three hundred marines and a building being bombed. Ending an occupation can always be a dicey proposition especially if your exit strategy is poorly articulated.
IMHO Bush got us into a war that was not only illegal, but unnecessary and poorly thought out. Leaving abruptly would be a bad idea, and rebuilding and fostering some kind of democracy is the best option we have. It is my hope that democracy takes hold in Iraq, and that more Iraqi's get tired of insurgents killing Iraqi civillians, and army and police recruits. (We will leave, I promise--- see US occupation of Cuba, Phillipines, Mexico, Haiti, Nicaragua, North Africa, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea -- although a small US military presence is maintained in some of these lands...)
So far we have spent hundreds of billions to conquer and subdue a nation with fewer than 30 million people-- whose per capita gross domestic product is in the thousand dollar range. I haven't done the math yet, but wouldn't it be cheaper to buy Iraq?
Every time I hear of another death, I keep thinking I hope this is worth it, I hope it is worth it....
Censport said:
No matter the politicians, militarily strong colonial powers has often gotten kicked out in history. I can't seem to remember any occasions when they've voluntarily withdrawn unless they've got a strongly alled local government in place.
There are basically only two ways in which Iraq could leave the current state of chaos: a) the iraqis get spanked and subdued, b) the occupiers get spanked and kicked out. The second alternative seems much more probable right now, though as always, it'll take some years.
Censport said:
The elections will form somewhat of a legal basis for the USG getting their oil companies all the contracts they want. Hopefullt though, the resistance in Iraq will continue to sabotage oil production until the occupation is gone.
Sabro said:
It would, unless you count military expenses as an income. Corporations tend to do that.
Add the neocon stupidity to that: in their world view, the iraqis would consider themselves liberated. They didn't. The military expenditure became larger than the neocons had expected.
Your hoping that resistance continues? Horrible idea. I'm hoping that the resistance will fizzle soon, oil will flow and our soldiers will come home. I'm hoping that the killing will stop, that life will get back to some kind of normal. I'm hoping that other nations will pitch in with the effort to end this silly war and get back to hospitals and schools and fish markets and bakeries. That people can go to the mosque without fear, and without US soldiers in the street. The only way this come out reasonably well is if a democratic, stable Iraq is left behind. This won't happen until the oil is flowing, and Iraqi's get their country back.
I think I agree with Sabro here. So long as the insurgency continues, the Iraqi people are going to continue to suffer. If the Americans had a way of defeating the insurgency tomorrow and bringing some sense of stability back to Iraq I would support them 100%.
The problem is that the Americans don't have a strategy for winning this war, which means that as long as they insist on staying in the country the insurgency is just going to keep dragging on. As Censport says the Bush administration is never going to withdraw troops from Iraq, a stance which I view as a liability rather than an asset. Bush can't withdraw from Iraq because the fate of his presidency is completely entwined with the fate of Iraq. It'll probably have to be up to his successor to get the US out of Iraq, by which time god only knows how much damage will have been inflicted on the country.
About the oil its asking us to be pretty naive to believe that it wasn't the main factor in the decision to invade Iraq. I can think of about a half dozen countries that posed a much greater threat to US security and had much deeper ties to international terrorists than Saddam but whose countries lacked any resources that would have made their countries worth invading. The whole question of enforcing UN resolutions was obviously just a sideshow intended to provide a cloak of legitimacy to the invasion, the US and especially the Republican party have never given a rat's ass about the UN or its resolutions except when they find them useful in furthering their own interests.
Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, and control of the country would also give the US commanding influence over the rest of the middle eastern oil producing nations who make up something like 70% of the world's total. As the 1973 oil embargo proved, the middle east is the choke point of the global economy (even more so today than then). The US itself doesn't actually need middle eastern oil that much, it gets most of its supply from sources in the Atlantic now. But being able to control the flow of oil from the middle east to other countries that do need it, including Europe, China and Japan gives the US enormous influence.
This is one of the main reasons I think withdrawing the troops isn't even being considered as an option even though intuition would suggest it is the most likely means of bringing an end to the insurgency. Establishing permanent bases in Iraq was always a main objective of the war and the Bush administration is simply unwilling to give up on those plans even in the face of the immense violence the US presence in Iraq is provoking.
