[moki]

Two points re: the reconstruction of Iraq that I've been mulling over in my mind.

First, I think the Bush administration, and Cheney in particular are being too delicate when it comes to the financing the reconstruction of Iraq. Cheney was asked if the $23 billion allocated could be made a loan guarantee rather than the US outright footing the bill. He said no, because that would give people the impression that the war was about oil, because it would principally be oil revenues that would pay back any loans given to Iraq.

This is too much pandering to the inane "no blood for oil" crowd. I see no reason why Iraq cannot pay for their own reconstruction through their vast oil reserves. Certainly the US can assist in this reconstruction, in terms of manpower, expertise, and also some aid, but a country with that amount of potential money can pay for their own schools and dump trucks.

Secondly, France, Germany, Russia, China, et al, who did not join in the 29 nation, 31,000 strong multinational force that liberated Iraq need not assist at all in the reconstruction, but they should at least get out of the way. That means, obviously, not vetoing any resolutions regarding Iraq, but more importantly, they should forgive the Iraqi debt to their respective countries.

There is simply no justification for these countries to not restructure the debt Iraq owes them, because this debt was built up during active trading with a brutal regime. Indeed, much of this debt comes from weapons, weapon technology, and the like. Helping to prop up the old regime via trade is forgivable; continuing to saddle the Iraqi people with the debt built up in trade with Saddam Hussein is not.

In short, America should continue the reconstruction of the new Iraq, but part of this can be as a loan. At the same time, debt owed to the old Iraq -- by all countries, the US included -- should be forgiven or restructured.

[Developer]

I think it's odd to bomb a country and then ask its people to pay for reconstruction, don't you?

[registered_user]

I don't see why it's in the interest of Germany, France, and Russia to forgive any debt simply because the US could use a hand in rebuilding the country they invaded.

What would it take for you to loan me a million bucks and then just forgive the debt because somebody beat me up and took my money?

And as for trading with a brutal regime... think about where your computer (or the parts in it) were made.

[moki]

Originally posted by Developer:
I think it's odd to bomb a country and then ask its people to pay for reconstruction, don't you?

I agree with you there, which is why I stated that the US should continue to pay for parts of it. Much of the "reconstruction" that is going on, however, is about modernizing and replacing the archaic systems they had in place, not simply repairing what was destroyed. For this, I see no reason why it cannot be a loan.

Additionally, the US also brought the Iraqi people liberation from Saddam, and a future that has the potential to be far, far brighter than their past 30 years have been. That is certainly worth something as well.

[moki]

Originally posted by registered_user:
I don't see why it's in the interest of Germany, France, and Russia to forgive any debt simply because the US could use a hand in rebuilding the country they invaded.

What would it take for you to loan me a million bucks and then just forgive the debt because somebody beat me up and took my money?

If you sold weapons, support systems, etc. to an organized crime syndicate helping to keep them in power, and the police subsequently busted them, I don't think it is fair to push that economic burden onto the people who bore the brunt of its oppression.

[registered_user]

Originally posted by moki:
…however, is about modernizing and replacing the archaic systems they had in place, not simply repairing what was destroyed. For this, I see no reason why it cannot be a loan.

I'd be pretty upset if someone forced me to borrow money, but that's just me.

Originally posted by moki:
If you sold weapons, support systems, etc. to an organized crime syndicate helping to keep them in power, and the police subsequently busted them, I don't think it is fair to push that economic burden onto the people who bore the brunt of its oppression.

I think the biggest challenge before you and your argument is that you will have to show that the US is good and Iraq is bad. It's very a subjective issue, and I see no reason why (short of imperialism) that the US should force their views upon other sovereign nations.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by moki:
I agree with you there, which is why I stated that the US should continue to pay for parts of it. Much of the "reconstruction" that is going on, however, is about modernizing and replacing the archaic systems they had in place, not simply repairing what was destroyed. For this, I see no reason why it cannot be a loan.

Additionally, the US also brought the Iraqi people liberation from Saddam, and a future that has the potential to be far, far brighter than their past 30 years have been. That is certainly worth something as well.

If the whole reason for invading Iraq was for the humanitarian aim of liberation doesn't it seem a bit odd to bill them for it? I don't see Unicef billing people for their humanitarian aid.

The US invaded on their own accord therefore they should foot the bill themselves. If you instigate an action the results of said action are your responsibility.

[moki]

Originally posted by registered_user:
I think the biggest challenge before you and your argument is that you will have to show that the US is good and Iraq is bad. It's very a subjective issue, and I see no reason why (short of imperialism) that the US should force their views upon other sovereign nations.

Given the liberties offered to people in the US, and the oppression handed to the people in Iraq, I don't think there is a challenge here at all.

