 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Who is talking about liberation? We did not go into Afghanistan to liberate them but to uproot terrorists who attacked our country. Anything else is extra.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Don't get your drawers in an uproar GePap. I think that the UN is a great place for liberals to congregate so we can keep an eye on them. Just please keep them out of the Whitehouse!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
MTG: No overflight rights by any European Country??? What continent has Germany been relocated to?? How did I miss an entire country moving to another continent??
|
Ned was talking (rather laughably) about French fears of the US going to war against France. That was the context of the overflight rights - to bomb the bejesus out of France.
quote:
Further, I find your arguments to be of the right heart, but of the wrong mind. Time after time, the ME has shown that it reacts positively to decisive action and that half hearted actions go punished by Arab outrage.
|
The "force is the only language they understand" approach has been tried in the ME for millenia. Everyone knows that the US has no staying power. We keep lots of troops in Korea, because that started 50 years ago, very rarely do any of them get killed, and nobody particularly pays attention to the budget costs, because it's pretty constant. They were there last year, last administration, the one before that, etc. So Korea is off the public radar screen, in terms of a constant awareness of how many troops are there, and how much they cost. If it wasn't for Dear Leader Kim's nuke-rattling, most people in the US wouldn't have a particular concept of why we're there, it's just a given.
Afghanistan and Iraq are different - they're new deployments, new exercises of power, despite the US coming and going 12 years ago in Iraq and funding proxies in Afghanistan. People don't think much about Beirut anymore, nor about Somalia - in fact, that was off the national radar screen pretty fast until a book and a move put it back up for a while. People don't think much about Jimmy "I came, I saw, Iran" Carter's misadventure at Desert 1. Afghanistan isn't going anywhere, but it's also something we don't want to think about. It's just ongoing bills (if we fund what we promised) and occasional casualties.
How long before Iraq achieves that status? We're not going to go in there as the great white hope and re-educate the little brown folks. They're not "just like us" and they don't have any desire to be.
quote:
The US will best serve its cause by quickly and efficiently getting the country up and running and force a fair government (Yes, "force"-remember, it is decisive action that the Arab street responds to.). Once the process of rebuilding is in place and the new government in control, then US forces should withdraw from the scene.
|
We can only force those who will be forced. The Arabs are mostly smart enough not to try to face down Abrams tanks, but the occasional small foot patrol will be fair game, as will "collaborators" with the US, as will civilians - personnel from American companies, etc. Not many, not often, just enough to require us to spend time and money on security, and just enough to get a lot of Arab nationalists and Islamic fundamentalists some infidel blood to cheer over.
The Brits tried that for a while in India, and look where it got them. You don't need a Gandhi, Gandhi just served to obtain moral legitimacy in the west, which is something for which the Arab street doesn't give a ****.
All you need is the will to outlast the invader, until he decides he's no longer interested in remaining, due to the poor cost-benefit ratio. Then you come back and do things your way. How long do you really think we're going to stick around and prop up the Iraqi government we install?
Do you really think we're going to "win their hearts and minds?" Do you really think they're going to listen to the "advice" of foreign infidel invaders who don't speak their language or understand their history, culture or sense of identity? Or are they going to listen to "brother Arabs" and other Moslems, and simply nod their head at the infidel while he's there in enough force to impose his will.
Hey Lancer, I didn't know you consider yourself a liberal.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 25-04-2003 at 04:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
GePap, you saddle Iraq with large reparations to Kuwait that will forestall Iraq reconstruction and you will likely cause another round of wars in the ME.
This "repartations" bit is just one more example of the UN creating the conditions for war or preventing a permanent peace. Another example is the so-called Right of Return. This remains an issue that festers after 55 years because of the UN.
The UN and its resolutions can be a cause for war, especially when it acts like the French and not like the United States. |
The US was the lead party in promoting reparations for the Kuwaitis to be included in the post-war UNSCRs.
It would be nice if we could find the ten billion or so from Hussein-related assets, and turn those over, but we either stick it to our "friends" the Kuwaitis, or we step on our own **** by reversing our prior policy, or we shaft the new Iraqi government. Since the Iraqis looted the hell out of Kuwait and sabotaged their oil fields, we have a bit of a problem just letting the whole thing slide, not that anyone is ever sympathetic to the Kuwaitis.
