Post-War Iraq: Should we help? - Page 5

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How many times do I have to explain that I'm angry with France because they actively opposed US interests, not because they "failed to back us"? I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over...

And the US never actively acts against French or European interests? Please.

The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic. The Bushies have told us that they give a flying **** about its old allies and will build ad hoc alliances. Now some old allies have told the Bushies to sod off and built an ad hoc alliance against this. If it hadn't happened on Iraq, it would have happened on something else, action and reaction.

But the Bushies thought they deserve a special role and support nonetheless, just like they have deserved the Presidency, their big tax cuts, their police state etc.

Dan:

The UK AG, sure. He's just an officer - like Kofi Annan. Who happens to speak for the UN though... why not trust Kofi on the matter? Cause you don't like what he has to say?

Ned · March 18, 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Ned:

As for the second part: Yeah, the French have had this grudge since Dien Bien Phu.... come on Ned. The French do not see the coming war as benefiting their interests (in whichever way you decide to see that), so they did not back it, just as in 1956 the US saw the Anglo-French Israeli invasion of Egypt as being against its interests.

What interests? The US and the USSR combined together in the UN to demand that Britain and France withdraw. The Israeli's were given a guarantee about the Straights, and they withdrew.

I remember Eisenhower being very angry about the French and British on TV. He said that they had not consulted him prior to intervening.

I think this was more about cold-war polictics and Eisenhower's detente with the USSR than about American interests in the ME.

Ned · March 18, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

And the US never actively acts against French or European interests? Please.

The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic. The Bushies have told us that they give a flying **** about its old allies and will build ad hoc alliances. Now some old allies have told the Bushies to sod off and built an ad hoc alliance against this. If it hadn't happened on Iraq, it would have happened on something else, action and reaction.

But the Bushies thought they deserve a special role and support nonetheless, just like they have deserved the Presidency, their big tax cuts, their police state etc.

Don't be so patronizing about Bush. There are literally millions, more like 200 million Americans, who feel the same way about France. The French are very unpopular in the US right now, regardless of their reasons for actively trying to sabotage the US at the SC.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 11:46

Actually, the US felt that by acting, well, like imperialist powers the UK and France undermined the US position that it was figthing for democracy in the ME against the godless commies. Notice how Nasser was driven further into the Spvoiet camp becvause of this. So yes, it was part of Cold War politics, in which the US saw the British and French action undermining the US position. Add to this the fact that the SU was able to invade Hungary that year with little comment initially because the world and UN were stuck on the Suez issue.

If the overriding concern for the US globaly was the fight against the SU, then any action that strenghtened the SU's hand was against US interest. After all, the main rationalization for the current war Bush gave yesterday was "invade Iraq as part of the greater war on terrorism", now wasn't it?

Quote:

How many times do I have to explain that I'm angry with France because they actively opposed US interests, not because they "failed to back us"? I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over...

And how could France have not 'actively oposed US interests' without it willing to back us diplomatically in the UN? That is the art of your point I fail to see. Do you think they had anyting to do with our innitial failure to get the Turks on board? Do you have any evidence they did anything to try to convince Gulf states not to base us? Did they veto 1441. which si one of the resolutions we claim gives us the legitimacy for this war?( actually, according to Ari, the real legitimacy comes from ealier ones)? How on earth did they 'actively oppose Us niterest", except in the diplomatic way I spoke about, which does then become an issue of them backing us in the UN?

DanS · March 18, 2003, 11:49

The funny part about this is that the so-called realist approach in foreign policy is totally unrealistic.

FYI: The Bushies are a mix of realists and neocons (or neoreaganites). I think you have a beef with the neocons (Wolfowitz), not the realists (Powell).

The UK AG, sure. He's just an officer - like Kofi Annan. Who happens to speak for the UN though... why not trust Kofi on the matter? Cause you don't like what he has to say?

I would trust both on the matter, but on this one they seem to disagree. By and large, Kofi's arguments were about legitimacy, not legality, however.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 11:49

In the next round of this, we will see actual "active opposition". If the Bushies decide to take their jihad to Iran, it will get really ugly among western nations.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
FYI: The Bushies are a mix of realists and neocons (or neoreaganites). I think you have a beef with the neocons (Wolfowitz), not the realists (Powell).

