It is real, it has been going on for a few months, and it is happening. The ministries are already being set up in D.C.

Check it out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in547442.shtml

I must say I find it the least bit ironic that Wolfowitz is heading up the plan to rebuild a mosly Muslim nation. Anyway, at least everyone being tapped as a resource is an Iraqi immigrant.

<font color=skyblue>I do not feel right about planinng their government for them. We should have enough faith in the immigrants that are returning from the U.S. to have enough sense to do it right in thier own fashion. I don't really see a reason to hold their hand in it...though I do suppose that we might be afraid of another brutal leader emerging from the ashes unless we keep an eye on it. But maybe we are doing or planning on doing too much.

Personally...since we have already angered the International Public with our boldness, I have no objections to allowing the U.N. to take the leadership role in the planning of the whole thing. They certainly want the job, and we should show them that we trust them to do it safely to ensure the world is satisfied. We do not have to do all the work, do we?</font>

I don't know Larry. I kind of agree, but what's being put together seems reasonable. All former Iraqi citizens seem to be getting the jobs. Plus, they're expecting to be there a few years and then phased out or integrated into whatever elected positions develop.

I will say that it is a large task, and someone has to do it.

One important thing is that their goal is to have water and power working within 2 weeks of being there and full social systems up and running inside of 3 months. I just don't think the UN has the capability of overseeing such a task - it is a slow behemoth, to be sure.

Ironic is not the word that the Middle East is going to use. It will be a four letter word that begins with F and ends with K.

No-one could fault Paul Wolfowitz's ability to perform the job - he has certainly proven himself to be a capable. But his credentials in the Middle East (especially his links with Israel and his support for the occupation and its methodology) probably make him one of the most detested figures in the Middle Eastern world. This choice will only confirm the charge being levied in some of the more extreme middle-eastern media that the Iraq invasion was part of a quote "US-Zionist Plot".

Surely the US could have found a less contraversial figure...

You can have all the roads, bridges, hosptials, playgrounds, Sewer plants WHAT EVERS you want laying around all over the place, without PEOPLE incharge to make them run and keep up repairs, Training or retraining of workers, ordering supplies, "Hale" writing and signing the PAYCHECKS, all sorts of logistics. It is a very wise Idea to do it this way, other wise the USA and the coalition would have to run the country until the Iraqis could be trained to form a decent government( I Know an Oxymoron if there ever was one). That could take years, and cause undo additional hardfeelings in the Arab world. Ther's LOTS to do look at Afghanistan it's been what almost a year since they got a new government, form by the Afghanis I will ADD. The Coalition will and should provide security for the interim government.

Does this surprise you?

As far as I'm concerned the US had no intention of ever letting an impartial party decide the future of Iraq. Yet another example of the Arrogant Empire.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

<font color=skyblue>Look who's talking about arrogance! ;)

You know...my boss (who is Canadian) chose instead to live here in North Carolina instead of his birth place. Why? From him...he admits life is better here. I have known other Canadians that say the same.

What is the real reason for your aggression against us then? Is it just the popular thing to do these days? Hate America to take your mind off of problems at your own doorstep? Get off the "Hate America" band-wagon and do something useful with that energy you have built up.

Now back on topic with the rebuilding of Iraq. Just today I read that we will not allow just exiles to be in charge...but also current residents, kurds, and others that make up a wide variety of people and backgrounds, and I am glad to hear it. What has been posted above is good reading. I can see the work in rebuilding what has been destroyed mostly in our responsibility to fix, as we are the ones leading the destruction. We also have supplies more readily available like one of you said in a different way above. So, yeah...I can see where we are going with this...but I also hope that we are not the only ones to be involved. I am mainly saying that if another country offers to help, we will hopefully accept the offer and work together. Sharing in a project can be healing for any hurt feelings that may be out there.</font>

Well I think its sorta like the phillipines, when we took them from the spanish around 1898, we promised them eventual indepence, and in 1948 they got it. I am not saying something so extreme like that, but if the US takes over Iraq to form a new government, it will probably be for a year or so until we're sure they are secure, and let them go off on their own.

