The Money for Iraq: Grant or Loan? [Archive]

Crossbow

3rd October 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
Colin Powell: "We wouldn't want to saddle the Iraqi people with debt."

But OK to saddle the American people with this debt?

Just the initial $87 billion will take 30 years to repay.

Never mind whether or not we should authorize the money, or what we could have done with it to rebuild our country, this thread is only asking the question: Give it away, or loan it.

It has to be a gift.

Right now the USA is going around asking the international community to support the clean up from the war they did not want by providing Iraq with troops, money, equipment, technical advisors, etc. Therefore, if the USA provides money, it has to be in the form of a gift (or more precisely a grant) because if the money is in to form of a loan, then all of those other nations will expect the resources they provide to be a loan as well and re-payment, with interest, will be expected.

Ugh!

Chaos

3rd October 2003, 03:02 PM

A grant. Or, more precisely, reparations. The U.S. broke it, the U.S. fix it.

subgenius

3rd October 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
A grant. Or, more precisely, reparations. The U.S. broke it, the U.S. fix it.

Wasn't me.

Chaos

3rd October 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by subgenius

Wasn't me.

It also wasn´t the Iraqis as a people who did (or did not) develop WMDs, torture and kill dissidents, or do whatever else pissed Dubya off. However, they were bombed anyway.

So you have to pay anyway. If you don´t like that, there´s always the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

Face it. It is you government, and you are responsible for clearing up the ***** they produce.

Ziggurat

3rd October 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Chaos
A grant. Or, more precisely, reparations. The U.S. broke it, the U.S. fix it.

Huh. That's kind of funny. Seems to me Saddam broke Iraq. Also seems to me that the Iraqis are glad we kicked him out, and think the invasion was worth it. But maybe that's just because I've been paying attention.

But I do agree that it should be a grant and not a loan. Repeal the tax cuts on the wealthy to pay for it.

Mike B.

3rd October 2003, 04:15 PM

I vote grant.

Saddling Iraq with a loan when the government doesn't exist yet is nothing more than outright colonialism.

aerocontrols

3rd October 2003, 05:49 PM

Grant.

duh.

Chaos

4th October 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Huh. That's kind of funny. Seems to me Saddam broke Iraq.

Funny. I thought most of the bombs that hit Baghdad had "made in U.S.A." written on them. Both in 1991 and 2003 it was the U.S.A. (plus their allies/vassals) that wrecked Iraq - at least that part that requires money to rebuild; I am talking about infrastructure here. Saddam did not rebuild it, true - but due to the sanctions the U.S.A. kept insisting on, he did not have the materials to rebuild, either.

a_unique_person

4th October 2003, 02:39 AM

The whole war was sold partly on the strength that it wouldn't cost the USA anything. Iraqi oil would cover all the expenses. Only it isn't going to turn out that way. So, by necessity, rather than intention, the war is now a gift to Iraq.

Garrette

4th October 2003, 05:11 AM

For the OP: Grant.

For Chaos:

Saddam broke it. Saddam decided not to fix it. Yes, he would have had more money without the sanctions, but he had enough to fix things even with the sanctions.

I'm in the CPA Palace in Baghdad as I write this. I've discussed this in another thread, but over 2/3 of this palace were built after the sanctions; I met the Iraqi engineer whose construction company was responsible for half the new construction. Uday's new palace is in walking distance. There are many (no, I don't know the full number) of palaces near the airport. Some are monumental. Most were built in the 90's.

I've been to Tikrit where Saddam built what amounts to a resort town for him and his cronies by temporarily diverting the Tigris to create lakes and build about 30 palaces around them. They are of varying size, none as large as the CPA palace, but most as nice with some nicer in quality. The landscaping had to have cost millions alone. Walk down the street outside this resort compound and you'll come across several schools where not one dollar, and I literally mean not one dollar or dinar, of maintenance money has been put into them for 30 years. They walls are cracking.

UNICEF's report from over the summer says that 80% of the schools in Iraq suffer from regime neglect and need major rehabilitation. That's one of the things I'm trying to help get done in the CPA along with the newly appointed Iraqi Minister.

Drive or fly north to where the mountains start and you'll see palaces dotting the mountaintops. All Saddam's. Mostly recent.

Saddam was on a budget during the sanctions, but he wasn't on a deadly budget.