You're attempting to state that human rights abuses systematically handed out by a government are "subjective" -- and I believe that is dangerous thinking.

[moki]

Originally posted by shmerek:
The US invaded on their own accord therefore they should foot the bill themselves. If you instigate an action the results of said action are your responsibility.

And the US did foot the bill for the war ourselves, as we continue to do. We're talking about turning Iraq into a modern nation, which is quite different than the war itself, or repairing the damage from the war. On both fronts, I agree, the US should do it.

This isn't simply a matter of filling in bomb craters. While Saddam was building palaces, the country's infrastructure was left to deteriorate to the point where it is beyond repair. To modernize Iraq will take quite a bit of work; I don't see why the US should pay for what Saddam neglected.

[registered_user]

Originally posted by moki:
Given the liberties offered to people in the US, and the oppression handed to the people in Iraq, I don't think there is a challenge here at all.

You're attempting to state that human rights abuses systematically handed out by a government are "subjective" -- and I believe that is dangerous thinking.

Dangerous thinking is setting a precedent that you are going to free the oppressed people of the world. Consider Chechnya, Nigeria, Cuba, DPRK, and oh, let's throw in China. I dare not force my lifestyle on those people if for no other reason that I am a free man, and I respect the freedom of others. That includes their freedom to self determination.

Human rights are earned, not given. Throughout history 'human rights' have been systematically taken and reclaimed and much blood has been shed as a result. That's paramount to remember: There is no absolute authority doling out rights.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by moki:
And the US did foot the bill for the war ourselves, as we continue to do. We're talking about turning Iraq into a modern nation, which is quite different than the war itself, or repairing the damage from the war. On both fronts, I agree, the US should do it.

This isn't simply a matter of filling in bomb craters. While Saddam was building palaces, the country's infrastructure was left to deteriorate to the point where it is beyond repair. To modernize Iraq will take quite a bit of work; I don't see why the US should pay for what Saddam neglected.

I don't think it is just about filling craters. My point is that it was an arbitrary decision by the US to liberate and thus modernize Iraq. The US gov took it upon its self to remove the ruling power and replace it, the Iraqis' didn't decide on this course of action so why should they have to pay? Never mind the dubious actions of US companies cozy to the current admin getting prime contracts in Iraq.

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
...I don't see why the US should pay for what Saddam neglected.

And I don't see that the US should have meddled in the first place.

You meddle, you pay.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by moki:
I agree with you there, which is why I stated that the US should continue to pay for parts of it. Much of the "reconstruction" that is going on, however, is about modernizing and replacing the archaic systems they had in place, not simply repairing what was destroyed. For this, I see no reason why it cannot be a loan.

Additionally, the US also brought the Iraqi people liberation from Saddam, and a future that has the potential to be far, far brighter than their past 30 years have been. That is certainly worth something as well.

ditto.

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
And I don't see that the US should have meddled in the first place.

You meddle, you pay.

That's the attitude many people have, especially in Europe -- but alas, many people also believe that "live and let live" is not a always sane policy for the greater good of the world.

As an instance, Muamar Al-Khadafi was causing quite a stink decades ago, funding and inciting terrorism, oppressing his people, etc. We could have just "not meddled" but we did something about it, and amazingly, after Libya was bombed, and sanctions were put in place, Libya has become quite docile.

In this case, not meddling would have led to a much more dangerous world than "meddling" would have. And so we meddled. And so people protested. And so the world ended up being just a little bit safer.

Regardless, issues of "meddling" aside, I agree with you that we should pay for fixing whatever we broke in Iraq. However the expensive modernizing that is being talked about here is not about fixing what we broke. It is about fixing what Saddam Hussein broke -- and for that, I see no reason why the US should pay for it. A loan guarantee should more than suffice.

[Spliffdaddy]

ditto again.

aw hell. for future reference I can ditto pretty much 90% of what moki says.

[moki]

Originally posted by registered_user:
Dangerous thinking is setting a precedent that you are going to free the oppressed people of the world. Consider Chechnya, Nigeria, Cuba, DPRK, and oh, let's throw in China. I dare not force my lifestyle on those people if for no other reason that I am a free man, and I respect the freedom of others. That includes their freedom to self determination.

You're missing a big point here. In all of the countries you named (China being excepted, as it is changing), the people you're discussing do not have the freedom for self-determination AT ALL. That's what the point is, actually, you made it quite eloquently for me.

We have brought the ability to the Iraqi people to have self-determination; they have not had this vaunted freedom of self-determination that you're espousing for 3 decades. The same goes for DPRK, Cuba, etc.

Indeed, the most hardline group against Cuba -- the people who favor the toughest sanctions -- are Cuba expatriots who escaped from Castro's regime.

