How come the US media isn't reporting this?

Kurdish leaders enraged by 'undemocratic' American plan to occupy Iraq

If the US is going to point out who the next leaders will be, they're in for more trouble than they could bargain for. The Iraqi people will never exept a "puppet" of the US. They should just "remove" Saddam, and let the people decide for themselves. Let them have real elections for a change.

I remember the idea of a temporary military governor being thrown out months ago as one way to handle the interim period. The example given for this was post war Japan. That form of government could very well be administered by the UN.

Of course the US shouldn't impose a puppet government, but there will have to be an interim government in Iraq before any Democratic process can be implemented, right? Or do we take Iraq, destroy the weapons, and run like hell to let them sort it out? That would be pretty ridiculous.

This is one report, not necessarily the whole truth. People who are quite happy to disbelieve anything the US might say, might want to remember that everyone is capable of lying to achieve their own desired end result. Does the US hold the market on misinformation? A group that's unhappy with the US and backs it by saying that the US plans to control/dominate/enslave a post war Iraq is nothing new. The bad old US certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to tell the truth before it was already in Bhagdad would it? ;) :D

I also remember a meeting in England of ousted Iraqis who were meeting to decide how to divide Iraq up.

[ 02-18-2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Amen. Except for the "elections" part. Let them hold elections if they like, or choose their leader however they like. The horrible history of the US in the region is due in large part to having to answer for its own choices in leaders. Let's not forget the US assisted Saddam's rise to power. That sort of governmental steering should not be done.

Go in, chop off Saddam's head (burn it just for good measure, cause he's likely undead), get rid of the WoMD's, baby-sit just long enough to stabalize, and get the HELL out.

Ousting a despot who threatens his neighbors does not alter the one underlying principle of international law - sovereignty. Think of it like the prime directive. ;)

<font color="plum">This is a perfect example of the U.S. being "damned if they do and damned if they don't". The Kurds are criticizing the U.S. because of how they think we'll come in and "take over" the gov't. Meanwhile, America has been criticized on this very board for "abandoning" the Afghanistan and leaving it in political turmoil.

Seems like somebody is going to be unhappy no matter what we do.</font>

Here, Cerek, you have pointed right to the reason why the US shouldn't do anything on its own without internation agreement - that IS what the UN is for.

<font color="plum">Point well taken, <font color="yellow">Moiraine</font>. Unfortunately the U.N. has proven over and over it unwillingness to do anything other than talk, discuss, recommend or chastise. For all thier pontificating, they have no real authority to take direct action.

Saddam has completely disregarded the requirements sent down by the U.N. and they have been powerless to do anything about it. The "Presidential decree" he recently signed banning the importation and/or construction of WoMD comes well over 10 years after the U.N. told him to do it. He didn't comply until the U.S. began transporting troops to his borders. It is nothing but a stalling technique and isn't worth the paper it's written on.

All Saddam wants to do is buy more time. The longer he can stall, the more "international public opinion" will turn his way and the less support the U.S. will have. Then, when the global community has "forgotten" about him again (like they did after the Gulf War), he can quietly go back to business as usual.

Do not doubt that Saddam Hussein will never change the way he runs the country as long as he is alive and/or in power. He will live in opulance while the general population dies of starvation. He will routinely torture, mutilate, and murder anybody that dares speak out against him - including his own family. In the mid-90's, his two son-in-laws (IIRC) defected to the West because of their fear of him. Saddam was shocked and outraged....but he swore there would be absolutely no recriminations, if they would just return to Baghdad. After all, they were the husbands of his daughters and he cared for them as his own flesh-and-blood. One did return - and was killed within the week. The other was wiser and saw through Saddam's lies.

Incidentally, it is from sources such as these (those who had been inside Saddam's power structure, but decided to leave) that the U.S. has gotten a lot of information about the existence and number of WoMD Iraq has.

I suppose also, that this points out major cultural differences between our people. You claim that the fact the U.S. will anger somebody regardless of our actions is the main reason we should take NO ACTION. {even though taking no action will still draw criticism against us}.

The American P.O.V. (IMO) is that "Well, if somebody is going to be mad no matter what, then we need to do what WE feel is the best course of action."

Frankly, I have no problem with the U.N. being the ones to come in and oversee the establishment of an acceptable alternative to the current gov't in Iraq. But it is blatanlty obvious that if America "waits for approval from the U.N.", then nothing will be done and Saddam will be allowed to continue his tyrannical dictatorship unhindered.</font>

I think that a large part of the problem with a post-war Iraq is the makeup of the country, part Kurd, part Shiite, part Sunni. In some ways, things might be better off if we could just bust up Iraq into 3 seperate countries. However, the Turks would probably have a serious hissy fit over it. Another problem with it might be that most of the oil is probably concentrated in the more southern regions of Iraq. The Kurdish portion of Iraq might end up being very poor if it was on its own.

Moraine, I must disagree with you. The UN is completely useless. While there may be a way out of this problem that doesn't require war, everything that I've heard thus far from the anti-war crowd is more about avoiding war than solving the real problem ... Saddam Hussien.

Perhaps the UN Sec Council should consider a resolution demanding that Hussien and his Baath party go into exile and turn the government of Iraq over to the UN until the UN can arrange for democratic elections. Haven't heard that suggested, have we?

I think that France and Russia are more concerned with keeping Saddam in power so that they can get their oil revenues than they are with solving the real issues of WMD's, etc.