Post-war Iraq

What you mean you don't believe the Pres, Mr. Blatham? I'm just taking him at his word.





Edited for emoticon. Indicating humour. Sometimes I forget, on the internet, my intention is not always as clear to others as it seems to be to me.

A representative gov of Iraq.

Now that Iraq will not be robbed of their riches by Saddam, they can afford to pay for it themselves. They will be a wealthy nation.

Hope they will tip the US for our trouble.

Welcome Dafdaf and thanks for a great question!

I agree with you and LittleK, with Blatham and IronLionZion, with Dyslexia (as usual) and with anyone else who believes there's trouble ahead (Kofi Annan knows this and has stated that he'd like the UN to be in there for humanitarian relief, not for the purpose of taking part in an interim administration); anyone who'd like to see the UN strengthened, not weakened; anyone who believes insta-demockracy is not a smart idea; anyone who believes the US hasn't a clue about Iraq and will likely mess up; anyone who believes that we won't just stay in Iraq, we'll stay in the ME; anyone who hopes Iraq will be Bush's downfall.

Blatham - what you say sounds so logical, so in keeping with the policies and thinking of the past few years, that it scares hell out of me. And it goes right along with that statement of Woolsey. (PD - where is that from?)

I think of Algeria, and what resulted from that. Why do we persist in thinking that everybody is just like us, thinks like us, want to be like us? Maybe one of our problems with the French is that we don't understand why things like Disneyland and MacDonald's were not regarded the same way there - why, it was positively un-American.

Somebody wrote somewhere that one of the difficulties we face with Iraq is that there is nobody to surrender to us, which will make arrangements hard. And Chalabi - the ex-patriate choice of Rummy, who was air-lifted into Iraq after forty years of being away - is not accpted as an Iraqi choice.

So I guess that leaves us with viceroy Woolsey. I don't think it will matter here what anybody thinks of the future governing of Iraq. It apparently has all been decided aready, and has very little to do with the Iraqis.

Sure, Lola, I heard Bush. I also heard him answer questions in Ireland that were not directed at him. He did say something about there being a role for the British.......

Sofia, Your quote, "Hope they will tip the US for our trouble" says more than your sentence suggests. I also read into it the following assumptions; 1) that the US will not govern Iraq after the war, 2) the the Iraqi's will select their own government, and 3) they will show their appreciation by providing the US with some of the spoils of reconstruction. c.i.

c.i.--

Your first two assumptions are correct.
I'd like to amend the third to read, "Iraq will make some type of remuneration for the cost the US suffered to free them."

This is not important, or expected, but would be nice. It would defray our costs for the war. Maybe a sweet deal on oil prices for a while....

Political factions starting to postion themselves for a bid at power
Iraqi opposition parties


from germany:
Deutsche Welle

I think I'll just

pick up my guitar and play
just like yesterday
and I'll get on my knees and pray
WE DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN



"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Cute face, Husker! Posed, do you think?

don't care she is cute - I could of taken that type of picture.

good marketing piece, Husker. She is cute. Very photogenic.

I guess the flag was just a coincidence.

Who isn't a sucker for such a sweet face? c.i.

CALL ME A DREAMER !
Despite how evil Saddam is, I don't recall the Iraqi people asking us to invade the country to "liberate" them. Therefore, I have a hard time thinking we did this as a favor to them.

Given that it was completely U.S. initiative and motivation, what is the difference between:
a) invading a country and stealing their oil to make it worthwhile, versus
b) liberating a country and having them "tip" us with oil, to show their appreciation for our "help"?

Did the Iraqi's say "Hey, we'll give you 30 billion barrels cheap, if you come free us"? What right do we have to any of it?? If fact, instead of taking anything from Iraq, shouldn't the U.S. be paying for all the damage they did?

I don't mean to sound boisterous, but this was a voluntary, pre-emptive, and discretionary war taken on Mr. Bush's own initiative for his own reasons. I hope nobody else is forced to pay Mr. Bush's bill.

And I hope we have a radically advanced modern plan to leave Iraq ... just as fast as we went in.
THAT would be impressive!

CodeB, Don't fool yourself. Americans will be paying for this war for many years to come. It'll cost the American taxpayers billions, and the lives of over 100 American military men and women. The family members and friends of the lost military and civilians will not see their loved ones again. The Iraqi's paid dearly for this war; over several thousands dead. The Brits also paid dearly, and they didn't even have to get involved. As for the rebuilding efforts of Iraq, I'm sure it'll be necessary for the world community to get involved. How soon our military will be leaving Iraq after the war is anybody's guess. IMHO, it'll be longer than six years if Bosnia and Afghanistan is any indication. c.i.