The best method would be to arrange some sort of long-term payment through oil quota management, so that Iraq didn't get strapped for cash, but the Kuwaitis also felt like they got something worthwhile.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO1003
This is also based upon future actions that US takes in moving Iraq toward Democracy. If we approach this correctly and do not favour one group over another than it is possible that the Iraqi people will desire to determine their own destiny in a secular way. |
Herein lies the problem - our closest supporters, the Kurds, will be the ones to get shafted the most. The northern Iraqi oil fields are two important to the overall national economy for the Kurds to get the majority benefit, and they will not have the quasi-autonomous government they've had since the immediate post-GW1 era. It would take a hell of a lot of redistricting and gerrymandering of Iraqi provinces and intermediate government to create for the Kurds something akin to the level of self-determination they have now. Even IF we do so, that will be at the expense of the central government authority, and provide ammunition for other groups to want a similar structure.
A strong central government will be Shiite-dominated, if we don't manipulate things to be "fair." Sheep? Hardly, but revolutionary Iran is a good object lesson. Pre-Khomeini, Iran was (from our pov focused in Tehran and the oil producing regions) the most westernized nation in the Islamic world, and quite secular. Out in the rural part of the country, and in secondary cities and the poor districts of large cities, there was a strong undercurrent of traditionalism and anti-western conservatism. Couple that with the energy, idealism and radicalism of urban youth with time on their hands, and you have the ingredients for revolution, all you need is the leader.
A majority of support? Not even, but a majority of the energy of the body politic, and that focused quite quickly on potential opposition. The majority of sheep were not the followers of Khomeini, but the majority who went along to get along, because they figured they'd individually be better off going with the flow than standing up and fighting against the revolution. Khomeini also had an advantage in that the majority, though not favoring him, was definitely opposed to the Shah, and not many wanted to be perceived as fighting to support the Shah's rule.
quote:
I agree when you say that the Arab people are intelligent. This seems to conflict with your view that they will follow someone who is Muslim (which you also assume will be anti-US) blindly like a sheep to slaughter. |
Intelligent, but different world views lead to different desired outcomes. The Arab people are also among the most frequently conquered, and the most widely disdained and exploited by their conquerors of the moment. That, the Islamic world view(s), tradition and tribal and clan loyalties all are co-inciding viewpoints. Both arab culture and Islam give special status to insiders, and simple familiarity also contributes - if you were in their shoes, who would you listen to? The foreigner with a gun who tells you this is the way things are, or people with whom you share a religious, cultural and ethnic identity? Who you'll obey when he's around with the gun is one thing, who you'll be influenced by in the long term is another.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
You don't have to force anyone if you can bribe them at a lower cost.
The success in Iraq depends how much money the US is willing to pump in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
You always have a choice.  Change your point of view and become a willing collaborator out of principle, become a willing collaborator out of opportunism, just shut up and do what you're told and try not to be noticed, go along now and plot resistance later, or Gary Cooper it here and now, in a blaze of glory and 72 virgins awaiting. It's just a matter of how much force gets applied against how much will, and for how long. |
The whole idea that the "majority" has any opinion is absurd. The "majority" wants nothing else than pace and quiet to live thier lives. It is extremists that form opinion, by creating tensions and violence and forcing the mass to then chose sides, becuase if they don;t chose sides, no one will protect them. So when the Us says "hey, its only a few tens of thousands railled up by Iranians, in truth the people love the US", they forget the fact that it will be those tens of thousands, not the rest, that will be pro-active and create the discussion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The US was the lead party in promoting reparations for the Kuwaitis to be included in the post-war UNSCRs.
It would be nice if we could find the ten billion or so from Hussein-related assets, and turn those over, but we either stick it to our "friends" the Kuwaitis, or we step on our own **** by reversing our prior policy, or we shaft the new Iraqi government. Since the Iraqis looted the hell out of Kuwait and sabotaged their oil fields, we have a bit of a problem just letting the whole thing slide, not that anyone is ever sympathetic to the Kuwaitis.
The best method would be to arrange some sort of long-term payment through oil quota management, so that Iraq didn't get strapped for cash, but the Kuwaitis also felt like they got something worthwhile. |
Michael the great, Iraq today is hardly the position to pay anybody anything let alone pay reparations. I would be in favor, again, of canceling all war reparations. With respect to prior debts run up by the Saddam Hussein régime, these should be rescheduled. I understand that Saddam always Kuwait and others billions. Ditto France and Russia.
If we don't do this, the American taxpayer will end up, in effect paying for Iraq's reconstruction, for Saddam Hussein's debt and for Iraq's war reparations. I would think that this would be totally unacceptable to the American people.
