Monochromaticism.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 12:05am

Stormbringer wrote:I have a question for you Ando, what would you like to have been done? Not in the idealized world, but in the real world.

How about - and this will be a fucking astounding suggestion to some of you, now that a war IS underway, that when its finished, as it inevitably will be and Saddam removed from power or "disappeared". Why not, when it is all finished have some truly free and fair elections? How about implenting a Westminister system of government so the fighting can be done in the house of reps, not in the streets? How about America not turn it into a territory or satellite state as I fear the result will be.

I don't subscribe to Bush's domino theory, but I think that having a democratically elected government that is representative of the peoples wishes would be a good fucking thing.

And please, feel free to tell me exactly why that wouldn't work without the use of the words:

Islamofascists, al'Qaeda and "hatred of everything that is good, free and American".

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-03-26 12:07am

Durran Korr wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Shinova wrote:Liberating and then just leaving leaves the field open for anyone to take control of Iraq. If we appoint a leader, then fine but we'll still have a war-torn Iraq.

Look what happened in Afghanistan. The US took out the Taliban, appointed the leader, left, and apparently "forgot" to give aid to the Afghan government. Now that country's in a state of chaos and disarray.

We will have to help rebuild Iraq, so we can't just up and leave once Saddam and the likes of him are removed. After all, we started the war, now we help rebuild after things settle down.

Once Iraq's back up to speed, then I'm all for handing complete control of the country back to the Iraqi people.
But that will probably not happen They will end uplke Peurto Rico. A US territory. We will probably take oer their oil supplies. Sure they will be abe to pick their government, but we will be calling the shots...fucked up(pure speculation, but it has happened in the past)
As the State Department has repeatedly stated, the Iraqi oil reserves will be transferred to the new government and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq.

But how true is that? I am not disutng the oil being turned over the the new iraqi gv...But what will ths gov consist of? I dont trust the current admin in the least

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-26 12:08am

Here's what I want to have happen:

Sadaam is assasinated. Plain and simple. We won't say that we did it, the Brittish won't own up to it, and there will be some fabricated story about a renegade soldier who flipped out, shot Sadaam, and became an international hero before he was shot by a bodyguard. No evidence, no loose ends, just simple "wag-the-dog" type stuff.

The US PULLS THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Israel, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iran, too. I'm talking about ending Middle-Eastern terrorism by cutting off their weapons supply source: The USA. I'm talking about NOT installing a new regime in Iraq after we get rid of Sadaam, because there is more than one Iraqi who is ready and willing to take over that country and install some form of legitimate government. Were we to install a new regime, we'd have a situation like we had in Iran in the 1950's, and we all know how that worked out.

Now if you want to call that a victory for the USA, then fine. Do so. But it's more of a victory for those "countries full of little brown people" (Robin Williams) because now they are free to truly live the way they want to live, and would gain control of their own exports. They have gained liberation, albeit at the hands of the US.

My two cents.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-26 12:09am

weemadando wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I have a question for you Ando, what would you like to have been done? Not in the idealized world, but in the real world.
How about - and this will be a fucking astounding suggestion to some of you, now that a war IS underway, that when its finished, as it inevitably will be and Saddam removed from power or "disappeared". Why not, when it is all finished have some truly free and fair elections? How about implenting a Westminister system of government so the fighting can be done in the house of reps, not in the streets? How about America not turn it into a territory or satellite state as I fear the result will be.

I don't subscribe to Bush's domino theory, but I think that having a democratically elected government that is representative of the peoples wishes would be a good fucking thing.

And please, feel free to tell me exactly why that wouldn't work without the use of the words:

Islamofascists, al'Qaeda and "hatred of everything that is good, free and American".

I presume our lack of democracy in the coming years will be becuase we dont want the uber rightwings in power - similar to why we back saudi without elections, so their terrorists dont become the power.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-03-26 12:09am

Durran Korr wrote: As the State Department has repeatedly stated, the Iraqi oil reserves will be transferred to the new government and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq.

And if the US gov doesn't follow through with that promise, then there goes a big portion of my support for the administration. And I bet a whole lot of other US citizens and people around the world would be extremely pissed too.

While I support taking out Saddam, I don't like Bush's overly aggressive approach. I would've done more to find the connections the three main opposers to the war (France, Germany, and Russia) have with Iraq, and use that info to more or less blackmail the three countries into.....oh wait, that's just as bad, ain't it.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-26 12:11am

heh. realpolitik for you.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-26 12:12am

But how true is that? I am not disutng the oil being turned over the the new iraqi gv...But what will ths gov consist of? I dont trust the current admin in the least

In any case, I find it much more reasonable to put trust in a high-profile, very public committment made over and over again by the State Department than I do in wild speculation. I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that oil is the real goal of this war (if the U.S. was solely interested in oil, we would have seized the Kuwaiti reserves 10 years ago).

