Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
will "accelerating handover" achieve anything ?
Topic Started: Nov 13 2003, 10:18 PM (549 Views)
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ds9074
Nov 17 2003, 04:11 AM
What happens if the day after elections in Iraq the new leader orders allied troops to leave Iraq immediatley and, for example, tears up all the contracts the present admin has made with American companies and makes new ones or goes for renationalisation?

As for this 'post-liberation' business, we INVADED a SOVERIEGN country and we are now OCCUPYING that country. Thats the facts of the matter however we prefer to justify it.

Hopefully, DS, that won't happen. Still, if it is the case and a result of their own independent actions due to a duly elected government then we have to ive with it. Do I think that is likely? No , I do not. I think that those that are elected, for the most part will want to do business with the countries that enabled their election in the first place...

Yes, we invaded Iraq. Unlike the UK, the US stated several reasons for taking this action. It does not change the fact that liberation is an equally viable description of what it is that has been done there. We are now there to finish the job that goes with putting the place back together that will hopefully make it a better place than it was to start with...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I never said I would prefer Saddam was still in power, just that we should be clear about what we did.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
I hate to be a wet blanket but does anyone really think the attacks will stop once the Iraqis take more control ? All transferring control will do is make it easier for another brutal regime to slowly take control, maybe over many years, and certainly once the troops are gone.

Surely the attacks on troops will continue until they are gone completely from Iraq. Then, the attacks will turn inwards on other competing Iraqi factions until one - the most brutal - wins out.

The people committing the attacks don't care who is "running" the country because as long as foreign troops are on their soil - like they were in Saudi Arabia pre 9/11 but are now all gone - the attacks will continue until "the invaders" withdraw..... IMHO. Then they can get on with taking over.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
nztrekkie
Nov 17 2003, 05:53 PM
I hate to be a wet blanket but does anyone really think the attacks will stop once the Iraqis take more control ? All transferring control will do is make it easier for another brutal regime to slowly take control, maybe over many years, and certainly once the troops are gone.

Sounds like you don’t think much of the Iraqi people, - What do you suggest just nuke them all and be done with it?

Are you saying that change will never happen to that region of the world?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Dandandat
Nov 17 2003, 04:59 PM
nztrekkie
Nov 17 2003, 05:53 PM
I hate to be a wet blanket but does anyone really think the attacks will stop once the Iraqis take more control ? All transferring control will do is make it easier for another brutal regime to slowly take control, maybe over many years, and certainly once the troops are gone.

Sounds like you don’t think much of the Iraqi people, - What do you suggest just nuke them all and be done with it?

Are you saying that change will never happen to that region of the world?

mindless nuking of anyone is bill's solution; where do you get the idea I might suggest it ?

The British had to carpet bomb and use chemical weapons after WW1 to subdue Iraq, then they installed a Saudi as King, then they left. Then all the various tribes, religions and ethnic groups fought alot with coup after coup, one PM being assassinated.

Eventually it was the iron rule of the baathists who united the country, albeit with force. Now there is no iron rule anymore, so who is going to run things? Do you really think no group in Iraq is going to use this opportunuity of kaos to make a claim to Iraq once again once the troops leave, even if it takes a decade or more ?

I'm sure the Iraqi people are as kind as genrous as anyone on the planet - how they took care of Jessica Lynch testafies to that.

However, like so many countries that have been "created" by well meaning colonial powers over the last century, Iraq is really 3 separate "countries" being forced together as one. It may take decades for them all to live in peace together.

Just like any major change to a country's make up, it can not be forced upon it. We have been debating in NZ for years whether to ditch the Queen and have our own head of state. A majority still want the Queen in NZ but I can see one day that will slowly change and then the change will be made at that time. When will this happen ? who knows. It will happen when it is time to happen.

Change can not be forced upon a people, no matter how well intentioned it is.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
ds9074
Nov 17 2003, 07:11 AM
What happens if the day after elections in Iraq the new leader orders allied troops to leave Iraq immediatley and, for example, tears up all the contracts the present admin has made with American companies and makes new ones or goes for renationalisation?

I doubt that they will do that. If American troops are booted out by the new government, then who's going to protect them from Saddam and his men seizing power once again? I'll tell you right now that Saddam won't take kindly to them "keeping the seat warm" for him and will probably do a Houdini act on them and make them disappear.