Compare it to what the Kurds did. Their entire budget was Oil for Food Money. 13% of the OFF money was directed by the UN to go to Kurdistan (comprising three governates or provinces in the north/northeas). But it had to go through Baghdad first. Then the UN took 2.2% of that money for administrative costs (the UN does that kind of thing a lot; now that OFF ends in November, there is an argument over who gets to keep the items purchases with that 2.2%--items like copiers and computers and cars--is it the Kurds or the UN? The UN lays claim to it and wants to take it all away with them; the Kurds say it's theirs).

Anyway, with 13% of the OFF money as their sole budget, the Kurds established a viable school system. On their own, they began rehabilitating schools, adding schools so that every village will have at least one school within the next two years, working on transportation and hospices for students and teachers who have to travel, and--get this--creating native language schools for not only their own language (Kurdish) but for Arabic children, and the Assyriacs and Turkomen and Chaldean. They've laid the groundwork for multi-religious teaching, too, so all those groups plus some others (like the Yazidi) get to teach their own religion. They did this on their own (with guidance from UNESCO).

They also did it even they they will not receive all the oil-for-food moneys. The UN delivery of funds is shamefully bureaucratic, inefficient, and slow. I could use stronger words but will not. Yet. There are an estimated (on the low side) $2 billion still out there that the Kurds will never see. The UN has it, but can't account for it. If they find it, it will go in the big Iraqi pot and not the Kurdish pot. Now the Kurds are reliant on whatever can be gotten from Baghdad which means whatever can be gotten from Washington.

The point is, they were on a tighter budget, per capita, than Saddam, but they focused on infrastructure and social programs and schools and hospitals.

Saddam focused on palaces.

I've heard and read stories about the 500,000 children who died as a result of the sanctions. I have not seen a single person of any age suffering from malnutrition in this country, and I've been all along the fertile crescent and then some, more than once.

I've seen loads of poverty, though, and extreme neglect.

I've been in the hotel in Mosul that had one side of the building closed off to visitors because their windows looked at Saddam's palace. One of his palaces, anyway.

Of course the sanctions hurt Iraq. They were intended to. I'm tired of being told they crippled Iraq or starved children or kept people poor or kept medicines out. Saddam did that. He got the money and chose what to spend it on. He chose himself.

Mike B.

4th October 2003, 05:24 AM

Malachi151

4th October 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by subgenius
Colin Powell: "We wouldn't want to saddle the Iraqi people with debt."

But OK to saddle the American people with this debt?

Just the initial $87 billion will take 30 years to repay.

Never mind whether or not we should authorize the money, or what we could have done with it to rebuild our country, this thread is only asking the question: Give it away, or loan it.

Did the Iraqi's ask to be invaded?

Did they ask for the help?

Did they ask for any of this?

No, they didn't.

Forcing them into a situation adn then making them pay to rebuild what we destroyed is a bit idiotic don't you think?

Plus, they way they are doing it, the money is going to American companies. Make no mistake, this is a robbery of the American public by American corporations, certianly not by Iraqis.

Garrette

4th October 2003, 05:48 AM

Malachi,

what "we destroyed" is mostly fixed. What Saddam destroyed--or let be destroyed through neglect--is being fixed.

The large exception is the area in which I work. UNICEF's report says 200 schools were "bombed" during the war. (UNICEF also admits these schools were used as armories, military installations, or both and so were legitimate targets). The US is bound by the Hague and Geneva Conventions to rebuild those.
We will, but we have delayed it.

We have chosen instead to focus our efforts on the many thousands needing rehabilitation because of neglect.

Iraq has somewhere in the vicinity of 14000 school buildings.

As of this writing, over 1000 have had significant repairs made to them by contractors through USAID and nearly 400 have been repaired by the military itself (that includes all Coalition forces; mainly US, but also UK and the Poles and some others).

Baghdad has more electricity now than it did before the war. And we've done it without stealing from the north or south.

Oil production is taking longer than expected to get on line and profitable. Part of that is a storage issue for the byproducts.

We're fixing it. We broke some of it, but most was broken before. Saddam did that part.

Chaos

4th October 2003, 06:42 AM

Mike B.,

I did not say the 1991 war was unjustified. Saddam invaded another country, the Coalition kicked him out again. So far, so good.
Why it was necessary for the Coalition forces to deliberately wreck the Iraqi infrastructure in the process escapes me.