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-26 12:14am

and attacking saudi now. heh.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-26 12:14am

Shinova wrote:
Durran Korr wrote: As the State Department has repeatedly stated, the Iraqi oil reserves will be transferred to the new government and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq.
And if the US gov doesn't follow through with that promise, then there goes a big portion of my support for the administration. And I bet a whole lot of other US citizens and people around the world would be extremely pissed too.

While I support taking out Saddam, I don't like Bush's overly aggressive approach. I would've done more to find the connections the three main opposers to the war (France, Germany, and Russia) have with Iraq, and use that info to more or less blackmail the three countries into.....oh wait, that's just as bad, ain't it.

And it isn't just the U.S. government, in any case, Blair has also made this statement repeatedly.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-03-26 12:14am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Here's what I want to have happen:

Sadaam is assasinated. Plain and simple. We won't say that we did it, the Brittish won't own up to it, and there will be some fabricated story about a renegade soldier who flipped out, shot Sadaam, and became an international hero before he was shot by a bodyguard. No evidence, no loose ends, just simple "wag-the-dog" type stuff.

The US PULLS THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Israel, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iran, too. I'm talking about ending Middle-Eastern terrorism by cutting off their weapons supply source: The USA. I'm talking about NOT installing a new regime in Iraq after we get rid of Sadaam, because there is more than one Iraqi who is ready and willing to take over that country and install some form of legitimate government. Were we to install a new regime, we'd have a situation like we had in Iran in the 1950's, and we all know how that worked out.

Now if you want to call that a victory for the USA, then fine. Do so. But it's more of a victory for those "countries full of little brown people" (Robin Williams) because now they are free to truly live the way they want to live, and would gain control of their own exports. They have gained liberation, albeit at the hands of the US.

My two cents.

good yougling, smart youngling

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 12:14am

How about - and this will be a fucking astounding suggestion to some of you, now that a war IS underway, that when its finished, as it inevitably will be and Saddam removed from power or "disappeared". Why not, when it is all finished have some truly free and fair elections? How about implenting a Westminister system of government so the fighting can be done in the house of reps, not in the streets? How about America not turn it into a territory or satellite state as I fear the result will be.

I've got to agreee with you. I think we should after a fairly administerd interim government allow the to have elections and then turn the country over to them.

I do worry about the possibility that we'll pull and Afghanistan and make just token repairs and move on. And I worry about the vassal state thing as well. But then again I'm sure if a freely elected government does turn out to be US-friendly, every last country will be screaming "Imperialism"!

I don't subscribe to Bush's domino theory, but I think that having a democratically elected government that is representative of the peoples wishes would be a good fucking thing.

Democracy is no guarentee of things turning out well.

And please, feel free to tell me exactly why that wouldn't work without the use of the words:

Islamofascists, al'Qaeda and "hatred of everything that is good, free and American".

There is the possibility that they will choose to elect a taliban-esque government. They might be the most secular population in the Middle East but that isn't saying much. The region is riddled with Muslim fundamentalists. And that'll be a major problem if they get elected.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-26 12:15am

The US PULLS THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Israel, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iran, too. I'm talking about ending Middle-Eastern terrorism by cutting off their weapons supply source: The USA. I'm talking about NOT installing a new regime in Iraq after we get rid of Sadaam, because there is more than one Iraqi who is ready and willing to take over that country and install some form of legitimate government. Were we to install a new regime, we'd have a situation like we had in Iran in the 1950's, and we all know how that worked out.

Amen to that...and pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe while we're at it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 12:16am

And Ando, I'd still like to hear what you would have done as opposed to what Bush did. Because out of all the peace protestors I've heard, none have ever had a workable fix for the situation as it was in Iraq.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-03-26 12:17am

It'd be really funny if a democracy is instituted and it's a perfect representation of the democratic ideal- and they elect Saddam.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-26 12:17am

Durran Korr wrote:
The US PULLS THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Israel, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iran, too. I'm talking about ending Middle-Eastern terrorism by cutting off their weapons supply source: The USA. I'm talking about NOT installing a new regime in Iraq after we get rid of Sadaam, because there is more than one Iraqi who is ready and willing to take over that country and install some form of legitimate government. Were we to install a new regime, we'd have a situation like we had in Iran in the 1950's, and we all know how that worked out.
Amen to that...and pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe while we're at it.

why?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-03-26 12:18am

Enforcer Talen wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
The US PULLS THE FUCK OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST! I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Israel, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iran, too. I'm talking about ending Middle-Eastern terrorism by cutting off their weapons supply source: The USA. I'm talking about NOT installing a new regime in Iraq after we get rid of Sadaam, because there is more than one Iraqi who is ready and willing to take over that country and install some form of legitimate government. Were we to install a new regime, we'd have a situation like we had in Iran in the 1950's, and we all know how that worked out.
Amen to that...and pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe while we're at it.
why?

