1
   

Post-war Iraq

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 08:52 am
Right on, Daf. Problem: the "winners" are not behaving like winners (those who are pro-authoritarian are becoming angrier and more resentful by the moment). In that frustrating gap between how they would like to feel and how they really feel is where some major violence could develop.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 09:24 am
Were the Bush-men really expecting a pat on the back and to have schools named after them? I don't know what their view of international relations and terrorism threats are now, but I feel the world is a lot more dangerous a place than it was five years ago.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 09:45 am
Daf -- I'm going to see if I can find online a description of the inner-workings of the Bush admin I read the other day and either cut/paste it here or take some time later today to type it up for you. Yes, they are dangerous.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:08 am
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:25 am
Tartarin - That would be fantastic! I'm not able to get very regular access to a computer at the moment (in fact i need to get one and do some essay writing after this post) so could you send me it in PM too?

dyslexia - I knew fighting alongside the Northern alliance would be a mistake. Their regime was arguably as bad as the Taliban's - In fact apart from the views of women's rights, I can't think of any differences.
Someone needs to come to the Coalition leaders with this question:
If the war on Iraq was to bring liberation to a people, why was Afganistan left unfinished?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:32 am
Daf and Dys -- Where do you get your smarts?! Agree with both, all. Daf, luckily NYRB has put the article (actually, a review of two books about Bush and his henchman, Karl Rove) online. What I'm going to do is post a tidbit here with link to the full article (worth a read) and copy to your message box:

"...One disturbing aspect of the close working relationship between Bush and Rove is that each man is capable of deep and lasting resentments. Now that Karen Hughes, the other staff member who was probably as close to Bush as Rove is, has returned to Texas and only occasionally comes to Washington, there appears to be no one to interrupt the mutually reinforcing anger that runs between the two men. Bush's resentments extend not just to political opponents but also to entire countries, not only France and Germany, but Turkey as well. (A former Clinton foreign policy adviser calls it "policy by snit.")..." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16215
0 Replies
 
Flatted 5th
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 10:36 am
steissd wrote:
IMO, there is no difference between these two. It is quite possible that the vaults were emptied by the regime officials that escaped later abroad (allegedly, to Syria). They took expensive artifacts with them to provide to themselves dolce vita in exile.

streissd, I think the difference would be instead of one godfather there are many godfathers each with their own 'family'. It still remains to be seen if they are in Syria, still in Iraq or at their Swiss chateau. The Russian mafia became very powerful after the fall of the USSR, with the many different families vying for power.
dafdaf wrote:
It certainly appears to be some organisation doing the looting (and arson) or significance, but there's no way of telling who. Chances are it's a group few of us have ever heard of.

I totally agree dafdaf. This was a professional job. Copies of some artifacts were not touched, while the original was stolen.
It's a blury line between the international blackmarket and Iraq's new big brother sponsored by Halliburton-Bechtel.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 11:21 am
Are you all suggesting, that maybe, this Iraq war was started with the primary intent on stealing those artifacts, to free the Iraqi's of their treasures? c.i.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 11:48 am
C.I., I do not think that accumulative price of the artifacts mentioned may cover even a half of the war expenses, put apart difficulty of selling them (any specialist in antiques knows where are these things from). It is legitimate to disagree with official explanation of the war motives, but suggestion that the U.S. administration is motivated by wish to steal antiques seems being beyond common sense and good taste of civilized people. Iraqis have no clue what all this freedom is all about, and they obviously confused it with anarchy; and the Americans were not ready to such a scenario. They anticipated many unpleasant things: suicide bombings, riots, fighting in the urban areas (nothing of these happened, thanks God), but not outburst of primitive crime as a response to removal of the tyrant...
Unlike the British Empire, the USA did not have rich experience in dealing with savages.
0 Replies
 
Flatted 5th
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Apr, 2003 07:47 pm
Anything is possible. But Iraqi involvement likely.
More probable is that an artifact or 2 will make it's way to some Bush supporting billionaire who will place the artifact in the humidor along with the Cuban cigars and King Tut momentos.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 02:26 pm
I suspect a large number of artifacts will be bought back off the black market. No doubt after an amnesty for them is held, and nothing is brought forward.

I don't think for a minute that the war was someone's crazed plan to get hold of the treasures. For the human and economic costs of the war so far, they could have just stormed the place!


There's been a lot of talk now about installing a diplomatically elected government in Iraq. I think pushing democracy onto a country is counterintuitive and won't work. Especially since the population is divided in three:
60% Shi'a Muslim
23% Kurdish
17% Sunni

That seems to suggest Shi'a will gain control. Few people in the region, not to mention the US, will not want two massive oil producers theocratically aligned - Iran and Iraq.
The Turks will get very angry if the Kurds gain power, which leaves the Sunni.
Saddam is of course a Sunni, and if they gain power, things are likely to revert to old ways.

So: What would be the best outcome for Post-War Iraq?
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 02:30 pm
The best outcome is restoring there Hashimite dynasty that ruled Iraq in 1924-58. IMO, the uncle of the actual Jordanian king, Prince Hassan ben-Talal (brother of the late king Hussein) may be an ideal candidate for becoming an Iraqi king: he is a moderate, secular, pro-Western and educated man.
0 Replies
 
dafdaf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 02:32 pm
What religion is he?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 02:45 pm
Mmmh, steissd, that opinion of yours was printed in "Yediot Ahronot" last year.

