 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
person would understand that the secret police are being implemented for the good of the Iraqi people. |
Ah silly me, freedom is slavery. 
Alright, Patroklos, let's go over this one more time.
The facts are that the militias have been wantonly assassinating, and when former-Ba'athists have been assassinated, we've been saything that's ok.
The facts are that the militias have been extremely agressive, and have often disployed strong oppositions to both liberty as well as American policies to the point of violence.
The facts are that we've been using these militias as a paramilitary force (and assassinations by no means have stopped).
So, along comes this Telegraph article. It says that the US is going to create a secret police out of the militias and that, "If successfully set up, the group would work in tandem with American forces but would have its own structure and relative independence. It could be expected to be fairly ruthless in dealing with the remnants of Saddam."
Ok, so what are the possible merits of the decision?
-It could reign in the militias. That'd be pretty hard since, as I just explained, most of them aren't apt to take orders from us - they even have "relative independence" from Amercan forces, and they are expected to be "fairly ruthless." I'll contrast this with a more sensible policy (by Karzai's gov't) in Afghanistan, where instead of giving the warlords a greater part in government and trying to co-opt them, Karzai has been systematically and fairly competently been attacking the power of the warlords by trying to disarm them and minimize their power in government; this policy is actually working fairly well although there are some hitches, but in Iraq where the militias have far, far, less power than the warlords, it could easily be successful.
-It could bring troop strength to a level large enough to destroy the insurgency, or at the very least prevent it from making major successes. I personally think that's the reasoning Bremer et al. used since it isn't quite as ludicrous as creating this police force to try to reign them in. However, as I said earlier, there are a number of problems with this policy, starting with the undermining of the rule of law. This would frighten the Sunni's, many of which are former Ba'athist members, into continuing to fight as such an action clearly excludes them from participation in the new Iraqi society.
In addition, you've got long-term problems, namely the ability of this organization to become politically strong enough to support their agenda through massive repression. Again, look at Iran and what happened to the secret police we trained for them. From a realist POV, this is bad because it could trigger a revolution, and I don't think I need to explain how it's bad from a humanitarian POV.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Look *******, we are talking about the freaking secret police here and then you have to inject your daily hypocritical, "USA is responsible for blah blah...USA is oppressing blah blah...USA only cares about itself"
Now go back to being French and go blow up some islands in the Pacific, invade Africa for chocolate, or do some other insignificant "screw the world we're also acting in our self interests but it's okay for us" bullshit |
I don't understand why so many Americans assume I am apologetic of my country. It must be imaginable for these people that someone can actually disagree with his own's country's policies.
The fact that I'm saying the US acts in its only interest doesn't mean I assume France is any better. I have repeatedly written here that our both countries have followed their own nterest in this charade, and that both have tried to get the moral high ground in their PRopaganda.
USA only cares about itself, just like any other country. I fail to see what is surprising, what is shocking, and what is wrong with that statement. You can be sure the US would not lose 2 men a day and billions of dollars only for some humanitarian concern. Otherwise, the US would have chosen to pay the much less money (and the zero human cost) needed to remove malnutrition and common disease in all stable parts of the world, a much greater aim than saving Iraqis, yet cheaper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-01-2004 06:00
) for instance: 
|