Dancing in the streets!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, the Iraqi's will set up their own government. The only thing we are guaranteeing is that the new goverment will be 1) a government of the whole of Iraq; and 2) democratic.

The problem with turning this over to the UN is they do not guarantee 2.

I hope Democracy will turn out to be a success in the mid 2000s' Iraq. But I don't hold my breath, because I strongly believe the influent parties will be nationalists, religious, and separatists, because these issues will be the big ones of a post-Saddam Iraq. Would you like to have an Islamist president for Iraq ?

The US is very aware of this, and that explains why an exiled group of people are dubbed the "Iraqi opposition" by Washington : sure, these people bravely opposed Saddam, and were lucky to go into exile rather than getting killed. Sure, these people call for a democracy in Iraq. But how representative are they ?

My concerns come from the quite failed democratization process in Africa : at the beginning of the 90's, many African countries begun to experience free elections and free speech. Several civil wars were ended at last. However, we have seen the result of such freedom isn't all rose. The crisis in Ivory Coast is mostly fueled by a decades-long ethnical policy, where every president favored his ethnical group at the expanse of others. Both sides of the civil war want absolute power for them.
Elsewhere, the Bosnian "Democracy" is a nearly powerless tool which basically acknowledged the division of the country. Yes, it doesn't kill or rape its people, which is excellent news. But such a division can create ethnical problems in the future, once again.

Democracy in Iraq won't necessarily bring the same problems, but similar ones may appear. The rebuilders have to be very cautious before saying "Give power to whomever you want".
To be true, I am not opposed to a US puppet government in Iraq if it respects individual rights. At least for a few years, so that we know what the Iraqis want.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
Spiffor: What does it matter if there are or are not WOMD?

Credibility.

Your admin has to restore its tarnished diplomatic image. It will be also useful to destroy the credibility of American anti-war people for good. Your election process starts in half a year IIRC. At that time, the hype on how Iraq has been liberated will be over. And people will wonder why their country has spent tens of billions half a world away. I already imagine the Democrats saying : "We have spent 75 billions while there was no threat. Bush has betrayed our trust".
As time passes by, these billions will become much more important in the eyes of Americans than the liberation of the Iraqi people (that will become sooo 2003). Especially since the end of the war will bring the political focus on the domestic situation, where these spendings aren't really welcome.

Your admin must legitimate its war. They have used words for months, they'll now use facts, whether real or fabricated.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


I noted this earlier and I will note this again. The liberals and leftists on this forum are continuing to advocate ongoing "supervision" of Afghanistan's government and propose long term "supervision" of Iraq.

Yet they say they are against Imperialism.

I think "supervision" is your word, not ours.

It's rather telling that those on the right can't understand the difference between imperialism, as opposed to defined programs of aid, training and assistance in creating the institutions, infrastructure and economic base for a functional independent state.

[Ned]

Spiffor, your point about Africa is well taken. Brutal dictators have arising from the colonial remnants across the continent. I do not believe there is a single free market economy in the whole of Africa, except, perhaps, for South Africa. I am no expert on this, but this is my impression.

We should learn as much as possible from the mistakes made in Africa. However, I still point to the US successes in Japan, Germany and South Korea. We even were instrumental in removing dictators from the Philippines and Panama, former US "colonies." I think we can be successful in Iraq so long as we keep the UN and the other Arab states out of the process.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I think "supervision" is your word, not ours.

It's rather telling that those on the right can't understand the difference between imperialism, as opposed to defined programs of aid, training and assistance in creating the institutions, infrastructure and economic base for a functional independent state.

Well, to the extent that we retain authority to remove a Iraqi leader or government for whatever reason, we are acting like Imperialists.

As to "institutions," Annan has already pointed out that Iraq does not need very much help in this regard because it "has" a well-developed and functional government. Perhaps it "has" too much government so that it stifles a free market. This we can and should fix.

In a short-term, we need to reestablish government, police, fire prevention, utilities and essential public services. In the longer-term, we need to re-build certain infrastructure, such as water and sewer, and of course oil production.

