The case against war

[Almaci]

More importantly, will the US allow the country to develop in its own way and will prosperity ever be comparable to the levels compared to its neighbours and other countries that Iraq used to enjoy before two wars and over a decade of sanctions wrecked it?

[sggg]

Originally posted by diffusionx
Hmm... I am struggling right now to think of a country who was worse off after the USA defeated it.

You used a bunch of really old examples... Going back to the Civil War does not really make much of a point in relating to current affairs! Forget about simply "defeating" countries, how about the support of repressive evil regimes, including that of Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, and countries in Central America, South America, and SE Asia over the past 30 years? The middle east is the way it is in large part because of the US's support for people like Saddam Hussien, the Shah of Iran, Osama bin-Laden, and Isreal.

I think there is something important to recogonise here. This war, like many other wars, it not a question of good versus evil. It's a question of bad versus worse.

Do you see my point sggg? I don't see America going into Iraq, blowing the living fuck out of it, killing Saddam, doing whatever, then just leaving with it in shambles. That's really not how we've done things in the past 150 or so years.

It most certainly is, but the US is a lot smarter about that and it's state-media does not report on any of it. So of course you don't know what has happened in Alganistan, El Salvador, Haïti, Columbia, Algeria, Timor, Congo, (etc etc) or even Iraq.

The war is not about helping poor innocent Iraqis. If it was - a million of them would not have died in the past 10 years. The invasion of Afganistan was not either. Yeh, they prop up a few Afganis in Kabul to take pictures for Time Magazine - but the country is still a horrible disaster.... and guess what's already under constructions. If you guessed "oil pipeline" you win a chocolate chip cookie.

[quote]Isn't in the evil sanctions that are supposed to be the cause of all this death in the Iraqi populace? Isn't it our fault that millions of Iraqi babies have died because we haven't given them money (bin Laden talk there, but you get my point)? Those sanctions would be lifted, I assume, if Hussein were to be removed from power, and Iraq could start to pick up and piece itself together.[quote]And turn into what? Saudi Arabia? America's big Arab ally in the middle east? That's be sooo wonderful because they are such a virtuous democracy that treats their populous so incredibly well.

The US will install a self-serving government in Iraq for the benefit of no-one but themselves, just like every other government they support in the region and elsewhere. It's imperealism, not humanitarianism.

If the USA were to say, "okay, Saddam, you and your entire government go into exile and we will install a new government and lift sanctions for your people", do you think he would do it? Maybe, but I don't think so.

Now, if the USA removes him and his government by force, and lifts the sanctions that the Iraqi people have suffered through, couldn't this possibly be a good thing for Iraqi citizens in the long run?

No. Invading their country and killing millions of them will not help them very much. Lifting sanctions would though.

To put it simply Iraq and the entire middle east "problem" cannot be simply solved. Not by invading certainly, but it's important to note that "not invading" does not fix every problem either! You make it out like one of these two options must fix everything. Neither can because the problems are bigger than that. It's just that one option (war) makes things irrevocably worse. The solutions are far more complicated and long term and they begin with removing the US gov't self-interest from the region, because that is the reason that all of these problems began in the first place, and why they continue to escalate.

[Diff-chan]

sggg, we will see what happens - either the USA will turn Iraq into another banana republic (which is what has happened countless times in South America) or something more along the lines of Japan, although I doubt Iraq will become another Japan.

I do believe that its probably too early to decide if the invasion was good for Afghanistan, but like I said I truly do believe that the country is better off without the crushing Taliban.

As for Iraq and sanctions... hmm I dont know. So Iraq is suffering because the USA doesn't give them money? If we don't give them money they can't feed their people? Is that what it amounts to? Iraq is dependent on the USA? Sanctions = no money from USA = no food? It's a pretty shady situation... why should Hussein's country get American money while they thumb their nose at the UN as they have for the past decade?

You do make a good point though, its not really about war vs. no war, but I do think armed conflict is inevitable and will happen sooner or later in the region. Should it happen now? I guess that's the big question.

[spacecowboy]

Installing a government won't help out Iraq. It certainly hasn't helped Russia or all of the other countries that sggg listed. And sanctions are the problem. The U.S. doesn't want anyone thinking that any other form of government besides it's style of democracy will work. For example, Cuba. The population has excellent health care and education for all of it's citizens. They also provide housing for everyone. The ONLY reason they can't become truly successful is because the U.S. won't let them. The sanctions on that country are the plague on their economic progress.

To put it simply Iraq and the entire middle east "problem" cannot be simply solved. Not by invading certainly, but it's important to note that "not invading" does not fix every problem either! You make it out like one of these two options must fix everything. Neither can because the problems are bigger than that. It's just that one option (war) makes things irrevocably worse. The solutions are far more complicated and long term and they begin with removing the US gov't self-interest from the region, because that is the reason that all of these problems began in the first place, and why they continue to escalate.

