Harsh War Crtics: Values of the follwing needed for your apology after US/UK victory

[Jaakko]

Talk to me, Zylka.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zylka
What are the chances Turkey claims occupation over the Kurds once the dust settles? Isn't this absolutely against the current US post war plan? Because if it is, and Turkey defies it... We'll have a humorous and quick desert war to watch when this is over. The US will not take backsided bullsh*t, from even the richest of the poor.

By what right would the US have to complain? They're the ones setting the example that a pre-emptive strike is justified against a future threat. It would be sheer hypocrisy to take action against the Turks if they invaded.

And it wouldn't be a nice quick desert war, that region is rough and mountainous. The US would have a much harder time of it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spiffor

- Most importantly, I will judge about the hate in the Arab countries against the US. My strongest long-term fear in this issue is the raised terrorist threat, because of a raise in the population's antiamericaism (which will fuel terrorism with more money and more manpower).
I do not want another Sept. 11 happening, and I fear the general direction of the Bush admin is only making it more likely. I hope the Arabs will think "look how much good they have done to the Iraqis" but I strongly doubt it. But if they are successful, kudos !

This is one of my main concerns as well. Bush claims that this action is necessary in order to prevent terrorist attacks, but I think it's just going to make things worse.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zylka
Ahhhh c'mon... the low economic class, filthy Ruso man who thinks Iraqs population actually supports the regime doesn't want to play the game he started?

As a Serb who was probably thrilled with Milos genocides, I imagine you think Saddam is just as great a guy when gassing Kurds?

tehehehe!

So much for trying to have a thoughtful and meaningful thread eh?

[Ming]

serb is restrictred for a week... and Jaakko is one post away from receiving the treatment.

This personal attack crap will stop...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Willem
By what right would the US have to complain? They're the ones setting the example that a pre-emptive strike is justified against a future threat. It would be sheer hypocrisy to take action against the Turks if they invaded.

Exactly. I reckon a good number of anti-war people are against this war because of this pre-emptive attack business. It simply makes a mockery of international law and US's own national laws.

Originally posted by Willem
And it wouldn't be a nice quick desert war, that region is rough and mountainous. The US would have a much harder time of it.

Furthermore, Turkey is a NATO member.

[GePap]

I am in the Spiff, Rufus camp:

My opposition to this war is not based on some notion that many wil die: in the poll, i voted for the war to go one month tops, and I have enevr belieevd casualties would be high, and more honestly, even if they were I would not judge the Military phase to be a failure.

My concerns are long term. If, i 5 years the number of terrorist atatcks has gone down, Al Qaeda is weaker, and Iraq has a stable and democratizing government, then I will judge the war to have been a success, and if for some reason the "democracy domino" theory that the admin. keeps pushing somehow comes true I will amdit that I was wrong. But these are things in the future, not things that iwll happen in the next month.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Jaakko
Of course, the biggest failures have already taken place, in the form of the US marginalising UN in its pursuit of "preventive self-defence", and the growing rift between many European countries and the US.

The UN is an absolute failure at best right now. Look at Rwanda, which was about as easy a diplomatic answer as possible - but they did NOTHING. I am just as disgusted with the US for not telling the UN to f*ck off back then and invade the massacre of a country to restore order. I only hope that they will act with more moral decency the next time such a crisis arises (note, I also hope other respected nations will get off their seats to do the same - France, Germany, Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.)

Sadly enough, for massacre like situations only a few current members of the UN should have say in resolve. Otherwise, we have tinpot nutcases who prolong action on these common sense conflicts. I'm not talking about common sense answers coming from conflicts of specific war, I'm talking about savages running through villages with machetes and clubs slaughtering HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of women and children. In such a case, a morally just nation should bloody well volunteer to invade, tell the psychos to drop the machetes or die, and of course - convict as many as possible.

Of course the solution to the Iraq regime isn't so unanimously accepted, but we will eventually prove the right thing has been done - and the right claims were made against the oppressors. With this example, I hope more western countries can tell the UN off while invading the worst of the extremist, oppressive regimes. Note I said worst.

IT IZ TEJH WHITE MANSS BURDEN, RIGHT - THATS IS WHATS IM SAYING!!1

Also, I don't think the outcome of the war was in any doubt. But as far as civilian casualties go, the hardest fighting is still ahead.

The outcome was in doubt, with a disasterous UN estimated 500, 000 full casualties by victory. That's the figure the more intelligent on these boards were constantly spouting. We'll see if it hits even a tenth of that?

Then there's still the aftermath, on which the Bush administration has given precious little attention, in public at least.

