The US, UN & Iraq II

Nimh -- My question about what the Iraqis are celebrating came from listening to Middle Eastern callers and commentators on a radio talk show I'm listening to who see what's happening with completely different points of view (from Americans and from each other!). Kind of fascinating. One very astute-sounding Irani who said she knows Iraq and its culture well saw completely different scenes on CNN and MSNBC (the two networks she named) from what the American anchors were reporting. Keep in mind she understands the language and the body language when she's watching. I'm just hearing lots of different viewpoints even as I also read the comments posted here and my impression is that the celebrations (which I haven't seen myself) are being watched and understood differently, depending on where you're coming from.

"Clearly it's going to be a military victory. We don't know whether it is a foreign policy victory," said one commentator right now.

The military victory is the tool. What we do with that tool is what becomes important in the aftermath...

0 Replies

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

"You know the Iraqi guy in NY--the diplomat with the bad comb-over... What does he do now?.."

Sofia -- funny question!! We should have a lottery based on this! My multiple answers include: He will be disappeared by an angry Suni. He will be come a professor in the Middle Eastern Studies Department at SUNY. He will become a Pentagon advisor. He will be elevated to the board of Brown & Root. He will have a small, wheeled stand with Middle Eastern delicacies in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

0 Replies

Iraq and Tianneman are similar enough to me.
They were both bids for freedom.
I pulled for the oppressed in both cases.

dag, I hope you realize I have not made an assumption that anti-war protesters are anti-freedom. I judge each person's comments; I don't lump them all together.

You seem to think, as I read what you've written, that the military action and subsequent freedom of Iraqis was a mistake. What do you think will make this so? Do you think the new Iraqi gov will be worse than saddam's? Do you think it will cause some bad domino effect in the ME? Do you have a scenario for this? That's alot of questions. I don't intend them as confrontational. I'm curious about how you arrived at your view.

I know Iraq doesn't exist in a vaccuum, but I believe the dominoes will fall in a relatively better direction...

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

One very astute-sounding Irani who said she knows Iraq and its culture well saw completely different scenes on CNN and MSNBC (the two networks she named) from what the American anchors were reporting. Keep in mind she understands the language and the body language when she's watching.

What did she see/observe? <interested>

0 Replies

Dagmaraka wrote:

<The war in iraq opposers are not against freedom. I am one of them, i appreciate freedom tremendously. my father was in jail during communism and was liberated thanks to the intervention of the western institutions.>

But yet you, now living in freedom, would deny the Iraqi people that same opportunity---WHY. How can you reconcile this contradiction---not to me but to the Iraqi people?

0 Replies

A Belgian Reporter today showed some interviews in Basra, where the UK forces are in charge. The Iraqi were not very happy. They want protection from the looters. And some people asked "Thanks for the liberation, when are they leaving?"

Those are the same questions the people in Bagdad will ask at the end of the week.

0 Replies

Yes, there's nothing amiss in celebrating the increased liberty for Iraqis at the end of Sadaam and his rule in Iraq. It's a good thing.

But after the beer cans and colorful streamers and body bits get cleaned up...we find ourselves in a brand new day.

On Sunday's 'meet the press', Wolfowitz said "Yes, Syria has to change". And Woolsey talks of decades long WW 4 (or was it 5?). And according to the President, the UN will have a 'vital role...vital...a vital role" in post war Iraq, including suggesting things. I like that, because that means I have a 'vital role' too, because I'll be suggesting things.

But the US really ought to have the say here. They prosecuted the war, after all. So it seems some variety of 'fair'.

The curious aspect is...why would they WANT TO have the say? If things go unnicely in some ways, then who gets blamed? The US. If you want to cool down and stabilize anti-US sentiment in the middle east, then you'd think one would want to avoid the ugly word 'occupation' and if it isn't the UN there, who is going to be labelled the occupier? The US.

So why does the US want control?

0 Replies

Blatham, I think it's called 'Texas tea'

0 Replies

perc asked... "But yet you, now living in freedom, would deny the Iraqi people that same opportunity---WHY. How can you reconcile this contradiction---not to me but to the Iraqi people?"

False dilemma again perc... it suggests but two options, one either supports this war or one supports dictatorship.

0 Replies

perception wrote:

Dagmaraka wrote:

<The war in iraq opposers are not against freedom. I am one of them, i appreciate freedom tremendously. my father was in jail during communism and was liberated thanks to the intervention of the western institutions.>

But yet you, now living in freedom, would deny the Iraqi people that same opportunity---WHY. How can you reconcile this contradiction---not to me but to the Iraqi people?