Human rights are earned, not given. Throughout history 'human rights' have been systematically taken and reclaimed and much blood has been shed as a result. That's paramount to remember: There is no absolute authority doling out rights.

I agree; there is just the moral imperative to put a system in place that allows this to happen, which is what has been done in Iraq. Can the US do it in every country? Certainly not -- but by setting a few examples, the world can change, and for the better.

Look at the stark contrast between North and South Korea. Without the US's intervention there, all of the Korean peninsula would resemble DPRK; yet in stark contrast, South Korea is now the world's 18th largest economy, and the people are prospering.

Let's hope that spreads to the North soon, too, when that regime collapses (as I believe it inevitably will).

[moki]

Originally posted by shmerek:
I don't think it is just about filling craters. My point is that it was an arbitrary decision by the US to liberate and thus modernize Iraq.

The US, and the UK, and 29 other countries, took it upon themselves to force Saddam Hussein to live up to the 1991 Gulf War cease fire pact, and to live up to the dozens of UN resolutions regarding inspections and weapons programs, which UNSCOM consistently reported has been violated.

In other words, the US acted when much of the rest of the world was content to let a dangerous precedent of flaunting the UN continue.

The US did indeed make the decision to liberate Iraq, and we do have an obligation to ensure that the country is repaired and put back on their feet. However, we did not make the decision to modernize the country; it isn't our job to terraform the land from the wasteland Saddam left it (Palaces excepted, of course) to the world's next Switzerland.

This whole "you broke it, you fix it" mentality is just a little bit ingenuous. Iraq has been broken for decades, and many countries have been content to allow that status quo to continue, and have indeed supported the regime tacitly via trade.

We all agree that it is time to get Iraq back on their feet, but trying to claim that we have to build an entire modernized nation on our own dime is ridiculous. Had Saddam simply disappeared with no war at all, there would have been an equally pressing need to modernize the country, because quite simply, he had ravaged the country and the people for a very long time.

[Developer]

Originally posted by moki:
We have brought the ability to the Iraqi people to have self-determination;

Now after their liberation, do the Iraqis have the self-determination...

Much of the "reconstruction" that is going on, however, is about modernizing and replacing the archaic systems they had in place, not simply repairing what was destroyed. For this, I see no reason why it cannot be a loan.

...to decide who is going to do this modernization if they have to pay for it by your proposal? They might find a better deal than with Halliburton.

[moki]

Originally posted by Developer:
Now after their liberation, do the Iraqis have the self-determination......to decide who is going to do this modernization if they have to pay for it by your proposal? They might find a better deal than with Halliburton.

That will be absolutely fine by me, but the bidding should be open only to countries that have forgiven any past debt racked up by weapons or other sales/trade to Saddam Hussein.

[registered_user]

Originally posted by moki:
You're missing a big point here. In all of the countries you named (China being excepted, as it is changing), the people you're discussing do not have the freedom for self-determination AT ALL. That's what the point is, actually, you made it quite eloquently for me.

I don't buy that for a minute. There will always be conflict, and there are always opposing forces. Some are greater than others, though ultimately, that doesn't remove anyone's ability to determine their own fate.

Witnessing an injustice (by American moral standards) doesn't justify the decision to take sides and invade another nation. Especially when the only influence it has no the US is economic. There is no evidence to show that the world is safer, in fact it could be well debated that the world is far more dangerous for Americans now than it ever was.

Heh, but look at me. I've drifted far from the original topic. Sorry about that. :o

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
I don't see why the US should pay for what Saddam neglected.

Whine, whine, whine! Not only is this whining getting annoying, it's downright callous!

Not once have I heard anyone in the US say, "Oh my God, we killed 7,000 innocent people for nothing." If Bush goes down next year it won't be because he is responsible for the deaths of those people. All we hear is "Oh my God, this is costing a fortune," and "Oh my God, another soldier was killed." It's so callous! Paying your way out of this stuffup in the form of raw cash and the lives of professional soldiers is the least you can do. I doubt the relatives of some of those 7,000 people think that the cost is too high!

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
ditto again.

aw hell. for future reference I can ditto pretty much 90% of what moki says.

... and, predictably, I probably agree with the other 10%. (but disagree with your 90)

[christ]

Originally posted by moki:
...there is just the moral imperative to put a system in place that allows this to happen, which is what has been done in Iraq. Can the US do it in every country? Certainly not -- but by setting a few examples, the world can change, and for the better.

Look at the stark contrast between North and South Korea. Without the US's intervention there, all of the Korean peninsula would resemble DPRK; yet in stark contrast, South Korea is now the world's 18th largest economy, and the people are prospering.

Let's hope that spreads to the North soon, too, when that regime collapses (as I believe it inevitably will).

