Iraqis will not tolerate 1 day of US presence in post-Sadaam Iraq.
They better prepare the Mother of all Exit Strategies.
What? You don’t think that the thankful iraqi people will throw themselves on US troops in a frenzy of unbridled delight? You haven’t heard the stories about how newly-liberated Iraqi children will strewn rose petals in the path of our soldiers, and blushing young maidens will offer themselves in gratitude to our boys for freeing their country and turning it into the 54th state? Have you been missing out on your daily dose of Faux News???
</sarcasm>
Thats a very biased statement to say they don’t care. They have 47 countries governments supporting this war, they may or may not have UN approval (the vote is out on whether 678, 687 & 1441 support a war), and its been 12 years of failed attempts to get Iraq to comply with international law. When did probable UN approval, 47 countries & a 12 year delay count as no concern, esp. when the war is said (publically at least) to be being fought to uphold international law that the UN is unable/unwilling to uphold? True, most of those countries are either bribed or sideline cheerleaders but to say this war is totally unilateral is a myth.
To say “the US doesn’t care at all about international approval” is a very biased thing to say. If that were true, we would nuke North Korea tomorrow.
Two thirds of which they blackmailed into support.
I’d say the authors of 1441 know pretty well whether it supports war or not. The vote isn’t out except for among apologists on the payroll of the supporting governments.
**
Patently false. Or were you talking about failed attempts to get the US to comply with its obligations?
**
The war cannot uphold something it is in violation of. And the countries would not support it if it wasn’t the US but someone else fighting it. As such, the mulilateralism is nothing short of propaganda the likes of which one is used from Iraq.
Hardly. After all, the US wouldn’t survive the economic backlash.
Hello? Pardon me, do you remember that mass bombing campaigns? Hello?
Really? I suppose his reign of terror and fear means nothing? I suppose the mass death means nothing? Money means nothing is can’t live to enjoy it…
You don’t get it. We’re not stuck in here with you. YOU are stuck in here with us. Be very, very thankful that we are the a moral nation. Otherwise you would learn what fear is. You hurt us, you die first. Economics, military, terrorism - one way or another, it all works to our advantage in the end.
I think Germany and Japan are good examples. They shared an educated citizenry, a strong economic potential, and a very different culture. In both cases, the USA was able to forge strong relationships, even if Schroeder is now stabbing us in the back. Plus, both had waves of terror and repression much less than is now in Iraq.
BTW: I’d like to know where this BS idea that the US put Saddam in power came from. True, we didn’t stop him, and later we gave him a small amount of aid against Iran. But he would have been there anyway. He didn’t need us to get power or keep it.
You mean that was similar to your flamebaits?
Sure, they mean something - but not much. Look at the modern Russian view of Stalin. It’s actually somewhat positive. They acknowledge the brutality, but also recognize that he built the country into heights it had never seen before in its history.
Look at the right-wing Pinochet apologists. They feel that his brutality and murderous regime wasn’t so bad because of the supposed economic benefits his rule brought. Look at the left-wing Castro apologists who gloss over his treatment of his own people because they agree with what he is doing economically.
Then look at Hussein. He gassed and conducted a genocidal campaign against a hated minority - the Kurds. Not very many Iraqis care about them, similar to Serbian feelings towards Albanians, or lots of other places. Indeed, his treatment of the Kurds may very well be seen in a positive light in Iraq. Sure, he has death squads, etc. But let’s face it, unless you were an opponent of the government (not most people in the large urban areas), you’re life was not too bad under Hussein - indeed, it was pretty damn good, and certainly better than it was after the US destroyed your infrastructure and prevented you from rebuilding it.
From the history books, apparently.
The facts respectfully disagree with you:
John Mace - the issue of the OP, and in fact the real issue today - is not whether or not the Iraqis will be better off without Saddam, but whether they think they will be. And whether they trust America any more than they trust Saddam. Trust and belief are influenced by emotion, memory, passion, fear.
—Hello? Pardon me, do you remember that mass bombing campaigns? Hello?—
Yes, I remember. But modern estimates suggest that they weren’t anywhere near as effective as they were portrayed as being. In fact, as we stepped up the bombing, Hitler was actually able to increase production of things like Panzers. The main reason we think this was possible is that the bombing helped Hitler do what he was unable to do on his own: destroy the civilian economy. Hitler, despite being the paragon of facism, never managed to really nationalize and militarize the economy via politics. But with ordinary Germans forced out of their conventional occupations by total disruption of their businesses, they became available to work in military factories. And though we bombed these factories, the Germans found it easy to move equipment out of the bombed out factory, repair it, and keep on going. Just goes to show you that not everything works quite as you’d expect.
My grandfather was a European-front bomber pilot (and later a POW).