<font color = lightgreen>I find myself agreeing with Skunk on this one. There is no post-Hussein government that can be established for Iraq that will not be seen by many in the Middle East as being tainted by, or secretly controlled by, the US.
It will probably take 2 years for general elections to be held, but it will be at least a decade before the political infighting begins to settle and Iraq can have a stable government that doesn't nearly collapse thrice yearly. Unless large quantities of money makes its way into the hands of Iraqi citizens the anti-US sentiment would continue to grow (I don't even want to go there). *ick*</font>

<font color=skyblue>Look who's talking about arrogance! ;)

You know...my boss (who is Canadian) chose instead to live here in North Carolina instead of his birth place. Why? From him...he admits life is better here. I have known other Canadians that say the same.

What is the real reason for your aggression against us then? Is it just the popular thing to do these days? Hate America to take your mind off of problems at your own doorstep? Get off the "Hate America" band-wagon and do something useful with that energy you have built up.

Now back on topic with the rebuilding of Iraq. Just today I read that we will not allow just exiles to be in charge...but also current residents, kurds, and others that make up a wide variety of people and backgrounds, and I am glad to hear it. What has been posted above is good reading. I can see the work in rebuilding what has been destroyed mostly in our responsibility to fix, as we are the ones leading the destruction. We also have supplies more readily available like one of you said in a different way above. So, yeah...I can see where we are going with this...but I also hope that we are not the only ones to be involved. I am mainly saying that if another country offers to help, we will hopefully accept the offer and work together. Sharing in a project can be healing for any hurt feelings that may be out there.</font></font>[/QUOTE]What makes you think that I hate America?

I disagree with the US governments one sided approach to the whole Iraq issue and the half truths that have been used to accomplish their goals. If you haven't read the article titled "The Arrogant Empire," then you should. It is quite enlightening.

Over the past few days I have read many articles outlining the reconstruction of post-war Iraq, all slightly different. The main theme they do have in common however is Washington's desire to place a US appointed civilian as head, with US appointed officials to run the country as an "interim." How long that interim will last is anyone's guess, 6 months, 6 years, 60 years?

To me this seems as another example of the US deciding what is best. Even Blair agrees that the UN should have the primary say as to how Iraq is rebuilt, yet the US seems to disagree with that position. Why? I see nothing wrong with allowing the UN to control Iraq's immediate future. Apparantely, some US officials don't see it that way.

Well, I would be okay with the UN designing the systems and taking care of an interim government, but it simply can't. It is a stymied Behemoth, and would not even get the water and sewage running. Sorry, while good in theory, a UN-run interim government would be bad in reality.

You should have seen the show on 60 Minutes. They took the camera through the building in D.C. Over here you see a cubicle labelled "Ministry of Health" with Iraqi-American civilians busily working away, over there one labelled "Ministry of Transportation."

Four years from now, the UN would still be squabbling over which countries got to control the committees derecting the ministries, while anarchy ruled in Iraq. In fact, an interim gov't would be needed while the UN set up an interim gov't.

Go ahead, folks, admit it, you know I'm right. It is simply a case where, for humanitarian reasons and reality reasons, somebody has to do the job. Should the UK be involved? I bet it will be. But, right now a bunch of ex-patriots are really working to get the job done. Rather than hinder the good work they are doing, other countries should offer to assist (thus, becoming part of the decision-making process) and support them.

Okay, I will concede your point that perhaps, given the current state of the UN, that accomplishments would be far and few between, but I still don't think the US should be heading up the interim government.

With the current animosity towards the US over their non sanctioned invasion of Iraq, whether right or wrong, a US backed government would only serve to create more conflict and invoke further questioning over the US's agenda for the war.

Animal, a US-controlled Iraqi government could be a VeryBadTHing (tm) for politics in the region, as you point out. It could fragment Iraq and do all sorts of bad crap. It could increase animosity.

Or, as Dubya thinks, it could be a beacon of hope. Like a religious missionary, it could spread the contagious disease of freedom and liberty through the region. If the US is good enough to let it really direct itself, it will shine most.

Unfortunately, I doubt there is little in the way of middle ground. It can be sweet or sour, but likely not bland. I do hope for the sweet.

I hope for the sweet as well, but I think a Pandora's Box has been opened now. A 100% US backed government in the region would only make matters worse and lead to further conflict, terrorism and suffering.

I hope for the best, but my cynical side tells me that this is a no win situation. Chaos or chaos? Which will it be. :D

[ 04-05-2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Animal ]