You always seem blind to the fact that it is not axiomatic that 'more like the US' means the same as 'better'.

Some countries, and their peoples, are better off as they are, and prefer to be that way, even if it is not like the US of A.

Leave them alone unless they threaten you (and that means directly).

And I'm with Troll - stop whining. You wanted this Iraqi problem, when the rest of the world told you to let go, so now you have it, you keep it.

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
And I'm with Troll - stop whining. You wanted this Iraqi problem, when the rest of the world told you to let go, so now you have it, you keep it.

When the rest of the world was content with the status quo, to leave people suffering, leave Saddam to build to become a menace once again, and to trade freely with "the rest of the world" who tacitly supported this regime. Just to clarify.

It reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw the other day -- "America: keeping the world safe for Europe to protest since 1918"

[moki]

Originally posted by christ:
You always seem blind to the fact that it is not axiomatic that 'more like the US' means the same as 'better'.

Some countries, and their peoples, are better off as they are, and prefer to be that way, even if it is not like the US of A.

No, I agree with you completely. That's one of the things I love about the world, there are many people living very different but perfectly valid ways of life.

However, you would have a very, very hard time arguing that the people in Iraq, Cuba, DPRK, etc. were simply "living a different way" -- they are suffering, and in droves. Their governments have failed them.

Leave them alone unless they threaten you (and that means directly).

Ah, Neville Chamberlain would be proud indeed.

I do agree with you in principle, but where we differ is that I believe that we live in a global community, and the "bad neighborhoods" can't be dismissed as "living a different way of life", because if left to fester, they will greatly impact the rest of the world.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I agree with you completely. That's one of the things I love about the world, there are many people living very different but perfectly valid ways of life.

Whoa, I sure am glad then that my life is 'valid' in the eyes of the US. If not then I guess I would have to get ready for the impending carpet bombing and 'attacks of opportunity'!

See, you are making the same mistakes that colonial powers in Europe made a hundred years ago. You think that your way of life is surperior to all others and that when it suits your interests and your security that you have a god given right to set it right.

Case in point you guys didn't invade Iraq because you wanted to 'help the Iraqi people', you did it because of scary WMDs.........which appear to not exist!

So you bomb a country, kill thousands of its citizens, and then go about telling them what the 'proper way to live it'. Oh yes, and then you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't want to flip the bill for you.

I must agree with what others have said, quite the whining and clean up your own mess.

If the US truly wanted the help of the rest of the world, they would go to the UN and negotiate a fair deal. It remains to be seen if that will happen.

[Nicko]

And I forgot to add, remember before the war started, Bush termed it as a crusade .... sure it was a screw-up on his part, but very revealing in retrospect.

[eklipse]

I don't think America should have invaded Iraq.
I don't think America should pay for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq.
I don't think Bush & Co.'s idea of 'reconstruction' is the same as the Iraqis or much of the rest of the world.
I do think America should get the **** out of Iraq. Soon.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by moki:
...That's one of the things I love about the world, there are many people living very different but perfectly valid ways of life.

Since when did 'life' become a parking ticket to be 'validated'?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I don't think America should have invaded Iraq.
I don't think America should pay for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq.
I don't think Bush & Co.'s idea of 'reconstruction' is the same as the Iraqis or much of the rest of the world.
I do think America should get the **** out of Iraq. Soon.

Hehehe....the thing is though, if they leave now Iraq would decent into chaos and become another Afghanistan or Lebanon.

For better or worse, they are stuck there now for a good while.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Hehehe....the thing is though, if they leave now Iraq would decent into chaos and become another Afghanistan or Lebanon.

For better or worse, they are stuck there now for a good while.

If America is to stay in Iraq for any length of time for any reason, it should be to ensure the election of a legitimate governing body and the successful hand-over of power to said body.

Handing out contracts to build mobile phone networks should not be on the agenda.

[registered_user]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I agree with you completely. That's one of the things I love about the world, there are many people living very different but perfectly valid ways of life.
…
However, you would have a very, very hard time arguing that the people in Iraq, Cuba, DPRK, etc. were simply "living a different way" -- they are suffering, and in droves. Their governments have failed them.

What gives you the authority to make these judgements, if you don't mind me asking?

[Logic]

If I would have anything to say about this this is what would happen.

Either the US would STFU and take care of the mess they created all by themselves(no Iceland, Micronesia and Palau are not powerful and important allies like the US and UK government claimed).

or

The US would hand over all power to the UN and do what the UN tells them to do and cancel all contracts it has handed out and let the UN be in charge of the reconstruction. The only reason that this is even an option is since there are people involved who unfortunatly are suffering more now than they did before the war. The only reason for this being an option is to end the suffering the US and UK brought upon the people of Iraq.