The term "vassal", as opposed to "ally", describes a government (not the people, mind you) that does exactly as the U.S. government says, screw the facts, screw public opinion, screw the UN, screw international law. They might as well be so honest as to hire their troops away as mercenaries to the U.S.. "Ally" suggests that all partners are theoretically equal, which is not even remotely the case here. Here we have the case of Mr. Bush saying "do what we say or you are irrelevant".
However, I admit that in 1991, the other coalition members were allies, not vassals. They were doing what was agreed upon in the UN.
2003 was another situation, one which was already discussed on this board, and which, I think, we need not discuss any more.

subgenius

4th October 2003, 08:05 AM

Its a no-win situation. The Iraqi people did little to deserve what Saddam did. The American people did little to deserve the bill.
Was this another scam reason for going to war: "This war will pay for itself, Iraqi oil will pay for it."
Now they're saying we don't want it to appear like that was the reason for the action. Well duh. Why didn't they think of that in the first place, and not say that we would be siphoning off oil revenues?

Jon_in_london

4th October 2003, 08:25 AM

Saddling Iraq with another $90billion of debt is really going to help it to become a progressive pro-western liberal (small 'l') democracy. Make 'em pay 20% interest as reparations for the war! As well as $500,000 for each 'merican they kill!!! that'll show em!

That'll learn 'em to go around starting wars with the US of A!!

subgenius

4th October 2003, 08:58 AM

Is it reasonable to repair the damage we caused only and not have to pay for the things we upgrade or improve?

Ziggurat

4th October 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Chaos
Funny. I thought most of the bombs that hit Baghdad had "made in U.S.A." written on them. Both in 1991 and 2003 it was the U.S.A. (plus their allies/vassals) that wrecked Iraq - at least that part that requires money to rebuild; I am talking about infrastructure here. Saddam did not rebuild it, true - but due to the sanctions the U.S.A. kept insisting on, he did not have the materials to rebuild, either.

You're oh so clever to be able to call US allies "vassals", but you still don't know what you're talking about.

Saddam didn't only not rebuild between the gulf wars, he didn't even maintain. Infrastructure doesn't last without maintenance - or in your ignorance of Iraq did you also think that magically nothing wears out over there? It's that lack of maintenance more than both the first or second gulf war which are really responsible for the terrible state of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure. That neglect goes back even further than the first gulf war, in fact, and really started after the Iran-Iraq war, when Saddam started to find himself unable to both maintain the Iraqi standard of living and pay for the massive army and oppressive security apparatus. So he made the choice to short-change the civilian population, and they've been paying for it ever since. So yeah, I'd say it WAS all Saddam's fault and not ours, but a grant would still be better than a loan, and would be proof of our friendship with the Iraqi people (the French obviously don't give a crap about Iraqis, for example). Other countries should also pitch in with grants, since it's in everyone's interests (except for a few of their neighbors who feel threatened by democracy) for Iraq to prosper.

peptoabysmal

5th October 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Saddling Iraq with another $90billion of debt is really going to help it to become a progressive pro-western liberal (small 'l') democracy. Make 'em pay 20% interest as reparations for the war! As well as $500,000 for each 'merican they kill!!! that'll show em!

That'll learn 'em to go around starting wars with the US of A!!

That brings to mind another question. Doesn't the Koran say something about interest being evil? There might be grounds of religious freedom or some such that they wouldn't be required to pay interest.

I think it should be a grant to Iraq. No doubt in my mind. What I'd like to see happen is for the countries allowing terrorists to filter into Iraq to have to pay reparations for the damage caused by terrorists in the post war.

evildave

5th October 2003, 10:37 AM

All the standard old usury laws. And that has to do with collecting "interest".

It's fine to loan (or borrow) money, but you can't ask for money for the privilege. That means an open-ended interest-free loan.

A lot of the damage to their infrastructure was done in the FIRST Gulf war, after all, when Iraq was being the "agressor". All of the damage to power plants and such was done back in 1991. Iraq built more palaces instead of repairing that damage. Most of the damage to their oil industry was self inflicted. We didn't bomb/burn their petroleum industry.

We did destroy their military. That will be job #1. Rearming Iraq to protect its self. We destroyed their military so we could re-equip it with American weapons.

The interesting thing is that Iraq was not a theocracy, like most of its neighbors BEFORE we bombed it. It will almost certainly become one, now that we've swung the door wide open by toppling its government.

A series of smaller zero-interest loans to fix the stuff we didn't break THIS TIME AROUND seems fair to me. And pay it out in installments. I would say let their own government arrange for what they wish to see rebuilt first, and the order in which they will want it rebuilt, and WHO they want to rebuild it. Then pony up the loans to get it started.