Exactly.

SC

[Almaci]

Quote:Why should Hussein's country get American money while they thumb their nose at the UN as they have for the past decade?

I know I sound like a broken record here but what about Israel then, Israel receives billions of dollars of US aid each year, so much so the US aid to Israel is equel to several thousands of dollar per Israeli inhabitant.
Yet they are in breach of 64 UN resolutions, the US veto´s every effort to enforce sanctions against Israel and gives them billions to boot.
Oh and Israel has not signed the nuclear non prolifiration treaty, has WMD including nukes and refuses to promis not to use em pre emptively.

Why the hipocrasy?

[spacecowboy]

sggg, we will see what happens - either the USA will turn Iraq into another banana republic (which is what has happened countless times in South America) or something more along the lines of Japan, although I doubt Iraq will become another Japan.

This comparison isn't sound. We actively occupied Japan for over 5 years and in that time brought over much of our own way of life. Not to mention that Japan was highly industrialized before we took over.

SC

[Almaci]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Installing a government won't help out Iraq. It certainly hasn't helped Russia or all of the other countries that sggg listed. And sanctions are the problem. The U.S. doesn't want anyone thinking that any other form of government besides it's style of democracy will work. For example, Cuba. The population has excellent health care and education for all of it's citizens. They also provide housing for everyone. The ONLY reason they can't become truly successful is because the U.S. won't let them. The sanctions on that country are the plague on their economic progress.



Exactly.

SC

Agreed, castro recently said Even oure prostitutes are university educated.

As for cigar aficionados on these boards, nothing beats the legendary Cohiba, available freely in Belgium, man they are smooth.
Have fun smoking youre inferior Domenican copycat erzats cigars

[redstar.division]

This is really interesting and I think it makes a valuable...wait...SOMETHING SHINY!

[sggg]

Originally posted by diffusionx
sggg, we will see what happens - either the USA will turn Iraq into another banana republic (which is what has happened countless times in South America) or something more along the lines of Japan, although I doubt Iraq will become another Japan.

I do believe that its probably too early to decide if the invasion was good for Afghanistan, but like I said I truly do believe that the country is better off without the crushing Taliban.

You do make a good point though, its not really about war vs. no war, but I do think armed conflict is inevitable and will happen sooner or later in the region. Should it happen now? I guess that's the big question.

I applaud you on your openmindedness. Afganistan, like Iraq, is a terrible problem. The Taliban was nothing less than evil. People who are anti-war do not support the Taliban or Hussien. They just believe that the war is about self-interest and will not do anything to help the people of the region. US intervention in the Middle East has only ever made things worse and the problems in Iraq and Afganistan are a direct result of US foreign policy. There is no reason to believe that the present conflict will be any different. If anything there is copious amounts of evidence that it will just make things worse as we march on towards WW3.

You bring up an interesting point though. There not a very realistic chance to avoid all war in the region, even if you take the US's invasion plans for Iraq out of the equation. When you have volitile countries like Iraq and Isreal, there is much to be done to achieve real peace.

However, many people believe that the biggest obstacle for peace is the US. The US supports repressive regimes in the region. Look at Saudi Arabia for example. It's a country that is propped up and run by a tiny group of elites who are supported by the US. The population is exploited for the few. These policies (along with support for Isreal) are what has led to such strong anti-American feelings throughout the region.

If you take the US and it's special interests out of the equation what would happen? There would be a greater chance for demoracy and equality (and would remove the US as a target for extremist groups). Will democracys spring up overnight? No. Definitely not. The regimes in place - including that of Hussien - are entrenched, powerful, and their populations are poor. But even still, throughout recent history popular uprisings have been squashed by US supported regimes. Popular uprisings will happen. They did in Iran, in response to the US backed Shah's unjust rule. Uprisings may be bloody and they may be unsuccessful, but hey at least they'd have a chance to control their own fate. At least that would be a war for liberation and freedom - and without the opposition of the US they would likely be less likely to be replaed with fundementalists like that of Iran (a fine example of a repressive regime replacing an even more repressive one).

If you want to be compassionate for the middle east, then support the removal of US imperealism and support demoratic movements for the people by the people.

[spacecowboy]

At least that would be a war for liberation and freedom - and without the opposition of the US they would likely be less likely to be replaed with fundementalists like that of Iran (a fine example of a repressive regime replacing an even more repressive one).

Hey, I'm half Iranian! I'll admit though that the country is in bad shape. I've been there several times and it's almost like chaos sometimes. But they aren't all that different from Americans. They have cell phones, cool clothes and all that stuff. They just want to hold on to some tradition at the same time. Too bad the U.S. won't allow that. I'm glad there are some more progressive leaders in Iran now. The initial Ayatollah were a little overboard. They are good people though that just want to do things their way. Hopefully, they will get it straightened out.

SC