The problem is that the Americans don't have a strategy for winning this war, which means that as long as they insist on staying in the country the insurgency is just going to keep dragging on. As Censport says the Bush administration is never going to withdraw troops from Iraq, a stance which I view as a liability rather than an asset. Bush can't withdraw from Iraq because the fate of his presidency is completely entwined with the fate of Iraq. It'll probably have to be up to his successor to get the US out of Iraq, by which time god only knows how much damage will have been inflicted on the country.
About the oil its asking us to be pretty naive to believe that it wasn't the main factor in the decision to invade Iraq. I can think of about a half dozen countries that posed a much greater threat to US security and had much deeper ties to international terrorists than Saddam but whose countries lacked any resources that would have made their countries worth invading. The whole question of enforcing UN resolutions was obviously just a sideshow intended to provide a cloak of legitimacy to the invasion, the US and especially the Republican party have never given a rat's ass about the UN or its resolutions except when they find them useful in furthering their own interests.
Iraq has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, and control of the country would also give the US commanding influence over the rest of the middle eastern oil producing nations who make up something like 70% of the world's total. As the 1973 oil embargo proved, the middle east is the choke point of the global economy (even more so today than then). The US itself doesn't actually need middle eastern oil that much, it gets most of its supply from sources in the Atlantic now. But being able to control the flow of oil from the middle east to other countries that do need it, including Europe, China and Japan gives the US enormous influence.
This is one of the main reasons I think withdrawing the troops isn't even being considered as an option even though intuition would suggest it is the most likely means of bringing an end to the insurgency. Establishing permanent bases in Iraq was always a main objective of the war and the Bush administration is simply unwilling to give up on those plans even in the face of the immense violence the US presence in Iraq is provoking.
sabro said:
This isn't at all accurate and I think it is at the very heart of the problem. The US still maintains a major (not at all small) military presence in Germany and Italy 60 years after the end of the war and about 15 years after the colapse of the Warsaw pact ended their main reason for being there. Same with Japan and Korea, where US troops have continued to be stationed in significant numbers for more than 50 years, though with legitimate reason in the case of Korea. Cuba still has a large US presence in Guantanamo, The Phillipines had a US troop presence for most of the 20th century until the early 90's (US troops have returned since 9/11 despite widespread opposition), most central American states have experienced on again off again US military presences in their countries since the early 20th century. Since the 1990s the US has extended its military presence to Central Asia and the Balkans, where US troops will probably remain for decades to come. The list goes on.
There is very little reason to beleive that if the insurgency were to end tomorrow the US troops would leave their country. Permanent bases in Iraq would be of immense value to the US (much more so than bases they have maintained for decades in other countries) and I think it is pretty misleading to say that the US government's motives for staying in Iraq are entirely benign and simply for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The Iraqis undoubtedly know this and its probably one of the factors fuelling the insurgency.
I believe the idea that the resistance might simply tone down some day is based on a lack of comprehension of the role that the west, and particularly the USG, has played in Iraq these last 15-25 years.
Every iraqi knows that the U.S. wouldn't mind a dictator, just as they supported Saddam in the 80:ies. All the adults personally experienced the bombings of 1991, which were not only a slaughter but also crushed the infrastructure of a functioning society. The 13 years of sanctions made it impossible to rebuild, forcing most of the country back into a third world country standard of living, with infant mortality very visibly soaring.
In the west, you can tell people all this was Saddams fault. It's not all that easy in Iraq: it simply isn't true, and won't convince anyone who's seen this history first hand.
Now, consider your streets being patroled by 20-year old soldiers who hardly speak a word of your language. From time to time, they commit the most horrible atrocities: shooting children they thought were carrying a gun, opening fire at demonstrations, torture and so on. You've been treated unfairly and maybe even threathened yourself. Now, what's the risk that you start considering yourself liberated?
For Bush to win this, he'd have to actually subdue the iraqis. Create a puppet regime and a local army capable of the kind of repression we saw under the worst Saddam years. That's why I hope the resistance is successful enough to force the occupiers out of the country before they manage to create such a state apparatus.