This was replied by the Jordanian King, who said " I am the head of this ( Hashimite) family and I frankly say that the Hashimite family has no ambitions to return back to ruling Iraq, and there should be no anyone inthis family that thinks the opposite, he would only represents himself," in an implicit remark to prince Hassan.

On interesting opinion is published on this Taiwanian site:

An imminent war
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 02:52 pm
Well, Jordanian king was unable to give any other response a year ago; this would mean direct support of the U.S./British/Australian military operation, and this might have caused serious civil unrest domestically. Now, when the operation is over, position of the Hashimites may have gradually change. The king may not make any public statements on the issue (for not to be associated with the American military campaign), but he may not prevent his uncle from taking the Iraqi throne.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 03:02 pm
May well be, the cards have to be mixed again:
Iraqi clerics challenge US rule

and especially here:

Rumsfeld Denies U.S. Plans Long-Term Basing in Iraq
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 03:33 pm
Quote:
The White House can argue all it wants that Saddam's fate does not matter strategically. But it matters psychologically. For Iraqis, the new sighting confirmed their belief that, as a Baghdad resident put it, "we must see Saddam's body hanging from a lamppost before we can be truly at peace." Every fire fight, every explosion, every low-flying jet supports the widespread conviction. "No one believes Saddam is gone," says Ramzi, a Kirkuk oil worker. As cabdriver Faras Ahmad explains, "We have all been trying to forget him, but he's telling us, 'I am still here.' If he is alive, then Iraq is not safe."


Unfinished Business
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 03:40 pm
I never claimed, Mr. Hinteler, that post-war rearrangement of Iraq is an easy task; and Islamic threat is one of the most important challenges to the success of the overall mission. But I hope that certain plan of neutralization of Islamists exists, and this plan does not imply waging full-scale civil war in Iraq. Maybe, some key leaders of the Islamists must disappear; maybe, Iran should be warned about severe consequences to its regime in case it interferes into Iraqi internal affairs; maybe, some additional steps are being planned (and for obvious reasons, not publicized in the open media) for handling the problem.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 04:00 pm
"Freedom is beautiful.", Bush said this weekend. "And when people are free, they express their opinions as they could not do before."

All those opinions, ventured so confidently, are now about to be tested in ways of which Bush and his followers may never have even dreamt of.
All this is generally called "DEMOCRACY".
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2003 05:27 pm
What is it good for?

Bob Herbert, in the NY Times:

Quote:
Last week Mr. Shultz's Bechtel Group was able to demonstrate exactly what wars are good for. The Bush administration gave it the first big Iraqi reconstruction contract, a prized $680 million deal over 18 months that puts Bechtel in the driver's seat for the long-term reconstruction of the country, which could cost $100 billion or more. Bechtel essentially was given a license to make money. And that license was granted in a closed-door process that was restricted to a handful of politically connected American companies.

When the George Bushes and the George Shultzes were banging the drums for war with Iraq, we didn't hear one word from them about the benefits that would be accruing to corporate behemoths like Bechtel. And we didn't pay much attention to the grotesque conflict of interest engaged in by corporate titans and their government cronies who were pushing young American men and women into the flames of a war that ultimately would pour billions of dollars into a very select group of corporate coffers.


Bechtel, incidentally, is the company in charge of the Big Dig in Boston:

Quote:
It was spring 1997, only a few weeks after he took an engineering job with the Big Dig's private-sector managers, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, when David Beck realized something was terribly amiss at the then-$10.8 billion project.

The FleetCenter was missing.

Not the actual FleetCenter, of course. The flashy facility had been grabbing headlines since a groundbreaking ceremony on April 28, 1993.

It was the design drawings. Bechtel had failed to depict the 19,600-seat arena in its preliminary designs, which were completed in October 1994, and instead showed an obstacle-free area for contractors to lay utility lines. Bechtel then failed to fix the problem before signing off on the final design drawings three years later.

"I sent out some e-mails, and made a couple of calls, saying, `Hey guys, we have a problem here,' " Beck recalled.Months passed, and construction work was under way before the designs reflected the FleetCenter's existence, records show.

"It fell through the cracks, if you will," William R. Mayer, a top Bechtel engineer, recently acknowledged.

But even though Bechtel's gaffe cost taxpayers $991,000, the company never paid a penny back for its mistake. And no one from the state or federal government ever asked.

A yearlong Globe investigation found hundreds of similar errors committed by the Big Dig's management company, which is led by one of the world's largest engineering firms, Bechtel Corp. of San Francisco, and includes another industry titan, Parsons Brinckerhoff of New York. The Globe determined that at least $1.1 billion in construction cost overruns, or two-thirds of the cost growth to date, are tied to Bechtel mistakes.

Yet, even as Bechtel's errors helped drive up the Big Dig's cost, the company never paid for any of its mistakes. Instead, it profited. To date, Bechtel has received more than $264 million beyond what its original contracts called for, in part because Bechtel received additional money to fix its errors, records show.


Boston Globe
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Post-war Iraq
  3. » Page 7
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 08:19:22