An opportunity for the French and the Americans

[Drooper]

According to the French the US is trying to reinforce it global "hyperpower" status and "take" the Iraqis' oil.

The French, according to the US are trying to push the commercial interests of French companies as well as engage in some ego boosting power trip on the world stage aimed at recapturing past imperial glories.

Well over the immediate future there is ample iopportunity for each to take the moral high ground and destroy the accusations of their opponents.

The US could
- remove Saddam, stabilise the country and quickly withdraw its troops from the entire region (including Saudi), leaving a UN peacekeeping force to help political transition if necessary.
- disqualify itself from any body or process which will help the Iraqis in the transition of their government and insitutions.


The French could:
- pledge large amounts of unconditional, untied aid to prove their real humaniarian concerns (by giiving it to the UN to dispense)
- disqualify themselves from any UN body taking responsibility for reconstruction etc.
- support a fair and proper transparent tender process for all aid/UN/Governmetn funded expenditures.


Let's now see how they get on.

[iain]

Drooper,

Maybe we need to talk about these strange fantasies you keep having. Are you feeling well? :D

[Drooper]

"I have a dream"

[Scared Chicken]

The US could
- remove Saddam, stabilise the country and quickly withdraw its troops from the entire region (including Saudi), leaving a UN peacekeeping force to help political transition if necessary.
- disqualify itself from any body or process which will help the Iraqis in the transition of their government and insitutions.

If that happens, either one of these, I'll eat my hat. The US kept military bases in Germany, Japan and Korea more than 50 years after the wars ended. Dont expect them to leave Iraq... ever.


The French could:
- pledge large amounts of unconditional, untied aid to prove their real humaniarian concerns (by giiving it to the UN to dispense)
- disqualify themselves from any UN body taking responsibility for reconstruction etc.
- support a fair and proper transparent tender process for all aid/UN/Governmetn funded expenditures.


I dont understand why they should be so stupid as to comply with your second point.. ?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

If that happens, either one of these, I'll eat my hat. The US kept military bases in Germany, Japan and Korea more than 50 years after the wars ended. Dont expect them to leave Iraq... ever.

Just a few notes:
- Bases were left in Germany because there were concerns about the Soviet Union (you have heard about the cold war, haven't you?) I believe there have been comments about moving U.S. bases out now.
- U.S. troops are in Korea because of a potential threat from North Korea. The president of South Korea was voted in on a promise to remove U.S. troops. He won the election. The U.S. said it would redeploy their troops. The South Koreans said 'no, leave them there.'

Either way, a continued U.S. presence in Iraq for the short to mid term is probably a good thing. Not so that they can rule Iraq, but because any new Iraqi government may have troubles with terrorist elements (like old parts of Saddam's army), and the U.S. may be able to help keep things stable.

Its a no win situation....
- If America leaves their troops in, they are imperialists
- If America pulls their troops out, they aren't interested in helping to reconstruct Iraq


Originally posted by Scared Chicken

I dont understand why they should be so stupid as to comply with your second point.. ?

You mean the point of the French disqualifying themselves from U.N. efforts in reconstruction? Well, by opposing the war, France has given support to the government of Saddam. Any new government should have all elements of the old government removed, and since France supports Saddam, any decisions they make may be tainted by that fact. (Yeah, everyone says "I think Saddam is bad, but..." However, the French have gone out of their way to give him help, even rejecting proposals before Iraq does itself.)

It makes as much sense as making the U.S. withdraw from U.N. reconstruction.

[Scared Chicken]

Its a no win situation....
- If America leaves their troops in, they are imperialists
- If America pulls their troops out, they aren't interested in helping to reconstruct Iraq

They should have thought of that before starting the war. Its not like their was an immediate short term threat.

You mean the point of the French disqualifying themselves from U.N. efforts in reconstruction? Well, by opposing the war, France has given support to the government of Saddam. Any new government should have all elements of the old government removed, and since France supports Saddam, any decisions they make may be tainted by that fact.

I whole-heartedly disagree. France has opposed to this war, just like I oppose to it, and just like large parts of the civilised world save the UK and a few countries that are more interested in reaping the benefits and maintaining relations with US, than in morality. However, that doesnt mean I approve of Sadam.. this simplifcation is too ridiculous: 'if you are against the war, you are pro Sadam'. I, just like France, hope Sadam would be removed. However, I am very much afraid any benefit from removing the regime will be offset by a circle of violence we are only beginning to enter. And I am very much worried the US is not invading Iraq to liberate it at all.

