Quote:
|
Not necessarily Yorick but take into consideration the fact that the day before he had been "all happy" for the people of Iraq, glad that the regime had ended, looking forward to a peaceful relationship with the U.S. and now he's saying that we're invaders?!
|
For an answer to this, I suggest that you look at the way that the allies dealt with the liberated countries of Europe in the aftermath of WWII.
Elections were swift, (the transfer of power couldn't come soon enough for the allies), there was no hint of appointed governments, tinkering with constitutions, the economy etc.
I have absolutely no doubts that the Iraqi people will have a better life now that Saddam is gone - but the question of whether this is an act of liberation or conquest depends largely on how the country is going to be administered and to what extent the social, political and economic state is affected by the coalition. According to the plans, Washington will decide everything - this is not the actions of a liberator.
A liberating army would say.
1. We will stay to ensure security and the handout of aid. We will *not* interfere in economic and political issues.
2. As soon as the situation is stable (probably around 6 months max), we will call a general election.
3. Will will stay for as long as the new government asks for our help and leave when they ask us to.
This is a far cry from what is planned.
Quote:
No, he has no more government to represent but where is his family if he is so concerned about them for one and why Syria when early/mid/and later reports of Saddam's whereabouts all had him being hidden there?
New York was more than willing to give him a city to live in and I am positive he could have gotten his family out of Iraq safely, provided they are there.
|
Syrians speak the same language and are culturally and geographically close to Iraq - and the country owes no allegiance to the US. It is a natural choice for him. It's approximately the same as a US citizen seeking refuge in Canada...