21-02-2003 21:45									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ted: The sanctions are what made the Iraqi population poor. And BTW, who financed Saddam's war against Iran? yeah that's right...

Anyways, one just has to look at the failure in Afghanistan to see what will happen in Iraq. Except the Kurds will probably get screwed by our "Ally" Turkey.

	21-02-2003 21:57									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Does everone agree that there will never be American democracy in Iraq? I do.

So onto who will rule Iraq. The thing about de-Baathification is that are there even other Sunnis besides the Baaths, and are they qualified to rule? It seems that de-Nazification was different, becuase there were not other major religious sects in Germany like there are in Iraq.

	21-02-2003 22:07									#93
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The only people who have been saying anything along the lines of the US bringing democracy to Iraq are the war mongers.

I think most of the anti-war people have realised from the start that they would just install a new dictator once they remove saddam. (edit: and that it ludicrous idea to bring democracy to a country by blowing it up and killing it's leader)



I love watching how some people flip-flop to whatever the government says, though. So much for that "fight for democracy, liberate the people!" argument. I guess it's time for all the warmongers to think up this week's new excuse.

Last edited by General Ludd on 21-02-2003 at 22:15

	21-02-2003 22:13									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm not a big fan of American Democracy anyway. I had my doubts from the start, but after some thought it's obvious that Iraq could never be a Democracy. It would not last long, and it can't be determined who would take control after the ashes.

	21-02-2003 22:53									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS No, I meant the article that I linked. It describes a de-Baathification of Iraq, with the de-Nazification of Germany used as a model.

In other words, go after the top couple dozen bad guys and use the rest to develop post-war Iraq?

	21-02-2003 23:12									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well, there's a tension between who are the best people to develop a post-war Iraq and who are the best in you're redistributing power in accordance with ethnic ties.

Recognizing that tension, I can no more easily say that the US would remove "the top couple dozen bad guys" or "everybody in the current system".

	21-02-2003 23:15									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Since the Baathist clan is the only group with governing experience I imagine that they retain power. I think the transitional government will be there for a long time 'retraining' these Baathists.

	22-02-2003 01:53									#98
	Put an end to popups!

Germany and Jpaan are horrible models for Iraq: besides the patently obvious differences of time and space, there are many other fundamental differences between Iraq and both Japan and Germany.

Neither of the defeated Axis states had any significant internal relegious or ethinic divisions that had not alreayd been sucessfully worked out: there were no ethnic poltiics to deal with.

Germany and Japan were both diversified Industrial economies of the first rank. Iraq's ecopnomy is still dominated by exports of either Oil, or before the sanctions, agricultural goods. Such a undiversified economy is more open to poltiical control. Who egst to control the OIl in iraq is who gets to control the wealth. This was not an issue in Iraq.

Both the Japanese and german people saw they governemnts that elad them into WW2 as being legitimate: that they fought the conquerors tooth and nail is simply the most obvious proof. When then, their governments utterly collapsed, or surrendered to the conquerors, in a sense the conquerors had aquired a legitimacy to rule and remake the state. We say Saddam is an illegitimate ruler, and our conquest of Iraq willl not make us the legitimate rulers. the best way to expalin thi would be this:

Two men decide to gamble, and put up the deeds to a house as the bet. If both men are the legal owners fo the deeds they placed as best, then the winner, due to the contract just made, rigthfully gets both properties. If one of the men had stolen the dded and lost, the winner has no right over that hosue, since the losser never had the right to give it away in the first place.

If we are there to liberate the Iraqi people from the illegitimate government, then we still have no right to rule them, anymore than Saddam had.

	22-02-2003 02:38									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Gepap,

I disagree. The Iraqi people, just like everyone else, want order above sovereignty. They will know that the transitional government is necessary, and they will enjoy the new order to things. As long as we govern well, and I think we will, everything will be fine. We will have a window of time before the Iraqis will start demanding sovereignty. After that window closes another government will have to be set up. It's that governments ability to keep order that should be in doubt, and what that government will be.