So what if "poor old" Haliburten gets cut out? Just because we don't mind overbilling the American taxpayers for what Dubya arranged behind the scenes with his campaign contributors, doesn't mean the Iraqis will want to be over-billed for their loans. If we can't have fair contracting in the U.S. (due to corruption at the highest levels of our government), why not just let Iraq decide?

After all, when the governement we installed in Iraq falls (the week after our troops leave) and the Shi'ites are in charge, they will only claim the previous debts with "The Great Satan" are null and void, and ask the international community for more money.

BTW, Dubya has as much as said "GOD TOLD ME TO", so that's why: Voices in his head.

Oh yeah, and Saddam allegedly might have tried to kill his daddy (G.H. Bush) once. Never mind how many of Saddam's family we set out to kill up to that point.

After all, it was never just about the "WMD", no matter how many times he said it was.

"Read my lips", like father, like son.

subgenius

5th October 2003, 02:30 PM

Was the "low cost, no cost" theory just another "bait and switch" tactic:

"New York, Oct 5. (PTI): A US government task force, which was set up as part of the planning for Iraq war, has contradicted the Bush Administration's assertion that Iraq's oil wealth would pay rebuilding costs of the country, a media report said today.

The Bush Administration's optimistic statements earlier this year that Iraq's oil wealth, and not American taxpayers, would cover most of the cost of rebuilding Iraq are at odds with a bleaker assessment of the task force, it said.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/03051006.htm

Maybe they just realized that taking Iraqi oil to pay for invading them would confirm everyone's suspicions about their motivations.

In any event, another gross miscalculation.

Garrette

5th October 2003, 09:26 PM

Perhaps it was/is a gross miscalculation, but it was not the plan to use anticipated oil revenues to pay for the cost of the "invasion."

The plan was/is to use oil revenues to pay for the cost of reconstruction--reconstruction made necessary in the main by of three and a half decades of neglect and mismanagement and only slightly by the damages of war. Of course, you can add the post-war looting by the Iraqis themselves into the mix as a cause, too.

subgenius

5th October 2003, 11:35 PM

Perhaps.

Ziggurat

6th October 2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by evildave

We did destroy their military. That will be job #1. Rearming Iraq to protect its self. We destroyed their military so we could re-equip it with American weapons.

Iraq doesn't need a military as such, not for a good long time. What they need is a security force to maintain civil order. And the overwhelming cost of that is going to be salaries, not weapons. The sort of statements you make here are just knee-jerk conspiracy theories about supposed american imperialism.

The interesting thing is that Iraq was not a theocracy, like most of its neighbors BEFORE we bombed it. It will almost certainly become one, now that we've swung the door wide open by toppling its government.

How do you figure? Seems to me like the Iraqi people as a whole aren't that interested in a theocracy. They can just look across their border to Iran, and note that it's not working so hot over there. Why would they want to repeat a failed experiment?

After all, when the governement we installed in Iraq falls (the week after our troops leave) and the Shi'ites are in charge, they will only claim the previous debts with "The Great Satan" are null and void, and ask the international community for more money.

You display your ignorance of both Iraq and the world here. The "fall" of the incipient Iraqi government is not certain, and I don't even think likely. The Shia will have a significant stake in it, seeing as how it's going to be a democracy, so I don't know why they'd want to risk giving up likely dominance in a democracy for something unstable. Countries also can't just declare debts null and void without serious consequences. A country that will willingly default on a loan is a country you never loan money to or invest in, and that's the last thing Iraq would want now when they're trying to rebuild. You also seem to imagine the Shia in Iraq are somehow identical to the Shia in Iran, which is a gross misconception. In Iran, they resented us for supporting the former Sha. In Iraq, it was the US who removed Saddam, their opressor, from power, and provided them with the most religious freedom they've had in decades. It was their neighbors, fellow muslims, who supported Saddam in his oppression. We are not the Great Satan in Iraq.

karl

6th October 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Ziggurat How do you figure? Seems to me like the Iraqi people as a whole aren't that interested in a theocracy. They can just look across their border to Iran, and note that it's not working so hot over there. Why would they want to repeat a failed experiment?

Depends on your frame of reference. Last year the GNP per capita was three times as high in Iran as in Iraq ($7000 vs. $2400, according to the CIA World Factbook).