As I said, either the US STFU and take care of this on their own or they hand over all power to the UN. This is B&W.

[Troll]

Where's Theolein when you need him? I think the perfect answer to this whole thread is an Afrikaans saying:

"Kak en betaal is die wet van die Transvaal"

Which means "Sh1t and you pay - that's the law of the Transvaal." The US shat, now it needs to pay and shut up.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Nicko:
See, you are making the same mistakes that colonial powers in Europe made a hundred years ago. You think that your way of life is surperior to all others and that when it suits your interests and your security that you have a god given right to set it right.

This is a great point. The interests that are being looked after in Iraq at the moment are US interests and the way in which those interests are being pursued is defined by the US. So long as the idea is to create a situation in Iraq that benefits the US, the rest of the world is not going to get involved.

Even if the entire operation is handed over to the UN, I think the US should be made to pay reparations to Iraq. Putting a cost on that, I'd say $80bn comes somewhere near sufficient compensation for the damage the US has caused. I think the US would far prefer to put that money back its own pocket by giving its own citizens and taxpayers oil money than by paying it as compensation for the illegal, immoral war they waged.

[thunderous_funker]

I don't object to US paying for reconstruction. What I object to is the percentage of Iraq that will belong to Americans when it's over.

If the US taxpayer is going to rebuild Iraq, then it ought to belong to Iraqis when we're done.

The administration's rhetoric is all about the Marshall Plan, but the actuall policy looks more like The East India Tea Company.

[moki]

I must agree with what others have said, quite the whining and clean up your own mess.

If the US truly wanted the help of the rest of the world, they would go to the UN and negotiate a fair deal. It remains to be seen if that will happen.

There is no whining being done at all. I've merely stated that I don't think the US should outright pay for anything beyond fixing what we broke. The rest can come from loan guarantees.

And since we did go the extra mile to enforce the UN resolutions that other countries were comfortable ignoring, I think we can call some of the shots too. If you want to do any business in Iraq, you forgive the debt you racked up trading arms/support systems/whatever with Saddam Hussein.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which means "Sh1t and you pay - that's the law of the Transvaal." The US shat, now it needs to pay and shut up.

Nonsense, you're just being spiteful here. The US is under no obligation at all to pay for anything. It is, however, in our best interests to see Iraq put back on its feet and modernized.

Pursuant to this, I suggest that for anything beyond fixing what we broke, Iraq gets a loan guarantee, not outright money.

I'm also suggesting that since we did go to war to enforce the UN resolutions, and since we did conquer the country, we can tell everyone else who stood on the sidelines supporting Saddam tacitly via trade that they must forgive any old debt with Iraq before they can get any business with Iraq. That means oil, folks.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
As I said, either the US STFU and take care of this on their own or they hand over all power to the UN. This is B&W.

And if the US does take care of this all on its own, I assume you will cry foul when the US also gets every single oil and other resource contract? Is that really how you want to see it go?

Honestly, Logic, I normally respect your arguments, but you're sounding very petty. Yes, the US did something you disagreed with. However, the US also did the world, and ultimately the Iraqi people a favor. I think it is fairly disingenuous to be aghast at the people who died in the Iraq war, and then also tell the US they should have just left Iraq alone.

Because leaving Iraq alone was tantamount to condemning thousands of people to dying, and hundreds of thousands more to a life of oppression and no hope. It was just doing it via inaction.

Really, anyone who approaches this from a moral point of view has no defensible argument if they think Saddam should have been left in power.

So he's gone. It's done. You want to turn your back on the Iraqi people you claim to care so much about just to be spiteful, because you resented the US's unilateral action in Iraq?

That's certainly putting politics before any humanitarian concern, and I'm rather shocked people who claim to be so concerned about the Iraqi people would play this card.

"The US is terrible, do you know how many people were killed while liberating Iraq from Saddam? --then-- Yeah, well, I don't care if Iraq suffers, screw the people there, you invaded, it is your problem now, we don't care"

[moki]

Originally posted by registered_user:
What gives you the authority to make these judgements, if you don't mind me asking?

Are you kidding me? www.amnesty.org for starters.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
There is no whining being done at all. I've merely stated that I don't think the US should outright pay for anything beyond fixing what we broke. The rest can come from loan guarantees.

And since we did go the extra mile to enforce the UN resolutions that other countries were comfortable ignoring, I think we can call some of the shots too. If you want to do any business in Iraq, you forgive the debt you racked up trading arms/support systems/whatever with Saddam Hussein.

soo....you essentially want the US to act as "liberators", but only when they can get paid for doing so, against the wishes of the UN and every other country in the world?
what is that....Unwanted Mercenaries, Inc.?