We can an should be there for Iraq to help in the transition. However, at some time, we need to withdraw completely, the sooner the better, IMO.

I am worried, though, by those here who seem to suggest that we have failed Afghanistan because the warlords have not ceased to exist and because opium continues to be grown. This seems to imply that we should involve ourselves directly in the governing of Afghanistan. If we did that, though, we would be imperialists.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Your admin must legitimate its war. They have used words for months, they'll now use facts, whether real or fabricated.

You are stating that they will fabricate evidence as if it's a fact... but it's just your opinion. Maybe that's an assumption based on how it works in your country

But I'm at least open minded enough to wait until the event actually happens, before I form an opinion, and only after I've looked at real facts instead of just assuming the worst before it even happens like you seem to be doing...

[gsmoove23]

Didn't the administration used forged documents to "prove" Iraq had smuggled Uranium from Nigeria? Sure British intelligence likely forged them and the Bushies just didn't know.

[Ming]

The point is... I'm going to be open minded and not assume the worst will happen until it actually happens, and there is proof of it.

I'm not going to let my biases make up my mind BEFORE an event even happens. People that make assumptions with no basis of fact don't actually think... they just let their biases control their entire view of life

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ming :
Should there be no WMDs, do you seriously think your admin will say "Oopsie, we were wrong" ?

Don't get me wrong : it is extremely likely there are traces of WMDs and programs in Iraq, and as such, planting false proofs would be useless. The admin will simply explain these few WMDs are extremely super-duper mega everybody-run-for-your-lives dangerous.

Ogie :
I have not seen anywhere in the French media this theory. Maybe some have claimed Bush will plant WMDs to look good, but I don't know because I'm not very exposed to my country's media.
It is my thinking. It is my strong belief your admin cannot afford to be wrong.

I realize it is only American media but it was broadly reported that the French gov has stated, if and when the US finds WMD it woudl be assumed they were planted by the US. The only acceptable means of providing evidence would be via a UN body.

You'll pardon me but I find such statements from a western governement ludicrous and bordering on paranoid.

I'ld also say that staetments such as these are provacative in the least.

At times like these it would well suit allnations to tone down rhetoric especially if France and Germany want a chair at the table when it comes to rebuilding Iraq.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, your point about Africa is well taken. Brutal dictators have arising from the colonial remnants across the continent. I do not believe there is a single free market economy in the whole of Africa, except, perhaps, for South Africa. I am no expert on this, but this is my impression.

There is no US-like free market in Africa (erm, maybe Uganda is one), but it doesn't hinder a country to be democratic, like Sweden et. al show. Most postcolonial rulers in Africa have been murderous dictators, but some countries knew Democracy to some extent, like Ivory Coast and Senegal (these countries still didn't match western standards) until the 90's. At the beginning of the 90's, the tide changed in Africa, and a long "democratization" begun, with many free elections. However, many problems emerged : old dictators retaking power, losing factions refusing their defeats, the temptation of having the "despotism of the majority" at the expanse of the minority, you name it...
All these problems weren't masterminded by the former colonial powers, they came from the Africans who weren't ready for a modern Democracy. It is fairly possible the Iraqis aren't ready for a modern democracy as well : they never had a democratic experience in the past.
Another big problem undermining the construction of democracy in Africa is the catastrophic corruption, which rots every layer of society. While corruption isn't as mindboggling in Arabic countries, it is pretty important when compared to western standards. Corruption can be a challenge for a true democratization of Iraq.

We should learn as much as possible from the mistakes made in Africa. However, I still point to the US successes in Japan, Germany and South Korea. We even were instrumental in removing dictators from the Philippines and Panama, former US "colonies."

Japan, Germany and South Korea are all very different situations : Germany knew a somehow democratic political life from the end of the 19th century, even though the elected bodies were nearly powerless under the 2nd Reich. They had a true Democracy for more than a decade, and the parties that were opposed to democracy were verboten at the creation of the Federal Republic. Germany had all elements to create a modern Democracy, and its opposing factions were eager to challenge each other in elections.
The Japanese Democracy has very long belonged to the Liberal-Democrat Party (LDP), who nearly monopolized the government since WW2. Sure, Japan doesn't oppress its citizens at all, but its political system is nearly not representative : the LDP maintained power through clientelism and local bosses, as well as a soft support born by the fast Japanese reconstruction and the traditional Japanese search for consensus. Power struggles were held between the "houses" of the LDP, wiht nearly no input from the voters.
IIRC, South Korea has remained a soft police-state extremely long, and representative democracy is about a decade old. It is probably normal in a country so much threatened by the North, but one must acknowledge the democratic process has been "monitored" (to say the least) very long.

I think we can be successful in Iraq so long as we keep the UN and the other Arab states out of the process.

I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say we should keep the Arab states out of the process. The Arab states will only look for opportunities to bring riches to their leaders, or to minimize the threat a Freedom-respecting country would do to them.
However, the UN is IMHO the best option. The US haven't led any democratization process in 50 years (Germany and Japan), and they are rusty. I don't think the US had any significant influence in the recent Korean democratization, which was Korea's feat.
OTOH, the UN has several democratization processes pending, in East Timor and Bosnia. There is a wide range of tools already available in the UN, which are very experienced in education, alimentation, basic infrastructure etc. Another plus : the US might lose focus on rebuilding Iraq, when budget cuts will be needed, or chen a new administration shows up. The UN would be much more stable.
When I say I am not opposed to a US puppet government, I'm not saying it is the best possible way, because I'd much prefer a UN imposed government. It is just more likely the US gets its way.

Ned, I understand you really want to create a good democracy in Iraq to fight efficiently against fundamentalism and antiamericanism, like the US fought against communism in 1945. However, I'm not sure your determination is the same everywhere else. When I see how Halliburton plunged on the opportunity, when I see Rumsfeld saying "the Iraqis will pay for their reconstruction", I fear the short term interests of your admin will ruin this dream. And put simply, I fear the job will be half-assed, because your admin is much less determined than you.
I think the UN will 2/3rd-ass the job, which will be better

[Japher]

At times like these it would well suit allnations to tone down rhetoric especially if France and Germany want a chair at the table when it comes to rebuilding Iraq.

They already burnt their chairs in protest...

Why do we need WOMD to justify this war? Isn't the FACT that he was torturing women and children enough? Isn't the fact that he was in violation of resolutions enough? What more do you need, a smoking gun? Are not the bullet holes enough to prove that there were shots fired?

This is making me sick... I really don't think that the US has anything to gain by fabricating any stories about Iraq.

[Spiffor]

Ming :
I understand your point. You know, one becomes quite paranoid towards politican when he is ruled by Chirac, liar-extraordinaire (btw, a friend told me the exact same things as you in 1995, when I accused Chirac of not respecting his electoral promises beforehand )

Ogie :
I didn't know that. It is indeed completely stupid of the French government to bark more today. I would understand France's position if it demanded any 'proof' to be shown by the UN, but open distrust towards the US is completely wrong, at a time when we must soothe the gap.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Granted Japher and while I might agree from a moral perspective, the official reason given by the US, GB, Aussies, and other of the coalition was to first and froemost reasons given were to remove the Saddam regime from power and prevent the proliferation of illegal WMD. Failing to find these would be IMO a very bad thing.

Like it or not a nation can and should not interfere in matters of others national sovereignty and internal matters else the allegations of hegemony and world supremacy are entirely true.

[gsmoove23]

Germany and Japan were also helped along by long stewardships by the allied governments and the presence of signficant military forces throughout the cold war and even now. South Korea similarly has been the focus of military attention and support do to its strategic flashpoint position. Iraq will hardly receive similar support and investment.

[Japher]

to remove the Saddam regime from power and prevent the proliferation of illegal WMD. Failing to find these would be IMO a very bad thing.

50% ain't that bad.

Like it or not a nation can and should not interfere in matters of others national sovereignty and internal matters else the allegations of hegemony and world supremacy are entirely true.

That is utter BS in so many ways.