Let's talk Iraq

[beyelzu]

I am/was opposed to the war in iraq.

I do not think the war served america's interests.

There was no real link between iraq and al queda


any rationale for invasion, even based on the "evidence" of bush (when there was still a posibility of wmds) would have been better applied to North Korea.


However, if america does rebuild iraq as we did germany and japan, wont it be a better place. Wont there be a net good achieved. Safe for democracy and all that. By all accounts, Saddam was an evil fuck and surely the Iraqi people are better off without him.

Now I realize that this is unlikely (we arent even rebuilding afganistan like we promised) and it seems to me that we are going to fuck them twice.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I am/was opposed to the war in iraq.

Me too, from the start. And, I am not in any way opposed to war, justified war of course.

I do not think the war served america's interests.

The result has been a real dramatic decline in the opinion others have of America. I just hope they realize it's not you and I, but our fucked up government and a few corporate special interests that have gotten us into this.

There was no real link between iraq and al queda

Agreed. So, how does this make the war on the Iraqi people part of the War on Terra(tm)?

any rationale for invasion, even based on the "evidence" of bush (when there was still a posibility of wmds) would have been better applied to North Korea.

But, we won't invade them because they actually have WMD.

However, if america does rebuild iraq as we did germany and japan, wont it be a better place. Wont there be a net good achieved.

Could be... if they wanted us there, which I am coming to doubt. Iraq had shown a remarkable ability to rebuild itself after Desert Storm despite embargoes. The Iraqi people have been grossly misunderestimated by Bush&Co.

Safe for democracy and all that.

Democracy can only come from the Iraqi people, not from the Bush administration, or even the Kerry administration. I'm not even sure you can impose a democracy at all. It is entirely possible that a majority of Iraqis may elect an Islamic government. If they don't get what they elect, how is that democracy?

By all accounts, Saddam was an evil fuck and surely the Iraqi people are better off without him.

Some people definitely are better off without Saddam. But, the vast majority of Iraqis just didn't make waves and got along just fine with Saddam in power. Iraq had one of the highest standard of living in the Middle East, the most educated populace, and a medical system that was so good that other Middle Easterners went there for care. I'm in the minority of people that are sure Saddam wasn't 100% evil, only 99-44/100ths evil. Isn't there a poll that shows 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back?

Now I realize that this is unlikely (we arent even rebuilding afganistan like we promised) and it seems to me that we are going to fuck them twice.

We already fucked them, big time. And they didn't even get a cigarette afterwards... but they did get to smoke.

I don't know why this administration is so married to the idea of a unified Iraq. I think it would be better off split into a Shiite Southern Iraq, and Sunni Central Iraq and a Kurdish Northern Iraq. But, where does that leave the miscellaneous other people like the Turkmen and the Christians?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by warrenly

The result has been a real dramatic decline in the opinion others have of America. I just hope they realize it's not you and I, but our fucked up government and a few corporate special interests that have gotten us into this.

I dont know, when talking to other people, it seems that america is viewed as a bully and/or monster and truthfully arent we as citizens in a democracy to responsible.

So, how does this make the war on the Iraqi people part of the War on Terra(tm)?

it really is sad that many americans dont see the lack of connection. Obviously the war in Iraq made us less safe in america.


.

But, we won't invade them because they actually have WMD.

fucked up isnt it.

Could be... if they wanted us there, which I am coming to doubt. Iraq had shown a remarkable ability to rebuild itself after Desert Storm despite embargoes. The Iraqi people have been grossly misunderestimated by Bush&Co.

Democracy can only come from the Iraqi people, not from the Bush administration, or even the Kerry administration. I'm not even sure you can impose a democracy at all. It is entirely possible that a majority of Iraqis may elect an Islamic government. If they don't get what they elect, how is that democracy?

I dont know. We certainly forced japan into a democracy. We forced them to allow women to vote for instance.

Some people definitely are better off without Saddam. But, the vast majority of Iraqis just didn't make waves and got along just fine with Saddam in power. Iraq had one of the highest standard of living in the Middle East, the most educated populace, and a medical system that was so good that other Middle Easterners went there for care. I'm in the minority of people that are sure Saddam wasn't 100% evil, only 99-44/100ths evil. Isn't there a poll that shows 42% of Iraqis want Saddam back?

hate to fuck with godwin's law so quickly. but I am sure hitler and napoleon were both popular shortly after they were removed from power.