Why the Iraqi? Who not the Pakistani? Why not the Palestinians? Why not the Zapatists in Mexico? Why not the Africans? WHY NOT? How can you reconcile this contradiction---not to me but to the oppresed world? Oppressed and killed with F16s like some palestinians today ?

0 Replies

Gel

That's surely a necessary part of the equation. I think only the most romantic among us would consider that the US would have initiated all this were there no oil there. But I think it's not nearly the whole kaboodle. Oil, being the deeply important and institutionalized product that it is, I think won't be so easy to mess about with (though surely not impossible, as in Enron-style manipulation and deceits) and lots of folks will be watching what the US does as regards it.

Let's see what happens with Israel now, that will be telling. And let's see what Paul Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld say about Syria in two weeks or a month.

0 Replies

Why do I feel compelled to answer, when blatham has sprinkled his really good vibes on the thread???? WHY .......MUST .......I......

So why does the US want control?

__________________

Because the UN can offer nothing, as aptly proven, but a long, drawn out mucking up of the job at hand.

They took a powder on the work, they can take a powder on the rest...
Let them send cake.....

Good morning, blatham. Smile

*My more serious answer is too many cooks spoil the soup, and talk about it too endlessly, drawing carving knives on one another while the cafeteria is full of hungry people.

I guess I am biased. I don't think the UN will ever be what it was. I think it is in an irretrievable nose-dive.

0 Replies

ps

Won't it be an ironically lovely day when the US takes control of another country because of their wind or wave power generation facilities?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

ps

Won't it be an ironically lovely day when the US takes control of another country because of their wind or wave power generation facilities?

Oh my god, those poor Dutch !! Laughing

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

I have no disdain for the troops but plenty for you, but you don't have the capability to understand that.

I'm used to your insults, and fine with them. Now, if thinking our troops would intentionally target journalists is not having disdain for them in your view, what is it?

0 Replies

Blatham wrote:

The curious aspect is...why would they WANT TO have the say? If things go unnicely in some ways, then who gets blamed? The US. If you want to cool down and stabilize anti-US sentiment in the middle east, then you'd think one would want to avoid the ugly word 'occupation' and if it isn't the UN there, who is going to be labelled the occupier? The US.

So why does the US want control?

Blatham:
The answer is simple ( which I imagine you will label simplistic). If the UN headed by Russia, Germany, and France is allowed to direct the post war installation of an interim govt, they will engineer the failure of any move toward democracy and instead maneuver a new dictator into position ( just as they maneuvered their man Blix into position). Of course this new man will be sympathetic to their interests and will have signed secret deals before he is installed. The Iraqi people will merely switch one dictator for another who will rob them of their rightful property.
It should be evident to all that Russia, Germany and France are dedicated to the failure of this venture for the sake of their own greedy self interests.

Bush can not and I hope will not allow this to happen but I am worried that he may feel obligated to give too much away to protect Tony Blair. Bush is once again of the horns of a true dilemma---to do what is right or to have too much concern for a friend and ally. Tony Blair must live in a hostile Europe which only cares about it's own greedy self interests and the De Gaule syndrome which has engulfed Chirac.

0 Replies

Gautam wrote:

blatham wrote:
ps

Won't it be an ironically lovely day when the US takes control of another country because of their wind or wave power generation facilities?

Oh my god, those poor Dutch !!

Oy! No Blood For Wind! No Blood For Wind!

<giggles>

0 Replies

Sofia

Boy, now there's a successful bit of media manipulation (locally, just in the US) - the UN is incompetent/never works/is dead. About four months old and just roaring along in people's noggins.

If your argument is simplicity of administration, that's my point too. Simplicity means one target - the US. Simplicity also means something close to dictatorial administration, not likely to be welcomed by anyone, certainly not for long.

But I have to tell you (and good morning to you too) that I think you've got the cart and horse switched. I don't think the US will maintain control because the UN is ineffective. I think the UN is being promoted as ineffective (and thus made more so) because it suits the goals of this administration.

0 Replies

perception, i hate to do a dyslexia to you, but i cant resist making the point of this (flippant) post ...:

Quote:

The answer is simple ( which I imagine you will label simplistic). If the US headed by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush is allowed to direct the post war installation of an interim govt, they will engineer the failure of any move toward democracy and instead maneuver a new dictator into position (just as they are maneuvering their man Jay Garner into position). Of course this new man will be sympathetic to their interests and will have signed secret deals before he is installed. The Iraqi people will merely switch one dictator for another who will rob them of their rightful property.
It should be evident to all that the US are not dedicated to democracy but to their own greedy self interests.

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know