(Yeah, everyone says "I think Saddam is bad, but..." However, the French have gone out of their way to give him help, even rejecting proposals before Iraq does itself.)

Help ? WHo helped Sadam up to a few years ago ? WHo gave him these WOMD ? Back then, he was exactly the same, mean brutal dictator he is now. And save me your hypocrisy saying that France and Germany would oppose because of financial concerns, and the US only liberating the country and could care less for the oil, and reconstruction contracts. No one has clean hands in this. Not France, Germany or the UK, but the US definately not either. If you read the PNAC report "Rebuilding America’s Defences" you would be able to read what really motivates Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & co. Here iare 2 small quotes:

"ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
<..>
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars"

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force present in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So please dont tell me this is about liberating Iraq. I havent seen one US flag being waved by liberated Iraqi's yet..
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

They should have thought of that before starting the war. Its not like their was an immediate short term threat.

Sorry, I should have qualified that...

If the goal is to appease the anti-war people, it is a no-win situation, as they will complain either way.

If the goal is to make the world a better, safer place, then leaving some troops in until the government is functional is a good idea.

As for 'short term threat'... Iraq does support terrorism. He pays for Palistinian suicide bombers. He sets up training camps for terrorists within Iraq. He lets terrorists live in Iraq under his protection. He is also a threat to his own people. And the only reason that he doesn't pose the same military threat that he did to places like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel are the sanctions that the U.S. and U.K. have been enforcing for the past decade.
Originally posted by Scared Chicken

I whole-heartedly disagree. France has opposed to this war, just like I oppose to it, and just like large parts of the civilised world save the UK and a few countries that are more interested in reaping the benefits and maintaining relations with US, than in morality. However, that doesnt mean I approve of Sadam.. this simplifcation is too ridiculous: 'if you are against the war, you are pro Sadam'. I, just like France, hope Sadam would be removed. However, I am very much afraid any benefit from removing the regime will be offset by a circle of violence we are only beginning to enter. And I am very much worried the US is not invading Iraq to liberate it at all.

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that
good people remain silent and do nothing ." - Sir Edmund Burke

As for "circle of violence", continued inactivity has brought us to this point. The two WTC attacks, the bombing of the Cole, the blowing up of the plane in Lockerbie, Scotland... etc. If the civilized world is willing to stand up to brutal dictators and terrorist supporters, then maybe they will realize that there could actually be retribution for 'bad' activity.

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

Help ? WHo helped Sadam up to a few years ago ? WHo gave him these WOMD ? Back then, he was exactly the same, mean brutal dictator he is now. And save me your hypocrisy saying that France and Germany would oppose because of financial concerns, and the US only liberating the country and could care less for the oil, and reconstruction contracts. No one has clean hands in this. Not France, Germany or the UK, but the US definately not either.

The U.S. support of Iraq overall has been very limited. The U.S. did not put Saddam in power (despite what many anti-war protesters think; he did it on his own), nor did they do much to arm him. Russia has been the biggest seller of arms to Iraq. The U.S. falls way down on the list (even behind that famous arms exporter, Denmark.) The nuclear reactor that Iraq was using for its atomic bomb development program was French. Many of the other WMD materials are either home-made, or done with assistance from Germany.

The U.S. only supported Saddam for a short period of time in the 80s, and that was because they were in a war with Iran (which at the time was thought to be the greater evil).

So don't pull that whole "The U.S. created the situation" nonsense.

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

If you read the PNAC report "Rebuilding America’s Defences" you would be able to read what really motivates Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & co. Here iare 2 small quotes:

"ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
<..>
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars"

"While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force present in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

So please dont tell me this is about liberating Iraq. I havent seen one US flag being waved by liberated Iraqi's yet..

Maybe they don't actually have flags? where would they get them? But there have been reports of Iraqis greeting the Americans, thanking them, etc.

As for your quote... it is only strategic sense for the U.S. to be able to fight multiple wars simultaneously. If the U.S. did not have that ability, they could never commit their troops anywhere, over the fear that a second problem could appear while they are engaged in one conflict.

[Scared Chicken]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
If the goal is to make the world a better, safer place, then leaving some troops in until the government is functional is a good idea.
Agreed. THough to appease the anti war people, it might be a better idea to place Iraq under UN mandate.

