Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Skunk · 04-04-2003, 07:37 PM

I hear you - and I'll make one last statement on this thread.

If the US were to use Iraqi funds for the reconstruction - that would contravene the Geneva Convention and would amount to theft under international law. And this insignificant detail (to the US) would be very significant to the Middle East at large.

The UN is not hated in the Middle East - the US (and now the UK) overwhelmingly is. The Middle East view this as an occupation and the first 'Oil War'. In fact, if you glance over 'unrestricted' Middle Eastern media, you will discover that it is not refered to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom' - but invariably one of three things:
America's War of Agression
The Oil War
America's Imperial War
A US 'colonial' administration reporting to a US general will only cement this view, as indeed will the installation of a 'puppet' government and the implementation of a political/economical system which was not chosen by the Iraqi people.

Furthermore, if the US does indeed go ahead with the publicised plans to *privatise* the Iraqi oil industry, hand its control over to US oil companies, and force Iraq to leave OPEC, the charge that this war was about oil will *never* go away - and neither will the hatred.

But setting aside the Middle East at large, what do Iraqi's think? Well, let's look at the Shi'ites, the largest group in Iraq. They've suffered under Saddam as much as the Kurds. Do they welcome the US?

Yes and No.

Saddam pulled the trigger on so many thousands of Shi'ites - and they hate him for that. But it was the US that told them to stand in the firing line - and then promptly left them to their fate. Saddam would not have come for them if it had not been for the US encouraging them to rise up in the first place - and they havn't forgotten that or the betrayal.

They don't like the US - and they don't trust them - but they will tolerate the US in the short if the US removes Saddam - but they do not approve of a US military occupation. At the end of their March2003 conference in Tehran, the Iraqi Shi'ite Opposition voiced their anger at the US post-Saddam plans:
"Abu Belal Al-Adeb, spokesman for Islamic Dawa Party, said Washington intends to appoint US officials to run the affairs of Iraqi ministries while hiring some Iraqis as "consultants" in the post-Saddam Iraq.

"This reveals the American ill-will towards Iraq and its colonial goals," he said.

Mohamed Bakir Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that if the Iraqis could not form a new government themselves, the country is bound to be ruled by a US military governor.

"The Shi'ites insist that the future government be in the hands of the Iraqis, so as to establish peace and stability," he said, warning that the imposition of a non-Iraqi military leader to head Iraq would lead to instability."

On the other hand, if the administration was handed over to the UN - which is still seen as neutral - then the hatred towards the US will slowly start to disperse, provided of course, that the US doesn't blacken its hand in Iraq's oil.

For once, the US needs the UN far more than the UN needs the US.

04-04-2003, 07:37 PM	#16
Skunk Banned User Join Date: September 3, 2001 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands Age: 63 Posts: 1,463	I hear you - and I'll make one last statement on this thread. If the US were to use Iraqi funds for the reconstruction - that would contravene the Geneva Convention and would amount to theft under international law. And this insignificant detail (to the US) would be very significant to the Middle East at large. The UN is not hated in the Middle East - the US (and now the UK) overwhelmingly is. The Middle East view this as an occupation and the first 'Oil War'. In fact, if you glance over 'unrestricted' Middle Eastern media, you will discover that it is not refered to as "Operation Iraqi Freedom' - but invariably one of three things: America's War of Agression The Oil War America's Imperial War A US 'colonial' administration reporting to a US general will only cement this view, as indeed will the installation of a 'puppet' government and the implementation of a political/economical system which was not chosen by the Iraqi people. Furthermore, if the US does indeed go ahead with the publicised plans to privatise the Iraqi oil industry, hand its control over to US oil companies, and force Iraq to leave OPEC, the charge that this war was about oil will never go away - and neither will the hatred. But setting aside the Middle East at large, what do Iraqi's think? Well, let's look at the Shi'ites, the largest group in Iraq. They've suffered under Saddam as much as the Kurds. Do they welcome the US? Yes and No. Saddam pulled the trigger on so many thousands of Shi'ites - and they hate him for that. But it was the US that told them to stand in the firing line - and then promptly left them to their fate. Saddam would not have come for them if it had not been for the US encouraging them to rise up in the first place - and they havn't forgotten that or the betrayal. They don't like the US - and they don't trust them - but they will tolerate the US in the short if the US removes Saddam - but they do not approve of a US military occupation. At the end of their March2003 conference in Tehran, the Iraqi Shi'ite Opposition voiced their anger at the US post-Saddam plans: "Abu Belal Al-Adeb, spokesman for Islamic Dawa Party, said Washington intends to appoint US officials to run the affairs of Iraqi ministries while hiring some Iraqis as "consultants" in the post-Saddam Iraq. "This reveals the American ill-will towards Iraq and its colonial goals," he said. Mohamed Bakir Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that if the Iraqis could not form a new government themselves, the country is bound to be ruled by a US military governor. "The Shi'ites insist that the future government be in the hands of the Iraqis, so as to establish peace and stability," he said, warning that the imposition of a non-Iraqi military leader to head Iraq would lead to instability." On the other hand, if the administration was handed over to the UN - which is still seen as neutral - then the hatred towards the US will slowly start to disperse, provided of course, that the US doesn't blacken its hand in Iraq's oil. For once, the US needs the UN far more than the UN needs the US.