Post-War Iraq: Should we help?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by catullus
Of course we will help.
Nothing to do with contracts gained, nothing to do with letting US/UK clean up their own mess.
It's about being human and humane.

I know there are some hundred volunteers, mostly doctors, mine sweepers (the profession, not the game, stupid!) standing ready to go the very instant war breaks out. Only from my own li'l country, that is.



Well. History would say:
If I was in the new XXX government I would be more likely to award a contract to the country that INSTALLED ME AS dictator in my country...

But I digress.


C.

Saddam installed himself, and was initaily supported by the SU( the Baath party being socialist in theory) Hence his tanks and planes are Russain.

[HershOstropoler]

"They won't want French or German help in rebuilding their country."

They'll want every help they can get, and they'll like the added bonus of not being too dependent of one particular country that will try to have a very tight grip on the new government anyway.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Saddam installed himself, and was initaily supported by the SU( the Baath party being socialist in theory) Hence his tanks and planes are Russain.

You know, there were a lot more countries which supported him, or at least had economical ties to him. Unfortunately, Germany was one of them, but guess how the USA behaved at the time when they thought they needed him...

[Demerzel]

Didn't the list of companies that will rebuild Iraq consist solely of American ones with maybe one or two exceptions? Certainly there were no British companies on the list when it was used to embarass Blair in PM's question time.

So the war was about...

Oil
Installing Democracy
Ridding the World of WoMD
Going back to beat the one who beat daddy
Oil

and now its...

creating lucrative contracts for ailing American construction firms!

[Jon Miller]

yah

but we learned are lesson

why haven't you?

Jon Miller

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Countries that have lived under repression which then become free.

I thought we where talking about Iraq here... one of the most modern and progressive nations in the region (not that that's saying much), and a place that will soon be ruled by the US military, or whichever enterprising dictator they think they can trust.

Just look at Saudi Arabia or Israel to see how much peace and freedom USA support brings.


Iraqis have lived under repression and will continue to live under repression, a few interludes of bombing and war isn't going to help their situation any.


EDIT: To emphasize my point, and to keep on topic : I don't think Iraqis will be grateful towards anyone in this war, and they are going to be pretty pissed off with the west in general (I do not think they will differentiate between france and the USA, they are all playing games with them and deciding their fate). Rebuilding their homes after you blow them up isn't going to make them feel any better.

[TheStinger]

Of the countries which the US liberated in WW2 had dictators. Even though strong right wing dictators would have been in the US's interest.

[BeBMan]

Err, I´m not sure what the point is...

[CerberusIV]

The question is really who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq in the short term?

Eventually the oil production will be put back on its feet and the Iraqi government at that time will have money but estimates vary on how many years that is going to take and how much it will cost.

In the short term there will be a need for foreign aid and support. The test is whether it is a US monopoly (and the Iraqi government a US puppet) or whether all those who wish to assist are allowed to do so and the Iraqi government can choose where it gets help from.

This is the issue IMHO that will show whether the talk of a democratic beacon in the ME is genuine or not.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by BeBro
Err, I´m not sure what the point is...

the point is that the US will ensure there is democratic government in Iraq

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The question is really who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq in the short term?

Eventually the oil production will be put back on its feet and the Iraqi government at that time will have money but estimates vary on how many years that is going to take and how much it will cost.

In the short term there will be a need for foreign aid and support. The test is whether it is a US monopoly (and the Iraqi government a US puppet) or whether all those who wish to assist are allowed to do so and the Iraqi government can choose where it gets help from.

This is the issue IMHO that will show whether the talk of a democratic beacon in the ME is genuine or not.

I beleive they will be free to chose who to deal with, but because the US got rid of saddam they will wnat to deal with them rather than those who were content for him to stay

[HershOstropoler]

You surely mean "democratic".

[DanS]

If it's successful on a short order, I would expect France and Germany to be eager to contribute. If unsuccessful and a long war, I would expect France and Germany to refrain. This would be directly contrary to the interests of the Iraqis, of course (i.e., if nothing's destroyed, no help needed), but would be prudent from France and Germany's perspective.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The question is really who is going to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq in the short term?

This is the important point.

Yesterday, the EU Commissaire Pascal Lamy said that, considering the division between EU members on the issue, it will be difficult for the EU as such to finance the reconstruction. That leaves room for national help only.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Post-War Iraq: Should we help?

There is a hypocricy involved.

First we say (us Europeans - Brits apart) we don't want the war.

For countries like France this is because of

_ nice oil contracts already in place with Iraq


For other big countries like Germany it is because

_huge cost of the former war on the gulf.


As an example the countries which payed for the previous war were:

Germany
Japan
Saudi Arabia

and at the bottom of the list only it was the US.


So there are reasons other than preventing the slaughter of hundrends of thousands by the angloamerican bombs.


Now,
despite all this, and maybe because of this - this gives a window of explanation in real politik terms,

we allow the use of NATO bases on our soil.


If we are against the war we shouldn't.

But we do because we are realists.

BUT, we do not (we as for France, Germany and other big countries) want to pay for this war.


This is one of the major reasons for not giving consent.

If the US/UK go alone they know, they'll pay for everything.


And they should.

We allow use of NATO bases (and even provide military support as we speak in the region itself) OTOH we don't want to be burdened with the cost of a war we don't agree with.


In short the answer is hell no.


P.S. our gov's real politik interests shouldn't drift our eyes away from the ball which is the slaughter of hundrend of thousands by the agloamericans for no reason at all besides american hegemony and oil exploration.

A murder for oil.

For that we oppose the war and for that we support anyone who opposes it too.