Here’s the problem: The Iraqis, after Saddam’s fall, might decide that they’d rather ally themsleves strategically with their Arab neighbours. They might decide to nationalize the oil, for all we know. Would it be true liberation if the couldn’t do that ?
If the US liberates Iraq and then stipulates where the oil wealth is directed, it’ll look like highway robbery.
Iraqis: “Thank you, noble liberators. By the way, our democratically elected parliament has just passed a law, making our oil wealth a national ressource for the next 10 years, to be used for rebuilding schools, roads, sewage systems etc. etc. Plus we’ll need an army to defend our territory, and you left ours in pretty poor condition. We have a nation to build, you see ? And if anyone is going to make money on Iraqi oil, we’d rather it be Iraqis. Anyway, we’d appreciate it if you could - well - get out of the way, as it were. Oh, and we’ve just joined OPEC.”
US: “Well, when we said “free”, we might’ve forgotten to mention that we have a bill for our trouble, here. Perhaps your parliament had better think again ?”
Some of us made other predictions months before that which are unfolding in a chillingly accurate way. But you know what? It doesn’t fucking matter because nobody in the goddamned Pentagon listened to a fucking thing we said!
And I’ll tell you something else, too, now that I’m getting good and worked up. I have experienced nothing–nothing–so exasperating as to have to sit here and watch my honest and well-considered opinion, which I gave three and a half months ago, get picked up by that fucking moron Rush Limbaugh and spoonfed to the bullet-headed conservatives like it’s a fresh new bottle of Gerber.
You sonsabitches! I told you so! I fucking told you! AHHHHHHH! AHHHHHH!
Oh, shit. I swore I wouldn’t do that, but you know what? Fuck all y’all. At least I feel a little better now–or would, if American kids weren’t fucking dying because God forbid the liberals might know something about military history. America should stick to basketball.
Yes… basketball. I also predicted that Marquette would beat Kentucky. That was a difficult prediction to make, and at least I stand to make some money off of it.
Fair or not, it has bugger all to do with liberation, far less with democracy. If the Iraqis have to pay tribute - I do* beg your pardon, I of course mean “war reparations” - they haven’t been liberated. Democracy, liberation - those words mean that people are being left free to choose their own goals.
It seems you think it a laudable goal to give the Iraqis a US-friendly puppet government, fair enough, but then at least be frank about it. (Never mind the abysmal US track record doing exactly that. What’ll you do when a sizable part of the Iraqi population say “Screw you, Yanks” and riot against paying ? Send the Marines ? Tell your friendly Gvt. to clamp down on dissenters ? 1980s Iran, anyone ?)
The last time the concept of letting the conquered party pay for the war was implemented was in the Versailles treaty. I invite you to ponder the less than astounding success of that particular agreement.
There is, in your simple comment, a good encapsulation of US idiocy about this war.
You think that it would be fair for the US to send a bill to Iraq for doing them the favour of killing their citizens, invading them, and bombing them into the stone age. You think this, probably, because you are so far up your own ass that you don’t realise that there are people out there who don’t actually think that the US’s ass is the place the sun shines out of. They don’t actually want to be invaded. They didn’t ask you to, they don’t want you to, and it sure as hell would not be fair for them to have to pay the fucking bill.
One of the reasons that the war is not going so well is that the US (or elements of it) have gone into it thinking that the minute you turned up, the whole Iraqi populace would be dancing in the streets and welcoming you.
Actually, they think of you as invaders. You know, invaders. Like the Germans, or the Vikings, or whoever. NOT like knights in shining fucking shining armor, which seems to be how some of you think of yourselves.
Because, Princhester, when it comes down to it, these are my people.
Perhaps I am not as highly evolved as you are, Princhester. But I love my family, and they come first.
I believe strongly in the ideals of my nation, and they come second.
I have great hope for the future of humanity, and it comes third.
I am empathetic towards the pain and suffering of others. I have no wish for cruelty, for death and pain. But these are my brothers, my kin. With them, I stand, without them, I fall.
I will sacrifice myself, if I see a reason, fully chosen. I will walk in, unblinkered, to a danger that may cause my death. For someone I don’t even know. I’ve done it a few times. Nothing major, really. Once, someone fell off the tracks in front of a train, for example.
But if given a choice between my people and someone else’s… Mine come first.
Would you prefer I ignored the fate of my family to help others? Would you rather I wished that, if a death were to come, the Americans would die? Why would I want that?
