Post-War Iraq: Should we help?

[GePap]

Removing Saddam Hussein form power by force, and then occupying Iraq for several years with many thousand of US troops in an operation that begun with minimal international support: that is so reasonable?

Imaigne Saddam as a alrge tumore: now, obviously we want the tumor out..but how do we do it? patient and careful surgery? Or by hacking the person open with an ax and scooping it out with an ice cream scoop? Bothe ways lead to the same aim: but they are hardly equal.

The job here is not getting rid of Saddam..its remaking Iraq. And we are off to a shaky start.

[DanS]

that is so reasonable?

Sure.

The job here is not getting rid of Saddam..its remaking Iraq.

Why the false choice? It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam.

[HershOstropoler]

"It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam."

And this administration will screw up the remaking part, if they get to it at all.

[DanS]

Tough to know, Hershell.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
that is so reasonable?

Sure.

No comment.

Why the false choice? It's getting rid of Saddam and remaking Iraq so we have a lesser chance of a future Saddam.

The choice is so different: one bomb, one bullet gets rid of Saddam, while rebuilding Iraq will be a monumental job far beyond remaking either Germany or Japan, and back in 1945 the American people were willing. Today we are not. Have you seen anyone of this admin. yet broach the issue of occupation in front of an auience besides a few congressional committees asking what it will cost? I hear all these people supporting the war saying: "get it done and bring the boys back home". Fine sentiment, only half or more of the "boys" won't be coming home anytime soon, as they have to stay there.
We are undertaking a massive job (not the war, but the aftermath) very glibly and that is very dngerous.

[HershOstropoler]

They managed to piss off 80 % of the public in your allies in a few months by simple rhetoric. Now imagine what those clowns will do in a hostile environment like Iraq where they will be actually responsible for everything.

But most likely they won't even try. Big fat rhetoric and no follow through, unless it's about something you can bomb.

[DanS]

It seems that you think "no follow through" is inevitable. This administration hasn't shown that trait. I think you have the last administration in mind.

[GePap]

When this admin. brought out their budget they had not included one cent for Afghanistan: congress ahd to put it in. The admin.s excuse: they forgot. On the topic of Afghnaistan, were is the Afghan army? has central authority moved beyond Kabul. According to the UN there were more cases of hunger this last winter (2002-02) than last (2001-02) while the Islamic police is back out arresing people for doing "unIslamic" things. And this is in a state were we have only 10,000 troops.

Now Iraq: we expect 100,000 troops in occupation for at elast 2 years (accoridng to the White House). one geenral said we might need 200,000 but the Whj sayed he knew not what he was speaking about. The US has not mae a commitmen of that size for 30 years, and in this age of 24 hour news, expected quick wars and instant gratification, how long do you think the country will back that? And it has to back it..this is not a policy the admin. can carry out without congress, if simply because of the massive cost.

Given that this amdin. has yet to fully deliver all the money it promised for Homeland security and their track recodr in Afghanistan, and admin. that kept saying "Turkey is on board' just to be shot down the first time aound, and admi. that kept saying "we ahve the 9 votes' only to withdraw the resolution, am I supposed to be optimistic about a job orders of magnitude greater? Why?

[orange]

It'll be Marshall Planish. Nations will invest a lot of money and make out like bandits. Will it rebuild Iraq - yes, but make no mistake about who is truly profiting.

[HershOstropoler]

"This administration hasn't shown that trait."

Where has it shown that it puts the money where its mouth is, apart from having a war on Iraq and tax cuts for the rich?

[Ned]

I think Bush said something in a speech about continuing the UN oil for food program. However, this time, the money will actually go to buy food. But also, the UN limitations on how much oil the Iraqi Government can sell will certainly be lifted. This will provide a lot more cash that will be available to provide for reconstruction of Iraq. I don't know whether to be any substantial need or outside sources to pay for reconstruction.

I also presume that Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay Iraq's debts to Russia, Germany, France and Kuwait.

If, however, that oil money is not sufficient to both reconstruct Iraq and pay Iraq's debts, then American reconstruction aid, in essence, will simply been paying off Iraq's debts to France, Russia and Kuwait. I would have a very hard time with this. Perhaps, any USA reconstruction aid should be in the form of a loan rather than a gift.

Obviously, France, Germany and Russia will have similar issues. They want to be repaid. They also want a piece of the reconstruction contracts. But where's the money going to come from, if not from Iraqi oil? Are the European's, other than France Germany and Russia, going to provide financial aid to Iraq that will, in effect, only pay back the Iraqi debts to France, Germany, Russia and Kuwait?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Its not a question of helping the Iraqis. The people of Iraq will be be helped whoever gets involved in reconstruction. The question is should the Germans and rench get any of the contracts. If I was in the new Iraqi government I would be more likely to award a contract to the country that got rid of the dictator in my country, rather than the ones who were happy for him to remain.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned
I think Bush said something in a speech about continuing the UN oil for food program. However, this time, the money will actually go to buy food. But also, the UN limitations on how much oil the Iraqi Government can sell will certainly be lifted. This will provide a lot more cash that will be available to provide for reconstruction of Iraq. I don't know whether to be any substantial need or outside sources to pay for reconstruction.

I also presume that Iraq oil revenues will be used to pay Iraq's debts to Russia, Germany, France and Kuwait.

If, however, that oil money is not sufficient to both reconstruct Iraq and pay Iraq's debts, then American reconstruction aid, in essence, will simply been paying off Iraq's debts to France, Russia and Kuwait. I would have a very hard time with this. Perhaps, any USA reconstruction aid should be in the form of a loan rather than a gift.

Obviously, France, Germany and Russia will have similar issues. They want to be repaid. They also want a piece of the reconstruction contracts. But where's the money going to come from, if not from Iraqi oil? Are the European's, other than France Germany and Russia, going to provide financial aid to Iraq that will, in effect, only pay back the Iraqi debts to France, Germany, Russia and Kuwait?

Maybe France, Germany, and Russia would be kind enough to nullify the debt, no? But this would cancel out half the purpose of their long and fierce oppostion to the war in the first place...

The debt was technically with Saddam's regime, not the new one, so does the new reginme even have to pay the debt to begin with?

[Ned]

Kramerman, there is a general priniciple of international law that a change in goverment does not automatically cancel the debts of the foreign government.

One could just see the consequences if any other principle pertained. Governments would constantly be replaced by revolutions simply to cancel debts.

[DanS]

Where has it shown that it puts the money where its mouth is, apart from having a war on Iraq

Afghanistan.