1
   

Post-war Iraq

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 07:27 am
Daf -- Those of us who watched Bush's campaign with interest and horror, those of us who (in forums like this) discussed what we might expect from a Bush administration, were dismissed as conspiracy theorists and/or cynics. And yet one after another of our predictions have come to pass, from extension of imperial power to restriction of civil liberties, from erasing the firewall between fundamentalist religion and state to increasing disrespect for culture and education. Those who want to defend the invasion of Iraq and the horrendous loss of 7,000 years worth of world history will have to face the pictures and descriptions of our military defending the Oil Ministry even as they turned their backs on the sacking of the museum and library. Like it or not, this is who we are at this point in our history -- we are everything we accuse our "enemies" of being.

If we are lucky, Europe and "non-western democracies" will put tremendous pressure on the US to back off. If we are even luckier, Americans will stop their dangerous know-nothing sleepwalk and will toss the felons out of office in 18 months. But I'm worried that our electoral process will go the way of the precious treasure in Baghdad which this country had a hand in trashing. Right and wrong are of no interest to these folks.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 08:18 am
steissd

Your dewey-eyed worship of the US and its present utopian dream of liberationist hegemony reminds many of us here of the delusion and and denial of western communists about the real Russia.

You are in Israel now, and dollars to donuts, voting Likkud, so your faith testimonials (or public relations memos) on those choirs of angels you claim to hear attending all instances of Yankeehood make a sort of sense.

You know, I agree with you on one point you make - the interim phase of governance ought to be aware that the people of Iraq, if actually allowed to choose, might well not choose what the Americans (and Likkud) want them to choose. And as we are now operating on the pediatric model of democracy (political immaturity is demonstrated where ideas and decisions don't align with the daddy-state) then its reasonable to keep them up in their room without dinner for a while. It's a lesson-learning thing.

But they could choose a racist and extremist set of leaders and ideas, who harbor and promote hatred of their neighbors. They could, through the influence of radical theocrats within their culture, elect a Sharon or a Benny. So, I share this worry with you.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 09:06 am
Blatham, I am afraid your perception of the Likud Party is based on the obsolete knowledge pertaining to '30s-'40s of the past century when official ideology of this party claimed that kingdom of Jordan was an unalienable part of Israel.
I would advise you to read aninterview of PM Sharon in the Ha'aretz newspaper to get some idea on the stance of the current Israeli government.
Likud has never played the role in Israel similar to this NSDAP once played in Germany, or Al Baath in Syria/Iraq, or CPSU in the USSR: it is one of the components of the democratic spectrum, and it may be removed from power by means of free elections in case of necessity (and such things happened several times in the past).
Of course, you may say that Arafat has also made peaceful statements in English that were intended for the Western audience, while declaring different approaches in Arabic and acting in absolutely opposite way. The problem is that Israel is almost an English-speaking country (everyone here has quite satisfactory level of knowledge of English), and such a thing will not work; more, this interview was originally delivered in Hebrew and appeared in both on-line and printed versions of the newspaper, so Mr. Sharon has virtually no chances to repudiate the things he has told.
I want to add that Ha'Aretz is a left-wing newspaper, the least complimentary to the current government among the all mainstream Israeli media, therefore it is unlikely that it has "smoothed" definitions given by Mr. Sharon. The things that Mr. Sharon has uttered in the interview reflect the national consensus in Israel.
Frankly pseaking, I am pretty tired of these accusations toward Israel that are inspired by uncritical belief to the Arab propaganda; Israeli counter-reasons are being a priori ignored as irrelevant and untrue. Fair approach to any problem takes into consideration positions of the both sides involved in the conflict.
Israeli public, of course, is strongly pro-American, but such an approach has nothing to do with the financial aid that Israel regularly gets from the USA (BTW, Egypt is the second in magnitude acceptor of the U.S. aid, but public opinion there is much less favorable toward the USA). Jews used to favor the USA since long ago, long before the State of Israel having appeared on the world map. They valued it as a country of equal opportunities with low level of popular anti-Semitism and absence of the state-sponsored one.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 09:12 am
Returning to the topic:

Quote:
ABC further reported: "A Marine at first draped an American flag over the statue's face, despite military orders to avoid symbols that would portray the United States as an occupying--instead of a liberating--force."

Yet another lie.

As anyone with eyes could plainly see, American tanks are festooned with more red, white and blue than a Fourth of July parade. And that particular flag was flying over the Pentagon at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The Defense Department gave it to the Marines in order to perpetuate Bush's lie that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks.

Patriotic iconography is a funny thing. I've known that the Iwo Jima photo was fake for years, but it nonetheless stirs me every time I see it. Firdus Square's footage will retain its power long after the last American learns the truth.

It was a fitting end for a war waged under false pretexts by a fictional coalition led by an ersatz president. Bush never spent much time thinking about liberation, and even his exploitation is being done with as little concern as possible for the dignity of our new colonial subjects.