Every iraqi knows that the U.S. wouldn't mind a dictator, just as they supported Saddam in the 80:ies. All the adults personally experienced the bombings of 1991, which were not only a slaughter but also crushed the infrastructure of a functioning society. The 13 years of sanctions made it impossible to rebuild, forcing most of the country back into a third world country standard of living, with infant mortality very visibly soaring.
In the west, you can tell people all this was Saddams fault. It's not all that easy in Iraq: it simply isn't true, and won't convince anyone who's seen this history first hand.
Now, consider your streets being patroled by 20-year old soldiers who hardly speak a word of your language. From time to time, they commit the most horrible atrocities: shooting children they thought were carrying a gun, opening fire at demonstrations, torture and so on. You've been treated unfairly and maybe even threathened yourself. Now, what's the risk that you start considering yourself liberated?
For Bush to win this, he'd have to actually subdue the iraqis. Create a puppet regime and a local army capable of the kind of repression we saw under the worst Saddam years. That's why I hope the resistance is successful enough to force the occupiers out of the country before they manage to create such a state apparatus.
Now I don't live in Japan, Germany or Italy, but inspite of the numbers of US troops stationed within their borders, I doubt that they patrol the streets or excercise any martial control over any of those countries. We have bases in Turkey and Greenland and even Great Britain, and the number of troops permanently stationed abroad is being scaled back substantially. Even our presence in South Korea is relatively minor- certainly insufficient to stop a NK incursion into South Korea. The other certainty is that we view these countries as allies, not occupied territories or colonies. I'm not certain that they view the US military presence as threatening, negative, or even major. Perhaps someone who lives in one of these countries can respond.
Continuing UN sanctions after Iraq invaded Kuwait are partially responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children. Even Sweden and Canada supported this. But I would definitely pin the bulk of responsibility for these international sanctions, as well as running away with the food for oil money on old uncle Saddam. You can't blame the US for 13 years of sanctions.
I'm hoping that things aren't as bleak as Sr Pasta maintains- Is there something genetic or deeply imbedded in the culture, people or religions in Iraq that prevents them from being governed by anything other than a despotic totalitarian regime? Do the Iraqi people believe that they must be crushed and opressed in order to be governed? I have disagreed with this war from the beginning, but I'm hoping that we leave things in a better state than we found them in. I'm hoping that the Iraqi's can eventually govern themselves peacefully, effectively, and without US help. Why not?
When Iraqis can get clean water from the tap. When the electricity is always on. When they can drive to the mosque without fear of some car bomb. When they vote, when they can build a house and open a business and when they can walk to the market and buy food or play soccer in a local park without fear-- I think they will feel liberated. Is this unrealistic?
Continuing UN sanctions after Iraq invaded Kuwait are partially responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children. Even Sweden and Canada supported this. But I would definitely pin the bulk of responsibility for these international sanctions, as well as running away with the food for oil money on old uncle Saddam. You can't blame the US for 13 years of sanctions.
I'm hoping that things aren't as bleak as Sr Pasta maintains- Is there something genetic or deeply imbedded in the culture, people or religions in Iraq that prevents them from being governed by anything other than a despotic totalitarian regime? Do the Iraqi people believe that they must be crushed and opressed in order to be governed? I have disagreed with this war from the beginning, but I'm hoping that we leave things in a better state than we found them in. I'm hoping that the Iraqi's can eventually govern themselves peacefully, effectively, and without US help. Why not?
When Iraqis can get clean water from the tap. When the electricity is always on. When they can drive to the mosque without fear of some car bomb. When they vote, when they can build a house and open a business and when they can walk to the market and buy food or play soccer in a local park without fear-- I think they will feel liberated. Is this unrealistic?
Of course they can develop democracy. They can't do it at the same time as the USG is in power though. Democracy means power in the hands of the people, which means domestic control of oil resources. That makes for a very direct clash of interest between the iraqi people and the USG.
Now, the U.S. could try to simply buy them off - to trade the control of their oil for reconstruction of the infrastructure destroyed by the U.S. war machine a decade ago. I don't think it'll work though. By now, many iraqis see national sovereignity as a possible outcome, and I don't think they'll trade that away. They know what it means to live in a U.S. allied middle east dictatorship - they've been there themselves.