	22-02-2003 02:42									#100
	Support Apolyton

You say that based on what?

And you claim the Iraqis can't have order on their won? Based on what? The Kurds have order where they live, without the US. What evidence do you have that the Iraqi opposition could not come in and set up some type of Iraqi overnemnt of their own?

Any evidence whatsoever?

	22-02-2003 02:53									#101
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Bullshit Paiktis. US is there to rebuild. Iraq had the highest standard of living and was the most advanced state in the Mideast until dumbass Saddam went after Iran, and then Kuwait.

Actually, Saddam didn't "go after" Iran. First, he tried to deal with the Khomeini government, making concessions on the Shatt al Arab waterway and continuing to abide by other working agreements in place with the Shah, which were ignored by Khomeini. Saddam put up with Iranian fundamentalist agents trying to foment rebellion and the creation of a fundamentalist Shiite state in all or at least the southern part of Iraq, and he put up with Iranian sponsored assassinations of Iraqi officials in and around Basra for over a year before invading.

At the time of the invasion, virtually the entire arab world and the US agreed (at least in terms of their actions aiding the Iraqis) that the Iraqis had a reasonable casus belli against an aggressive rogue state. In terms of military capability, the Iraqis had no chance, but they had to man up against the Iranians, or continue to get subverted and *****slapped.

There were reasons for slapping the Kuwaitis around as well, and initially, virtually nobody in the arab world was particularly sympathetic to the Kuwaitis, who were and are reputed to be arrogant *******s.

Doesn't mean that Saddam isn't a dangerous *******, but he isn't the mad, unprovoked and unpredictable aggressor US propaganda paints him as.

And democracy in Iraq simply ain't gonna work - none of the rest of our lackeys, er, um, "allies" want it - the Turks don't want to encourage Kurdish nationalism, our bought off Kings, Emirs, and Sheikhs consider government by the masses to be subversive (hint, does anyone seriously think that any form of democratic Saudi government would let the Saudi royal family keep all those oil assets as their family property?). The only foreign power who would benefit be real democratization in Iraq would be the Iranians, who would exploit their improved connection with the majority Iraqi Shiites to influence the Iraqi government.

DuncanK: History hasn't shown many peoples who want foreign forcibly imposed "order" over their own sovereignty.

	22-02-2003 02:56									#102
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Didn't know those things about early dealings between Saddam, and the new Irani regime, Thanks MtG!

	22-02-2003 03:06									#103
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Adam Smith DanS beat me to the (first) WAPO article. I'm getting fed up with this bullshit. There is no convincing case whatsoever that invading Iraq, setting up a government of our choosing, and then staying there for an undetermined number of years until the whole thing gets off the ground, is worth the time, money, and, yes, lives that we are going to have to put into it. Much less any reasonable probability of success when we are done. I am appalled that Paul Wolfowitz and his like receive any serious hearing in a democratically elected government. [/rant] There. Now I feel much better.

Agreed 100%

Dan: I think the present alternative sucks as well, but it's time to face up the the fact that sanctions are impotent. The no-fly zones don't have any effect against Iraqi aggression on the ground against the Kurds or Shiites, so IMO, they should be eliminated as well. Sanctions should be lifted, IMO, since they are ineffective.

As things stand now, all Hussein's neighbors are far better prepared to deal with any Iraqi aggression, and there's no doubt a lot more people would agree that there was a clear casus belli IF Hussein or his successors make military threats against their neighbors, or escalate repression against the Kurds or Shiites.

The US is going in with minimal support internationally outside the UK and Australia, no long term plan, no long term vision, and no real concept of how all the possibilities can play out. And we're doing so while critically tying up a huge portion of our combat capacity, for God doesn't even know how long.

	22-02-2003 03:26									#104
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap You say that based on what? And you claim the Iraqis can't have order on their won? Based on what? The Kurds have order where they live, without the US. What evidence do you have that the Iraqi opposition could not come in and set up some type of Iraqi overnemnt of their own? Any evidence whatsoever?

