|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 20:18:36 GMT -5
The US has always acted in its own interests, all the while portraying itself as the world's good guy. They are trying to act like they are "saving the Iraqi people" but I don't buy it for a second. What are they really trying to do?
Why here and why now?
Why now and why now?
Because the war machinery is already there. That simple. Afghanistan has been mostly left to the Afghanis (God help them) and the US has the bulk of that war machine there. It’s only a smell step from Afghanistan to Iraq. Plus it is winter and it's far easier to fight at this time. It's too hot to fight in NBC suits in the summer. Note: That's why Saddam wants another two months.
It’s very expensive and takes a huge time to move a war machine the size of the US has there. Diego Garcia can not store all the systems and weapons required for this size conflict.
Why Saddam?
Brief history. Back in the Reagan years, there was a breed of Republicans who wanted to use the US war machine capability to place a New World Order on this planet. They were just starting to breed when their father figure started to go mentally. Fast forward to Bush 1. He was much less hawkish then people think he was. He kept all those Neo-Reaganites at bay and concentrated on good government. Then the Kuwait invasion happens and voila, Reaganites start to take over the agenda. Bush 1 did not want to go to Bagdad. Plain and simple. He had done what he thought he needed to do and he was out of there. Bush 1 was scarred sh*tless of what to do with a post war Iraq with the Iranians right next door. It became a question of lesser evil. Leave Saddam as a counter balance to Iran or get rid of him and get stuck in Iraq forever.
The other aspect of all this was that the Bush 1 thought it would be a short time before the UN destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Saddam went on with life as a plain ordinary brutish Dictator. Bush 1 was under no illusion that Iraq would suddenly become New Jersey. What he did think was that there was a possibility he could split up Iran and create another country but the Turks went absolutely crazy over this.
BJ Clinton took over and thought that inspectors could keep doing their job. Problem was, the French, German and Russians (amongst others) started to get used to money to help their respective economies. As these guys started to talk to Saddam, Saddam started to get bolder and bolder with the inspectors. Remember one thing, Saddam only understands power, the simple axiom of “a bully is afraid of a bigger bully” plays loud and clear in Saddam’s mind. When Clinton did not use his military strength to enforce destruction, Saddam upped the cat and mouse game.
In 1998 there was a very high ranking defector that gave away a lot of Saddam’s dirty little secret. Incuding where Saddam hid a bunch of separators. The UN inspectors went there and demanded to get in. The Iraqi’s refused entry but allowed the inspectors to observe from a distance. As it was usual for the inspectors, they called for UN muscle to back them up. Days passed by and NOTHING. Take a guess who was leading the “sh*t soft” UN muscle? Yup, the usual suspects (and I don’t mean Kaiser Sozo). Meanwhile, the Iraqis where trucking away all kinds of NUCLEAR BOMB making equipement from the back door. A UN inspector went after them and actually took pictures of what they were but when he tried to intercept, they started to fire at him. A few days later, the inspectors were out of Iraq and Saddam was King of the World again.
Clinton? He was fighting for his political life with Monica. What’s some nuclear bomb making equipment when one has to zip up. Meanwhile, back at the desert, Saddam is signing increasing more sweat heart contracts with his friends. France gets the sweetest ones of the lot. Hundreds of billions of dollars in sweetheart deals that will run into trillions in 20 years.
Fast forward to Bush 2. He gets in and there is a power struggle ensues amongst his hawks, led by dick Chaney and the doves led by Colin Powell.
Back in the Bush 1 years a bright but twisted (just like HabsRus posters) Republican intellectual, Paul Wolfowitz laid out plans for continues war in the Middle East as a way to keep the whole rejoin in a mess and allow control by US and friends. The plan would stretch all the way to central Asia. He was part of the Neo-Reaganites that were upset that Bush 1 doid not follow through on changing Iraq. I read some of it and I thought that Wolfowitz had way to much Machiavelli in his diet. Powell went nuts when he saw this and fought to drown it. Powell is a dove with teeth and he is fascinating man but my fingers wont hold up if I start to write about him. He is the main “bright light of remaining logic” (for lack of better definition) in this administration.
In Bush 2 cabinet, the Wolfowitz plan resurfaced in it's full form even though Chaney had modified it back in Bush 1 period. Before 9/11, Chaney hawkish ways had no effect on the putrid Bush 2 brain stem. Then 9/11 happens and the rules change. All restraints are off. Now Bush thinks that he is Roosevelt and Churchill combined and embraces the Wolfowitz Plan IN FULL battle dress. Scary.
What Bush did with that plan was to walk through the Looking Glass and enter a plan that will not work in the long run. Powell is one of the smartest of the sordid lot but he has lost his position to the stupid ones.
Here is my interpretation of the plan in a nutshell.