Ziggurat

6th October 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by karl

Depends on your frame of reference. Last year the GNP per capita was three times as high in Iran as in Iraq ($7000 vs. $2400, according to the CIA World Factbook).

Iraq's per capita GNP is going to rise quite a bit simply on sanctions being removed. But higher GNP or not, Iranians are not happy with their government anymore, and the world knows that. They believed in the promises of the theocracy once, but they don't anymore. They're disillusioned with it, and if they could freely choose to remove it they would. The Iraqis aren't too interested in repeating that mistake.

evildave

6th October 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Iraq doesn't need a military as such, not for a good long time. What they need is a security force to maintain civil order. And the overwhelming cost of that is going to be salaries, not weapons. The sort of statements you make here are just knee-jerk conspiracy theories about supposed american imperialism.

Oh, so you have redefined "Military" to mean "Security Force"? Fine. Their "Security Force" will need arms. Unless they're supposed to do the human wave thing the Iranians did for their war against Iraq.

How do you figure? Seems to me like the Iraqi people as a whole aren't that interested in a theocracy. They can just look across their border to Iran, and note that it's not working so hot over there. Why would they want to repeat a failed experiment?

Well, the funny thing about religious people: they don't care for facts that contradict their teachings. It is only a sign to them that the Iranians are weak. The majority in Iraq are Shi'ite. All other political factors are small minorities compared to this. This flavor of Islam believes in theocracy, plain and simple.

They're already busy working on destabilizing the installed government. When they settle down and get the occupation out, they'll simply take over. End of story.

You display your ignorance of both Iraq and the world here. The "fall" of the incipient Iraqi government is not certain, and I don't even think likely. The Shia will have a significant stake in it, seeing as how it's going to be a democracy, so I don't know why they'd want to risk giving up likely dominance in a democracy for something unstable. Countries also can't just declare debts null and void without serious consequences. A country that will willingly default on a loan is a country you never loan money to or invest in, and that's the last thing Iraq would want now when they're trying to rebuild. You also seem to imagine the Shia in Iraq are somehow identical to the Shia in Iran, which is a gross misconception. In Iran, they resented us for supporting the former Sha. In Iraq, it was the US who removed Saddam, their opressor, from power, and provided them with the most religious freedom they've had in decades. It was their neighbors, fellow muslims, who supported Saddam in his oppression. We are not the Great Satan in Iraq.

Heh!

Of course I can not predict the future, but trends being trends, and fundies being fundies, the 60% Shi'ite majority that's been repressed for decades will finally have a lovely Jihad, some more people will get killed in "old fashioned" ways, and after a few weeks of a unified "America Is Satan" from the official state representatives of God, they'll sound quite like Iranians.

But I've always been a pessimist.

Maybe the military overthrow by a foreign power, the killed relatives and damage, the flood of rabble-rousers over their borders, and the new freedom to exert their political will will make everyone behave nicely, and they'll all live happily ever after just like a pretty fairy tale...

And then we'll find those "weapons of mass destruction" under a rock somewhere, and the angels will sing "Tra-la-la-la-la!" because Dubya did God's work for him, er Him.

As for governments that default on loans, it never stopped the U.S. from handing out more money. Like a senile old lady on a slot machine. "Ooh! A billion more dollars and we'll be friends for sure!"

Ziggurat

6th October 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by evildave

Oh, so you have redefined "Military" to mean "Security Force"? Fine. Their "Security Force" will need arms. Unless they're supposed to do the human wave thing the Iranians did for their war against Iraq.

The arms needed by the security forces are going to be a pitance in terms of money compared to the other costs involved in this whole thing. Your original statement suggested that the war was partly motivated by a desire on the part of the military-industrial complex to sell arms to Iraq. But that notion is ridiculous, it makes no sense even if you want to try to ascribe the worst conceivable motives to US actions.

Well, the funny thing about religious people: they don't care for facts that contradict their teachings. It is only a sign to them that the Iranians are weak. The majority in Iraq are Shi'ite. All other political factors are small minorities compared to this. This flavor of Islam believes in theocracy, plain and simple.