As for 'short term threat'... Iraq does support terrorism. He pays for Palistinian suicide bombers. He sets up training camps for terrorists within Iraq. He lets terrorists live in Iraq under his protection. He is also a threat to his own people. And the only reason that he doesn't pose the same military threat that he did to places like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel are the sanctions that the U.S. and U.K. have been enforcing for the past decade.
If you say so... though I heard the same thing about Lybia (and Im not saying that wasnt true), but somehow they are not concidered a big threat now. And if being a threat for its own people is a criterium, there are a dozen of other states that are much more brutal in Africa and South America, but that no one cares about since it doesnt have oil.

As for "circle of violence", continued inactivity has brought us to this point. The two WTC attacks, the bombing of the Cole, the blowing up of the plane in Lockerbie, Scotland... etc.

None of these attacks had anything to do with Iraq. Most of them where inspired by fundamentalistic islam hate towards the West. Iraq isnt even a religious state.


If the civilized world is willing to stand up to brutal dictators and terrorist supporters, then maybe they will realize that there could actually be retribution for 'bad' activity.

This is where you are very wrong I am afraid. There will always be plenty of countries that dislike you enough to harbour those people. And many of those people are not afraid to die. How do you think they would be afraid of your retribution ? Wars like these only fuel the hate already so clearly present in the Arab world. This only nourishes fanatics, willing to perform terrorist attacks. This is exactly what we have been seeing in Isreal, earlier in Northern Ireland. Fighting violence with violence rarely works. Especially against an opponent that is not a state or an organized army, but more then anything, a mindset.


Maybe they don't actually have flags?


LOL... yeah, I hadnt gven that any thought yet :) But you know what I mean.. its not like the troops are getting a welcome like in WWII.

As for your quote... it is only strategic sense for the U.S. to be able to fight multiple wars simultaneously. If the U.S. did not have that ability, they could never commit their troops anywhere, over the fear that a second problem could appear while they are engaged in one conflict.

Well.. the weird thing is, that it doesnt say 'have the ability to fight multiple large scale wars'. It literally say, fighting these wars is an objective... I'd be willing to interprete it differently, but after all these years, I can hardly believe its just a typo ? Either way, the other quote was much less dubious. For me its clear the US invaded Iraq to protect its vital interests in the region; ie: oil. The terrorist propaganda is just to give them the justification, and the secuity council resolution they where trying to buy, was even more a disgracefull show (as much for the SC, as for the US). If you believe this war wasnt planned at least one year ago, you are naive.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Scared Chicken
Iraq isnt even a religious state.

from the CIA factbook:
Legal system: based on Islamic law in special religious courts, civil law system elsewhere; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

Agreed. THough to appease the anti war people, it might be a better idea to place Iraq under UN mandate.

While it may be a good idea to place Iraq under a U.N. mandate (I'm not 100% confident it is a good idea, since they've messed up so much that I don't trust their abilities), the U.N. may not actually go for it. There's talk about how getting the U.N. involved after would seem like they were giving approval to the U.S. attack.

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

If you say so... though I heard the same thing about Lybia (and Im not saying that wasnt true), but somehow they are not concidered a big threat now. And if being a threat for its own people is a criterium, there are a dozen of other states that are much more brutal in Africa and South America, but that no one cares about since it doesnt have oil.

Ah, anti-war falsehood #654. - There are worse countries out there.

Yes, there are bad dictatorships in the world, including North Korean, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. And I do hope that they become democratic. But the U.S. and U.K. can't do everything, and France and Russia probably won't be much help. So the U.S. has to pick its battles carefully.

Iraq is a good decision because:
- They are very brutal. (I think putting people through a plastic shredder feet first is just about the most disturbing thing I've heard in a while.) There may be more inhumane dictators, but there's no denying that Saddam violates human rights
- They have had expansionist plans in the past (like over Kuwait). Many countries in the world may oppress their own people, but they aren't necessarily seeking to attack their neighbours. (Countries like Saudi Arabia fall into this category)
- They support terrorism. Many other brutal dictatorships do not
- The U.S. can win fairly easily. Other dictatorships (North Korea, China) are very well armed, and although they oppress their people, there is no easy way the U.S. can defeat them militarily without heavy losses on both sides.
- Iraq's voilations of resolutions gives some legitimacy to the U.S. attack. Yes, they never got the U.N. to explicitly say "Ok, you can use military force", but it should be remembered that there was never an official end to the gulf war, only a cease fire (the terms of which they have violated). So, unlike other countries, a 'state of war' still technically exists
- Iraq is relatively secular, and at one time had a strong middle class. Thus, they are more likely to accept democracy than more fundamentalist countries

Now, does that mean that the U.S. cannot try to fix one problem if there is another more serious problem in the world? That's like saying the police shouldn't bother catching muggers because there are still unsolved murders.