The war on terrorism should be engaged on a large scale and targets should be subdued or eliminated. This will destabilize existing “terrorist” governments and eventually the Domino Effect will be reached when there is sufficient critical mass. Terrorism will have subsided due to democratic change or internal turmoil. Then rebuild the politcal machinery to a democratic blueprint and help them stabilize their economy in order for order to hold.
Here is where events in life take funny turns. Do you guys remember when Therrien, Savard and Green thought that they could teach young defenseman to be great by their “methods” of abuse only to find out that it does not apply to everyone? Same thing for Afghanistan versus Iraq. Bush 2 has taken his “success” with Afghanistan to mean that he could do this to the rest of the Arab and Asian countries. There is where the problem lies.
On the surface, Bush has become the doctor who has created a Frankenstein administration of hawks which are controlling the military arm at will. Powell has been reduced to the level of bell hop to the White House. The hawks occupy most of the major senior positions and all is not kosher.
Doves are afraid with good reason.
There you go BC, the reason why Saddam and why now. He was next convenient target on their agenda and “now” is conveniently after the Afghanistan war.
The reasons I support the war? Simple. The lesser of two evils.
I have lived under a relatively "benign" dictatorship and have felt the choke hold that one had on human thought and action. I can not help but feel that if a person has never felt that then they have NO idea what it does feel like. How can one comment on how life is under a brutal dictatorship unless they lived under one? If there was life on Mar’s, could one comment how it felt to live there if they can only look at it from a telescope or from someone’s writings? One has to see someone in his family beaten by police and then you see him a few days later, a crippled mass of a human. Uncle George was a Café Communist and had the IQ of a mule but he still did not deserve what he got. He was a threat to no one but his hunting dogs which he shot regularly when he failed to bring back those quails. You hear, here and there, people of the town disappear into the night. The school curriculum infested with propaganda. Cops beating you because you are protesting a brutal dictatorship. Water cannons from an M-48 tank. More…..
No one, anywhere has answered with similar experience so how can one comment with any conviction on how the Iraqi people feel under Saddam? By the way, Saddam makes the Greek Colonels look like saints.
Am I afraid of what Saddam will do? More then anyone thinks. Remember Hitler? He had no qualms about burning up the world to get his way. I see so many similarities between Saddam and Hitler that it scares me. If Saddam had Hitler's advisors then we would probably be in some version of WW3 right now. The only thing that Saddam understands is what is good for Saddam is good for Iraq. Period. End of story. He will burn Bagdad if it meant his own survival. If anyone want's to get scared, then one has to read what his vision of himself is from Arabic translations. The man thinks himself as an Arab mesiah. He thinks that if he pulls all the right strings and has all the right weapons then the Arab world will rise and he would be the center of it.
Does Saddam have equipment to make WMD's. Without question. The seperators that he snuck off in 1998 are still at large. He already had all that equipment supplied to him by Germany and France so it's not like Iraqi scintist do not know what they have to do to duplicate them. You will be amazed at the equipment one can buy in the world market. Metal working machinery to work the most complex pumps and parts are a few hundred thousand dollars away. I can buy them if I want to. It's that simple.
Let me assure you of one thing. Technology has advanced so far that doomsday weapons and scenario's are easier and easier to imagine. You want incubators for making bio weapons? How many do you want? When do you want delivery? You got a few hundred thousand to spend on bio weapons? The next chimera virus could be yours. You know what a chimera virus is? When you find out, you will be afraid. VERY afraid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 20:19:01 GMT -5
Pax Americana.
As the only remaining superpower, US has now taken the equivalent military lead and power that the Romans had at their time. There military is capable of fighting three or four regional wars at a time without sending the US in a war time economy. Their weapons are as dominating as they appear on TV. Scary.
The problem with having a juggernaut so large is that it starts to become tempting to use it. With 9/11, the path got totally cleared for the hawks who are now flexing this military monster and attempting to institute their doctrine. The public consumption version of this aggressive and outreaching doctrine is hidden under layers of ”Freedom and democracy” but in reality it is the exporting of destabilization to “selected” countries.
Is this new? Not really. The US has been involved in this practice for over 50 years with Latin America. They had always had a policy that if they are not with them, or at least neutral to them, then you need to change your regime. For domestic consumption, the US administration kept selling the Truman Doctrine of containment. The entire era was sold on the “Evil Commies” and how to keep them from infiltrating the world. In fact, the Wolfowitz Plan was based on the success they had with Pax Americana in Latin America. What did you want from a Republicans? They “win” with the Truman Doctrine and Pax Americana works with a minimal loss of “only” few hundred thousand lives.
Is the Wolfowitz Plan all bad? Well, no. One of the foundation of the Plan is to help the countries that “gets changed” with huge financial aid and pro growth policies. They actually want these countries to become economically stable because it is in the Republican bedrock belief that all people are happy when they have money and run their own government. Or at least , not an Anti-American government. The Plan calls for 100 to 150 billion in foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world over the next decade.