We already fucked them, big time. And they didn't even get a cigarette afterwards... but they did get to smoke.

I don't know why this administration is so married to the idea of a unified Iraq. I think it would be better off split into a Shiite Southern Iraq, and Sunni Central Iraq and a Kurdish Northern Iraq. But, where does that leave the miscellaneous other people like the Turkmen and the Christians?

I hadnt really thought about breaking up Iraq.

Interesting thought. Wouldnt turkey oppose that for some reason? I seem to recall that that was one of their concerns going into the war.

[Dingfod]

Yeah, Turkey fears an independent Kurdish state in Iraq will breed an independence movement in the Kurdish part of Turkey, and finance it, I suppose.

[Farren]

The way its looking the USA has fucked them twice. Bremer introduced a whole lot of "innovations" that were astonishingly short-sighted and poorly thought out.

Allowing foreign companies to have 100% ownership of any national industry. except for oil. Allowing foreign companies to take 100% of profits out of Iraq without tariffs or penalties. Applying a flat tax of 15% on corporations, regardless of size and income. laying off 100-200,000 state workers.

In conjuction with the above the use of 90% foreign labour and companies in reconstruction efforts has had a devastating effect on the internal economy of Iraq. Quite a number of observers have noted that a sizeable number of factory owners have a defnite motive in funding insurgents to thwart the efforts of foreign companies.

The neocons appear to have used Iraq as some kind of utopian capitalist experiment, trying to validate their ideas about extreme lassaize-faire, without any consultation with the Iraqi people. The results have been nothing short of disastrous. A lot of Iraqi rage towards the US stems from that.

Now we have Allawi, who seems to be a puppet of the White House, speaking straight from the neocon script and rolling back western democratic standards left right and centre. Imposing martial law, restricting freedom of speech and so on.

There's a part of me that wanted to see the whole affair fail, which is pretty shite to have to admit. But it wasn't borne of simple antipathy to the US administration, it's the result of not believing the current admin had a clue what they were doing. So its more a desire to see a vewpoint vindicated than a desire to see Iraq fail.

It's astonishing to me that this administration seems to think its entirely the fault of the meddling of neighbouring countries and the strength of former Baathists when they implemented quite possibly the crappiest reconstruction program in history, with devastating effects on the lives of ordinary Iraqi people.

The IMF, in its halcyon days of advocating shock therapy left right and centre like a neurosurgeon too eager to lobotomize, would be proud.

And the heavyhandedness of US military responses in Iraq was self evident from the start. I'm reminded of the line in The Wild, Wild West (?) where the US president says "and you, with your policy of shoot first, shoot some more, shoot again, shoot a few more times then ask questions when everyone's dead...."

As we speak I believe other nations are holding back on assisting in Iraq because of their antipathy for GW and their desire to see him lose an election. WaPo had an opinion piece claiming exactly this, quoting unnamed diplomats who said "They really would withhold assistance just to see him fall. They hate him. Its shameful."

Whether its shameful or not can be disputed. Four more years of GW setting policy on Iraq could be far, far worse than six weeks of Europe taking a hands-off approach.

[Godless Dave]

While it may theoretically be possible to impose democracy by force, it is impossible to do it if the people of the country don't want it. Neocon apologists always bring up post-war Germany and Japan, but that was a completely different situation. Those countries were both devestated by years of war when the Allies took over. Most of the German people were (finally) disillusioned with Hitler and his lies, and the Japanese people were learning that their government had been lying to them for years about how the war was going. Much more importantly, at that point almost all German and Japanese men of military age were dead. Germany had been sending 14-year-old boys to the front lines and Japan was preparing women and children to defend the homeland with spears. They knew why they were being invaded and they knew they couldn't fight back.

The Iraqis don't trust our intentions, and with good reason. We probably had a chance right after we took Baghdad but Bushco squandered it all. Disbanding the Iraqi military created a mass of unemployed, armed men with military training. Bringing in foreign companies and foreign workers to do jobs Iraqi companies and Iraqi workers could do bred even more resentment and unemployment. Before the invasion the Iraqis suspected we were just coming to steal their oil and exploit their territory. Everything we've done after that has confirmed that suspicion.