This is where I make the point that the humanitarian justifications quoted by the right are disingenuous. If the right truly wanted to liberate the oppressed Iraqis, they'd do it for free....right?

If not, then its not humanitarian, its opportunistic greed and avarice, pure and simple.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by moki:
And if the US does take care of this all on its own, I assume you will cry foul when the US also gets every single oil and other resource contract? Is that really how you want to see it go?

Honestly, Logic, I normally respect your arguments, but you're sounding very petty. Yes, the US did something you disagreed with. However, the US also did the world, and ultimately the Iraqi people a favor. I think it is fairly disingenuous to be aghast at the people who died in the Iraq war, and then also tell the US they should have just left Iraq alone.

Because leaving Iraq alone was tantamount to condemning thousands of people to dying, and hundreds of thousands more to a life of oppression and no hope. It was just doing it via inaction.

Really, anyone who approaches this from a moral point of view has no defensible argument if they think Saddam should have been left in power.

So he's gone. It's done. You want to turn your back on the Iraqi people you claim to care so much about just to be spiteful, because you resented the US's unilateral action in Iraq?

That's certainly putting politics before any humanitarian concern, and I'm rather shocked people who claim to be so concerned about the Iraqi people would play this card.

"The US is terrible, do you know how many people were killed while liberating Iraq from Saddam? --then-- Yeah, well, I don't care if Iraq suffers, screw the people there, you invaded, it is your problem now, we don't care"

Holy cow.

This is the Mother of all *SMACKDOWNS*

Print it, frame it, and place on your desk.

It just doesn't get any better than this.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
soo....you essentially want the US to act as "liberators", but only when they can get paid for doing so, against the wishes of the UN and every other country in the world?
what is that....Unwanted Mercenaries, Inc.?

Hello? I am not asking the US to get paid for it. I'm stating that the Iraqi people should get a loan guarantee, not outright cash, for the modernizing of their country. Once more, I'm talking specifically about things above and beyond repairing what was damaged by the liberation -- that I agree the US can bear the costs, despite the fact that the world will also benefit from no more Saddam in power.

I'm also stating that countries that build up trade imbalances with Iraq should be forced to forgive the debt they are owed to Saddam for the arms/support systems/whatever that they racked up, and tacitly supporting them.

Where, in any of this, am I stating that the US should be PAID for the invasion of Iraq? Nowhere.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:
Hello? I am not asking the US to get paid for it. I'm stating that the Iraqi people should get a loan guarantee, not outright cash, for the modernizing of their country. Once more, I'm talking specifically about things above and beyond repairing what was damaged by the liberation -- that I agree the US can bear the costs, despite the fact that the world will also benefit from no more Saddam in power.

I'm also stating that countries that build up trade imbalances with Iraq should be forced to forgive the debt they are owed to Saddam for the arms/support systems/whatever that they racked up, and tacitly supporting them.

Where, in any of this, am I stating that the US should be PAID for the invasion of Iraq? Nowhere.

"loan guarantee"

Ahhh , so Iraq will be held hostage by interest payments for the next few decades.

Sounds like what has happened to every single country in S. America.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
"loan guarantee"

Ahhh , so Iraq will be held hostage by interest payments for the next few decades.

Sounds like what has happened to every single country in S. America.

You mean held hostage the way Israel is "held hostage" by the loan guarantees the US gives them? You mean held hostage the way the Iraqi people are supposed to pay interest on the debt that Saddam racked up with Germany, France, Russia, China, etc. for the weapons/technology he bartered for?

I mean really. The country needs to be modernized after it is reconstructed. Why should Iraq finance it any differently than any other country does?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by moki:

I mean really. The country needs to be modernized after it is reconstructed. Why should Iraq finance it any differently than any other country does?

Modernize is a relative term. The problem is that the US wants to control Iraq's destiny. This strategy will ultimately fail. If they truely want the Iraqi's to run their own country, they would legitimize their prescence by internationalizing their effort. Like others have said over and over, this can be easily accomplished by the US giving up some political control, but they don't want to do that.

Oh and Iraq is different. They aren't just another developing country starving for food. They are a country with the second largest oil reserves on earth that has just been invaded/occupied by the world's only superpower. It is the US who is morally abliged to repair what they destroyed.

[moki]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Modernize is a relative term. The problem is that the US wants to control Iraq's destiny. This strategy will ultimately fail.

I see no evidence of this. The US clearly wants to control the current situation, but I see absolutely no credible evidence that the US wishes anything other than a peaceful, prosperous, democratic country out of Iraq.

If they truely want the Iraqi's to run their own country, they would legitimize their prescence by internationalizing their effort.

Forgive me if I fail to see how having France involved suddenly legitimizes the effort.