No, it's not that simple. Saudi Arabia is not truly a theocracy, although it's very much a religious state. Religion can enter the state in a lot of different ways. Israel is another example of how religion can get tied into the state. I don't doubt that the Shia want religion to be a big part of the future of Iraq. But that's not the same thing as a theocracy, where the religious leaders are the self-same people as the government leaders. I see no evidence that anything other than a minority of Iraqis, or even more than a minority of the Shia, want a theocracy. We can live with Iraq being a religious democracy - like I mentioned, that's what we have in Israel. As long as they're a democracy, that's good enough - they'll figure out on their own that secular government works better. The arab world has never had a functioning democracy with a free press before. None of the other religious states could have lasted in their current form if the people had the power to vote them out of office.

They're already busy working on destabilizing the installed government. When they settle down and get the occupation out, they'll simply take over. End of story.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "they"? do you mean the majority of the Shia? If so, you don't know what you're talking about. And you're just pulling this "they'll simply take over" out of your back side. Nobody is going to "simply" take over Iraq.

Of course I can not predict the future, but trends being trends, and fundies being fundies, the 60% Shi'ite majority that's been repressed for decades will finally have a lovely Jihad, some more people will get killed in "old fashioned" ways, and after a few weeks of a unified "America Is Satan" from the official state representatives of God, they'll sound quite like Iranians.

But I've always been a pessimist.

Have you also always been ignorant of the real situation in the middle east? Do you actually think that most Shia are fundamentalists? Do you not know that most Iraqis thought the invasion of their own country was WORTH it to get rid of Saddam, while it was their neighbors shouting "America the great Satan" who were supporting Saddam and his oppression of them? Do you simply not understand that the middle east is not homogenous?

Maybe the military overthrow by a foreign power, the killed relatives and damage, the flood of rabble-rousers over their borders, and the new freedom to exert their political will will make everyone behave nicely, and they'll all live happily ever after just like a pretty fairy tale...

Pay attention. Most Iraqis believe the invasion was worth it to get rid of Saddam. And it's what most Iraqis think that matter, not what a few malcontents think. And considering what things were like over the last several decades under Saddam, I don't think it's unrealistic to think Iraqis are likely to become rather fond of democractic freedoms, and decide that they want to hold on to them.

evildave

6th October 2003, 10:27 PM

Well, thank you Mr. "Most Iraqis", for speaking the hearts of 27 million people thousands of miles away.

Sure, I'll take your word for it. All of Iraq loves us like brothers.

Yeah.

Everyone welcomes and loves foreign invaders who change around their governments for them.

Maybe you'd welcome it if someone came in and changed yours "for" you?

The ongoing violence speaks volumes for their "bright" future. People are literally overflowing the morgues with joy.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0922IraqMorgue22-ON.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/25/1064083088652.html

And here's a sample of the feelings for America we're breeding...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/06/MN310013.DTL

Ahh, feel the LOVE.

Oh, and Turkey's going to provide troops! What joy that will place in the hearts of the Iraqi people! Especially the Kurds. "Hoorah!" they must be thinking, "Turkey can help to dictate our future for us with the other invaders! Hurray! The people who've been sending military sorties into the north of Iraq for all of these years might be comming to stay!"

If we ask nice, I'm sure Iran will volunteer some troops, too. They're sure to be as welcome.

Yeah, we're making good friends with our policy.

Giving away money, why that will just be icing on the cake.

Ziggurat

6th October 2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by evildave
Well, thank you Mr. "Most Iraqis", for speaking the hearts of 27 million people thousands of miles away.

I'm not speaking for them. But unlike you, I'm actually paying attention to what THEY are saying, not just what the press is saying about them. Let's take a quick listen, shall we?
http://www.memri.org/iraq.html
There are a lot of different views being expressed by the Iraqi people right now, but if you actually pay attention, I think you'll find that the vast majority have no interest in violent confrontation with the US, but almost everyone there wants a democracy and freedom and is glad to see Saddam gone.

Sure, I'll take your word for it. All of Iraq loves us like brothers.

Don't be an ass. I never said that they loved us. They don't need to. But they don't hate us.

Everyone welcomes and loves foreign invaders who change around their governments for them.

Boy you're stupid. Iraq is not most countries. It was ruled by one of history's most oppressive dictators. So yeah, actually, they were quite glad to be rid of him. Look it up yourself. There have been more than one poll of Iraqis that show they're not only glad to be rid of him, but most think that it was worth suffering the invasion to do so. Since you couldn't figure this out on your own, here's a starter:
http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/world/story/1008284p-7078752c.html

Maybe you'd welcome it if someone came in and changed yours "for" you?