It seems to me like the neocons actually believe their own propaganda. When we backed dictatorships in the 80s the Reagan and Bush I administrations understood that calling them democracies was propaganda directed solely at American voters; they didn't expect to fool the citizens of our client states or their neighbors and they planned accordingly. Bushco seems to have actually expected the Iraqis not to be suspicious of our motives and to be grateful to become a client state of the US.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

While it may theoretically be possible to impose democracy by force, it is impossible to do it if the people of the country don't want it. Neocon apologists always bring up post-war Germany and Japan, but that was a completely different situation. Those countries were both devestated by years of war when the Allies took over. Most of the German people were (finally) disillusioned with Hitler and his lies, and the Japanese people were learning that their government had been lying to them for years about how the war was going. Much more importantly, at that point almost all German and Japanese men of military age were dead. Germany had been sending 14-year-old boys to the front lines and Japan was preparing women and children to defend the homeland with spears. They knew why they were being invaded and they knew they couldn't fight back.

wow, really good point. I suppose also that we can include that neither germany or japan had a culture that luaded suicide bombing which, while reprehensible, is also a truly effective tactic.
[quote]
The Iraqis don't trust our intentions, and with good reason. We probably had a chance right after we took Baghdad but Bushco squandered it all. Disbanding the Iraqi military created a mass of unemployed, armed men with military training. Bringing in foreign companies and foreign workers to do jobs Iraqi companies and Iraqi workers could do bred even more resentment and unemployment. Before the invasion the Iraqis suspected we were just coming to steal their oil and exploit their territory. Everything we've done after that has confirmed that suspicion.[q'uote]
yeah, this seems key to me as well. You dont deregulate at the point of a gun and drive up unemployment to massive levels and charge people 10-15 times more for utilities and expect them to like you. the reconstruction could have been won if we had tried to make something ther than a neocon paradise.

It seems to me like the neocons actually believe their own propaganda. When we backed dictatorships in the 80s the Reagan and Bush I administrations understood that calling them democracies was propaganda directed solely at American voters; they didn't expect to fool the citizens of our client states or their neighbors and they planned accordingly. Bushco seems to have actually expected the Iraqis not to be suspicious of our motives and to be grateful to become a client state of the US.

Indeed, that is what frightens me most about bush, he isnt so much a liar as a complete dipshit.l

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Farren

The way its looking the USA has fucked them twice. Bremer introduced a whole lot of "innovations" that were astonishingly short-sighted and poorly thought out.

Allowing foreign companies to have 100% ownership of any national industry. except for oil. Allowing foreign companies to take 100% of profits out of Iraq without tariffs or penalties. Applying a flat tax of 15% on corporations, regardless of size and income. laying off 100-200,000 state workers.

In conjuction with the above the use of 90% foreign labour and companies in reconstruction efforts has had a devastating effect on the internal economy of Iraq. Quite a number of observers have noted that a sizeable number of factory owners have a defnite motive in funding insurgents to thwart the efforts of foreign companies.

and none of this is mentioned in the news. back to my japan point, we didnt rebuild japan or germany like this, did we?
I mean what's the point of having a decent model of rebuilding if the us isnt going to follow it?

The neocons appear to have used Iraq as some kind of utopian capitalist experiment, trying to validate their ideas about extreme lassaize-faire, without any consultation with the Iraqi people. The results have been nothing short of disastrous. A lot of Iraqi rage towards the US stems from that.

even as a someone with libertarian leanings, I think it is just fucking stupid to go in and virtually overnight make it utra capitalistic. Furthermore, why is it that neocons dont actually pay attention to the fact that america, the most powerful economy on earth, isnt a=lassaize-faire at all.

Now we have Allawi, who seems to be a puppet of the White House, speaking straight from the neocon script and rolling back western democratic standards left right and centre. Imposing martial law, restricting freedom of speech and so on.

There's a part of me that wanted to see the whole affair fail, which is pretty shite to have to admit. But it wasn't borne of simple antipathy to the US administration, it's the result of not believing the current admin had a clue what they were doing. So its more a desire to see a vewpoint vindicated than a desire to see Iraq fail.

I wanted it to succeed, I wanted some good to come out of this debacle. Fuck the intentions.