So now we have a concoction of containment, destabilization and help that has the worlds largest and most powerful military ever seen. Now what? What happens next? Well, use it. With the 9/11 attacks as the perfect cover, one can start to implement the plan with defined targets. What is the best one on the planet? Which one is ruled by a brutal dictator? Which country has enough wealth in the ground to rebuild itself? Which one is in the heart of the Arab world?
If you guess Iraq, you get a prize (see Spiro).
Is Europe, Russia and China afraid of this plan? Of course they are. France and Germany dominate, actually, most scholars say they created EEC in order to have a ready market for their own goods and services. They find a willing partner in Saddam and the next thing you know, Pax Americana is in there. The TotalFinaElf contract that France was so proud to pull off with Saddam is not worth a roll of three layer toilet paper. Not only that, the US are going to do it to all the region. How is France and Germany going to compete with that? Why do you think France is currently SCREAMING not to have the US “develop” the economy of Iran? They know perfectly well that the US will use the oil money to bring prosperity to Iraq and once that happens, the whole region is going to be falling, Domino like, behind this “success”. Russia? They get no foothold anywhere. China? Same thing and WORSE. If dictators are not good for your health or economy then how can China keep their people at bay? Bad Pax Americana.
The argument about “oil” is only partially correct. The Plan calls for stability and you are not going to get that by stealing oil. It’s easy to see and will make the US an Imperialist Power. Why not use a more subtle and longer term plan to bring them under the fold. What oil money can do is build the region, stabilize it economically and then trade with it. Is that so bad?
Is the UN going to do anything about it? No. If it really gets in the way, the Plan will deal with it the old fashion way. Destroy it.
That's the synopsis of the Wolfowitz, ne, the Chaney Plan. Can one call it the Republican Doctrine?
So, what do you guys think about Pax Americana? Is it that bad a plan? Will it work? Look for the tell tale signs of the “Big Plan” in the various moves and counter moves in the UN. That's where all the in fighting is taking place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. Please do me a favor. If you want to discuss this artcle, I am willing to join. If you want to take this article apart, line by line with rhetoric and then go back and forth ad nauseum, then I am not interested. To me, DEBATE is about the exchange of ideas, not posting endurance or "winning".
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:40:48 GMT -5
Very good post HA. I don't think I have been speculating on how Iraqi's feel, certainly that was not my intention. There are good reasons to have this war as well as bad ones, but the questions I'm asking are which reasons are motivating Bush and do the pros of this war outweigh the cons. I guess that's mainly where we differ.
|
|
|
|
Post by spozzy on Mar 22, 2003 20:44:56 GMT -5
Very good post HA. I don't think I have been speculating on how Iraqi's feel, certainly that was not my intention. There are good reasons to have this war as well as bad ones, but the questions I'm asking are which reasons are motivating Bush and do the pros of this war outweigh the cons. I guess that's mainly where we differ. I think you mainly differ in the fact you are insane. You trying to draw a parallel behind Bush and Hitler with that avatar?? |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:52:04 GMT -5
I think you mainly differ in the fact you are insane. You trying to draw a parallel behind Bush and Hitler with that avatar?? That is a personal attack..... I am not trying to draw any parallels, but I thought that was funny when I saw it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 22, 2003 20:55:54 GMT -5
Very good post HA. I don't think I have been speculating on how Iraqi's feel, certainly that was not my intention. There are good reasons to have this war as well as bad ones, but the questions I'm asking are which reasons are motivating Bush and do the pros of this war outweigh the cons. I guess that's mainly where we differ. I have more to on that subject. BUT in my honest opinion MC, the Bush-Hitler thing is a bit over the top. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 20:58:21 GMT -5
I have more to on that subject. BUT in my honest opinion MC, the Bush-Hitler thing is a bit over the top. I thought kicking the French in the nuts was a bit over the top myself. But there you go; one man's meat is another man's poison. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 20:59:21 GMT -5
I have more to on that subject. BUT in my honest opinion MC, the Bush-Hitler thing is a bit over the top. I have changed it back in the interests of not offending anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 22, 2003 21:01:08 GMT -5
I have changed it back in the interests of not offending anybody. You have just earned yourself the right to sport a mustache and a black beret.  |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Mar 22, 2003 21:06:42 GMT -5
Not trying to be smart here, but wouldn't it be cheaper yet to simply take the "war machine" home?  CO |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Mar 22, 2003 21:11:01 GMT -5
You have just earned yourself the right to sport a mustache and a black beret. Alas. Hopefully this will be less contr o:-[versial  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Mar 23, 2003 16:11:10 GMT -5
Excellent article HA.