How We Lost the Iraq War
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 09:15 am
PDiddie -- Another incident was reported yesterday in a northern city of the idiot Americans raising a US flag over a public building where a meeting was to be held to begin transition. The population had a fit, were fired upon by Marines. Really clever. Let's roll -- right over the world, raising our flags on others' monuments and wondering why people hate us.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 09:52 am
Tartarin, I wonder, who has won the war: Americans (British, Australians) or Iraqis? It is a time-proven tradition of winners to raise their flags on the significant buildings in the losers' cities...
The GIs having raised the U.S. flag are not idiots: they are soldiers proud of their country and its insignia.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 10:18 am
steissd- the rumor is that we are there to liberate not conquer.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 10:26 am
This time I agree with steissd. It's the winner's flag that is raised and waved. It doesn't mean that Baghdad is American soil.
Iraq lost a dictator, but it also lost a war. Raising an Iraqi flag as prove of "people's victory" seems patronizing to me.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 10:38 am
Dyslexia wrote:
steissd- the rumor is that we are there to liberate not conquer.

I think, more or less the same tasks had the U.S. Armed Forces in Germany and Japan after these countries having surrendered. And I do not think that it was impossible to find Stars and Stripes on the territory of these countries in 1945-49.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 10:41 am
They could have used the old Iraqi flag instead of the new one or the US flag.

The old flag is without the the phrase ALLAHU AKBAR in green Arabic script between the three green stars.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/countryfacts/images/flags/small/c05020.gif
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 10:42 am
They could have used the old Iraqi flag instead of the new one or the US flag.

The old flag is without the the phrase ALLAHU AKBAR in green Arabic script between the three green stars.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 11:27 am
Did the U.S. Army in Germany use the old pre-Nazi German flag instead of their own? I strongly doubt this; on the contrary, the good old Schwarz-Weiß-Rot never appeared again. There is no need for the winners to shy their pride off.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 11:30 am
Who's to use the old Iraqi flag?
The anti-Saddam Iraqis who are waving it right next to the signs asking the Americans to leave.

I think both parties -the Americans and the anti-Saddam-anti-invasion Iraqis- are using the correct banners.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 11:52 am
Not all those that are anti-Saddam are automatically supporters of democratic reforms. We must not forget that pro-Iranian fundamentalists also had problems with the regime, but their access to power in Iraq may be even more detrimental than leaving Saddam in office.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 12:12 pm
I think the results of their action (if they hadn't figured out ahead of time, which they should have!) show them to be idjits, at best!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 12:13 pm
PS -- And kind of proves what we've been saying all along: they are there as conquerors, not liberators, as others have indicated. So I'll take back "idiot" if you'll take back "liberator"!!
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:15 pm
Re: Who's Next?
CodeBorg wrote:
DafDaf -- "Right" or "wrong" in government simply amounts to whatever you can get away with.


It's probably naive of me, but I don't belive the people behind the powers-that-be are bad people. In theory wars have a purpose - can bring in welath, helps controls enemies, can improve image etc etc. But as soon as you're faced with the reality of actually waging war on a country, you are hit in the face with the fact that lives will be lost. I believe that most people are good at heart, and even the rudest, apparently heartless, most ignorant people would not wage war for the hell of it. Personally, if I were in power, I'd need a really, really good reason to invade a country. Are those in the war councils so different from us? If so, how the heck did they get their jobs?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:22 pm
Tartarin, I did not call them liberators, I called them winners...
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:22 pm
Gautam wrote:
steissd wrote:
I see no reasons to worry: such a world will be more fair, predictable, expedient, reasonable, sensible and just than the existing one. Finally, everyone will only gain if the world is really dominated by the USA.


Even the communists said that once upon a time about themselves


Well i think there's a lot to be said for communism. It fails due to greed, corruption and poor communications, but the idea is sound. Capitalism on the other hand, appears to work, but then that's because we look at it through the eyes of the rich west.

I'd be interested if anyone's done a study on the division of resources in capitalist Vs communist cultures, along with efficiancy. Would be nice to know which really is fairest.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2003 01:28 pm
Tartarin wrote:
Daf -- Those of us who watched Bush's campaign with interest and horror, those of us who (in forums like this) discussed what we might expect from a Bush administration, were dismissed as conspiracy theorists and/or cynics. And yet one after another of our predictions have come to pass, from extension of imperial power to restriction of civil liberties, from erasing the firewall between fundamentalist religion and state to increasing disrespect for culture and education. Those who want to defend the invasion of Iraq and the horrendous loss of 7,000 years worth of world history will have to face the pictures and descriptions of our military defending the Oil Ministry even as they turned their backs on the sacking of the museum and library. Like it or not, this is who we are at this point in our history -- we are everything we accuse our "enemies" of being.

If we are lucky, Europe and "non-western democracies" will put tremendous pressure on the US to back off. If we are even luckier, Americans will stop their dangerous know-nothing sleepwalk and will toss the felons out of office in 18 months. But I'm worried that our electoral process will go the way of the precious treasure in Baghdad which this country had a hand in trashing. Right and wrong are of no interest to these folks.


Well I like to be optimistic with the future. Those who supported the war and Bush haven't seemed to be as enthusiastic with their views as those who oppose them. I imagine therefore that if Bush invades again, it'll be the straw that broke donkey's back and we'll be raising Huge protests, with governments joining in. But for that same reason, that possibility scares me - what if Bush still doesn't back down?

I also have faith that Bush's fixed election was an anomaly - few people have such powerful friends and family is such crucial positions in the country. Things'll go back on track Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Post-war Iraq
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 09:04:39