Ditto to if they break their contracts with us.

The new government wants to stay in power. For the time being, America is the means to stay in power. Once we are no longer the means, two things can happen. They can either speak for us or against us. It all depends on how we handle the situations. We are in a country with people who have been shut out from all radical Muslem doctrine and who took everything that the government said with a heavy helping of scepticism. They did not know what to make of Americans or any other Coalition force. We are working with a political clean slate here, we can either gain an ally or an enemy out of this.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
nztrekkie
Nov 17 2003, 04:53 PM
I hate to be a wet blanket but does anyone really think the attacks will stop once the Iraqis take more control ? All transferring control will do is make it easier for another brutal regime to slowly take control, maybe over many years, and certainly once the troops are gone.

Surely the attacks on troops will continue until they are gone completely from Iraq. Then, the attacks will turn inwards on other competing Iraqi factions until one - the most brutal - wins out.

The people committing the attacks don't care who is "running" the country because as long as foreign troops are on their soil - like they were in Saudi Arabia pre 9/11 but are now all gone - the attacks will continue until "the invaders" withdraw..... IMHO. Then they can get on with taking over.

Nah, I disagree. I think that you rather enjoy being a wet blanket. :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Who said the attacks on on Coalition troops would cease? There are enough people in Iraq and throughout the Middle East that will continue to despise the US and the West unless we embrace Islam (these are called radical fundamentaist muslims). This does not preclude the possibility that the democratic process can work in Iraq or other Middle Eastern Nations. Iran, for all its faults and flaws, has had a relatively reliable election process going on for years now. Surprisingly, their parliament has been dominated by moderates for th past decade. What's the problem there? The Council of Clerics that have supreme authority to interpret the Qu'ran, Haddith, and Shari'a and thereby override the democratic process that is still trying to push itself into the light...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Nov 17 2003, 05:18 PM
mindless nuking of anyone is bill's solution; where do you get the idea I might suggest it ?


Funny, I've never said we should "mindlessly nuke" anyone. Then again, you never put much thought (okay, I'll just call it "mindless") into your posts.

By the way, I agree with 38... you get some kind of perverse joy out of trying to be a wet blanket... probably of the LBJ sort.

Quote:
 
Eventually it was the iron rule of the baathists who united the country, albeit with force. Now there is no iron rule anymore, so who is going to run things?


Gee, it sounds like you miss your old buddy, Saddam. You know, the Nazis were all for a little iron rule.

Quote:
 
Do you really think no group in Iraq is going to use this opportunuity of kaos to make a claim to Iraq once again once the troops leave, even if it takes a decade or more ?


Yes, we ran Germany for a DECADE after World War II ended. We still have troops there now. I guess you haven't heard, but our troops aren't leaving Iraq. We'll be there "as long as it takes."
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
jjtrek
Lieutenant Commander
Could someone please tell me why, when the War in Iraq was started, George Bush didn't have an exit plan, and why he still doesn't?

Julia
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
jjtrek
Nov 18 2003, 01:24 PM
Could someone please tell me why, when the War in Iraq was started, George Bush didn't have an exit plan, and why he still doesn't?

Julia

In case you weren't paying attention, all that was layed out by the Bush administration before the war in a very public forum. And on multiple occasions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
38957
Nov 18 2003, 01:56 PM
jjtrek
Nov 18 2003, 01:24 PM
Could someone please tell me why, when the War in Iraq was started, George Bush didn't have an exit plan, and why he still doesn't?

Julia

In case you weren't paying attention, all that was layed out by the Bush administration before the war in a very public forum. And on multiple occasions.

I'm sorry - I wasn't paying attention - what was / is / will be the "exit stratedgy" then ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
What is a stratedgy?

If you mean the exit strategy, it is the democratization of Iraq, like we did in Japan and (West) Germany. Further, we will stamp out the Ba'ath party so that its name is only spoken in Hell.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 18 2003, 05:55 PM
What is a stratedgy?

If you mean the exit strategy, it is the democratization of Iraq, like we did in Japan and (West) Germany. Further, we will stamp out the Ba'ath party so that its name is only spoken in Hell.

yes, that does sound like the sophistication of the current exit strategy, but perhaps 38957 can answer as well.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
It doesn't have to be sophisticated. It has to work.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus