Dancing in the streets!

[Lincoln]

OK, I was just kidding...

[gsmoove23]

The idea was to get rid of the security threat and create an environment where new security threats would be less likely to appear. What are all these people who think we can just get rid of the threat and book smokin'. Shows you how sincere all those promises of liberatin' people were.

[Lincoln]

Well it was Bush that proposed a Palestinian state. That is supposed to reach the "root". But I doubt it will have any effect at all. You cannot reason with fanatics.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Am I clear on what you guys are saying? You think America must stay engaged after the security threat has been removed?

You want to go back for round 3? The whole notion of preemption and the Wolfowitz doctrine is to act before security threats occur. Nobody stated Iraq was a current security threat to the US, just a prospective one. If we can spend 100 billion and kill a bunch of people (ours and theirs) to "preempt" a future security threat by force, we can also spend money in an appropriate way to create the conditions where those future security threats don't emerge.

There's also a trial going on in the Islamic world, between the fundamentalist's vision of the way things should be, and our version of what we'd like to see. What we do or don't do in Iraq is going to influence arab in the street views and willingness to act for a long time.

So, if the new government in Iraq begins to come apart at the seems, we can put it all back together again?

If we don't half-ass it, and we do the job right, it won't come apart at the seems. It's better to make it work now, while we're already there, than to go back and break heads.

As to reconstruction: I understand the problem is the damage caused to the oil infrastructure by the UN sanctions. I'll be damned if I will support the US picking up the entire tab for UN failures.

If the US hadn't pushed for sanctions in the first place, they wouldn't be there. And if the US hadn't insisted on maintaining the sanctions, they wouldn't still be there.

A good portion of the problem is that between the Iran-Iraq war (where we supported the Iraqis), and the two gulf wars, a lot of things have had the living **** bombed out of them. There's refugees, amputees, orphans, massive unemployment, lots of room for power vacuums to be filled, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well it was Bush that proposed a Palestinian state. That is supposed to reach the "root". But I doubt it will have any effect at all. You cannot reason with fanatics.

The fanatics have to be killed, no two ways about it. What you can do, though, is undercut their degree of local support, their recruiting appeal, and the ability of moderate locals to eliminate them for you.

Or you can act in such a way as to strengthen, not weaken, the appeal of fanaticism.

Killing men is easy. Killing a dangerous ideology takes a lot more work, and a different approach.

[GePap]

Crowds dancing in the streets to celebrate the fall of a hated regime is a thing we have seen over and over this century and last. sadly, very few times have those celebrations heralded the beginning of a new freedom and prosperity. Even as we sit here today many states once seen as sucesses, the ones that had beaten the streak, places like Ivory Coast or Zimbabwe, which even just 5 years ago would have been pointed to as success stories, are falling into disarray and political chaos.

I am trully happy that Iraq is free, but from all that has come before I hold no illusions: making Iraq a model will be unprecendented, way beyond getting states that had been global powers back on their feets. The problem is that I have 0 confidence in this admin. and its theories for how it will go about making trully radical changes. Afghanistan is a valid example: there is no UN administration of Afghanistan, therte is a local admin. and an adhoc group of states carrying out a peacekeeping mission but only in limited areas. To say that what is going on in Afghanistan is a UN failure is simply factually wrong. Every states has failed to come up with the resources to trully remake Afghanistan, and the US, by giving money to power sources outside of the central goevrnment undermines it, and in that way does harm at the same time that like everyone does little to help. And to carry out our mission in Afghnaistan we back tyrants in neighboring states. We removed the dictator that ruled the Iraqis, but included in this "coolition" of states so willing to liberate Iraqis are dictatorships that oppress their own people, and we don't see this admin. giving a damn about them either.

Why then will Iraq be different? sure, in a few years Iraq will have money of its own form oil revenues, but what about the interim? If the International community and the US are failing Afghanitan, and even now some in the US talk about further actions, specially about Syria (talk which is not going away), then what should give me hope all of a sudden everything will be different with Iraq?

I don;t think the people of the US will hold our leaders accountable for leaving Iraq, anymore than they have held them responsible for Afghanistan, but the fact is that in 10 years, if things are not significantly better in Iraq, the US will be blamed. As they say, we "broke Iraq", and now we have to fix it, and as have already stated, this admin. has done nothing in its time in power to give me any confidence that a real fix is coming.

[Lincoln]

Well Mike I hope there is a way to do it in our lifetime. Of course I am 54 so that is not saying much.

[GePap]

[Ned]

GePap, Bush will not be around in 10 years. If it is going to take 10 years to fix Iraq, we need the support of Congress and of both parties. We also need to stop blaming Bush and the administration for failures that are yet to occur.

Also, if Iraq is fairly stable, it will provide a source of major investment by Western companies who like to invest in areas having a relatively well educated people and a stable and free market government. I expect that Iraq will actually boom in the next several years.

[gsmoove23]

Well, its got nowhere to go but up. Certainly there will be investment after all the negative investment of taking the proceeds from their oil and making enormous payouts to American contractors, but eventually this will lead to positive investment. The real question is whether through all this money changing hands will some of it sift down to the population.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by paiktis22
if americans are so great can they help me get a filling of the tooth right?

I got a drill right here.

[GePap]

Ned:

Since all the talk I hear is about how the occupation will last 24 months or less (as short as 6 months), Bush will be the president for most of it. I also have not blamed Bush for things that have not happened..I blame Bush for not really preparing the American public to support this enterprise, since the rational used to sell the war was getting rid of a terrorist threat, with the liberation of Iraq as a side benefit, much like in Afghanistan. That does not set up the people to support and fund a vastly expensive enterprise.

The history of Iraq proves that wealth and techinical epxertise does not lead to freedom..after all, iraq became wealthy and well educated under the Baath party and the monarchical regime beforehand. Over the last 20 years though that standard of living and the standards of education have dropped sharply.

What matters is whetehr the US can set up a political system that is trully dmeocratic, one in which internal factions within Iraq will be unable to use to return to authoratic rule. As I said earlier, lately we have seen depressing examples of states once seen as role models sink, Ivory coast, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela earlier.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

That's more than we've spent in unilateral foreign aid in more than a decade. Hell, even the administration admits the root causes (and necessary solutions) are economic and political. We can spend the rest of our national existence fighting fanatic barbarians at the gates, or we can do something about the root causes of the problems, and maybe, if we're real smart, create some marketplaces for something besides weapons.

Just knock down your trade barriers (i.e. agriculture) and watch world poverty be erradicated without 1 cent of aid

[Aro]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

.........................................

Killing men is easy. Killing a dangerous ideology takes a lot more work, and a different approach.

MtG, this is the most reasonable statement I've seen here in the last days...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Am I clear on what you guys are saying? You think America must stay engaged after the security threat has been removed? So, if the new government in Iraq begins to come apart at the seems, we can put it all back together again?

How many chances do you want to get things right???

As to reconstruction: I understand the problem is the damage caused to the oil infrastructure by the UN sanctions. I'll be damned if I will support the US picking up the entire tab for UN failures.

Hmm.... who stopped short (ie 200 km from Baghdad) from taking out Saddam in 91???