Kuwait is not exactly the model we want for the middle east though. We are propping up some pretty nasty, undemocratic rulers there in the time being: perhaps when we have Iraq, we will be freer to stop doing so. In terms of freedom of religion and treatment women, even Iraq did better. Without Saddam in power oppressing everyone, I have a lot more hope for the Iraqis than I have for the Kuwaitis.
That’s a good point. There’s a limit to how much love the population will show a foreign military, when it isn’t changing the fundamental nature of their lives.
But for a military to come in and remove a brutal tyrant, and then give freedom and MONEY to the people, that’s a whole 'nuther thing.
Think about it - The Iraqi people should be rich. But under Saddam, the vast majority of the wealth went to his palaces, the military, and Baath party functionaries. The average Iraqi saw very little of the country’s oil money - which was greatly constricted due to sanctions in the first place.
Iraq has a population of about 24 million people. It currently has a GDP of about $2,500 per person, but again, most of that goes to the bad guys. The average Iraqi probably makes less than half of that.
Now consider that maybe 50 billion in aid will flow into the country in the next few years, bringing many, many jobs. And if oil exports go back up to pre-war levels, that’s what, 50 billion a year? That’s almost $3,000 per person just in oil revenue.
The average Iraqi’s standard of living should skyrocket over the next five years. Easily doubling or tripling. And every one of them will know that the United States is ultimately responsible for that.
On the other hand, the current recipients of Saddam’s largesse are bound to be bitter. Their standard of living will go down. I expect them to hate the U.S. with a white-hot passion. But that’s a small percentage of the population - less than 5% for sure.
Kuwait is with us. ‘Course, most of the rest of the Islamic world hates our guts, but hey, we got Europe, right…oh, wait, Germany and France are kinda miffed with us…but how about good old Russia! Yeah, ol’ “Pooty Poot” just dotes on GW, don’t he…oh, right, they voted agin us too. But, hell, China’s amost a quarter of the world, arent they, and they…voted against us too. Well, we always got our home-boys, Canada and Mexico, true blue…whats that sign say? Chinga los gringos!…funny way to express affection…anybody else starting to feel a mite…lonesome?
But we got Kuwait, by God! And Bulgaria! Hell, who needs friends, we got nukes!
Well, it depends on where that oil wealth and development aid really goes. Obviously, we’ve had decades of evidence that most of it never appreciably reaches the common man.
If Iraqi oil proceeds are put into some sort of national trust that doles out wealth to all the people, it will be a pretty darn unique and amazing situation. But is that really likely to happen?
Even if it doesn’t, but instead goes into building the infrastructure, improving schools, building hospitals, improving roads, etc., that will all trickle down to the people.
Iraq’s infrastructure is crumbling. Its factories are out of date, its transportation systems eroding. Saddam confiscated the wealth and spent it on himself, his cronies, and his military.
Put that money back into the economy, and the lives of the average Iraqis will improve markedly. The Iraqi people are modern, well educated, and have a long, deep history of culture and knowledge. Iraq could well become the jewel of the Middle East, given some time and enough freedom.
Part of what breeds hatred in the other middle eastern countries is general despair. Despotic leaders deflect blame away from their own policies and on to Americans. There are huge populations of unemployed young males with a lot of anger.
Create jobs, foster freedom so that people don’t feel trapped and helpless, and you’ll go a long way towards eliminating hatred. Look at Iran - as that country has become more wealthy and relatively more free, its population has become more moderate, and is probably the most pro-U.S. population of any of the major countries in the Middle East.
Swell, they’ll have jobs and we wont. Terrific.
Don’t you have something better to do? You know, this is Great Debates. You’re supposed to debate people. Dropping into threads to leave little snarky one-liners doesn’t contribute anything. It’s just an annoyance.
Oh? And giving me some shit is a contribution?
If it helps get the discussion back into a debate instead of a pissing contest, then yes, it’s a contribution.
I would posit the following hypothesis: that, under the stressful economic conditions that currently apply, there is a marked potential for a deplorable situation whereby our employment situation is negatively impacted by precisely the same efforts to optimize theres.
