This question is prompted by an interview on the radio with an Iraq women, saying things I already knew.
Asked about the recent market place bombing, she said she blamed Hussian for all the deaths Iraq has suffered. But she blames America too. Because they armed him and gave him power to begin with. And now she’s wondering about American troops coming in the name of freedom and democracy when they were willing to arm a dictator when it was in their best interests to do so.
Seems like a reasonable thing to be worried about.
If we overthrow Saddam, are greatest allies should be those who have fought against him from the beginning. But it seems to me we’re talking "freedom and democracy "now, and “realpolitik”, then.
Uuuuhhh. Says it all what? And whatever your trying to insinuate, what does it have to do with the OP of getting Iraqis to trust us?
To answer the OP, it’s going to be tough, very tough. There’s not just the matter of backing him against Iran in the '80s. There’s also the little matter of encourging them to rebel in '91 & then not helping them. All I can say is it’s going to take time, patience, and a lot of good will gestures on our part.
I’m suggesting that the Oil-for-Food program might reflect poorly on the United States, giving the impression that we really don’t give a damn about them, rather we’ll only help them if they give us what we want.
Sorry, but the example, no matter how often repeated, is totally inapplicable. Germany and Japan are so different from Iraq that suggesting they prove a valid example only increases the distrust.
Huh??? Germany was a MUCH more serious enemy of the US than Iraq is. With our help, Germany quickly became a world economic power again. Compare that to what East Germany experienced.
What differences are you talking about? Pls clarify.
You are mistaken on several issues. With the help you refer to, I assume you mean the Marshal plan? By the time those funds were released, Europen, including German production, were already an inch away of hitting pre-war levels. The help merely supported the trend, prevented it from running out and forced western European countries to cooperate. It also was merely providing the means to work with. The actual work was done by the locals. In the case of Iraq, the US has already shown to have no intention of letting the locals do the work, but has already given out contracts to US companies. The US has likewise already declared having the intentions to let the Iraqis pay for that with the oil. As such, the Iraqis, unlike the Germans, will NOT get to rebuild their country, they only get to pay for it. That is a serious humiliation of the locals not present in the German example.
Second, while Germany was an enemy of the US, they did not have the sense of betrayal that the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq have, who blame the death of countless of their brothers on getting shafted by the US in an US-incited revolt. As such, there is already a high level of distrust not necessarily given in Germany which had numerous pre-war contacts in the US, knowing the people there much better. In the Iraq, most such contacts were by the Sunnite minority which was running the country, not by the Shiites who will pose an almost two-thirds majority.
While there are a bunch of Iraqi expats, including in the US, they are seriously detached from developments in Iraq in the last decade, and as such will have trouble generating trust for the US with the locals.
Third, Germany did not have any other countries it trusted inciting distrust against the US after the war. Iraq’s Shiite majority, on the other hand, will be closely allied with Iran, where many Shiites have fled.
they shouldn’t. You didn’t even include the massacres of the Shiites in the south, where the US told them to revolt then left them to die. If i were an Iraqi i would be very wary of US amorality.
However, international relations change constantly. The USSR was our enemy 20 years ago now they are somewhat of an ally. Support for the US is dropping fast in Europe, Germany & France were in a major war 60 years ago. You can’t say that what one administration does in one decade is the same as what another will do, by and large (considering that Bush II’s administration is similiar to his fathers).
The Shiites were massacred in the South because George Bush Sr. made the mistake of listening to the futile UN and refused to enter Iraq. He also believed they had a fighting chance. That was his second mistake.
Oliver: Ever heard of the Berlin Air lift? As far as I’m concerned the Iraqis can think whatever they want. They didn’t get rid of thier megalomaniac dictator so we’re doing it for them. If they want to trust the UN, perhaps they should talk to a few Ruwandans or Bosnians or Kosovars. Or perhaps they should just keep trusting S.H. He’s been telling them for years how horrible the US is.
Why should they trust the US? Open your eyes and take a wild assed guess.
My understanding of events is that the US only had a UN resolution that allowed them to liberate Kuwait and that was all. Am I really wrong about this? Was it because of the Saudis?
I’ll ask for a cite on that. In particular, that German domestic production was so little affected by World War II bombing, that western European countries were forced to cooperate, and that preventing the trend from running out made US economic aid to Germany and Japan meaningless.
I assume you are talking about the contract to extinguish the oil-well fires. You do remember, do you not, who set the fires? Not to mention that putting out such fires is highly specialized work, for which defeated Iraqis are unlikely to have the expertise.
As far as rebuilding the rest of post-war Iraq, I seriously doubt that no Iraqi construction companies will be allowed to participate. If you mean they will not be allowed to rebuild their military capabilities, and attempts to procure WMD, well, no duh they won’t.
I wonder why German and European Jews did not share the same sense of betrayal, in light of the many accusations that the Allies did not bomb the trains taking them to the concentration camps, or otherwise work against the attempted genocide committed against them.
East Germany certainly did. They were re-integrated into western Europe nonetheless, as soon as it was made practicable by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Who says they trust the UN, either? My guess is that the Iraqis mostly trust the Iraqis, and even then, maybe not.
The Iraqis have no reason to trust the United States. None whatsoever. Nobody seriously doubts the U.S. (or any other country) does anything for any reason aside from its own interests. The United States would, and has, committed acts of war against DEMOCRATIC governments to get its way. As the joke goes, already used by someone else in another thread, no sane person expects someone to trust you after you killed their family just because you’re giving them some surplus food.
You overlook the obvious fact that is in the US’s interests that Iraq become a stable, properous nation. That was our goal in Germany and Japan after WII and it worked.
But the fact of the matter is that the Iraqis have only 2 choices at this point. They can trust the US or they can trust Saddam Hussein. You can argue hypotheticals if you want, but the reallity of the situation is those 2 possibilities. So, pick one. It should not be too difficult.