The past atrocities committed by the western governments and the current successes of the resistance means the USG will have to rely on the old concept of massive repression, just as in Vietnam, Colombia, Indonesia or Guatemala. It might work. Hopefully it won't.
On sanctions: of course you put the blame on Saddam. Most westerners do, out of plain ignorance. The simple fact is that whatever Saddam did, the sanctions were just as illegal as torture and nuking countries.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2810
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2000.33.En?OpenDocument
http://accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111398.htm
Now, the U.S. could try to simply buy them off - to trade the control of their oil for reconstruction of the infrastructure destroyed by the U.S. war machine a decade ago. I don't think it'll work though. By now, many iraqis see national sovereignity as a possible outcome, and I don't think they'll trade that away. They know what it means to live in a U.S. allied middle east dictatorship - they've been there themselves.
The past atrocities committed by the western governments and the current successes of the resistance means the USG will have to rely on the old concept of massive repression, just as in Vietnam, Colombia, Indonesia or Guatemala. It might work. Hopefully it won't.
On sanctions: of course you put the blame on Saddam. Most westerners do, out of plain ignorance. The simple fact is that whatever Saddam did, the sanctions were just as illegal as torture and nuking countries.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2810
http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.Sub.2.2000.33.En?OpenDocument
http://accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111398.htm
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance. I'm certain that the Kuwaiti's and the Royal Kuwaiti family and the Kurds and the families of thousands of Dead Iranians will appreciate the fact that they too are ignorant about the good Mr. Hussein. Now even though I have argued that the war was probably illegal, the fact that the sanctions themselves were illegal and the world community was supposed to leave Mr. Hussein alone to pursue whatever weapons programs or invasions of neighbors or murders of ethnic minorities within his borders all have somehow escaped most of the intelligent inhabitants of the planet. What all the articles you cite seem to leave out is what the appropriate response should have been. (Although I couldn't follow the first article- the syntax and vocabulary seem to have thrown me for a loop. The logic in the other articles escapes me.)
Shooter452
Regular Member
Lifting a pint in Sabro's direction...
Here-here, old man! Couldn't've said it any better myself.
Still, it is a rare people who would not prefer their own corrupt, bad government to the most benevolent, perfect rule of a foreign power.
I believe, contrary to the opinions of another here, that the vast majority of Iraqi insurgency has absolutely nothing to do with popular resistance to US occupation, but instead the outside meddling of other foreign powers, but so what?
The Iraqi people are distrustful of US influence of any kind. They have a long memory of such "help" from Western powers, and their experience gives them little reason to believe in our stated benign intentions.
Beside, the road to hell is paved with such intentions.
Here-here, old man! Couldn't've said it any better myself.
Still, it is a rare people who would not prefer their own corrupt, bad government to the most benevolent, perfect rule of a foreign power.
I believe, contrary to the opinions of another here, that the vast majority of Iraqi insurgency has absolutely nothing to do with popular resistance to US occupation, but instead the outside meddling of other foreign powers, but so what?
The Iraqi people are distrustful of US influence of any kind. They have a long memory of such "help" from Western powers, and their experience gives them little reason to believe in our stated benign intentions.
Beside, the road to hell is paved with such intentions.
sabro said:
Well, my wife's family is from Okinawa and the people down there aren't too keen on having 20% of their land taken up by US military facilities. The Okinawans are VERY aware of the US presence and routinely hold massive demonstrations against those bases. I have lived on Honshu and Shikoku and the feelings are almost non existant only because there are almost no US military facilities here. I also spent four years as a kid growing up on a US military base in West Germany, and feelings about the US military presence was mixed there too.
In Iraq the people obviously do not want a permanent US military presence, FAR more so than the people of Germany or Japan. The Sunnis don't want them because the Americans kicked them out of power. The Shi'ites don't want them because one of the main reasons for maintaining the bases would be to threaten Iran, the country where most of their religious leaders (ie the people they just overwhemingly voted for) come from. The Kurds are probably the only ones who wouldn't mind, but they only make up 12% of the population. The fact is that even if the troops wouldn't be patrolling the streets everyday, there presence would be a major political issue that would plague the country and fuel violence there for as long as the troops stayed. Remember that the whole catalyst behind the creation of Al-Quaida in the first place was opposition to US military bases in Saudi Arabia EVEN THOUGH those troops were completely segregated from the civilian population and would have had absolutely no interaction with the society around them.