I disagree with some of your conclusions though, but this shows me how we can agree on 95% and yet disagree in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 23, 2003 16:39:13 GMT -5
Excellent article HA. I disagree with some of your conclusions though, but this shows me how we can agree on 95% and yet disagree in the end. Yep this about sums it up for me aswell. Excellent job HA |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 23, 2003 21:53:55 GMT -5
Yep this about sums it up for me aswell. Excellent job HA Well, throw me in this group as well. The war on terrorism should be engaged on a large scale and targets should be subdued or eliminated. This will destabilize existing “terrorist” governments and eventually the Domino Effect will be reached when there is sufficient critical mass. Terrorism will have subsided due to democratic change or internal turmoil. Then rebuild the politcal machinery to a democratic blueprint and help them stabilize their economy in order for order to hold.IF this were the general plan, then I could see why here, and why now. If. But is it really? I fully supported the war in Afghanistan, but the way it has been completely dumped on the backburner worries me. In August Bush vetoed a bill that would provide $5.1 billion in supplemental international aid, of which $174 million was earmarked for Afghanistan reconstruction and relief. There is NO funding for Afghanistan tabled for the budget of 2003. Given their most recent, post-Vietnam history, there desire to get in, hit hard, and get out, I suspect America is not in this for the long haul. Stability perhaps, that is always good for the economy, and pro-American, most definetely. But "democratic blueprint?" I suspect not. Americans don't care how brutal a government is, or how oppressed the people really are, just as long as they are open for American business. Witness China's "most favored nations" status, following the Tiannenmann Square massacre. Witness their continued support of Saudi Arabia, one of the most brutal countries on the planet. Or Indonesia. Or Kuwait. Or Nigeria, whose long history of human rights abuses and violations is well documented, including the complicity of top Shell and Chevron authorities. Or many, many other countries. The US will not rebuild Iraq, especially if the going gets tough. First of all, there is no democratic tradition in Iraq, and their people harbour a great distrust and hatred for the US. The country will descend into the lawlessness, strife and chaos Afghanistan is currently living in. There is also no American political or domestic will to endure long hardships, many deaths, and mucho-big relief monies being poured in "over there." Look how quickly they backed out of Somalia, or the aforementioned Afghanistan. Will they really and truly rebuild the country, or will they simply pacify it, to allow business (i.e oil) as usual? Will they be content with a brutal dictatorship, if it allows American troops to be placed there, and American oil companies to work there? This idea that "well, American troops happened to be in the region" doesn't make any sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 23, 2003 22:25:09 GMT -5
This idea that "well, American troops happened to be in the region" doesn't make any sense to me. Sheesh, I laid out the whole table and brought the food and you still hungry? It's not "they just happen to be there". This was all part of a larger Plan, Doctrine, Plot, whatever you want to call it. This IS the plan and it is why "here and now". C'mon BC, it's not like you to ignore the content to make a point. Now, do you want to debate post Iraq? They have huge reserves of oil (money) that is only trickling in the hands of the Iraqi people right now. They are some of the best educated people in the Arab world. They have a good utility infrastructure. They are not fundamentalist. Is it not more likely that the people would rejoice in their freedom and their shared wealth without the shackles of tyranny? Why do you assume that they will de-evolve into primordial soup and kill each other for food and land? You categorically state that they “will descend into lawlessness, strife and chaos”. Based on what? Mogadishou? |
|
|
|
Post by Rhiessan on Mar 24, 2003 0:04:26 GMT -5
Is it not more likely that the people would rejoice in their freedom and their shared wealth without the shackles of tyranny? Why do you assume that they will de-evolve into primordial soup and kill each other for food and land? You categorically state that they “will descend into lawlessness, strife and chaos”. Based on what? Mogadishou? I may be wrong here but I thought that the Iraq society was clan based and divided to begin with. If anyone can elaborate please do so. (CNN was saying that a post war Iraq may be divided into many "provinces") |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 24, 2003 8:21:26 GMT -5