Because they're all rich enough to defend themselves.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-26 12:20am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote: But that will probably not happen They will end uplke Peurto Rico. A US territory. We will probably take oer their oil supplies. Sure they will be abe to pick their government, but we will be calling the shots...fucked up(pure speculation, but it has happened in the past)
As the State Department has repeatedly stated, the Iraqi oil reserves will be transferred to the new government and used to finance the reconstruction of Iraq.
But how true is that? I am not disutng the oil being turned over the the new iraqi gv...But what will ths gov consist of? I dont trust the current admin in the least

What will the government consist of? An American-sympathetic council or leader with very loose oil-trading policies. And what does that government do with the oil that has been rightly turned back into their hands? Sell it to Americans. Cheap. WICKED cheap. (Excuse the Bostonism.) Meantime, the USA offers protection as reciprocation, but seeing as a good chunk of the Middle East has already allied itself with the USA, there's hardly anyone to protect Iraq from. Besides, most non-Arab, non-US-allied countries have the technological capacity of a sweaty nutsack and would never be able to penetrate US-funded defenses. But so long as we're lining Iraqi pockets with bullets and guns (and only a little bit of money and food) they'll give us our oil cheap.

That might as well have been in Bush's campaign when he started running. The whole nation saw this coming.

My government disgusts me. But at very least it protects my right to say so.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 12:20am

Stormbringer wrote:
There is the possibility that they will choose to elect a taliban-esque government. They might be the most secular population in the Middle East but that isn't saying much. The region is riddled with Muslim fundamentalists. And that'll be a major problem if they get elected.

And America has how many redneck Southern Baptist sons of bitches in power who believe in creationism?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 12:24am

weemadando wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:There is the possibility that they will choose to elect a taliban-esque government. They might be the most secular population in the Middle East but that isn't saying much. The region is riddled with Muslim fundamentalists. And that'll be a major problem if they get elected.
And America has how many redneck Southern Baptist sons of bitches in power who believe in creationism?

Cut the shit. That's a red herring and you know it.

Those Muslims wackos would kill you as readly as any American and never give a damn that you're anti-war. It those guys are elected (and there's a chance they will) then we have a major problem. I have no idea how it would or should be dealt with. That's a problem, I'm willing to bet you don't have a solution to.

You strike me the same as most of the anti-war crowd. Against just about everything but no solution to the problems.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 12:25am

And you still haven't answered my question as to what you would have done about the Iraq situation in the first place.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2003-03-26 12:25am

If you occupy a nation and refuse to let them be lead by who the majority want to be lead by then it's hardly a liberation is it?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-26 12:27am

course, if the majority would throw themselves back into the situation we just paid 90 billion to get them out of, it's not much good either?

a nice little occupation for a few years, and then let them loose.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 12:27am

Spyder wrote:If you occupy a nation and refuse to let them be lead by who the majority want to be lead by then it's hardly a liberation is it?

But it wouldn't be any liberation either if we handed it off to a bunch of religious shitheads hell bent on oppressing and/or killing every the disagree with them.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 12:28am

Stormbringer wrote:And Ando, I'd still like to hear what you would have done as opposed to what Bush did. Because out of all the peace protestors I've heard, none have ever had a workable fix for the situation as it was in Iraq.

What would I have done?

a) Continued inspections and bought the governments assistance and the peoples opinion through increased trade grants etc.

-likely outcome isn't good, look at how much food goes into NK, but what happens if we have the UN distributing food, medical supplies etc? Not just sending it to the government for distribution. One might argue that a Somalia type situation might occur with the "leaders" taking control. But would Saddam really risk pissing off the UN that way? Somalia was a fuck up from day one. Here would have been a chance to learn from the mistakes and continue onwards.

b) Continued inspections and pressure upon Saddam for truly fair elections.

-doubtful.

c) Continued inspections, food and supply distribution by UN, pressure upon Saddam for fair elections. NO pressure from nations who are war mongering. Leave it up to the UN to show that it truly is in good faith, not just seeking an excuse. Get rid of the food for oil system and actually treat the nation and its people with some respect.

- most potential of all, but would actually require nations to work together.

d) Stop inspections, stop food deliveries and the oil exports. Complete economic and diplomatic isolation.

- the most stupid idea of all. Just gives Saddam more fodder.

I'm sure given more than 10 minutes I could come up with some far better ideas.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-26 12:30am

The Iraqi government will first re-nationalize and then re-privatize. That much is already certain. Interestingly enough, Bush has probably already guaranteed Putin that Russia will keep most of its claims. The French are really the only major losers (though the Dutch and Vietnamese take some hits) - and even they will keep a small bit.

As for assassinating Saddam and letting just anyone take over? Bad idea. We're looking at either another military coup or some kind of "retribution" government (ie, Shiites vs. Sunnis) in that case.

At this point, we've got to lay down a temporary occupation and put our hand in the pie. It's either that or face a further breakdown of the situation and invite new and very active opposition to American foreign policy from now until Doomsday.