Pentagon Plan to Rebuild Iraq.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Animal]

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.

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