There you go on about evidence again. Decisions must be made were there is no clear evidence to proof things one way or another. To just leave the Iraqis to determine their government from the get go would immediately be disasterous. I'm absolutely possitive that the entire region would erupt into war.

	22-02-2003 03:31									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat DuncanK: History hasn't shown many peoples who want foreign forcibly imposed "order" over their own sovereignty.

Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination.

People go on and on about soveriegnty, but it's really about order, security and prosperity.

Iraq will accept our rule for awhile as long as we don't exploit them. Agreed soon they will want their own government.

	22-02-2003 03:37									#106
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination. People go on and on about soveriegnty, but it's really about order, security and prosperity. Iraq will accept our rule for awhile as long as we don't exploit them. Agreed soon they will want their own government.

That was a long time ago. Everything changed with the development of nationalism. For some more recent examples, the Palestineans were better off under the occuation than they are now, and the Chechens were better off in the USSR than they are now. But neither seems to want to go back; they have this strange desire to control their own destiny whatever it costs.

	22-02-2003 03:40									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Andrew1999 That was a long time ago. Everything changed with the development of nationalism. For some more recent examples, the Palestineans were better off under the occuation than they are now, and the Chechens were better off in the USSR than they are now. But neither seems to want to go back; they have this strange desire to control their own destiny whatever it costs.

I think you think I'm saying that Iraq will accept permanent rule by the US. No, only temporary.

	22-02-2003 03:48									#108
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK I think you think I'm saying that Iraq will accept permanent rule by the US. No, only temporary.

I was referring to the part where "all they really want is order, security, and prosperity." I don't think they'll make that kind of cost/benefit analysis of being occupied.

	22-02-2003 03:49									#109
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination.

That's a rather piss-poor comparison, since the colonies were populated by British subjects who had traditional loyalty to the crown. Unless, of course, you're saying the Iraqis would accept American occupation as, say, the Indians accepted British colonial rule, and I sincerely doubt you want to go there...

	22-02-2003 03:56									#110
	Remove this text

The British were able to rule India for a long time while exploiting them the whole way. Why should the US not be able to rule Iraq for a short time if we don't exploit them?

	22-02-2003 04:29									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Because for the most part British rule in India was based on the British ebing the protectors of those local potentates that had ruled India before the English got there, all the Maharajas and princes and so forth. For the Us to follow this example, it would have to leave all the local governors in power and rule through them.

If what you said were true, there would never be such a thing as revolutions, which inherently destroy order to attain some other goal.

	22-02-2003 04:42									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

As things stand now, all Hussein's neighbors are far better prepared to deal with any Iraqi aggression, and there's no doubt a lot more people would agree that there was a clear casus belli IF Hussein or his successors make military threats against their neighbors, or escalate repression against the Kurds or Shiites.

So you believe that any threat from Hussein wrt weapons of mass destruction over time is de minimis? I don't think I could accept that one, even if the threat is slightly overworked by Bush et al.

	22-02-2003 04:48									#113
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap Because for the most part British rule in India was based on the British ebing the protectors of those local potentates that had ruled India before the English got there, all the Maharajas and princes and so forth. For the Us to follow this example, it would have to leave all the local governors in power and rule through them.

The British kept the local governors unless they thought that those governors would not be loyal, especially after the Sepoy rebellion. It's a matter of governing. You have to choose the right administers. The British did a good job, but eventually the prosperity they created in India was their undoing, as professional Indians wanted more than what they were getting. Still, they were able to rule for a long time.

quote: Originally posted by GePap If what you said were true, there would never be such a thing as revolutions, which inherently destroy order to attain some other goal.

I don't claim my statement to be a law. At times people will be willing to sacrifice order for more order in the future. It's relative to how well the government acts in their interest. If they have a government that acts in their interest they generally will not cause disorder.

	22-02-2003 04:49									#114
	Put an end to popups!

DanS:

the monicker WMD is grossely overdoen when it comes to Iraq: Nukes are the true WMD, and the one thing inspectors have said is that evidence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program are hardly there.