I also think that the likes of France Russia and those who were against the war in the first place know this. This may be a major reason why people who were against America's action are in favor of maintaining Iraq's obligations across-the-board.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Michael the great, Iraq today is hardly the position to pay anybody anything let alone pay reparations. I would be in favor, again, of canceling all war reparations. With respect to prior debts run up by the Saddam Hussein régime, these should be rescheduled. I understand that Saddam always Kuwait and others billions. Ditto France and Russia.
If we don't do this, the American taxpayer will end up, in effect paying for Iraq's reconstruction, for Saddam Hussein's debt and for Iraq's war reparations. I would think that this would be totally unacceptable to the American people.
I also think that the likes of France Russia and those who were against the war in the first place know this. This may be a major reason why people who were against America's action are in favor of maintaining Iraq's obligations across-the-board. |
As GePap said, Iraq is in a better position than most third-world countries to pay foreign debts. We don't forgive other countries' debts when they change regimes for whatever reason, and we don't pretend we have any authority to forgive other countries' debts to third party nations.
Why should the Kuwaitis, or any other nation, just suck up the costs of being invaded or looted by a foreign power? Aaaaaah, because if the invader is liable for damage and destruction, the US might owe a little to a few people.  Yeah, let's let that whole notion of paying for aggressive action slide, it's destabilizing. 
As I said, Kuwaiti "reparations" can be had by trading or playing with production quotas, with no loss of oil resource on Iraq's part, and a very limited financial impact to Iraq. That can also be done over a long number of years, to completely minimize the impact.
As for the American taxpayer, boo hoo ****ing hoo, it's a little bit late to ***** about the costs now. The US government decided to invade, decided when and how to invade, and decided to do so regardless of the UN or other nation's opinion. Bush had his coalition of the willing, I'm sure those countries are willing to foot their fair share of the bill for the US adventure. The US chose to be the enforcing party, the US chose to go in and "kill people and break things," so guess what? The US as an occupying power now is obligated to suck up a lot of costs. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, they can vote in 2004.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
As GePap said, Iraq is in a better position than most third-world countries to pay foreign debts. We don't forgive other countries' debts when they change regimes for whatever reason, and we don't pretend we have any authority to forgive other countries' debts to third party nations.
Why should the Kuwaitis, or any other nation, just suck up the costs of being invaded or looted by a foreign power? Aaaaaah, because if the invader is liable for damage and destruction, the US might owe a little to a few people. Yeah, let's let that whole notion of paying for aggressive action slide, it's destabilizing.
As I said, Kuwaiti "reparations" can be had by trading or playing with production quotas, with no loss of oil resource on Iraq's part, and a very limited financial impact to Iraq. That can also be done over a long number of years, to completely minimize the impact.
As for the American taxpayer, boo hoo ****ing hoo, it's a little bit late to ***** about the costs now. The US government decided to invade, decided when and how to invade, and decided to do so regardless of the UN or other nation's opinion. Bush had his coalition of the willing, I'm sure those countries are willing to foot their fair share of the bill for the US adventure. The US chose to be the enforcing party, the US chose to go in and "kill people and break things," so guess what? The US as an occupying power now is obligated to suck up a lot of costs. If the taxpayer doesn't like it, they can vote in 2004. |
I know of no international law that would require us to pay Iraq's debts. I also believe it would be quite appropriate to have Iraq pay anyone incurring present expenses for reconstruction immediately. In other words, Kuwait, France and the likes can wait to the extent that Iraq doesn't have the money for both reconstruction and reparations.
I have heard estimates that Iraq's oil revenue is $15 billion a year. But reconstruction costs can be as much as $25 billion a year. What I am concerned about is the UN forcing Iraq to take that $15 billion to pay back Iraq's obligations while the US taxpayer picks up the $25 billion a year reconstruction bill. As I said, the UN could force us into a position of effectively paying Iraq's debts. I don't think this is fair to the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
So in other words, the US, as the invading and occupying party, should have first call on Iraq's oil revenues, and other countries with pre-existing commercial obligations can go hang, as can the Kuwaitis, who were invaded and plundered 12 years before?
If the Iraqis are paying their foreign debt, then obviously, we are not. And if we, as an occupying power, are contracting reconstruction to American and American-favored countries, then we get to pay for it. Don't like it? Then don't do it and get out. Simple, really. After we fix, at our cost, what infrastructure, etc. we destroyed, pursuant to our obligations as an occupying power. If it's expensive, then maybe the American people will think twice before jacking off to the notion of invading other countries.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-04-2003 01:48
Plus, occasionally we get to draft them for cannon fodder. 
|