Like others have said over and over, this can be easily accomplished by the US giving up some political control, but they don't want to do that.

Exactly what "political control" are we talking about here? Everyone in the UN states that power should be handed over to the Iraqi people. The US agrees; but the US does not agree that it should happen too quickly.

Legitimate systems need to be in place first, such as a constitution, a rebuilt/safe Iraq, etc. Just handing over control to Chalabi, et al, would be tantamount to replacing one foisted upon regime with another.

Oh and Iraq is different. They aren't just another developing country starving for food. They are a country with the second largest oil reserves on earth that has just been invaded/occupied by the world's only superpower. It is the US who is morally abliged to repair what they destroyed.

I have stated over and over again, in every single post here, that the US should repair what we destroyed, on our dime. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

What I am also stating, though, is that Iraq should be modernized on their own dime, via guaranteed loans, and that countries who wish to trade with Iraq should be forced to forgive/restructure the debt Iraq owes them (which was built up by propping up a brutal dictator). This is both morally and practically appropriate.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
I see no evidence of this. The US clearly wants to control the current situation, but I see absolutely no credible evidence that the US wishes anything other than a peaceful, prosperous, democratic country out of Iraq.

You don't see the element of control in precisely what you just wrote??? The Iraqis are entitled to be a violent, poor, communist country if they choose rather than a peaceful, propserous, democratic country. But that wouldn't serve US interests would it? Because the US needs peaceful, "democratic", "modern," puppet vassals all over the world that will buy Nikes and Gap jumpers and Starbucks coffee and host US army bases and service US political, strategic, security and economic interests. Head on over to Project for New American Century and check out why Iraq was invaded.

What you're paying for in modernising Iraq is the creation of a colony that will better serve your empire. All of the things you mention, including modernity and prosperity are prerequisites for the US getting what it wants out of Iraq - that's what you're paying for. And that's what some people in your government wanted. Since the US is creating something that it planned for its own benefit, I can't see why anyone else should pay for it! [EDIT: To be clear, I don't think that being an empire is what Americans per se want. But that is essentially what the neo-cons agenda is and the neo-con agenda is what is driving US foreign policy at this time.]

The US has broken more than tangible objects like bridges. It has broken law and order, it has broken government, it has broken spirits and families and services and a whole host of other things. Iraq has all of the problems it had before the war PLUS those the US introduced. That mix is far worse than had sanctions been lifted and Iraq been allowed to recover slowly. Putting Iraq back on its feet demands more than just fixing the broken bridges and getting the hell out Somalia style.

To your point about the US enforcing UN resolutions. That is absolute rubbish. There was no UN resolution and the US had no authority to enforce anything!

Originally posted by moki:
Exactly what "political control" are we talking about here? Everyone in the UN states that power should be handed over to the Iraqi people. The US agrees; but the US does not agree that it should happen too quickly.

Legitimate systems need to be in place first, such as a constitution, a rebuilt/safe Iraq, etc.

How "legitimate" is a form of government chosen by the US, a set of leaders chosen by the US, a Constitution drafted by US appointees under the watchful eye of the US? Why should Iraq even be a democracy with a Constitution? Why shouldn't it be an Islamic state with shariah law? Iraqis were around before Columbus was even a twinkle in his mother's eye and the US thinks it has a right to tell them how to be civilised, to tell them what civil systems are "legitimate"!

Originally posted by moki:
I have stated over and over again, in every single post here, that the US should repair what we destroyed, on our dime. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

I concede that this is partly about showing the US why it shouldn't be acting unilaterally. It is partly about the US being shown why the UN exists, why acting as a collective, respecting international law is a good thing that serves all of the players. The best way I can think of for them to learn that lesson, short of the rest of the world attacking the US, is to hit them where it hurts most - their economy. As I said, I find it shockingly callous that some Americans seem more concerned with the financial costs of Iraq than the cost paid by thousands of innocent Iraqis, but if that's where their priorities are, then that's where they should get smacked. Right in the wallet. Maybe next time you will think twice about supporting a president that advocates bucking the system, breaking the law and rearranging things so they better serve what he thinks are your interests (or at least those of his buddies). Maybe you'll realise that empires are unsustainable; that imposing your version of the good life on others provokes a backlash.

[eklipse]

Troll:

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
And if the US does take care of this all on its own, I assume you will cry foul when the US also gets every single oil and other resource contract? Is that really how you want to see it go?

Yes. For two reasons:

1. You were not the only ones in this Coalition.

2. Sounds like imperialism all over again.

What you are saying is basically imperialism just slightly modified. You are supporting imperialism, something that Europe has done and regret. Ones again I can use a quote from Palme to describe this:

They are both hoping for external aid to fight for the interests of what they call the "free world". For us in Europe, with our colonial past, it is necessary to be crystal clear. We will never accept Smith`s and Vorster`s perversion of Western democracy. Their oppression and racism will never be included in a world of freedom. They represent the very opposite of democracy.