With all the harsh news throughout the world I try not to be naive,
but at the same time I try to be hopeful,
just because if we can imagine the perfect outcome
then it may come even 0.1% closer to reality.

I agree it will be horribly expensive and many years recovering from this war,
but for all our public fascination with aircraft carriers and cluster bombs
I'd still like at least as much public interest in infrastructure and independence --
how to setup an independent Iraq and get the heck outta there!

Just a dream. Just a thought.
If we could pay for, rebuild, and pull out quickly without abusing the situation,
that's where world opinion may think better of us again.
Do you think politicians would do that? It's still good to dream...

The first thing Jay Garner, a real Sharon fan, will do as the new head of Iraq is recognise the state of Israel.



And what about the trial of the leadership of Saddam?
Death penalty?
Iraqi-led(difficult to organise a fair trial) trials or US judges?

And what about war crimes, on both sides?

Here's a bit of interesting news. c.i.
******************************
Spoils of War
April 10, 2003
By BOB HERBERT

Follow the money.

Former Secretary of State George Shultz is on the board of
directors of the Bechtel Group, the largest contractor in
the U.S. and one of the finalists in the competition to
land a fat contract to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

He is also the chairman of the advisory board of the
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a fiercely pro-war
group with close ties to the White House. The committee,
formed last year, made it clear from the beginning that it
sought more than the ouster of Saddam's regime. It was
committed, among other things, "to work beyond the
liberation of Iraq to the reconstruction of its economy."

War is a tragedy for some and a boon for others. I asked
Mr. Shultz if the fact that he was an advocate of the war
while sitting on the board of a company that would benefit
from it left him concerned about the appearance of a
conflict of interest.

"I don't know that Bechtel would particularly benefit from
it," he said. "But if there's work that's needed to be
done, Bechtel is the type of company that could do it. But
nobody looks at it as something you benefit from."

Jack Sheehan, a retired Marine Corps general, is a senior
vice president at Bechtel. He's also a member of the
Defense Policy Board, a government-appointed group that
advises the Pentagon on major defense issues. Its members
are selected by the under secretary of defense for policy,
currently Douglas Feith, and approved by the secretary of
defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Most Americans have never heard of the Defense Policy
Group. Its meetings are classified. The members disclose
their business interests to the Pentagon, but that
information is not available to the public.

The Center for Public Integrity, a private watchdog group
in Washington, recently disclosed that of the 30 members of
the board, at least 9 are linked to companies that have won
more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and
2002.

Richard Perle was the chairman of the board until just a
few weeks ago, when he resigned the chairmanship amid
allegations of a conflict of interest. He is still on the
board.

Another member is the former C.I.A. director, James
Woolsey. He's also a principal in the Paladin Capital
Group, a venture capital firm that, as the Center for
Public Integrity noted, is soliciting investments for
companies that specialize in domestic security. Mr. Woolsey
is also a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq and is
reported to be in line to play a role in the postwar
occupation.

The war against Iraq has become one of the clearest
examples ever of the influence of the military-industrial
complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against so
eloquently in his farewell address in 1961. This iron web
of relationships among powerful individuals inside and
outside the government operates with very little public
scrutiny and is saturated with conflicts of interest.

Their goals may or may not coincide with the best interests
of the American people. Think of the divergence of
interests, for example, between the grunts who are actually
fighting this war, who have been eating sand and spilling
their blood in the desert, and the power brokers who fought
like crazy to make the war happen and are profiting from it
every step of the way.

There aren't a lot of rich kids in that desert. The U.S.
military is largely working-class. The power brokers homing
in on $100 billion worth of postwar reconstruction
contracts are not.

The Pentagon and its allies are close to achieving what
they wanted all along, control of the nation of Iraq and
its bounty, which is the wealth and myriad forms of power
that flow from control of the world's second-largest oil
reserves.

The transitional government of Iraq is to be headed by a
retired Army lieutenant general, Jay Garner. His career
path was typical. He moved effortlessly from his military
career to the presidency of SYColeman, a defense contractor
that helped Israel develop its Arrow missile-defense
system. The iron web.

Those who dreamt of a flowering of democracy in Iraq are
advised to consider the skepticism of Brent Scowcroft, the
national security adviser to the first President Bush. He
asked: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an
election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do
you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Re: CALL ME A DREAMER !

Quite frequently, police respond in domestic violence incidents where the abused spouse has not "asked" for their help. Perhaps you think the police should stay out of those situations and allow those women to be beaten, bloodied and killed. I do not.