This "divorce de convenance" with France is attractive to some. I think some Americans, distressed by the real, large, and very serious opposition to the invasion of Iraq coming from all sides --both inside and outside the US -- are relieved to have such an easy target for scorn, Dagmaraka.
dagmaraka
Justice, what's that.
boils down to Liberator or Conqueror, and Conqueror seems to be winning
Free ride? That's a good one.
au,
Trying to control who makes what money would make us look like that's what we declared war for. For domestic political reasons I don't think French companies should get contracts that the US brokers but I think we should try to stay out of the rest of the money grab as much as possible to avoid making the accusation that this war is for oil seem validated.
And dag hit a key point. We should have little to no say over who Iraq does business with after the war.
craven
No matter what we do or don't do the cry will continue to be we were in it for the oil. Dag may be right but let's remember this is the real world.
So in the real world we should free a country and then determine who does business there? I'm with you in that many who say it's for money and oil will continue to say so but the difference is that it will become partly true if we consider this war an investmenbt that needs to be protected from competitors.
And I said that they should be excluded from US brokered contracts. That's really all the control we can and should have.
I have no problem with keeping money we dole out from their hands. But hopefully Iraq will be autonomous soon and they have business history with France. I hope they determine if that continues.
U.S., no matter how or when the war ends should not even be administering Iraq. For once Kosovo may be inspiring. International mechanisms helped to set up temporary transition government and watched over the first few election. THe rest should be in domestic hands.
Trade with the current Iraqi establishment will be ceased, and another trade relation will be built.
Satts,
We are, in fact, discussing the very issue of the new trade relations.
dagmaraka
I wouldn't entrust the international community, I suppose you mean the UN with anything other than humanitarian functions.
Current claim for trade must have no effects on the newly established trade relations.
craven
Quote:And I said that they should be excluded from US brokered contracts. That\'s really all the control we can and should have.
I would imagine to start with they will almost all be US brokered contracts. Once a stable goverment is in place the Iraqi's should be free to do business with whomever they choose.
satts,
I agree, but would add that support for the war should not be a criteria either.
au,
On that we agree, but I only agree due to domestic political reasons (read: people who are unduly angry with the French).
AU, do you have any alternative? U.S.? For that would be absolutely unacceptable. Not unexpected though.
dagmaraka
Unacceptable to whom? The same community that found it unacceptable to attack Iraq? Let me make it perfectly clear I think this attack on Iraq was folly. However since it did occur I am of the opinion that the US can and will do a better job than the UN in administering the peace at least in the beginning stages.
I am afraid that it may end up that way. But don't you find it worriesome? One country (or a few) toppling a regime and installing a new one, all without cooperation of other countries? For I do, if that happens, I'll be disturbed even more than I am now.
au,
That's a matter of opinion. I too believe we can do a great job but think that the post-war is an excellent time to start rebuilding bridges. And it is important to rebuild relations, not just Iraq. The UK is pushing for heavy UN involvement and mending relations beween Europe and the US.
I think that for Iraq US/UN is about the same, for the world I think UN is better than US.
Plus it's never too late to try to get some of the validity the UN can bring.
The US cannot continue to act independently and unilaterally in the world because it has no authority to do so.
This is nothing other than dictatorship, at an international level. The US has muscle and self-certainty only.
The rest of the world will not support such an uber-regime, for all the same good reasons none of us would support a national dictator. The rest of the world will not look with great joy on the US committing serial attacks on sovereign nations directed by its own whims and values. And it shouldn't.
Not only is this idea precisely converse to the fundamental underlying notion of democracy and of the US constitution, it won't work. There is probably nothing the US might do which would guarantee that it become more widely despised than now. And nothing more likely to make it a target for attack.
So the US has no alternative but to rejoin the UN, and to sublimate its present plans for aggressive hegemony.
The UN in action.
So, so many contradictions appear before us in our time that it is hard to always follow clearly the line intended to let us know what is going on. There are many who scoff at Operation Iraqi Freedom and decry the U.S. for moving against the wishes of the UN Security Council and of the many nations, few of them democracies, that opposed the invasion and now stand against the war itself. Yet the moment such people talk as though the UN is a vaunted organization representing the last best hope for international cooperation and humane concern, I wonder what they think of Libya being selected to head the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, especially since Libya has been accused of genocide and allows the traffic of slaves, according to Iabolish, an international anti-slavery organization.On its Web site, iabolish.com, there is a letter from Tommy Calvert Jr. of the American Anti-Slavery Group, which says in part, "Many of you are aware of the plight of southern Sudanese who are enslaved in Sudan. Most of you are probably not aware that some of these slaves end up in Libya and are sold into bondage."The letter goes on to say that not only does Libya have a long record of supporting international terrorism, but that it has beaten down its own people through torture, persecution and arbitrary incarceration of people considered a threat to the regime. The letter goes on to ask, "How can a nation that does not actively prevent the sale of slaves be permitted to chair the UN Commission on Human Rights?"But the letter answers its own question, citing a New York Times report that Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy went to his oil revenues to "finance a new body of African fellowship called the African Union. In exchange, he wanted his country to be selected by fellow Africans as their next nominee to be chairman of the rights commission. In the regional rotation of the chairmanship, it was Africa's turn to select."The letter concludes, "As a result, oil money trumped Africans' human rights concerns."Whatever hope the UN might provide, it can no more easily wave the bloody shirt or pretend to high moral concerns than anybody else. As we know, in the last hundred years, Europe sold out the Jews and later sold out Bosnia. According to Iabolish, the European Union is in the process of selling out the female sex slaves of Bosnia and Herzegovina, now that it has taken over the job of preventing these kinds of abuses from the UN.That's our world, and these are the kind of nations we are so often dealing with, either well or clumsily, courageously or stupidly. If you want to side with those nations that oppose the war in Iraq, don't pretend that they always have high moral records or any real concern for the victims of military or political power.