That's the same as with "liberal". So Wolfowitz and co are new-speak realists, while Powell would be more on the classic realist side. What I'm missing is the real realism

- the classic liberal view.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 11:54

So Wolfowitz and co are new-speak realists

Eh? No, a realist would think the neocons are a bit crazy, because a plank of the neocon movement is democratization.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 11:55

Quote:

HershOstropoler

There is nothing "realist" about the neo-con point of view. Most of the most ardent realists I know of are deeply opposed to this war.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 12:01

"Eh? No, a realist would think the neocons are a bit crazy"

"There is nothing "realist" about the neo-con point of view."

No need to argue this. I had the impression though the neo-cons were often thrown in with the realist camp, and the rightwing think tanks where this came from saw temselves in that vein.

As for Wolfowitz's Democracy campaign, yeah, that doesn't fit at all. I've just never taken it seriously.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:07

I've just never taken it seriously.

I have to admit that it's appealing to me.

If Iraq were to have a more representative government. If Iran could rewrite its constitution to remove the mullahs from power. If North Korea were to collapse, opening the way for peaceful unification under South Korean control. This would be a neocon trifecta that would make me very happy.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 12:13

Right goal, wrong means.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:18

Different situations, different means.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 12:25

Different means perhabs, reasonable means though - where?

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:29

Removing Hussein from power through force is reasonable, except perhaps in a tactical way (he might blow his wells, he might use chem weapons, he might terrorize the US, etc.).

GePap · March 18, 2003, 12:36

Removing Saddam Hussein form power by force, and then occupying Iraq for several years with many thousand of US troops in an operation that begun with minimal international support: that is so reasonable?

Imaigne Saddam as a alrge tumore: now, obviously we want the tumor out..but how do we do it? patient and careful surgery? Or by hacking the person open with an ax and scooping it out with an ice cream scoop? Bothe ways lead to the same aim: but they are hardly equal.

The job here is not getting rid of Saddam..its remaking Iraq. And we are off to a shaky start.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:38

that is so reasonable?

Sure.

The job here is not getting rid of Saddam..its remaking Iraq.

Why the false choice? It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 12:44

"It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam."

And this administration will screw up the remaking part, if they get to it at all.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:45

Tough to know, Hershell.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
that is so reasonable?

Sure.

No comment.

Quote:

Why the false choice? It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam.

The choice is so different: one bomb, one bullet gets rid of Saddam, while rebuilding Iraq will be a monumental job far beyond remaking either Germany or Japan, and back in 1945 the American people were willing. Today we are not. Have you seen anyone of this admin. yet broach the issue of occupation in front of an auience besides a few congressional committees asking what it will cost? I hear all these people supporting the war saying: "get it done and bring the boys back home". Fine sentiment, only half or more of the "boys" won't be coming home anytime soon, as they have to stay there.
We are undertaking a massive job (not the war, but the aftermath) very glibly and that is very dngerous.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 12:50

They managed to piss off 80 % of the public in your allies in a few months by simple rhetoric. Now imagine what those clowns will do in a hostile environment like Iraq where they will be actually responsible for everything.

But most likely they won't even try. Big fat rhetoric and no follow through, unless it's about something you can bomb.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 12:53

It seems that you think "no follow through" is inevitable. This administration hasn't shown that trait. I think you have the last administration in mind.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 13:01

When this admin. brought out their budget they had not included one cent for Afghanistan: congress ahd to put it in. The admin.s excuse: they forgot. On the topic of Afghnaistan, were is the Afghan army? has central authority moved beyond Kabul. According to the UN there were more cases of hunger this last winter (2002-02) than last (2001-02) while the Islamic police is back out arresing people for doing "unIslamic" things. And this is in a state were we have only 10,000 troops.

Now Iraq: we expect 100,000 troops in occupation for at elast 2 years (accoridng to the White House). one geenral said we might need 200,000 but the Whj sayed he knew not what he was speaking about. The US has not mae a commitmen of that size for 30 years, and in this age of 24 hour news, expected quick wars and instant gratification, how long do you think the country will back that? And it has to back it..this is not a policy the admin. can carry out without congress, if simply because of the massive cost.