I may be wrong here but I thought that the Iraq society was clan based and divided to begin with. If anyone can elaborate please do so. (CNN was saying that a post war Iraq may be divided into many "provinces") International Herald Tribune: Occupational hazards PARIS Last week I was on a platform with Gudrun Harrer, the foreign affairs editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard and a Middle East specialist. She had just returned from the region and was asked her expectations about the war that seems about to take place. She said that until recently she had thought U.S. forces would probably overrun Iraq relatively easily but that she'd changed her mind when Saddam Hussein declared he would hold the tribal or clan leaders of the country responsible for defending their own regions and was arming them accordingly. This made a serious difference, she said, particularly as the Iraqi dictator would undoubtedly have any of the leaders who faltered killed, as an example to others. To talk seriously about societies such as Iraq, it is essential to appreciate the family or clan structure that provides most of its members with their fundamental social attachment, and which is the basis of their political and military commitments. Iraq is a manufactured state, which only came into existence in 1920, as a British mandate, although Iraqi (or Mesopotamian) society itself has existed since the beginnings of civilization... - www.iht.com/articles/86775.html*** From www.kurdishlibrary.org/Kurdish_Library/Aktuel/North_Irak/Index_Turkey_North_Iraq_Eng.htm Ankara’s claims over rights in Mosul and Kirkuk in Nothern Iraq seems to have increased tension in the region. These tense relations that have recently come to surface between Ankara and Arbil have received great attention in Turkish mass media. *** From www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq34.htmlSunni-Shia Relations in Iraq Until the 1980s, the dominant view of contemporary political analysts held that Iraq was badly split along sectarian lines. The claim was that the Sunnis--although a minority--ran Iraq and subjected the majority Shias to systematic discrimination. According to the prevailing belief, the Shias would drive the Sunnis from power, if once afforded an opportunity to do so. There was some basis to this notion. For many years Iraq was ruled by-and-large by Arab Sunnis who tended to come from a restricted area around Baghdad, Mosul, and Ar Rutbah--the socalled Golden Triangle... *** Kuwait and Iraq: Historical Claims and Historical Disputes by Richard Schofield London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1991. 137 pp. £7.50 Orbis Winter 1992 Reviewed by Daniel Pipes Here's a book we could have used a year earlier! - a meticulous and detailed account of Iraq's claim to Kuwait. Actually, there are two claims: Baghdad either wants a change in boundaries to win greater access to the Persian Gulf, or it seeks to absorb Kuwait wholly into Iraq. While Iraqi governments of all descriptions have consistently forwarded the first claim during the past fifty years, the second has been seriously pursued on only three occasions (1938, 1961, 1990-91). In response to both, the Kuwaitis throughout the twentieth century have consistently said no. As for the validity of Iraqi claims, Schofield dismisses the latter one out of hand. But he pays Baghdad more heed on the boundary dispute. Noting the historical vagaries that left Iraq with such an unsatisfactory shoreline-notably British efforts of 1913 to prevent the Ottoman Empire from establishing a railroad terminus; and the arbitrary British demarcation in 1951 of the border-the author implies that the Kuwaitis might show some flexibility. Noting that the border problem continues to fester, he hints at a deal: Baghdad agrees finally to demarcate the Iraq-Kuwait border according to the 1932 delimitation; in return, the Sabah dynasty permits Iraq access to the sea (through common water rights, a lease, or some other technicality). But, of course, he concedes, the August 1990 invasion renders Kuwaiti concessions unlikely for many years to come. *** From www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/FPolitics/020107XXFP01.htmlIran-Iraq Relations! Only Baghdad Is Getting Concession Every time the region was hit by a crisis particularly during the Persian Gulf war, the Iraqis sent friendly signals to Iran but after getting their needed concessions, they backed down on their pledges and promises. The most important issue governing the mutual relations over the past 13 years is the U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 but every time the Iraqis have restrained from implementing the provisions of the resolution. This coupled with the presence of opposition groups in each other's soil and Baghdad's refusal to abide by the provisions of the 1975 Algiers Accord have added to the thick file of mutual relations challenging both countries. *** And from none other the "The CIA World Factbook": Disputes - international: despite restored diplomatic relations in 1990, lacks maritime boundary with Iran and disputes land boundary, navigation channels, and other issues from eight-year war; in November 1994, Iraq formally accepted the UN-demarcated border with Kuwait which had been spelled out in Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991), 773 (1993), and 883 (1993); this formally ends earlier claims to Kuwait and to Bubiyan and Warbah islands although the government continues periodic rhetorical challenges; dispute over water development plans by Turkey for the Tigris and Euphrates rivers Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5% Muslim 97% ( Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3% *** I stand by my original assertion that the war won't the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Mar 24, 2003 8:29:09 GMT -5
This is my, as well as most of the rest of the planet's, concern.
Troubling and scary times.
CO
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 24, 2003 8:42:40 GMT -5
Sheesh, I laid out the whole table and brought the food and you still hungry? It's not "they just happen to be there". This was all part of a larger Plan, Doctrine, Plot, whatever you want to call it. This IS the plan and it is why "here and now". C'mon BC, it's not like you to ignore the content to make a point. Now, do you want to debate post Iraq? They have huge reserves of oil (money) that is only trickling in the hands of the Iraqi people right now. They are some of the best educated people in the Arab world. They have a good utility infrastructure. They are not fundamentalist. Is it not more likely that the people would rejoice in their freedom and their shared wealth without the shackles of tyranny? Why do you assume that they will de-evolve into primordial soup and kill each other for food and land? You categorically state that they “will descend into lawlessness, strife and chaos”. Based on what? Mogadishou? And yet when I posted that article from the Herald, which stated pretty much exactly what you stated here, you dismissed it as a "con job." To hope that Iraq does not descend into lawlessness and chaos is unrealistic, and ignorant of the cultural, political, and social history of the region, and of Iraq itself. You need only look at Bozo's post to see that. As recently as the last Gulf war tribes turned on each other the second they were given the opportunity, and you yourself pointed out that Saddam has surrounded himself with his family and clansmen, to ensure his own safety. If Iraq isn't divided along clan lines, why would he feel the need to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 24, 2003 8:50:23 GMT -5
International Herald Tribune: Occupational hazards PARIS Last week I was on a platform with Gudrun Harrer, the foreign affairs editor of the Vienna daily Der Standard and a Middle East specialist. She had just returned from the region and was asked her expectations about the war that seems about to take place. She said that until recently she had thought U.S. forces would probably overrun Iraq relatively easily but that she'd changed her mind when Saddam Hussein declared he would hold the tribal or clan leaders of the country responsible for defending their own regions and was arming them accordingly. This made a serious difference, she said, particularly as the Iraqi dictator would undoubtedly have any of the leaders who faltered killed, as an example to others. To talk seriously about societies such as Iraq, it is essential to appreciate the family or clan structure that provides most of its members with their fundamental social attachment, and which is the basis of their political and military commitments. Iraq is a manufactured state, which only came into existence in 1920, as a British mandate, although Iraqi (or Mesopotamian) society itself has existed since the beginnings of civilization... - www.iht.com/articles/86775.html*** From www.kurdishlibrary.org/Kurdish_Library/Aktuel/North_Irak/Index_Turkey_North_Iraq_Eng.htmAnkara’s claims over rights in Mosul and Kirkuk in Nothern Iraq seems to have increased tension in the region. These tense relations that have recently come to surface between Ankara and Arbil have received great attention in Turkish mass media. *** From www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq34.htmlSunni-Shia Relations in Iraq Until the 1980s, the dominant view of contemporary political analysts held that Iraq was badly split along sectarian lines. The claim was that the Sunnis--although a minority--ran Iraq and subjected the majority Shias to systematic discrimination. According to the prevailing belief, the Shias would drive the Sunnis from power, if once afforded an opportunity to do so. There was some basis to this notion. For many years Iraq was ruled by-and-large by Arab Sunnis who tended to come from a restricted area around Baghdad, Mosul, and Ar Rutbah--the socalled Golden Triangle... *** Kuwait and Iraq: Historical Claims and Historical Disputes by Richard Schofield London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1991. 137 pp. £7.50 Orbis Winter 1992 Reviewed by Daniel Pipes Here's a book we could have used a year earlier! - a meticulous and detailed account of Iraq's claim to Kuwait. Actually, there are two claims: Baghdad either wants a change in boundaries to win greater access to the Persian Gulf, or it seeks to absorb Kuwait wholly into Iraq. While Iraqi governments of all descriptions have consistently forwarded the first claim during the past fifty years, the second has been seriously pursued on only three occasions (1938, 1961, 1990-91). In response to both, the Kuwaitis throughout the twentieth century have consistently said no. As for the validity of Iraqi claims, Schofield dismisses the latter one out of hand. But he pays Baghdad more heed on the boundary dispute. Noting the historical vagaries that left Iraq with such an unsatisfactory shoreline-notably British efforts of 1913 to prevent the Ottoman Empire from establishing a railroad terminus; and the arbitrary British demarcation in 1951 of the border-the author implies that the Kuwaitis might show some flexibility. Noting that the border problem continues to fester, he hints at a deal: Baghdad agrees finally to demarcate the Iraq-Kuwait border according to the 1932 delimitation; in return, the Sabah dynasty permits Iraq access to the sea (through common water rights, a lease, or some other technicality). But, of course, he concedes, the August 1990 invasion renders Kuwaiti concessions unlikely for many years to come. *** From www.netiran.com/Htdocs/Clippings/FPolitics/020107XXFP01.htmlIran-Iraq Relations! Only Baghdad Is Getting Concession Every time the region was hit by a crisis particularly during the Persian Gulf war, the Iraqis sent friendly signals to Iran but after getting their needed concessions, they backed down on their pledges and promises. The most important issue governing the mutual relations over the past 13 years is the U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 but every time the Iraqis have restrained from implementing the provisions of the resolution. This coupled with the presence of opposition groups in each other's soil and Baghdad's refusal to abide by the provisions of the 1975 Algiers Accord have added to the thick file of mutual relations challenging both countries. *** And from none other the "The CIA World Factbook": Disputes - international: despite restored diplomatic relations in 1990, lacks maritime boundary with Iran and disputes land boundary, navigation channels, and other issues from eight-year war; in November 1994, Iraq formally accepted the UN-demarcated border with Kuwait which had been spelled out in Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991), 773 (1993), and 883 (1993); this formally ends earlier claims to Kuwait and to Bubiyan and Warbah islands although the government continues periodic rhetorical challenges; dispute over water development plans by Turkey for the Tigris and Euphrates rivers Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5% Muslim 97% ( Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3% *** I stand by my original assertion that the war won't the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest. Great articles Bozo. You are showing the reasons WHY appeasing Saddam will keep boiling the area and eventually cause a blow up. Then again, if we leave Saddam alone he will make sure he gets his WMD to blow them up anyway. Since no one can justify leaving Saddam in power, they use the Ugly American angle to do nothing. Once they find themselves in an untenable position with the Ugly American arguments, they resort to what “may, could” happen AFTER. Totally ignoring what is happening now and in the past. *sigh* |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 24, 2003 9:23:18 GMT -5
And yet when I posted that article from the Herald, which stated pretty much exactly what you stated here, you dismissed it as a "con job." To hope that Iraq does not descend into lawlessness and chaos is unrealistic, and ignorant of the cultural, political, and social history of the region, and of Iraq itself. You need only look at Bozo's post to see that. As recently as the last Gulf war tribes turned on each other the second they were given the opportunity, and you yourself pointed out that Saddam has surrounded himself with his family and clansmen, to ensure his own safety. If Iraq isn't divided along clan lines, why would he feel the need to do so? When you posted that article I tried to inform you that it was very old news and well known. The con job was the "uncovered plot" by the Ugly American hysteria that that rag is attempting to portray. BC, you are better then using words like "ignorant" to dismiss others arguments in a debate. Don't forget what we stand for. The entire region can be dismissed as "tribes ready to turn on each other". So what? Iraqi's are also some of the best educated and sophisticated in the region. Assuming they would fall apart to the tent level is to ignore their desire to better themselves and go past their history. Unless of course one takes a view that Arab's are no better then camel drivers ready to take swords to each other. If you want to argue that Iraq has three main divisions then that is a different matter. I believe that eventually, Iraq will become three different provinces. Amongst them an autonomous Kurdish province. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 24, 2003 9:39:30 GMT -5
Great articles Bozo. You are showing the reasons WHY appeasing Saddam will keep boiling the area and eventually cause a blow up. Then again, if we leave Saddam alone he will make sure he gets his WMD to blow them up anyway. Since no one can justify leaving Saddam in power, they use the Ugly American angle to do nothing. Once they find themselves in an untenable position with the Ugly American arguments, they resort to what “may, could” happen AFTER. Totally ignoring what is happening now and in the past. *sigh* Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows: "I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest." As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum. Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian. Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians). Rebuilding will be a long, painful process.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 24, 2003 9:52:20 GMT -5
Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows: "I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest." As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum. Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian. Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians). Rebuilding will be a long, painful process. I have to go to work so I must disengage myself from the battle but I have one comment. We know Saddam is a butcher, megalomaniac and ready to go wherever his evil mind takes him. Leaving him in is better? One may believe that the worse is around the corner and completely ignore that the better can come out. Mr. Bozo, do you absolutely refuse to see that there is just a good a chance that good can come out? Better to leave evil in. As I am leaving for work, I hear that Saddam is going to make sure that woman and children are used as human shields……………………… |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 24, 2003 12:13:46 GMT -5
I have to go to work so I must disengage myself from the battle but I have one comment. We know Saddam is a butcher, megalomaniac and ready to go wherever his evil mind takes him. Leaving him in is better? One may believe that the worse is around the corner and completely ignore that the better can come out. Mr. Bozo, do you absolutely refuse to see that there is just a good a chance that good can come out? Better to leave evil in. As I am leaving for work, I hear that Saddam is going to make sure that woman and children are used as human shields……………………… Saddam is a strong man, not a good man. Perversely he is a better short term guarantor of regional stability than the vacuum his absence would create will be. Long term, one hopes that Iraq will be better off without him, of course. It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive cocktail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together. Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 24, 2003 12:39:03 GMT -5
Iraqi's are also some of the best educated and sophisticated in the region. Assuming they would fall apart to the tent level is to ignore their desire to better themselves and go past their history. Unless of course one takes a view that Arab's are no better then camel drivers ready to take swords to each other. Maybe they used to be, I don't know. However: Kate Seelye reports for National Public Radio's Morning Edition program on the effects of ten years' of US /UN sanctions on education of children in Iraq In her 11/2/01 report for NPR on the "diminished expectations" of the young people of Iraq, Kate Seelye interviews several Iraqi children who are making a futile effort to secure an education. The sanctions embargo imposed on Iraq since the Gulf War in 1991 by the US and Great Britain (under a shaky and questionable UN authorization) has caused widespread poverty, and some say hundreds of thousands of deaths. The focus of the Seelye report is on the crippled Iraqi education system and the generation of young Arabs growing up with little or no hope of attaining anything like the middle class lifestyles common in