 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
well im sure there were a lot of iraqis happy to see sadam go, really.
but there was much suffering, now there' slooting, there's insecurity... who knows
lets hope its not like afganistan
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Oh come on. In that spirit the US can put sanctions on whomever it wants and then accuse them of having people die...
But since this was so "easy" and assuming there won't be a huge backlash then the US can very well go after whoever it wants.
In a monopolar system with one superpower, as it is now, and I think it is a joke to think the EU is going to be a superpower anytime soon, then said superpower can do pretty much as it wishes for a limited amount of time.
Like in the Athenian hegemony, Roman and Byzantine.
One superpower with unbound hands but for a limited amount of time.
But in other countries will ir be so easy?
Iraqis proved to have been exhausted by the sanctions and just wanted a better life. They stood and were killed by the bombs, they could not do anything better, as they were killed by sanctions and sadam. Moirolatry since there was nothing there to do.
I begin to think that the US prefers a state in utter anarchy than a relatively well organised state under a threatening despot.
Who will "fear" Iraq as long as it is deorganzied?
nobody.
We'll see.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:27
|
|
Let me expand somewhat.
I never said that the Iraqi people preferred Hussein or wanted to live under him. When there was an anti-US demonstration in Umm Qasr, when the US finally took control of the city I wrote that we shouldn't make anything of it.
The size of the crowds demonstrating yesterday was rather small, but that could be because fighting is still going on in the city. It could be that people are still waiting for the other shoe to drop. It could be that they hate both Hussein and the US. We don't know. Wait 'till you see 100,000 people dancing to gloat, just to keep from having to eat crow.
Now, just because the war has come to what seems to be a happy conclusion, don't think that it justifies the war. If I went around robbing banks and giving the money to the poor, despite the fact that I was doing good deeds, I don't think very many people would say I was justified. The fact is, the US committed a crime against peace. That's a very serious crime.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
grumbler
|
 |
Virginia, USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
[/lurk mode]
[soapbox mode]
Okay, let's be happy that some Iraqis, at least, are celebrating the fall of SH. Let's recognize that a lot of work remains to be done, both to end the vestiges of the current Iraqi regime and rebuild the country into something better, so the lives lost were not lost in vain.
Let us avoid gloating, or nitpicking, or trying to prove "we were more righter than you were" because none of those attitudes are useful and its impossible to say who was "righter."
The question is, "where to go from here?" Should we ask western soldiers to risk their lives to stop the looting? If so, should it be an absolute crackdown, or just a "risk lives only when lives are at risk" kind of proposition (on the basis that goods can be restored but lives cannot)?
How much power should the new Iraqi interim regime have? Who should have the power to remove them if they start to fall back on "bad old habits?" Should the Iraqi oil industry remain nationalized so that the max money can go towards rebuilding, or should it be privatized so that max growth is achieved? Should iraq be forced or even alowed to leave OPEC?
How much trust should be placed in leaders based on perceived support from the populous (for it surely will be at least a year before anything like free elections will be held) and how much trust based on preceived competence regardless of popularity? How much tolerance of "anti-western" policies and politicians should be allowed? How strong a military should be allowed/encouraged, and how many officers of the old reguime should be "rehabilitated" to effectively lead it? How much military power should non-national groups be allowed to retain, and under whose control?
I enjoy the images of people celebrating, and I enjoy the spectacle of forumites debating who was "righter" but I wonder if anyone is really ready to consider the questions that really matter. Bumper-sticker politics got the war started (and opposed the war), but bumper-sticker politics won't get a meaningful peace started.
I think that we can all agree on the facts that the war has had at least some good outcomes, and that the war will only prove to have been at all meaningful if the net result is a better ME and world.
So, why are we still focussed on what divides us instead of what unites us? Only by exporting what unites us into the Middle East will we ever see the destruction of what threatens us.
[/soapbox mode]
[lurk mode]
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2003 00:47
What is this... 
An argument?
I've been scarce since well before the war. I've already said something about the dancing, however.
|