As for Biological wepaons: no one has realle figured out how to use them. The Anthrax mailer killed 5 people, he could have kileld a smany mailing bombs. All this talk about weaponized Smallpox and such: can anyone tell me how a sucessful atatck using this could be done?

And as for Chemical weapons: To be very dealy, you need high amounts, and special hardware.

The NYTimes Week in Review last Sunday had a great piece: The CIA stated that 1 TON of Sarin nerve gas could kill up to 8000 people, if delievered perfectly, with all the weather conditions being optimal: that means at night, moonless, warm, no wind. If a breeze kicked up, the number of fatalities drops to 700. Now, can you imagine terrorists having 1 TON of sarin? and the means to deliver them?

The only situation in which Iraq could kill thousand with its WMD is in a war situation, and they would lose that. The Iraqi threat is minimal to the US right now.

	22-02-2003 04:56									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

GePap,

Iraq is a threat because it is researching this things and probably sharing information with other dictators and terrorist groups. It's not just about Iraq itself being able to attack the US. It's about rogue states and terrorist groups working together, sharing information and materials. And I already know that you are going to say there is no proof, but I say it's too important of a matter to require proof.

	22-02-2003 05:06									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK GePap, Iraq is a threat because it is researching this things and probably sharing information with other dictators and terrorist groups. It's not just about Iraq itself being able to attack the US. It's about rogue states and terrorist groups working together, sharing information and materials. And I already know that you are going to say there is no proof, but I say it's too important of a matter to require proof.

WHAT!!!!!!!!! WHAT!!!!!!!!!!

War is such an importan thing that it REQUIRES proof. The more important a thing is, the more important it is to make an educated choice, which means having evidence.
Al Qaeda did what it did, which was get 19 men to put their lievs in the line so they could turn a series of airliners into huge and very complex guided missiles, without the aid of any state, save the Taliban regime. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein won't do sh*t to reduce the capabilties of Al Qaeda. At best, such action is Al qaeda neutral, and if it goes badly, will help them.

No one has yet shown any evidence of Al Qaeda getting any weapons from Iraq, of any type, even simple explosives, and as I pointed out above, for all they are worth, unitl someone makes new substances or improves deliery methods, WMD are not worth their trouble in the terrorist world. You could kill just as many , as quikly, and far more cheaply, with good old bombs.

	22-02-2003 05:14									#117
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap unitl someone makes new substances or improves deliery methods, WMD are not worth their trouble in the terrorist world. You could kill just as many , as quikly, and far more cheaply, with good old bombs.

Well, since rogue states and terrorist organizations want WoMD so bad, maybe they know something you don't.

	22-02-2003 09:50									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

WoMD are a great way fo scaring people, and besides, its always best to have a well rounded arsenal. May I add that non-rogue antions alo seek and stocvkpile WoMD, like ourselves, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and so forth. As I said, a state has the hardware to make a worthwhile chemical attack aaginst its enemies: terrorist don't, unless you believe that somehow the terrorist will get thier hands not only on tons of the stuff, and be able to transport tons of it into place, but get their hands on special munitions, specialized aircraft, and have the ability to use them.

May I add one more point; you made statement. you claim to "know" somehow that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected. How? are you in the CIA? did you have an epiphany? Or perhaps you saw somehting in the media, reports that made this assertion? Well, I have seen many similar reports, and I have found their contents as far as this 'connection' goes sorely lacking and incomplete, full of wild specualtion but few and non-compelling facts. There is 'evidence' out there, and simply put: I find it terribly weak.

	22-02-2003 10:10									#119
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

GePap,

I didn't say that I knew. I was just making an assumption. I think there is a strong possibility. It seems to me that even though people are enemies that they can't help but to cooperate with each other if it will help them defeat a more hated enemy. It's the real world, people compromise.

	22-02-2003 10:14									#120
	Support Apolyton

I am with Duncan on this one. The link is there.

Hell, there are still people that believe Al Queda didn't do 9/11.