So I don't think it is at all acceptable to try rationalizing a US military presence in a country where the VAST majority of the people clearly do not want them.
It isn't at all accurate to say that the US is reducing its troops deployed permanently overseas either. There are now more permanent US military facitilities in more countries around the world than at any other time since WW2. The number of troops in Japan is the same as ever and the number of troops in Europe and South Korea have only been temporarily reduced to provide troops for the Iraq war.
sabro said:
I don't like the pessimistic view either, but it might be accurate. Iraq suffers from having had its borders drawn by a bunch of British colonial administrators in the early twentieth century who had no knowledge of or concern for the people they were governing. This is one of the main reasons so many African states have been plagued by constant warfare since being decolonized too. There are three distinct political and religious groups in Iraq with divergent interests and the only way Iraq has been kept together as a single state has been through strongman brutality in the past. The boycott of hte elections by the Sunnis does not bode well for Iraq's future. I really don't see how a truly democratic political system that can accomodate all three groups while maintaining Iraq as a single state can emerge in the current situation.
Sabro said:
Not unrealistic, but unfortunately not on the horizon any time soon. It'll probably be decades, not years, before an Iraq that looks like that can emerge. They are just entering the era of their second "lost generation", which is truly tragic.
I don't think American soldiers are particularly happy about staying there any longer than necessary. And about the Iraqi's- I wouldn't trust the Americans much either, nor would I desire to be occupied by any foreign power. If anyone can figure out a faster, cleaner, happier way out of there, I'm certain many including the nobel prize selection committe would be interested.
At this point the options seem somwhat limited. My rationalization for American presence there is the incredible mess we created by invading and the massive power vacuum and chaos that will result by a sudden withdrawl. You can ask Censport if I am some flag waving imperialist. I'm certain he'll verify that I am not a big fan of foreign military adventure. Maybe the UN can take over rebuilding duties?
I brought up other countries we have occupied, and although we may not have always done a great job, aren't most of those countries free and autonomous?
No one said this would be easy. I don't think anyone expect anything really spectacularly good to happen soon.
At this point the options seem somwhat limited. My rationalization for American presence there is the incredible mess we created by invading and the massive power vacuum and chaos that will result by a sudden withdrawl. You can ask Censport if I am some flag waving imperialist. I'm certain he'll verify that I am not a big fan of foreign military adventure. Maybe the UN can take over rebuilding duties?
I brought up other countries we have occupied, and although we may not have always done a great job, aren't most of those countries free and autonomous?
No one said this would be easy. I don't think anyone expect anything really spectacularly good to happen soon.
sabro said:
I'm certain most American soldiers (and most Americans) want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but unfortunately I don't think the Bush administration shares their opinion.
sabro said:
I'm not at all accusing you of being an imperialist or anything, I've read what you've written here and I think we agree on most things. I'm just choosing to disagree on this one point here because I think it is an important difference. I'm not arguing for the US to literally pull up and get out of Iraq right now, but I think that the US government should announce in unequivocal terms that it has no intention of staying in Iraq beyond a certain point. Up until now the Bush administration has been quite vague and refused to provide any clear timetable or even any conditions upon which it would agree to leave Iraq. They even pressured all of the major Iraqi political parties into dropping their demands for an American withdrawal, including the Shi'ite religious party whose main platform had been a call for a timetable for US withdrawal from their country right up until the eve of the election. The message which is being deliberately sent to the Iraqi people is quite clear: "We're going to stay in your country until we see fit to leave regardless of what you think about it. And judging from past experience, you can expect to host us until your grandchildren's grandchildren grow old." This is not a strategy for winning "Hearts and minds" and given that most polls indicate about 80% of Iraqis want US troops to leave their country its not hard to see that this is going to cause major problems in the future.
Sabro said:
Its been a mixed bag. Countries that were occupied after the war and which had a modern industrial economy before the war like Germany and Japan found political freedom and prosperity thanks to the Americans. Other countries like South Korea had to endure 40 years of American backed military dictatorship before the people themselves rose up and forced the generals to accept democracy. It isn't hard to see that Iraq will not be a repeat of the success of reconstruction and democratization in Germany and Japan which were really more the exceptions rather than the rule.