Happy now?
Why would the oil money go into any of that? I highly doubt that oil profits are going to be nationalized, but nothing short of that is going to pour oil money into the economy, and oil is historically a terrible thing to rely on if your goal is broad improvements in a country’s economy and industry.
And why should the Iraqi’s trust us when we blow in, past their cities and towns, going first right to their oil well “to secure them for the Iraqi people.” I mean, you wouldn’t learn it from watching any U.S. news coverage, but the U.S. and the U.K. are particularly ironic liberators, being that we are essentially the people they revolted against in the first place (we spent the first half the century quietly tussling with each other over whose oil companies would control the country), let alone the people that helped Saddam’s wing take over the revolution, supported him during some of his most brutual years, and then, after he invaded Kuwait, essentially trapped them in with him for 12 years.
Didn’t we already learn from Ronald Reagan that trickle-down theory doesn’t work?
And for “Middle Eastern allies of the United States whose citizens hate our guts,” I was rather disturbed to read this article while awaiting a smog check today:
Considering that Saudi Arabia is the United States’ second-most-favored Middle Eastern nation (after Israel), I think this is some spooky stuff.
(Then again, American intelligence believes that Saudi Arabia is due for a fundamentalist Islamic revolution any decade now. That’s part of the motivation for an Iraq war, so we can secure another source of oil for when we can no longer rely on the Saudis…)
Just as they all know who contributed to this humanitarian catastrophe in the first damn place ?
My point is that while these tit bits of subjective opinion might suit your message board arguments, out there in the real world peoples’ lives have context, and the context of Saddam’s regime is that it was the US and other western nations who actively aided and supported Saddam for the better part of two decades.
Iraqi’s saw realpolitik, US style all through that period, they saw the US of Bush41 with his despicable abandonment of them after he encouraged them to rise and soon they’ll witness the ‘rush for contracts’ that’ll rebuild their country at US prices on US contracts and paid for with their oil revenues. You expect them to be grateful ?
Have you a cite for this, specifically the second sentence? Thanks.
There’s no reason (logically speaking) why one couldn’t support improving jobs both there and here. But, empirically speaking, Bush loves corporations (big contributors), hates workers (he’s even slashing benefits for soldiers!), and is draining our economy (which means there won’t be much money for helping people find jobs or supporting them while they look). Which makes it hard to see the job situation improving back here at home, true.
Ah, yes. The money. Party is almost over, and the participants are warily looking to sneak a peek at the bill. Oh, my. Look at all those commas and zeros.
Expect an administration push for UN “participation” in post-war Iraq. In the sense that we would be quite pleased to have them help pay for it, as long as they don’t get any foolish ideas. Our erstwhile allies would be entirely justified in a stance “You broke it, you fix it.”
First off, of course, the “rebuilding the infrastructure”. We clearly have plans for that. We have even let some of the contracts by a process of selection mercifully free of the entantlements of “competitive bidding”. Selection was made, apparently, by examing who had the wisdom and probity to make the correct contributions to American political discourse.
“The envelope please! Why, look, its…Haliburton!” (The assembled crowd gasps in surprise. Haliburton respectfully declines due to an entirely unexpected deficiency in raw chutzpah.)
And so the oil revenues, held “in trust” for the Iraqi people, will flow to America. You think they might notice? I think they might.
Watch carefully. Your distrusting correspondent suspects that a nifty new slogan is a-borning, one that puts a nice gloss on making Iraq pay for its “liberation and guidance” - that is, “invasion and occupation”. Its a bit like the Marshall plan, if the Marshall in question is the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Thanks to elucidator, I now understand that America’s leadership is evil in a James-Bond-villain sort of way–i.e., inherently incapable of anything good. We don’t even need to wait for the evil to occur; it’s simply inevitable. Thanks for the insight!
Sam! Sam! Snarky drive by here, Sam. Come a running!
Boy, Bob, you just wait till Sam gets here!
You got me all wrong, brother! I meant every word. I believe now that Bush and his gang are evil, super-genius arch criminals. Somebody just needs to call Batman and all this trouble will be taken care of poste haste.