The Future Government of Iraq

[Skunk]

Cute, but a non-answer. A German/French company has already entered a bid on providing wireless service in Iraq.

Actually, Iraq already has a european GSM network installed - or rather it did until someone bombed it. European companies have indeed done business in Iraq, and other countries. But I'm not sure what your point is there.

Europe doesn't chase money in the same way that the US does.
There are 6 million children in the US without healthcare - there are none in Europe. The gap between rich and poor is tiny in comparison as it is in the US.
We manage that with higher taxes, at a level that just would not be accepted in the US.

Most European countries have a CAP on the amount that a political party may spend on an election - not so in the US. Many European countries even forbid private money in election campaigns and instead the state provides an equal amount of funds to all parties.

Most European countries have a heavy environmental tax on petrol - and europeans are *happy* to pay the costs - not so in the US.

If money meant that much to European countries - most would have backed the US in the UN - in order to reap the profits from the Iraq carve-up. They didn't.

Try to understand that the cultures and values in other countries may not be the same as your own.

In some places in the world, ethics are more important than manna.

[Mordenheim]

lol I asure you skunk 9/11 won't be so easy next time. Kinda easy to pull something off the first time when no one has a clue. Suprise is and has always been the easiest form of attack. A lot harder when every single person is watching out for a sucker punch. A certain few can keep wishing though.

We kinda have these new thing's called security in place. Those planes would be shot out of the air now before they hit any thing. I doubt it owuld even take that since the passengers would simply all die there or over-run the terrorist. Getting into the country is not close to as easy as before. The FBI, CIA, etc are all over known terrorists. Like the three who tried to sneak in from Mexico who never made it.

Since 9/11 Afghanistan has the radical muslim Taliban removed totally. The remaining Al Qaeda have to hide and run every single night to stay ahead. The Iraq government is busy getting it's head chopped off. So while you will always have someone willing to die I wish them the best of luck trying to get in and then finding the chance to do something other then kill a handful of people.

I doubt you will find too many governments willing to support terrorism that targets America directly. I am sure more then a few have took notice of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think people everywhere understand life is a risk and you could die anyday. If that happens then so be it. But to make it sound like a 9/11 is going to happen over and over again is naive to a fault. A couple more 9/11s and I think you will find most Americans willing to take it to every single person and government who want's some. If I was a leader of a terrorist group or a Islamic government then I would go back to attacking Isreal or whatever they wish to do. Putting you're target on America can be deadly.

And last, while 9/11 was horrible the amount killed was not even a hair on a single head. There are over 280 million people in America. If you killed a million it would not even be a hair on a single head. So whoever enjoyed it can rest knowing while we mourn the loss we go on stronger then ever.

And while this may sound arrogant I can not help but be so when I hear "then be ready for another 9/11, 10//11" and the pure naive mindset that takes.

[Timber Loftis]

Skunk, ethics are important here too. My firm daily turns away millions of dollars of business based on professional ethical conflicts. We just don't act like we have a moral monopoly or a high horse.

You insinuate that money is the root of the conflict - it's not. This is part of the Circular Discussions (tm) on this thread. And, I find it very, very insulting. Especially in light of the fact that, contrary to your assertion, many European countries were best economically served by arguing for maintaining the status quo.

You are projecting this greedy cowboy image on us again. That's as insulting as many of the anti-France things that have gotten people threatened with suspension.

I still do not understand how you Eurotwits can continually voice this opinion without attracting the ire of the Mods, yet just let me point out your namby-pamby unwillingness to *do* anything about a problem other than think it to death and the mods come running.

C'mon mods - come running.

[ 04-04-2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Skunk: Why wouldn't we? Because Europeans are not Americans - we don't share the same values. If we did, topless bathing would be common on US beaches, eh?

Sure... rub it in you bastard!

[img]smile.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

What was the $75billion that congress voted for then? A good deal of the money will be channeled through USAID - and that I have no problem with.

That money is to pay for costs incurred during the execution of the war, sure there's some short term humanitarian aid in there but the bulk is military in nature, along with some aid to us companies impacted by the war. The bulk of reconstruction will be financed by Iraq, and it will be a huge sum of money (no doubt dwarfing the 75 billion the US is spending on the war itself).

Fair enough - if you don't mind another 9/11, followed by 10/11, 11/11, 12/11...

This prognostication will be far more impacted by how long it takes Iraqi's to gain control of their country... and that is true UN or no.

[Skunk]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Skunk, you owe it to yourself to read the "Pentagon plans for postwar Iraq" thread I posted on this forum. It's got a link to the ministries that are already being set up in D.C.

Final note: The US *never* has been colonial, nor will it ever be. With rare exception, it has consistently left countries that it "acquired" in one way or another. The Phillipines. Cuba. Micronesia (I think). The list is fairly long and I won't bore you.

[Skunk]

You insinuate that money is the root of the conflict - it's not. This is part of the Circular Discussions (tm) on this thread. And, I find it very, very insulting. Especially in light of the fact that, contrary to your assertion, many European countries were best economically served by arguing for maintaining the status quo.

I missed that when I made my last post - and it's worth answering before I abandon this thread.

It was Thoran that made the charge that France, China, and Russia were driven by money in their decision to block US/UK attempts to gain UN authorisation for military action in Iraq - I merely stated that European attitudes towards money are not the same as the US.

Our cultures *do* have a different set of values in that respect - the EU is overwhelmingly left-wing in its thinking and this is demonstrated in its social and foreign policy.

In other words, its wrong to judge us by US values. If you read my post as insinuating that the US motivations for this war were dollar driven - you'd be wrong. However, I apologise if this is the message that you received: put it down to my poor writing skills.

*I do not doubt the US's good intent as far as Iraq is concerned - but I am worried that the methods being chosen are unwise, insofar as the consequences will come back to haunt the US for years to come.*

With regards to European interests being best served by maintaining the status quo - this is not true either. Colin Powell and President Bush both stated during the initial discussions for military action, that countries which supported him on this issue would be unlikely to lose any existing trade contracts - whereas countries which opposed him might suffer.

The carrot and threat was quite real and clear.
Vote with us and lose nothing, vote against us and be excluded.

Under those circumstances, the charge that you levied towards the EU is really unfair.

Finally, you can call me a 'EuroTwit', but I'm British - and your ally. (Not everyone living in Amsterdam is Dutch. 7,000 US citizens in this city too!) I consider the US a very old friend. A friend that got mugged a couple of years ago and is still suffering from the experience. And I'm concerned about that old friend because he isn't himself these days. And his strange behaviour is beginning to drive away his friends and attract enemies.

And I'm concerned - as a good friend should be...

[ 04-04-2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

[Azred]

Originally posted by Azred: The UN should have nothing to do with the reconstuction of Iraq.

Originally posted by Skunk: Fair enough - if you don't mind another 9/11, followed by 10/11, 11/11, 12/11...

[img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] The existence of the UN had nothing to do with the events of 11 September 2001. That was strictly an attack against America carried out by the terrorist group Al Queda. I highly doubt they, or any other such group, will get to strike so forceful a blow a second time.

Originally posted by Skunk: For once, the US needs the UN far more than the UN needs the US.

We don't need the UN. In fact, we have done quite well without its help. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]