Given that this amdin. has yet to fully deliver all the money it promised for Homeland security and their track recodr in Afghanistan, and admin. that kept saying "Turkey is on board' just to be shot down the first time aound, and admi. that kept saying "we ahve the 9 votes' only to withdraw the resolution, am I supposed to be optimistic about a job orders of magnitude greater? Why?

orange · March 18, 2003, 14:33

It'll be Marshall Planish. Nations will invest a lot of money and make out like bandits. Will it rebuild Iraq - yes, but make no mistake about who is truly profiting.

HershOstropoler · March 18, 2003, 14:41

"This administration hasn't shown that trait."

Where has it shown that it puts the money where its mouth is, apart from having a war on Iraq and tax cuts for the rich?

Ned · March 18, 2003, 16:06

I think Bush said something in a speech about continuing the UN oil for food program. However, this time, the money will actually go to buy food. But also, the UN limitations on how much oil the Iraqi Government can sell will certainly be lifted. This will provide a lot more cash that will be available to provide for reconstruction of Iraq. I don't know whether to be any substantial need or outside sources to pay for reconstruction.

I also presume that Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay Iraq's debts to Russia, Germany, France and Kuwait.

If, however, that oil money is not sufficient to both reconstruct Iraq and pay Iraq's debts, then American reconstruction aid, in essence, will simply been paying off Iraq's debts to France, Russia and Kuwait. I would have a very hard time with this. Perhaps, any USA reconstruction aid should be in the form of a loan rather than a gift.

Obviously, France, Germany and Russia will have similar issues. They want to be repaid. They also want a piece of the reconstruction contracts. But where's the money going to come from, if not from Iraqi oil? Are the European's, other than France Germany and Russia, going to provide financial aid to Iraq that will, in effect, only pay back the Iraqi debts to France, Germany, Russia and Kuwait?

Kramerman · March 18, 2003, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Its not a question of helping the Iraqis. The people of Iraq will be be helped whoever gets involved in reconstruction. The question is should the Germans and rench get any of the contracts. If I was in the new Iraqi government I would be more likely to award a contract to the country that got rid of the dictator in my country, rather than the ones who were happy for him to remain.

Kramerman · March 18, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
I think Bush said something in a speech about continuing the UN oil for food program. However, this time, the money will actually go to buy food. But also, the UN limitations on how much oil the Iraqi Government can sell will certainly be lifted. This will provide a lot more cash that will be available to provide for reconstruction of Iraq. I don't know whether to be any substantial need or outside sources to pay for reconstruction.

I also presume that Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay Iraq's debts to Russia, Germany, France and Kuwait.

If, however, that oil money is not sufficient to both reconstruct Iraq and pay Iraq's debts, then American reconstruction aid, in essence, will simply been paying off Iraq's debts to France, Russia and Kuwait. I would have a very hard time with this. Perhaps, any USA reconstruction aid should be in the form of a loan rather than a gift.

Obviously, France, Germany and Russia will have similar issues. They want to be repaid. They also want a piece of the reconstruction contracts. But where's the money going to come from, if not from Iraqi oil? Are the European's, other than France Germany and Russia, going to provide financial aid to Iraq that will, in effect, only pay back the Iraqi debts to France, Germany, Russia and Kuwait?

Maybe France, Germany, and Russia would be kind enough to nullify the debt, no? But this would cancel out half the purpose of their long and fierce oppostion to the war in the first place...

The debt was technically with Saddam's regime, not the new one, so does the new reginme even have to pay the debt to begin with?

Ned · March 18, 2003, 16:34

Kramerman, there is a general priniciple of international law that a change in goverment does not automatically cancel the debts of the foreign government.

One could just see the consequences if any other principle pertained. Governments would constantly be replaced by revolutions simply to cancel debts.

DanS · March 18, 2003, 16:45

Where has it shown that it puts the money where its mouth is, apart from having a war on Iraq

Afghanistan.