Iraq before 1991. The unstated conclusion of the Seelye report is that the uneducated generation growing up without hope for a better life forms an enormous pool of potential terrorists who can quite understandably blame the US and "the West" for their desperate circumstances. Left out of the excellent Seelye report is an inquiry into the reason for the destruction of the Iraqi education system. Since the US bombing destroyed bridges, roads, factories, public water, sewage and power systems, and the ten years of embargo have prevented rebuilding, it might be assumed that the education infrastructure has been incidentally crippled by the war and the resulting poverty and deprivation. This is not a full picture. The damage to educational opportunities was called for by the US overall goal to deprive Saddam Hussain of the ability to develop "weapons of mass destruction" - at that time as well as in the future. One of the basic resources targeted by the US air and ground strikes and the subsequent embargo has been the technological knowledge base that is essential for sophisticated weapons development. In order to prevent this knowledge base from being rebuilt, the US intentionally brought about the collapse of the Iraqi education system. President Bush (the First) and Richard Butler, head of the UNSCOM weapons inspection program, and other top officials over and over reiterated their goal of preventing future weapons development in Iraq. It was clear as early as 1992 that the Iraqis must be prevented from attaining the level of technological expertise, scientific and engineering sophistication, needed to pursue a weapons program. That the current generation of Iraqi children is being deprived of an education is not an item of "collateral damage." The poverty and economic deprivation being perpetuated in Iraq by the US/Great Britain embargo has failed in its intention to force the Iraqi people to rebel against Saddam, but it has has succeeded in preventing the rebuilding of the education system. Individually, their extreme poverty means that mere survival demands far too much time and work for children to have an opportunity to study - even if some resources were avilable. In attaining our goal of preventing the education of Iraqi children, we have provided recruiters for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with hundreds of thousands of young people ripe for conversion to the most radical fundamentalist forms of Islam. If they find no hope in this life, they can be persuaded to turn toward the next life. - quixote-quest.org/resources/national_international/NPR_IraqEdEmbargoed_110201.html |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 13:51:29 GMT -5
I may be wrong here but I thought that the Iraq society was clan based and divided to begin with. If anyone can elaborate please do so. (CNN was saying that a post war Iraq may be divided into many "provinces") More clarification: Iraqi Tribes Saddam’s Secret Weapon Ouerdya Ait-Abdulmalik, Agence France Presse DUBAI, 25 March 2003 — In the war against the United States and Britain, President Saddam Hussein can count not only on his elite Republican Guard but also on a more secret weapon — tribal chiefs who control hundreds of thousands of armed men. The backing of the regime by ancient clans is a relatively recent development, stemming from the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War, a time in which Saddam was weakened at home. The Iraqi leader turned to the tribes to help reinforce his slackened grip on power, according to Iraqi opposition members in exile. The tribes were highly influential under the monarchy that ruled the country until 1958 but were brushed aside by the Baath Party which succeeded it and considered their customs backward and primitive. But the first Gulf War changed everything by loosening the state command structure, leaving Saddam scrambling to shore up his domestic support. Paradoxically, the international embargo slapped on the country after Iraq invaded Kuwait, aimed at undermining Saddam, ended up offering him a golden opportunity to re-establish his control over an increasingly impoverished society. Faleh Jabber, a researcher at the School of Politics and Sociology at the University of London-Birkbeck, noted in a recent article that the food supply increasingly depended on Saddam’s good will, and on the tribes. One of the consequences of the sanctions was also to make the tribes more dependent on government support. To foster a reconciliation and establish himself as chief of the chiefs, Saddam invited tribal leaders to one of his palaces in 1992. He apologized for new land reforms that stripped them of resources and called for a rapprochement. In effect, he bought their allegiance by offering food, vital materials, money and in particular, the opportunity for them to exercise new influence. The tribes were able to run their areas like fiefdoms, all the while working as cogs of the state. They were given authority over security, police forces, the justice system and tax collection and the scope to operate beyond their traditional areas of control into major cities including Baghdad. Exempted from military service, the men of the tribes received light arms and means of transportation and communication to allow them to help Saddam Hussein crush any domestic unrest. The government saw the utility of their support in 1991 when they assisted him in stamping out a rebellion in south of the country, which has a Shiite majority. The ties binding the tribes to Saddam Hussein and their willingness to protect the status quo that operates in their favor are among the factors leading the tribes to oppose the current US-British invasion. Aware that they could represent a secret weapon against the Americans, Saddam yesterday called on all Iraqis and the tribes in particular to continue to resist the enemy and congratulated them on their success in slowing the coalition advance. “Even in the open desert, American and British soldiers are exposing themselves to civilians’ weapons,” he said. Iraqi television showed images of a US Apache helicopter that had been shot down over Kerbala, 80 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad. Ali Obeid, an old peasant with a white beard and brandishing an elderly bolt-action rifle, proudly told the cameras that he had downed a second aircraft of the same type |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Mar 25, 2003 22:01:14 GMT -5
This is just flooding the thread with noise but no personal opinion. I do not debate noise.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Mar 25, 2003 22:15:37 GMT -5
This is just flooding the thread with noise but no personal opinion. I do not debate noise. Pardon? I was replying to a fellow poster's request for information. |
|