Sabro said:
Well, this isn't quite true, just about everyone in the Bush administration assured the American public it would be easy while they were trying to sell the invasion 2 years ago. Its a shame that they seem to have beleived their own rhetoric, otherwise maybe Iraq wouldn't be in the mess it is today.
sabro said:
I'm sorry, but yes, that is ignorance. Even the kuwaiti government - of all governments - stopped supporting the sanctions. The iranians will surely point out that without the support of the USG, Iraq would never have made it through the Iran-Iraq war.
sabro said:
Once again, that is ignorance. The sanctions against Iraq produced a completely unpredecent uproar in the UN, especially among those that had the task of carrying them out. Haliday and von Sponeck were the absolute top responsibles for the U.N. operations in Iraq, and resigned saying that these sanctions might even be called genocide.
Even Kofi Annan said in an interview, "Please don't judge us by Iraq".
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/pilger.htm
Whatever your enemy does, you may not target civilians. You might come up with the best justifications, but it's simply illegal.
Now, please do explain your position: what was the horror that would have happened if we'd lifted the sanctions in say 1995 (to make things even easier)?
I can't speak for the UN. The UN wanted compliance with the 1991 cease fire agreements and weapons inspection program that it was not getting before sanctions were lifted. They did offer the oil for food program which should have eased civillian suffering. Apparently the UN was unhappy with Saddam's lack of cooperation, but again I can't speak for the UN. (I can't speak for the Kuwaitis or Kurds either...) Turmoil and uproar in the UN apparently did not help the problem.
Is targeting trade targetting civillians? In all probablility, yes- it is a device used by the world community to try to force change. I'm not certain the UN has many weapons in it's arsenal to achieve change in a dictatorship that wouldn't hurt the civillians of that country.(I suppose this is an effort to try to errode whatever support he may have.)
If we would have lifted sanctions in 1995 there is a good chance that nothing would have happened and Saddam would have still been dictator. We know now that he had ended his WMD development programs. Oil prices would be lower. Kurds and Shiites would still be tortured and killed in Iraq, but overall the quality of life would be somewhat better. The US would have sold millions of dollars of weapons systems to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and would be actively courting moderates in Iran to try to keep Iraq in check. The Redsox would still win the World Series.
Is targeting trade targetting civillians? In all probablility, yes- it is a device used by the world community to try to force change. I'm not certain the UN has many weapons in it's arsenal to achieve change in a dictatorship that wouldn't hurt the civillians of that country.(I suppose this is an effort to try to errode whatever support he may have.)
If we would have lifted sanctions in 1995 there is a good chance that nothing would have happened and Saddam would have still been dictator. We know now that he had ended his WMD development programs. Oil prices would be lower. Kurds and Shiites would still be tortured and killed in Iraq, but overall the quality of life would be somewhat better. The US would have sold millions of dollars of weapons systems to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and would be actively courting moderates in Iran to try to keep Iraq in check. The Redsox would still win the World Series.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
Verified.sabro said:
Sorry if I was late, boss.
Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
Sr Pasta
You run the risk of discrediting yourself by using terms such as "neo-con", or insisting that someone's knowledge is ignorance just because their news soucres don't agree with your sources.
Politically speaking, there is a site called the Democratic Underground where you might feel more comfortable. There, you can bash Republicans, conservatives, Americans, President Bush and anyone in his administration and be cheered on by like-minded individuals. And you don't have to worry about anyone disagreeing with you, as posters who present anything but far-left conspiracy theories are banned and their posts are removed.
I'm not saying that you're not welcome to opine here, but don't get upset if someone disagrees with you or posts a link to an article you don't want to believe (which I've probably done in this thread already, if you'll bother to go back and read the preceding pages).
More later, occupation beckons....
You run the risk of discrediting yourself by using terms such as "neo-con", or insisting that someone's knowledge is ignorance just because their news soucres don't agree with your sources.
Politically speaking, there is a site called the Democratic Underground where you might feel more comfortable. There, you can bash Republicans, conservatives, Americans, President Bush and anyone in his administration and be cheered on by like-minded individuals. And you don't have to worry about anyone disagreeing with you, as posters who present anything but far-left conspiracy theories are banned and their posts are removed.
