War of conquest... Wheeeeee!

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-04-03 12:03am

The US is refusing to comment on whether or not they wil allow the UN to play ANY role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Instead indicating that it will likely be an "approved administration".

So, its all interesting in terms of whats going on. Will the US pay any attention to those who actually gave them support, or will we be ignored the moment its over and all of the promises forgotten?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s823486.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902285.stm

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-03 12:08am

if the us is smart, it will pay back favors.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-03 12:11am

It would be incredibly stupid for us to do ANYTHING to make this look like a war of conquest, let alone not repay our support.

I seriously doubt we will just up and forget any promises, as that would make the ENTIRE world pissed at us.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-04-03 12:44am

I am pretty sure that there will be no aid from the EU if Iraq's reconstruction isn't done under a UN madate, but then again no one really knows which way Chirac would jump, so....

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-03 01:00am

Considering what a clusterfuck a UN administration is likely to be, they can sit in New York and bitch for as long as they want for all I care. I'd put a joint US-British-Aus. military government in place just long enough to get an Iraqi government up and running, and let them coordinate the international aid.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-03 01:25am

Germany and France already said they don't want the UN to be a part of the post-Saddam Iraq, saying that the US should pay the bill for the war.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-03 01:26am

not I, said the rooster. . .

so chicken little had all the bread for herself.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-03 01:28am

RedImperator wrote:Considering what a clusterfuck a UN administration is likely to be, they can sit in New York and bitch for as long as they want for all I care. I'd put a joint US-British-Aus. military government in place just long enough to get an Iraqi government up and running, and let them coordinate the international aid.

Sounds like a plan to me.

With the conservative/moderate government of the US, and the liberal/moderate governments of Aus. and the UK, I would say it would be a nice balance.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-03 02:17am

If the US unilaterally dictates who is and isn't allowed to enter the country for peacekeeping and rebuilding purposes after the war, then they would be proving that it was a war of conquest after all. One does not "liberate" a country only to unilaterally seize control of its assets and decide what can and can't be done with them, irrespective of what its people want.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-03 02:43am

True, Mike, but on the other hand there is the sad spectacle of folks like the French and Germans lining up like Oliver saying "please, sir, can I have some more" when time comes to influence a post-Saddam Iraq.

I mean, seriously-- the nations that have created the most diplomatic pressure for the US (France, Germany, Russia, China) are the first ones to step up and insist that they have a say in the post war situation. That is a depth of cynicism and callousness that goes beyond the worst images that the protestors try to project on the US. Hell, if the war is "all about oil" at least we're willing to fight for it-- these turkeys want to get all the benefits but want the right to publicly bash the US while bellying up to the oil teat themselves for free.

If they are not willing to put forth some of the bill fo rth epost-war "Marshall Plan" --they don't have to pay for the fighting itself or even admit compliance in the US plan, just pay for the building-- then they have forfeited any rights to the post-war reconstruction.

C'mon, people-- the French are just as hip-deep in fat cat oil money from Iraq as any Texan you might mention. Don't pretend otherwise; they ar not negotiating from the moral high ground. Everything people accuse the US of the French are more so. They can either:

Commit troops to the fight
Commit money to the fight
Commit money to the rebuilding

Or shut up. They have no moral authority to dictate. The UN and France played "catch-me-fuck-me" from day one and have forefeited their right to lead-- they shan't ride in on the US coattails to share the victory.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-03 07:58am

The US has repeatedly said that its noble efforts to liberate Iraq are non-colonial in nature. What was the quote? "We only ask for enough land to bury our soldiers in."

...Unfortunately, the US Military plans on burying the soldiers in Iraqi oil fields, presidential palaces, and military bases. And when those fill up, they'll start burying them in the basements of government buildings and residential housing projects...

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-03 10:01pm

I have a strong feeling that any new government will have to accept strong Anglo-American guidance while rebuilding and peacekeeping is turned over (in some part, with a majority Coalition contribution) to the United Nations. Russia and France, with all their money and experience, are kind of vital to getting Iraq "up and running" within a realistic amount of time. Romania and Bulgaria simply can't provide the sustained funding of a huge, multinational corporation like TotalFinaElf.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-03 11:51pm

weemadando wrote:The US is refusing to comment on whether or not they wil allow the UN to play ANY role in the reconstruction of Iraq. Instead indicating that it will likely be an "approved administration".

So, its all interesting in terms of whats going on. Will the US pay any attention to those who actually gave them support, or will we be ignored the moment its over and all of the promises forgotten?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s823486.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902285.stm

They'll probably have it coalition-led.

Why would the U.S. want to pay for it but give the U.N. a say so in all of it?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-03 11:57pm

If the US unilaterally dictates who is and isn't allowed to enter the country for peacekeeping and rebuilding purposes after the war, then they would be proving that it was a war of conquest after all. One does not "liberate" a country only to unilaterally seize control of its assets and decide what can and can't be done with them, irrespective of what its people want.

Because the U.S. doesn't want UN oversight, but rather have it run by the coalition, that means automatically it will be irrespective of what the people want? How does the UN doing it (despite the U.S. fronting the cash) somehow magically ensure the Iraqi people get what they want over it being a coalition-only operation?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-05 09:30am

The UN had it's chance. A US-only government is a bad idea; military occupation, on the other hand, will likely be necessary. A coalition gov't made up of the countries that participated in the war is likely the best choice, supported by US, Aussie, and British forces until the last bits of resistance can be suppressed and a strong democratic gov't can be set up.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-05 09:35am

weemadando wrote:
So, its all interesting in terms of whats going on. Will the US pay any attention to those who actually gave them support, or will we be ignored the moment its over and all of the promises forgotten?

Possibly, but nations like the UK and Australia that have troops deployed will be getting a say I expect.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-05 09:57am

The United Nations will play a large, albeit neutered role.

Although Washington will retain the largest and most comprehensive feelers into new Iraqi government, United Nations peacekeeping forces – mostly French, Dutch, and Belgian – will join Coalition forces now on the ground in Iraq. The organization will also help sustain prolonged relief missions, organize local elections (at the correct time), and eventually represent the pool from which contractual bidding on reconstruction will take place.

The United Nations is too valuable to let go. America will retain the most political and economic influence but accept the United Nations as a strong influence nonetheless.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

War of conquest... Wheeeeee!

War of conquest... Wheeeeee!

Re: War of conquest... Wheeeeee!

Re: War of conquest... Wheeeeee!