disappointed that Iraqi resistance (popular resistance?) to the Americans has not materialized.
Are these people so deluded by their hatred of the US that they’re surprised that Iraqis, having lived under Saddam for 25 years, are happy to see Americans? The thought process must be fascinating. For all the claims of Arab brotherhood, the rest of the Arab world clearly does not understand the Iraqi population. I wonder if this is going to lead to some re-evaluation of the Arab attitudes towards American, or (more likely), condescension/pity towards Iraqis.
Yes. They’ve been brainwashed by their religious leaders, governments, education systems, and media. I feel sorry for them.[/quote]
Well, you can argue the same about us.
I’m just really shocked to see that foreign Arabs would prefer the Iraqis suffer under an Arab dictator rather than live in a American-created democratic state.
Speaking of American-created… I can’t believe the UN is pushing its nose into Iraq. They really have no right. I don’t mean that the UN forfeited its right to do so by not supporting the war, but because they look like scavengers and hypocrites. If they condemned the war, they look really stupid when profiting from it…
The other Arab countries do not want the disease of Democracy destroying their oil kingdoms. (Idea stolen from some talking head, but it makes as much sense as why they would be so dead set against the Iraqis being liberated.)
Well, at least they won’t be hypocritical about it, unlike the UN.
What’s wrong with mutual benefit? I mean, are you going to argue that the Iraqis will have it harder under an American regime?[/quote]
Last I heard, the administration wanted the U.N. to head up a lot of the re-building just so we would not be branded as prosecuting the war for profit.
The U.N. can do it as far as I am concerned, but France, Germany and Russia should not be allowed to make 5 cents, IMO.
And the US won’t look stupid profiting from a war it proclaimed was waged to free the Iraqi people?
Why would the US and the UK look stupid for that? They have freed the Iraqi people. Since when does freeing a native populace mean that you can’t have a symbiotic economic relationship with them afterwards?
What you’re really trying to claim here is that because America might eventually profit from Iraq after tens of billions of dollars and at least a decade spent on rebuilding its economic infrastructure, that hypothetical future profit completely invalidates the moral rightness of liberating the Iraqi people, thus making us all hypocrites and idiots and really worse than Saddam Hussein himself.
So, in your view, the only way America wouldn’t look stupid from this war is if our economy (and consequently, the world’s economy) completely collapsed because of it. Which I guess separates Europeans from Americans, because we’d think an Iraq-caused world-wide depression would just make us all look stupider, where as for you, its our only chance at redemption!
None of this matters - as usual, you anti-war guys are behind on all the news. Your gleeful prophecies of millions of innocents dead, the Arab street rising up to nuke the Statue of Liberty, and Saddam Hussein climbing into a gigantic Wolfenstein-3D Hitler tank to lead his “unshakably loyal Republican Guard” to victory against the Americans who “can’t take casualties” - none of these things have panned out as the American coalition has fronted one of the swiftest, least bloody occupation of an enemy country in modern military history. You’ll be wrong on your dour predictions of post-war Iraq and America’s intentions towards it, too.
I’m just really shocked to see that foreign Arabs would prefer the Iraqis suffer under an Arab dictator rather than live in a American- created democratic state.
If the US can prevent it, Iraq will never be a democracy. The shiite majority would vote for a radical Ayatollah, and nobody wants that. The USA will find a Saddam Lite as replacement, or perhaps a weak puppet like Karzai who can only survive with US bodyguards.
The shiite majority would vote for a radical Ayatollah
You hear the word “Shiite” and immediately apply the word “radical.” There’s nothing radical about Iraqi Shia. They fought against Iranian Shiites for a decade in the Iran-Iraq War.
The Grand Ayatollah of the southern Shia has already issued a fatwa urging people to cooperate with the Americans. (This reverses his earlier declaration, issued at Baath gunpoint.)
Symbiotic? Dare I say that the Iraqis would probably want to decide for themselves how they run their country, what is a good deal for you is not necissarily a good deal for them. Will dealing with US firms be the best deal for the Iraqi people?
What you’re really trying to claim here is that because America might eventually profit from Iraq after tens of billions of dollars and at least a decade spent on rebuilding its economic infrastructure, that hypothetical future profit completely invalidates the moral rightness of liberating the Iraqi people, thus making us all hypocrites and idiots and really worse than Saddam Hussein himself.
Yeah, I said that… riiiight.
So, in your view, the only way America wouldn’t look stupid from this war is if our economy (and consequently, the world’s economy) completely collapsed because of it. Which I guess separates Europeans from Americans, because we’d think an Iraq-caused world-wide depression would just make us all look stupider, where as for you, its our only chance at redemption!
When have I argued for a depression? Why not stop trying to put words in my mouth, thank you.
The (Iraqi) economy will be in serious trouble, particularly if debt and reparations are not forgiven, because Iraq’s oil exports do not produce limitless wealth.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that Iraqi oil export revenues were just $14.1 billion in 2001, including smuggling, out of total exports of just $15.8 billion and an economy worth $28.2 billion. The GDP is less than one-third of what it was in 1989, and there are two decades of war and sanctions to make up for.
Oil can pay for a lot, but not for both rebuilding and development.
“The best estimate of Iraqi oil revenues, if everything gets up and running, is $15 billion a year,” Warner told ABC Sunday. “There’s $200 billion in claims against them. They owe $60 billion in foreign debt. Do I want that responsibility? The answer is no. We act like it’s some kind of prize.”
War is an expensive business. As much as people like to accuse the United States of being some mercantilist colonial power, there’s really no way the US is ever going to turn a profit on Iraq.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Arab news media necessarily reflects the views of Arabs in general.
The U.S., if I recall correctly, is still part of the UN. On the security council, and stuff. When did the UN condemn the war? Didn’t know the UN could do that.
Stop that, you.
Hey, Kalle (or any other crazy moon-man language speakers around here, for that matter), have you seen these claims repeated/substantiated in english, anywhere? I’m thinking of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. (Please excuse Åsne’s prose… ;) “atmosfæren er som i en
beleiret by.” Nei dæven, du.).
The US is part of the UN, but it that doesn’t mean that the UN is the US. When the bombing started, Kofi Annan was condemning the action right along with the French and Russians. Now he wants a piece of the pie…
The US is part of the UN, but it that doesn’t mean that the UN is the US. When the bombing started, Kofi Annan was condemning the action right along with the French and Russians. Now he wants a piece of the pie…[/quote]
Yes, evil, scheming man that he is. He’s gonna grab the bit that stichs off the west end and make it into Annanland. Or maybe he’s just trying to, I don’t know, fulfill some craven mandates or something.
What we got out of the UN central leadership before the war was “war is a bad and unfortunate thing”. Now that the war’s over soon, they’re saying “well, perhaps the world should try to cooperate when picking up the pieces.”
“What’s wrong with mutual benefit? I mean, are you going to argue that the Iraqis will have it harder under an American regime?”
They’ll probably have it better, but it’s not an absurd possibility. Afghanistan apparently didn’t have running gun battles in the streets every night before we came along; the Taliban at least kept the country under control. (No links because it’s impossible to find primary sources on Afghanistan.)
Jason, you’re everything that’s wrong with western civilization.
You’d give away your freedom, your balls, and your anal virginity to Bubba, all in the name of security. If banning the use of metal would make you .0001% safer from getting killed by a gun, I’m sure you’d sign the petition.