It's astonishing to me that this administration seems to think its entirely the fault of the meddling of neighbouring countries and the strength of former Baathists when they implemented quite possibly the crappiest reconstruction program in history, with devastating effects on the lives of ordinary Iraqi people.

see my post to dave about how I fear the dipshit more than the liar.
and, it seems to me that bush really believes the bullshit he peddles.

As we speak I believe other nations are holding back on assisting in Iraq because of their antipathy for GW and their desire to see him lose an election. WaPo had an opinion piece claiming exactly this, quoting unnamed diplomats who said "They really would withhold assistance just to see him fall. They hate him. Its shameful."

Whether its shameful or not can be disputed. Four more years of GW setting policy on Iraq could be far, far worse than six weeks of Europe taking a hands-off approach.

again, it is all about net results. I would have to agree with you that four more years of shrub is much worse than a few weeks of europe not being helpful.

I am amused that so many people are pissed at europe for not helping us rebuild Iraq. According to international law, its our responsibility not theirs any fucking way.

btw, sorry when I slip into saying we instead of the us, I know you are from SA but it's hard to alter my speech patterns.

[LadyShea]

Wow, really good points made in this thread. How does the current fucked upness of the former Soviet nations fit in? Or does it? Is there a lesson to be learned from that at all? Obviously it shows you can't just leap to capitalism and everything is okey dokey at the very least.

[Godless Dave]

Funny you should mention that, LadyShea. I was just thinking about that last night. I think there is a similarity. I was really bothered at the way the US and the rest of the western world handled the fall of the Iron Curtain. There seemed to be this assumption that immediate implementation of laissez-faire capitalism would do nothing but good for the economies of Eastern Bloc countries. To me this seemed to ignore history: the evils of unfettered capitalism are what made communism so attractive to Europeans in the first place! To this day I am not sure if the problem was western policy makers blinded by dumb ideology, or if they knew exactly what was going to happen and were hoping western business could exploit the former Communist countries while they had no labor or environmental protection laws. I suspect it was some of both.


The thing is that kind of approach shoots itself in the foot long term. People who are dirt poor with no hope for improvement are much more likely to resort to violence than people who have economic security.

[LadyShea]

The thing is that kind of approach shoots itself in the foot long term. People who are dirt poor with no hope for improvement are much more likely to resort to violence than people who have economic security.

Right, a workable economy cannot just sprout form the ground, it has to be built carefully. Whatever they hoped, it didn't happen. Most of the former Soviet countries are a mess

[Farren]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right, a workable economy cannot just sprout form the ground, it has to be built carefully. Whatever they hoped, it didn't happen. Most of the former Soviet countries are a mess

Yeah there obviously isn't only one, unique formula for a successful society. In all likelyhood theres a plethora of totally disparate societies that achieve a modicum of human happiness and the stability required for long term sustainability, be they libertarian, communal, authoritarian or whatever.

But as you so rightly point out an essential ingredient of achieving such a society surely has to be incremental development. I mean, something like capitalism, for instance, isn't just about laws and government agencies. It requires a ton of small habits that people have to be habituated to.

It requires consumers to actually exercise their choices and go somewhere else when they're not satisfied. It requires reciepts to be issued and kept. It requires contracts to be honoured, the justice system to be able and competent enough to ensure contracts are, in fact honoured. Anti-trust laws to ensure price-fixing and anticompetitive barriers to entry don't prevail (especially in former communist countries where entire state industries might simply get converted to singular private monopolies). It requires IP laws and understanding and enforcement of those laws. And so on and so on.

To maintain such a state, its not good enough that a small portion of the population knows how to play the game. The entire population must have a clear idea about how that particular kind of state hangs together, or at least a clear idea of how they can be a functional part of it. Its a lot of knowledge and when you've just emerged from an entirely different model of state, you can't just have it imposed on you willy nilly.

Shock therapy doesn't work. All natural systems evolve incrementally and human societies are natural systems. I just read an interesting article on a libertarian site linked to from IIDB about the Straussian influence on neoconservatives and one of the statements that jumped out at me was that the Straussian influence in neoconservatism is most marked in their desire to want everything now, to seek overnight change and instant ideological gratification, whereas true conservatism (tm) always seeks change in cautious increments.