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

None of these attacks had anything to do with Iraq. Most of them where inspired by fundamentalistic islam hate towards the West. Iraq isnt even a religious state.

But the point is, these attacks were happening, even without the U.S. attacking Iraq.

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

This is where you are very wrong I am afraid. There will always be plenty of countries that dislike you enough to harbour those people. And many of those people are not afraid to die. How do you think they would be afraid of your retribution ? Wars like these only fuel the hate already so clearly present in the Arab world. This only nourishes fanatics, willing to perform terrorist attacks. This is exactly what we have been seeing in Isreal, earlier in Northern Ireland. Fighting violence with violence rarely works. Especially against an opponent that is not a state or an organized army, but more then anything, a mindset.

Fighting violence with appeasement doesn't work very well either, as the terrorists will realize that their methods work.

Secondly, many terrorists come from countrys where religious fanatacism is either encouraged, or at least tolerated. If people did not grow up in a culture where the schools taught that killing infidels is good, then perhaps there would be fewer terrorists in the world.

And terrorism cannot exist very well in a vacume. The terrorists need money, and a friendly country to host their operatives. (Or, at least a country willing to look the other way.) By demonstrating that they are willing to stand up to terrorist-supporting countries, perhaps places like Syria and Saudi Arabia may stop

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

LOL... yeah, I hadnt gven that any thought yet :) But you know what I mean.. its not like the troops are getting a welcome like in WWII.

Many Iraqis ARE welcoming the Americans. (There have been a ton of news reports on them.) Other Iraqis seem indifferent. (Perhaps they don't view America as 'liberators', perhaps they want to make sure they're really 'free' before they start to cheer, and won't be killed in a few days by Saddam's agents.)

Originally posted by Scared Chicken

For me its clear the US invaded Iraq to protect its vital interests in the region; ie: oil. The terrorist propaganda is just to give them the justification, and the secuity council resolution they where trying to buy, was even more a disgracefull show (as much for the SC, as for the US).

Ah, anti-war falsehood #1 - Its all about oil.

I do admit, oil does play a small part in it. Oil production from a democratic Iraq would go a long way to stabilizing oil prices. This is not the same as the U.S. wanting to 'control' Iraqi oil.

Lets face it, if the U.S. wanted Iraqi oil, all they had to do is tell Saddam "Give us a deal on your oil, and we will let you do whatever you want". No war, and the U.S. greatly benefits.

I believe that security (admittedly self-interest on the part of the U.S.) is the primary goal of the war. (And yes, I know that Iraq wasn't threatening to invade the U.S. directly; the effect of bringing democracy to Iraq will lead to reforms thoughout the middle east.) And of course, improved human rights are just an added bonus. (Who says the decision to go to war has to be based on just a single factor?)

Here's a question: You are anti-war. You believe the war is about oil. If Iraq had no oil, and the U.S. said they wanted to invade Iraq simply because he was killing thousands a month, would you support the war then?

[Scared Chicken]

Here's a question: You are anti-war. You believe the war is about oil. If Iraq had no oil, and the U.S. said they wanted to invade Iraq simply because he was killing thousands a month, would you support the war then? [/B]

Probably. If I where convinced the "collalateral damage" and the long term risks of anti western feelings where less then the damage sustained by the Iraqi inhabitants, I might approve of this war.

[Supercharts]

Actually Latvia has more to say about post cold war Europe than France. And it says it better. France is the old whore at the dinner party - amusing but never taken seriously. Invited for the entertainment value - never for conversation.

[Baker]

Just one comment:D

[Martin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
As for "circle of violence", continued inactivity has brought us to this point. The two WTC attacks, the bombing of the Cole, the blowing up of the plane in Lockerbie, Scotland... etc. If the civilized world is willing to stand up to brutal dictators and terrorist supporters, then maybe they will realize that there could actually be retribution for 'bad' activityI find it rather amusing that you mention Lockerbie here - a case where more than a decade of diplomacy brought about the trial and conviction of the prime suspect.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Martinm
I find it rather amusing that you mention Lockerbie here - a case where more than a decade of diplomacy brought about the trial and conviction of the prime suspect.

Good point. However, diplomacy did not prevent the bombing in the first place. I'd rather have a non-diplomatic solution that saves lives than a diplomatic solution that would allow innocent people to get hurt.