Governments reveal intention to the public on a "what's in the forseeable future" basis. Do you honestly not think the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth hasn't been extensively planning post war Iraq since day 1? Do you think they plan to just "beat the sh*t out of the brown people real good", put up an American flag and then leave?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
Governments reveal intention to the public on a "what's in the forseeable future" basis. Do you honestly not think the most wealthy and powerful nation on earth hasn't been extensively planning post war Iraq since day 1? Do you think they plan to just "beat the sh*t out of the brown people real good", put up an American flag and then leave?

I seriously think this war has been decided for the US' and its administration's interests, NOT for the Iraqi people. War start because of self-interest, I think it is obvious.
As such, a real concern about postwar Iraq likely was very vague until the creation of the bureau dedicated to it. I'm almost sure the theoricians in Washington always had a much more precise picture of the postwar world rather than the postwar Iraq.
As such, I believe the reconstructon of Iraq hasn't been extensively planner since day one. AND, I don't believe the US only plans to "beat the crap out of brown people". You can figure how these two beliefs are compatible.

[Ben Kenobi]

IT IZ TEJH WHITE MANSS BURDEN, RIGHT - THATS IS WHATS IM SAYING!!1

Before the war, I kept rooting for a diplomatic solution. Now, I'm backing this position of 'white man's burden.' IF the US is going to act like an imperialist with regime changes in Iraq, they should do the best job possible, and emulate the British. Build up the country to the point where they will be stable enough to hold their own.

So we agree, Zylka.

[Zylka]

I agree that it hasn't been extensively planned since day 1 on a concrete basis, but rather running through every consideration possible - and redoing that as time moves on and situations change. Of course the US will get something out of the plans which are eventually executed (thankfully offered by the liberated, one would hope) - but the big winners will no doubt be the Iraqi people. I say this in assumption that what they're spending on the war alone is largely comparitive to anything they hope for in return.

If incorrect, do tell me. Can the US realistically secretly drain a liberated Iraq for an amount that dwarfs what they spent fighting for it? Figures?

[Spiffor]

The US isn't waging this war to make money, even though it'll try to milk as much as possible from the reconstruction. But it is not the primary concern, and wasn't a concern at all to wage this war IMHO (merely some looting to alleviate the cost).

The US had many geopolitical interests though, and the admin had political advantages to get from a successful war in Iraq.
Like the "it's a war about oil" people, I think this war is closely tied with the oil resources of Iraq (but oil is not the sole concern). That is, for the US and the West to have a reliable source of oil when Saudi won't be anymore, because of the war on terror that'll eventually reach Saudi Arabia.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Before the war, I kept rooting for a diplomatic solution. Now, I'm backing this position of 'white man's burden.' IF the US is going to act like an imperialist with regime changes in Iraq, they should do the best job possible, and emulate the British. Build up the country to the point where they will be stable enough to hold their own.

So we agree, Zylka.

Sarcasm really doesn't register with me anymore, and I'm probably going to get murdered for this, but...

Although "white man's burden" is a lie, "just man's burden" is something to rather consider. Now in our modern situation, "just" on an international level is synonomous with democracy, a well developed economy, and most importantly - the presence of strong civil rights (bltch all you want about how horrible the US is concerning civil rights, I'll see you as even more of a moron if you live there yourself)

Perhaps some of you care to argue that my definition is also synonomous with white culture. Notice how I think it would be great if Japan could police and combat some of the atrocities as well? (All trite references to Japan's imperialist past need only apply in the "I think we're still living in the 1940s" forum)

Who knows. We could possibly see Turkey taking on the burden within 10 years (no, I don't mean by invading inoffensive and tortured Kurds - which would enrage just nations with common sense). 50 years (if you're around), a booming Iraq could be doing its part in wiping out tyranny.

This is just my utter fanatic dream of humanitarian progression - but I'll always hope for the best. Even if the just can meet it halfway, the world is a better place

[Zylka]

...and to confirm, the moron comment is not intended for poster quoted or anyone specific. If, however, any individual screams hypocricy of the United States judging severe civil rights abuse - I will consider them a moron.

I simply can not believe that some people will turn away from the horrific monsters of the world by saying - "BUT LOOK AT THE USA, THEY'RE BAD TO THEIR PEOPLE IN JUST AS MANY WAYS - DON'T FOOL YOURSELVES!"

[Ben Kenobi]

Zylka:

No sarcasm.

Now in our modern situation, "just" on an international level is synonomous with democracy, a well developed economy, and most importantly - the presence of strong civil rights.

The only thing better than a war where this all works out, is having this accomplished through diplomatic means, by letting the people take control themselves.

'White man's burden,' is just a term used by Kipling, because if you are better off then the rest, does it not make sense to help those who are worse off?

Now, we do not have the right to invade another country just because we feel that the government should be changed. The US is already past the point of no return.

Finish the war, end it quick, and try to fix everything up like in West Germany under the Marshall plan.

That's what you should have called this thread Zylka:
Marshall Plan for Iraq.