Yes, if my government was Saddam, I'd be willing to settle for almost anything else, imposed by foreigners or not. You keep making statements like this that are not only unsupported, but actually contradicted by the evidence (see above). I'm only close friends with one person who lived most of her life under an oppressive dictator, and this person wants the US to invade her home country, and would want to even if she still lived there. And the poll I pointed you to above shows that most Iraqis feel the same way. So quit trying to claim stuff about people you don't know who have contradicted you with their own voices.

The ongoing violence speaks volumes for their "bright" future. People are literally overflowing the morgues with joy.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0922IraqMorgue22-ON.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/25/1064083088652.html

It's amazing how you can bias just about anything if you read your own prejudices into it without understanding it or considering alternative interpretations. How many killings by the Baath party, for example, do you think went unreported? How many of their victims, the ones filling the mass graves, never saw a morgue? Hell, how many ordinary murders never bothered to get reported, because what good would it do under Saddam if you don't have connections? Is there any evidence that the total number of murders, and not just those reported to the morgue, is significantly higher? Is there any evidence that the problem is getting worse, not better? Not in either article you posted. An overflowing morgue suggests to me that, just like most of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure, it didn't have the capacity and manpower that it should have.

And here's a sample of the feelings for America we're breeding...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/06/MN310013.DTL

What, you think we should be scared that the small minority that benefited from Saddam's tyrrany is resentful we ended his regime and their favored status? Boo hoo, cry me a river. These people represent the remnants of Saddam's regime. They are Iraq's past, not its future.

Oh, and Turkey's going to provide troops! What joy that will place in the hearts of the Iraqi people! Especially the Kurds.

I'm glad you brought up the Kurds. You see, they love us. They want us to stay forever. They probably wouldn't be thrilled to have turkish troops in their own territory, but I don't think that's where they'd be deployed, and frankly, compared to getting rid of Saddam (who killed well over a hundred thousand kurds) I think they're well aware that turkish troops represent a minor annoyance. They already know they're not going to get their own state any time soon, and they've accepted that. But other than that, turkey really has no say in what they do. So what exactly were you trying to prove by bringing up the Kurds?

Garrette

7th October 2003, 12:28 AM

evildave,

Perhaps you'll at least take my word for it that the feelings you're describing are not accurate for the majority of Iraqis. I'm here. I've travelled a lot here and spoken a lot to the poverty-stricken, the clergy (including the Shiia), community leaders, Governing Council members, newly appointed Ministers, ex-military officers, and a bunch of others.

There is frustration and sometimes anger at what is seen as ineptness or inefficiency on the part of the coalition (more precisely, on the part of CPA). Much of this is well-deserved; we screw up details as much as anyone does.

There are groups that hate us. They are largely those who benefitted under Saddam. They had perks they no longer enjoy.

The argument seems to be that if more than a couple are against us then we're wrong. Does that apply in US politics as well? When tax hikes are passed and piss off businesses and the wealthy, does it mean the party that got them passed is wrong and should leave?

I won't go--again--into my personal experiences; I've done it on other threads. I'll just summarize to say that except for the FRLs (Former Regime Loyalists) and some fundamentalists, the Iraqi people are exceedingly ecstatic to have Saddam gone. Their complaints about us, besides those regarding inefficiency, center on their perception that we are too soft, not too hard. "These people do not respect kindness; they respect only strength and killing." I hear that and variations on it almost daily.

BTW: does your first link talk about crime levels before the war? Does it talk about Saddam releasing prisoners from the jails before the war? Does it talk about how jail time now is considered a joke (hint: we don't torture and starve prisoners; the new Iraqi Police must take care of and feed its charges) and so is not a deterrent.

Do your links talk about how the bombings occur where US security is either inappropriate or not wanted (the UN did not want US security; the mosque in Najaf was specifically requested as a coalition-free zone)?

Oh, and regarding Turkish troops here? I agree it's a bad idea.

evildave

7th October 2003, 09:02 PM

The argument is not about who is literally "against" the U.S. It is about what represents U.S. interests, and what this lengthy "police action" will accomplish.

Do you predict a pleasant future, now that Saddam is gone? Certainly it will be Saddam-free. But so what?

People seem to want a hard-liner, that's what you are saying.

Hard prison. Hard laws. Hard enforcement.

We put our model of a kinder, gentler, nicer government in place, and it's just plain not going to last. It's not what they seem to want at all by your very description. "Jail is a joke."

So what will they like? Perhaps another strong-man who will make things "not a joke"?