I agree with your second post Princhester: we do tend to be rather hubristic. However, I have to hope that Iraq will be a much better place after this war if only to see something positive arise out of this idiocy. Just remember that the very same 'mericans you’re damning are the ones who’re going to be spilling their blood in some shithole of an Iraqi town or working two jobs to make ends meet after our economy tanks. I realize it’s hard, but I keep hoping the world separates us ‘normal’ citizens from our fuckheaded ‘leaders’.
This is the point that I brought up in Collunsbury’s thread, that he did not see fit to answer.
It’s a darn good thing we see ourselves as knights in shining fucking shining armor. Because, god forbid, what would happen if we saw ourselves as Vikings, and liked it? Or, god forbid, holy crusaders?
I think I kind of assumed they would do that. I don’t really think it will be a problem. However, I don’t know who owns those oil deposits now. If Saddam or his cronies own them (so that in essence they’re already nationalized), no problem at all. I never really bought that this war was about oil, considering just this sort of total unpredictability over what will become of the oil wealth. If they wanna nationalize it and join with the protectionist monopolists in OPEC, well that’s still more oil on the market for us then there was before.
Of course, if the oil deposits are presently owned by private parties not affiliated with the Saddam regime, then nationalization would take on it’s usual character of being equivalent to theft. Nationalizing private property is about the most non-liberating thing a government can do, and I can’t imagine it being side by side with any concept sharing the same root word as “liberty”. But again, whatever flies their kite is fine with me, they can be a bunch of property-thieving communists if they want to, if you’re going to liberate a country you have to follow it up by allowing Wilsonian self-determination to take its course. Heck, if they wanna split Iraq up and form two countries, if that’s the people’s choice then so be it.
The only conflict here would be if American companies owned some of the private property to be nationalized, as they did when Castro took power and decided to just take it all. As I don’t think that’s the case, I think there’s no legitimate quarrel over the oil forthcoming.
My question was directed at elucidator and 5 time champ in particular because they were against the war, but now see themselves as having no option but to be for it.
They may be lemmings, they may be going over a cliff, you may disagree with them doing so, but dammit, they are your brother lemmings, so over you go.
You think (beforehand) that the plan of one’s brother lemmings (going over a cliff) is stupid. Then they starting going over the cliff. You then decide that your only option is to support them in this “endeavor”.
Why precisely wouldn’t one express one’s love of one’s brother lemmings by continuing to attempt to stop them going over the cliff, rather than supporting them?
RexDart, I believe we’re in agreement - my post was in response to Spit’s “they get liberty, we get oil” statement. Should have made that clearer, sorry.
Firstly, in fact, expressing love of one’s brother lemmings by continuing to attempt to stop them going over the cliff is darn good.
What is not good is wishing one’s brother lemmings, for example, suffer horribly going over the cliff.
Hoping that there is a way to stop the war, working towards that, is good. Understanding that the troops are following lawful orders given to them is good.
Wishing that, when it comes down to it, our troops die instead of theirs… not so good. The reason to support the war is that, if it were to end right now. If the troops were to pack up and leave… what would be left? Devastation, a political turmoil, and a shattered political will not unlike after Vietnam.
In short, increased global and local instability. If the war continues, at least there will be an end, and that end will have a focus. With great good luck, the middle east will not devour itself. It is far more likely to unify against us instead.
I’m sorry, where’s the excluded middle in the example? You gave two examples. These are the connotations I got from them.
One, the shining knight who seeks to protect his land and people.
Two, the Viking out to rape and pillage.
I added 3: The Holy Crusader on a blind course to enforce what is right, no matter what pain it inflicts on the other side.
Option one certainly is the most merciful of the lot. If you think you are a good guy, who wants to help and defend people, you’re certainly a lot more likely to act like a good guy, than if you’re only out to rape and pillage.
E-Sabbath, what you say does not answer the questions, or has nothing to do with the questions, that I put to elucidator and 5 times champ, who did not qualify their positions in the way you do.
As to the excluded middle, I gave two examples. I certainly did not suggest they were the only possible ways for nations to behave. You then said:
Maybe I misunderstood, but the implication seemed to be that it is either vikings, or crusaders or knights in shining armor. I agree with you if what you meant was just “if we have to be one, best to be knights in shining armor”.
But the way your post reads, it seemed you were excluding “none of the above”.