While I'm no great admirer of true conservatives (tm), I do think the comment on Straussians and neoconservatives is particularly pertinent at this point in time.

[Godless Dave]

Great points, Farren.

People seem to forget (I just assume they learned it in high school history class like I did), that back when the US had a more laissez-faire, true capitalist system, much of the working class - men, women, and children as young as 5 - worked 12-16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and were paid in company scrip that could only be used to purchase things at the company store.

Pure capitalism will always result in most of the wealth being concentrated in the hands of a very few. And yes, Virginia, that is a bad thing.

Pure anarchy is the same way, except with power instead of wealth.

[mopeder]

QUOTE:
“… the President just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. … , he just said “the enemy attacked us.” Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us, OSAMA bin Laden attacked us, al-QAEDA attacked us. And when we had OSAMA … cornered in the mountains of TORA BORA …, with the America military forces nearby … , we didn’t use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world’s #1 criminal & terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, who only a week earlier had been … fighting against us, … . That’s the enemy that attacked us, that’s the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains, that’s the enemy that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits.” ~ Senator John Kerry (Sept-30-2004)


During the debate G W Bush said that Iraq was the center of the war on terror. That’s just not true. John Kerry was right about Afghanistan being the center of the focus on the war on terror. Instead of getting the job done in Afghanistan which would be capturing or killing OSAMA bin Laden and destroying the al-QAEDA forces there, Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq. And now terrorists are pouring over Iraq’s border from the surrounding countries of the Middle East to kill U.S. soldiers. These are terrorists from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
While Saddam Hussein was in power there were almost no terrorists in Iraq. Now as a result of the war in Iraq, Bush has unwittingly increased the spread of terrorism instead of lessening it.
Bush also stated during the debate that Iraq would have gotten stronger if something wasn’t done. That’s just not true. Kerry said the sanctions, the north and south no-fly zones were working, the weapons inspections were ongoing. The U.S. was conducting air strikes when necessary. Saddam’s regime was getting weaker, and weaker, and would have continued to weaken. The assessment Kerry gave was accurate. When the U.S. invaded, Iraq could barely defend itself and crumbled from the onslaught.
Now out on the campaign trail Bush is saying that Iraq was a danger. That’s just not true. What Kerry said was in agreement with the findings of the 9/11 commission that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and no links to al-QAEDA, or involvement by Iraq in the 9/11 attacks.
Bush made a mistake when he invaded Iraq, and it has needlessly cost the lives of U.S. soldiers, American civilians, and others. The capture of Saddam was the only good thing that happened.
The danger to the U.S. was and still is from al-QAEDA, not Iraq. Bush should stop using misleading rhetoric, and tell the truth. I know, that’s just not likely.

http://www.votolatino.org

[livius drusus]

Couldn't agree more, mopeder. Welcome to FF.

[Shake]

Report: No WMDs stockpiles in Iraq

If that doesn't about say it all, I don't know what does.

[mopeder]

QUOTE:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" ~ Emerson

With George W. Bush, we have a man who failed in two businesses of his own. On taking office, he inherited a huge surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in history.

He is the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs in the national economy.

Iraq is a disaster. He talks tough on terrorism but leaves our chemical plants unguarded and unprotected from terrorists and our shipping containers unscanned by any bomb-searching devices.

Instead of spending the money available to protect us, he uses it to give his contributors (billionaires) a large tax cut.

And he's tough on terrorism? When he walks with a swagger and talks tough, how many terrorists does he scare?

He doesn't even like to read in order to study the issues involved. How can he possibly know what's going on?

He is further threatening one of our oldest and most successful institutions, Social Security, with a "privatization" scheme that will no doubt be as disasterous as his other initiatives.

The only reason he has given for his re-election is in his attempted smear of his opponent, claiming John Kerry is unfit while offering more of the same disasters.

Bush has been proven over and over again to be totally incompetent and unfit for the job. His re-election would be a catastrophe unparalleled in our history.

[Godless Dave]

Originally Posted by mopeder

And he's tough on terrorism? When he walks with a swagger and talks tough, how many terrorists does he scare?

That's pretty much the extent of his anti-terror strategy. It's not about scaring terrorists, it's about impressing gullible voters with how macho he is.