Another fine outcome: get Saddam replaced by someone much like him, but without as much "history". At least not until he's been in power for a while. He can be our "very good friend" just like Saddam was, all the way through the eighties. A guy we can do business with. That's the ticket!

As for bombings and killing happening where soldiers with machine guns and armored vehicles are not present, I don't think it can be claimed that it's only because "Americans" are absent there that makes those places into targets.

What does it mean about stability when it can only be achieved where heavily armed soldiers with tons of back-up are present?

----

Boy you're stupid.
[/quote]Since you couldn't figure this out on your own, here's a starter:[/quote]

Wow, Ziggurat, you sure like to be abusive. Do you realise this behavior is against the forum guidelines?

Just thought I should correct your apparent 'ignorance' on this unrelated topic. You seem to be saying "blah blah blah STUPID blah blah blah IGNORANT blah blah". You might make a better argument by editing yourself down a little better. Perhaps take a cue from Garrette, who only disagrees.

Don't be an ass. I never said that they loved us. They don't need to. But they don't hate us.

So? They don't love us for toppling their dictator for them. We're "better" than having a murderous megalomaniac dictator? Just how much better? How long until our stay is more than merely awkward and unwelcome? Another six months? A year from now? Do you see us out of there BEFORE then?

How long shall we occupy their territory? It seems pretty clear the blue helmets won't help out. We explicitly went in against their wishes.

So we just sort of hang around not being friends. What will we become? More friends, or more not friends as time passes?

Sure, we're the "saviors" for now. A lot of the Eastern Bloc nations welcomed the Soviets who 'liberated' them from another famous tyrant. How long until we get that stink?

----

Primary questions:

How to we EVER leave Iraq in a stable state? Is that even reasonably an acheivable near-term goal?

It doesn't seem likely. We'll at least need to get their whole <s>military</s> 'security forces' and police force are up to strength, and make sure our 'helpers' (like the ever-popular Turkey) pull out before we do.

What exactly is our exit strategy? What raises the "Go home, we won!" flag?

None that I can see. We seem to want some permanent bases in the Middle East. A friendly government that allows us unlimited access would be a help, to be sure. Not all that great for making "friends" of the people. Not that that's necessarily a useful national goal.

What would granting Iraq money achieve? What would loaning Iraq money in installments achieve?

Getting back firmly on topic, disregarding all the touchy-feely things with whatever the people in Iraq will have relative to their lots in life. What will spending the billions buy us?

Bases of operations where we don't have to bow and scrape to the Saudi Government for space? Perhaps so we can menace the Saudis a bit, shake the sabre about taking care of Al Queda at its source? Sounds like a lot of work and expense will be needed propping up whatever government we install "for" the Iraqi people that "lets" us stay. That would at least make for a stable outcome, perhaps. Not that we'd be "loved", but who cares? Perhaps given time, if their standard of living rises, they'll become as complacent about liberties and freedoms as Americans already are.

Garrette

8th October 2003, 08:36 PM

evildave,

sorry for a less-than-detailed response, but it seems you have changed your focus now, at least in your responses toward me.

Are you no longer arguing that the intent is horrible, damnable, et al (my words, not yours)?

Instead are you now arguing that regardless of the intent, it may not be feasible to reach our goals?

Totally different issues, my man, requiring totally different arguments.

evildave

8th October 2003, 09:04 PM

Neither requires wording like "stupid" in their content.

I am, and always have been arguing that our goals are nebulous at best, and the results (due to poor planning) will probably be bad.

I get side-tracked easily.

We are fighting a "war against terrorism" that (like the "war against drugs") can never be "won". It can only be fought on and on and on, pretty much forever and ever. Making all of those "temporary" measures for "security" that they've taken permanent. There will always be a "terrorist threat" from someone.

I don't trust our government has gone into Iraq for the purposes they publicly state. I don't trust that they actually even have a "plan". Either for what they will accomplish (especially now that it was "never" about the WMD), or under what conditions they will deem their task complete, or "not worth pursuing".

The occupation will certainly drag on through 2004, and into election time. What will that mean? Probably a change in administration and some campaign promises about getting our people out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Within another year, a lot more people will be more than sick and tired of this constand line of bull we're getting from the white house. Congress will be only too happy to oblige with a pull-out order.

The governments we installed in Iraq and Afghanistan will probably be left high and dry. A bit like the way we left that South Vietnamese government we were propping up.