US Plans to Occupy Iraq

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: The article states that Bush can send in occupation forces IF Saddam is "toppled" from power. THAT cannot be accomplished by force from the U.S. without the approval of Congress. Whether he took action directly against Saddam, or just sent in "occupation forces", it would HAVE to be considered "an Act of War"...and my understanding is that he could do neither of these WITHOUT the express approval of Congress.

Just wanted to let you know Congress beat you to the punch:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/11/national/11IRAQ.html

Friday, Oct. 11 - The Senate voted overwhelmingly early this morning to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, joining with the House in giving him a broad mandate to act against Saddam Hussein.

The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers of both parties returned to Washington from summer recess expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. It reflected weeks of lobbying and briefings by the administration that culminated with a speech by the president on Monday night.

The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 Thursday afternoon to allow the president to use the military ``against the continuing threat'' posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. today with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

After the House voted, President Bush said the support showed that ``the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally.'' He added, ``The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ronn: First, I think the acts of the two superpowers you mentioned during WWII convinced the whole world that the countries should be baby-sat for a bit. A bit more egregious that Sodamn Insanse's for sure. Second, though I don't have my international law books handy, I'm pretty sure international law governing this has changed much since them - which is exactly why Sodamn could not simply *occupy* Kuwait a decade ago. Also, don't know if the changes are good or not, but Japanese contact with the west *changed* it drastically. It's culture, while still very different from the US, was certainly robbed of a lot because western influence - influnce at the point of a gun, mind you. Religion and forms of government and economy all basically forced on the country. Check out a bit of history, and tell me if it's fair - then tell me if we should support doing the same to others.

There is nothing to argue in your points about the change to Japanese culture, but they certainly weren't the first culture to be dragged into the current time frame of the West, whether they wanted it or not. The European colonist did this in a much more grand fashion throughout the world, not just "insisting" on trade with those areas who were uninterested, but taking those areas by force and claiming them as their own.

As you mentioned, the world was convinced that Germany and Japan needed "babysitting". Nothing wrong with baby sitting Iraq in the same way.
I'm not really up on international law, but Saddam wasn't allowed to stay in Kuwait because he illegally invaded that country. Countries aren't allowed to annex other countries. The US/coalition/whoever won't annex Iraq either, but military action/temporary occupation will be taken under the authority of the UN. It's doubtful you'll see a major/long term controlling action as with Japan/Germany either, but hopefully more influence than Afghanistan will result in more stability.

Iraq does have a lot of oil, but not as much as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Russia for that matter, but you are right in one respect to oil being an important issue. Oil wealth will make some form of self government in Iraq work. The wealth provided will allow the building of a great nation run by the people, as long as the wealth is used to educate, employ, provide modern medicine and food, etc.

All cultures influence one another to some greater or lesser degree. The Iraqi culture won't be lost, just as the Japanese cultural wasn't lost. Life IS change. Actually, in today's politically correct society, great effort will be put into saving their culture.

[ 10-11-2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: If I remember correctly, Japan and West Germany came out of US, and in the case of WG British and French, occupation in pretty great shape. Probably the only two nations on the Earth to lose a major war and end up better off than before through the help of their former enemy.

Don't flatter yourself TOO much dude. Nations like Germany and Japan will always be on top, because of the attitude of the people there. They are hard workers and make exellent products, no matter what it is. And that has nothing at all to do with ANY outside influence whatsoever. So don't overrate that so called help.[/QUOTE]Actually, the great technological revolution that began in the nineteen-fifty's in Japan is primarily due to American influence in rebuilding their infrastructure. Later, when W. Edwards Deming brought his ideas on quality management to Japanese businesses, their growth was simply unparalleled. Had U.S. business been more receptive to Demings' philosophy, the US would have continued to dominate production into the 1980's and beyond. As it turned out, the importation of Demings' concepts into Japanese production was a key point, if not the key point in the growth of Japanese production.
So, it may be argued that Japan could have done it on their own, but they didn't.

[Thoran]

Kaizan! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And T.L. I didn't mean to imply that Iraqi oil reserves weren't important (#2 in the world)... just that they weren't important enough to risk the supply we're getting from #1, #3, #4, etc... very risky manuver given that we're not exactly being strangled by lack of oil (the disturbing number of SUV's on the road is ample evidence of this fact). Frankly I think it would be good for the US to see a 50-100% increase in the price of gas... to get us on par with what the rest of the world pays.

[ 10-11-2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by johnny: Don't flatter yourself TOO much dude. Nations like Germany and Japan will always be on top, because of the attitude of the people there. They are hard workers and make exellent products, no matter what it is. And that has nothing at all to do with ANY outside influence whatsoever. So don't overrate that so called help.[/qb]

I don't flatter myself at all.

Much of the credit can be given to the people of each country, but I think the differences between East and West Germany prior to the fall of the Soviet empire speaks for itself in terms of what a positive post WWII influence was made by the Allies.

Unless, of course, you think the difference in West Germany was completely the French and English influence, and consider Japan a fluke.

[ 10-11-2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Iraq does have a lot of oil, but not as much as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Russia for that matter, but you are right in one respect to oil being an important issue. Oil wealth will make some form of self government in Iraq work. The wealth provided will allow the building of a great nation run by the people, as long as the wealth is used to educate, employ, provide modern medicine and food, etc.

Most of the reports I have read state that Iraq's oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia's and may actually be larger.

[Attalus]

I am not surprised at all that there is a plan in place to "baby-sit" Iraq if everything goes well and we kick Saadam and the Baaths out, after all the criticism we got for "abandoning" Afghanistan and the Kurds after the Gulf War. Setting up a thriving Islamic democraacy on the model of Turkey would be the best thing that could happen to the Mideast. Perhaps some of those university trained jobless youths who see nothing but despair could take it as a model, rather than just spend their time hating the West. And, as I have said before, if we wanted Iraqi oil, all we would have to do is buy it. Saddam would be overjoyed to sell it to us.

[johnny]

Ronn, all i'm saying is: both nations would have thrived sooner or later anyway, it's in the nature of the people that inhabit it.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by johnny: Ronn, all i'm saying is: both nations would have thrived sooner or later anyway, it's in the nature of the people that inhabit it.

I'm not disagreeing that both the German and Japanese people are survivors in the truest sense of the word, but a positive influence is a determining factor as the East/West Germany point proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.

My orginal point was that neither the German nor Japanese people were punished after the war. They were helped, and this led to them running their government, and thereby, controlling their destiny. I think/hope the same can prove true in Iraq.

[ 10-11-2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]