Only the racism has changed a bit in how it is. Your and your governments comments about the need to modernize Iraq isn't nothing more than racism and "racial chauvinism, contrary to the basis of Western humanism."

Honestly, Logic, I normally respect your arguments, but you're sounding very petty. Yes, the US did something you disagreed with. However, the US also did the world, and ultimately the Iraqi people a favor. I think it is fairly disingenuous to be aghast at the people who died in the Iraq war, and then also tell the US they should have just left Iraq alone.

In what way did the US do the world a favour? Most of the world don't like this new system your government has implemented and don't want this to happen. Most nations are a little more insecure because of this. You have given a green light to every nation around the world to attack another little helpless nation. Forgive me if I don't see the good in that. The US should have waited until they would have UN support. If the UN would have sanctioned this war I would have supported it. I'll tell you why. I live in a small nation that could probably never defend itself against an aggressor. When the US bypassed the UN you basically took away our last defence and our last hope. You have given the green light to unilateral actions, without any compelling evidence and now you claim that you should get money for the "rebuilding" of the country you blasted back into the stoneage. You have made the world a more dangerous place. Sometimes you will have to look at the greater good. Unilateral actions, even against regimes like SH, will never be a "good" thing. And it definately doesn't make you Good™.

Because leaving Iraq alone was tantamount to condemning thousands of people to dying, and hundreds of thousands more to a life of oppression and no hope. It was just doing it via inaction.

And lets presume for a moment that Some years ago, the west and Soviet decided not to force their systems upon others. Lets presume for a moment that inaction would have prevailed. Would you be in the situation you are in today? If we wouldn't in the first place have given him the weapons, the technology, the money and support he wouldn't have been this threat today. See, what starts these conflicts are not inaction. But actions on the behalf of the western world when they think they have the right to force their own ideals upon other people. The same thing is happening again today, and unfortunatly we will probably after 50 years be able to discuss what the new regime in Iraq(or surrounding nations) are doing. And we will most likelly come to the conclusion that this war was the beginning of the next regimes uprising.

Really, anyone who approaches this from a moral point of view has no defensible argument if they think Saddam should have been left in power.

Moral justifications can never be used, when the same people supported the regime in Iraq some years ago. The people who supported him then are very much responsible in the death of thousands of Kurds, thousands of Shiita muslims, thousand of Iranians, and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. And because of that you need to remove both the men that were responsible for supporting his regime, and perhaps most importantly the belief that you have the right to interfere and force other nations to accept your ideals. You have just started doing the exact thing that caused this. The cycle has started again.

So he's gone. It's done. You want to turn your back on the Iraqi people you claim to care so much about just to be spiteful, because you resented the US's unilateral action in Iraq?


That's certainly putting politics before any humanitarian concern, and I'm rather shocked people who claim to be so concerned about the Iraqi people would play this card.

Because I think the US should do this alone, and the Iraqis should not pay for it? Is that your point? Because I resented the policy of the US in this matter I should do whatever possible to get that message through. And unfortunatly there is nothing that hurts you more than to lose money. You claimed you didn't need the rest of the world, not we. You went into this war without the rest of the world not we, you are the ones holding donor conferances(or begging as some would say) and asking the UN for help at the moment not we. I'm sorry but the European population(mostly) do not support the new kind of imperialism your government is forcing upon the world. We think that is a dangerous path that will probably make the world a worse place than before. If that means the Iraqis will suffer a bit longer then so be it. As long as we can prevent the neo-imperialism that is your foreign policy. There are people around the world who suffer more than the Iraqis do. Why did you start in a soon to be "rich" nation. Why didn't you, who claimed the moral high, start in the poor underdeveloped nations and figure out a solution for them? We know now that Iraq wasn't a threat to the world. But we do know that AIDS, poverty and hunger is a threat to a large part of humanity. Why didn't you focus on that? What you are doing is like claiming victory over a sore throat while the body is fighting lung cancer. What good will it do you in the end?

"The US is terrible, do you know how many people were killed while liberating Iraq from Saddam? --then-- Yeah, well, I don't care if Iraq suffers, screw the people there, you invaded, it is your problem now, we don't care"

It is not that we don't care. If we didn't care you wouldn't see all this anger in the world at the moment. It is very difficult for us to have to do this to the Iraqis, but the world doesn't want this to happen again, perhaps at an even greater megnitude. Therefore we must use the systems available to us(instead of bypassing them) to make sure the US and other nations will not do this again.