I'm not saying that you're not welcome to opine here, but don't get upset if someone disagrees with you or posts a link to an article you don't want to believe (which I've probably done in this thread already, if you'll bother to go back and read the preceding pages).
More later, occupation beckons....
sabro said:
It did. Alarming UN reports in combination with Saddams successful bargaining with Russia, France and Germany, led to the lightening up of the sanctions through the so called Oil for food program. Those who administrered the program, Halliday and von Sponeck, says it was mostly rhetorics though, and not even nearly an end to the crime being committed.
I'm not asking you to speak for either the UN or the USG, it's not like it's your fault. Saying that the "UN wanted compliance" is misleading though: the UN offices worked hard for removing sanctions, but they were decided by the security council. The western governments were the ones making the decisions, and the USG and the UK were the most active.
If you have a look at this link I posted before, the USG were also very explicit about the sanctions not being about cooperation, but about removing a foreign government from power:
http://accuracy.org/press_releases/PR111398.htm
Sbro: Ignorance doesn't mean that someone is dumb. It just means you don't have the facts. I'm ignorant about lots of stuff going on in the world - when it somes to Iraq, I just happen to have read a lot.
In just about all wars in history, most people will be ignorant about key facts on the conflict. It's not about people being stupid, but about selective media working for the same goals as their government. There's nothing strange about that. To understand why the iraqis didn't feel liberated, you have to explain that they don't share the same set of ignorance as we do. (They have others, of course, like the idea that jews are secretly in control of Washington.)
So, to point out my own ignorance when it comes to U.S. politics: I thought most of the current USG administration would proudly call themselves conservatives and/or neoconservatives? Is it the "neo-" they'd have problem with, or the abbreviation "neocons"?
Obviously if I am ignorant, nothing you have posted has enlightened me at all. I can't follow the logic that something was illegal because it violates somebody's self imposed moral standard. Laws don't work that way. I'm certain that all the right wing wacko's in the US would be overjoyed if the majority of people on earth agree that the UN is acting illegally and recklessly-- it's what they have been saying all along. I am unaware of many things, but simply saying something doesn't make it true.
If the UN wanted to remove sanctions they could have at any time. The article you cite seems to indicate that the sanctions would be lifted on the condition of compliance. If sanctions were illegal, than let the world community put the world community on trial. The specific laws the UN violated would be...?
The US does not own or control the UN. Neither does the UK. The US made no secret about wanting a regime change. The article you cite confirms this also. The US obviously wanted more than sanctions but could not even get the OK to invade. We don't even pay our dues on time any more.
I understand perfectly how Iraqis could celebrate the collapse of Saddams regime on one day and resent the occupation of their homeland soon after. As the expectations for basic necessities of life turned to frustration, I can understand how their resentment grew.
Again I have no problem admitting ignorance when concerned with the information and points of view that others have and I do not. I do not know what I do not know. And I am ignorant of my ignorance. I cannot accept however the fact that I may be ignorant of facts and points of view that almost no one has. Is there a widespread opinion in the world community that the sanctions against Iraq were illegal? Enlighten me please.
If the UN wanted to remove sanctions they could have at any time. The article you cite seems to indicate that the sanctions would be lifted on the condition of compliance. If sanctions were illegal, than let the world community put the world community on trial. The specific laws the UN violated would be...?
The US does not own or control the UN. Neither does the UK. The US made no secret about wanting a regime change. The article you cite confirms this also. The US obviously wanted more than sanctions but could not even get the OK to invade. We don't even pay our dues on time any more.
I understand perfectly how Iraqis could celebrate the collapse of Saddams regime on one day and resent the occupation of their homeland soon after. As the expectations for basic necessities of life turned to frustration, I can understand how their resentment grew.
Again I have no problem admitting ignorance when concerned with the information and points of view that others have and I do not. I do not know what I do not know. And I am ignorant of my ignorance. I cannot accept however the fact that I may be ignorant of facts and points of view that almost no one has. Is there a widespread opinion in the world community that the sanctions against Iraq were illegal? Enlighten me please.
This thread has been viewed 3284 times.