Viewing Thread:
"Change in US Policy"

I mean 'Coalition' policy.

Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.

My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.

Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?

What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.

The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.

In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?

I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.

Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''

My summary:

-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.

My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.

Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.

Your views?

I mean 'Coalition' policy.

Apparantly, the US wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner than was planned; handing over authority and holding elections soon. This seems to have been prompted by futher attacks.

My views: there goes Iraq. The US feels the heat and it can't take it, especially with an 'election' coming up for Bushez. The only way to realistically get a proper democracy going (whatever that means) is to stay there, probably a decade or more and set the plans in motion. Nothing good will come of this. If the US pulls out a democracy will almost certainly fail in the Emperors opinion. Whatever you think of the war once they are in they should see it through.

Who is going to re-build the infastructure? The Iraqi tribal councils?

What even is Iraq? A Western invention, I predict succesion in Iraq or possibly the formation of a theocracy.

The terroists and loyalists will still be there. Nothing will have been achieved.

In any event, by withdrawing the aid workers may be able to return. But it will make the whole escapade seem a farce, even if the coalition of the willing doesn't pull out right away and completely. Maybe it is doomed to failure. Or maybe I am just a pessimistic git who can't spell to save his life?

I suppose this puts the whole oil thing into perspective, personally I would rather the US use Iraq for some of its oil but at least re-build it and set up a stable representative government. And no WOMD. WTF.

Now maybe the coalition thinks that they will keep troops there but if Iraqi's get their 'own' government the attacks will stop and they can get on with rebuilding. However, if so this is a very dangerous game. It reeks of ''hey...rebuilding a nation from scratch is harder than we thought it would be...screw it lets get the hell out of here.''

My summary:

-US and UK get attacked. Death toll rises amoung coalition.
-US gets edgy since Bush may actually have to fight an election this time round.
-Coalition wants to pull out of Iraq much sooner. OK, technically they want to HAND OVER power much sooner but it can only logically be so that they can pull out quicker.
-None of the coalitions aims have been acheived. The nation is still in ruins, no real government and no Saddam. WOMD.

My main point is that this is a real 'knee-jerk' reaction that is irresponsible.

Oh, and I have not posted any links because it has made national news so I would assume you can all look up the evidence yourselves. If you cannot then tell me and I will find a link.

Your views?

*Ironing:

The proposals coming from the Bush administration are almost identical to those that France put forward about a month ago that the US discarded.

Personally, I think it's fairly clear that the US government have made a complete pigs ear of the situation. They could have gathered no end of international support if for no other reason than sympathy about 9/11. But instead, dumb old Dubya rode roughshod over any objections raised because they insisted on doing things their way.

And now that they have, they're starting to find just how many of the initial objections were valid. Amusingly, the US Govt and their apologists are retorting to this by chanting "Saddam is gone, the war was worth it" like some sort of mantra, but when senior members of the US Govt have gone on record as saying that removing Saddam is not, on it's own, justification for war, they just make themselves look even more ignorant and stupid than they actually are.

Speaking for myself, if there was a clearly defined timetable for a handover to power, then I'd be much happier about the coalition staying in Iraq and overseeing that handover. But they're only agreeing to hand over power now because of the hassle they're getting. In other words, it's going to be a rush job. I hope that the UN flood the country with aid and peacekeepers to help rebuilding the country. But I'm inclined to think that the US, thanks to the ignorance and arrogance of their government, have condemned Iraq to years of strife, civil war (as you rightly say, Iraq is a false construct anyway and the Kurds will assuredly want their own nation), and religious intolerance. Even I find that too high a price for the priveledge of saying "I told you so".

A major problem is also Iraq's neighbors. Iran will most likely try to get an Islamic Republic going (if most Iraqi's want this you may disagree that it is a bad thing)and as you say there is the Kurdish situation. But the Turks hate the Kurds, and around half of Turkey is actually populated by Kurds. This could precipitate a regional war in itself.

Regardless, its a classic rush job that will fail if it continues in this mannor. It just gets under my skin that no one in the international world is capable of keeping to a stable policy.

Japan was not rebuilt in two years. Then again Japan didn't have the attacks and the nation really had bee flattened, even in comparison to Iraq. Ah well.

Emperor Bob wrote:
> *Ironing:
>
> The proposals coming from the Bush administration are almost
> identical to those that France put forward about a month ago that the
> US discarded.

Thats because then, it wasn't practical, now, i don't think it is, but with more International troops than then, it is a little bit more. Also, there are a lot more Iraqi's patrolling the street than there was a few months ago.

Yes it's a knee jerk reaction, and yes it's wrong.

Yes it is what Stop the war coalition and other (not ALL) anti war groups want to see and I hope they are happy because if the US and others do withdraw to soon it guarantees another generation will one day go back to Iraq.

Yes it is the exact aim of those terrorists attacking the coalition.

Yes it is what many other nations wish to see happen.

Yes it is in part the fault of sections of the international community who refused to help.

But there is still time yet, and I don't think this is quite the end of the affair.

In reality the US coalition assumed a near impossible position, every attempt to award contracts to rebuild Iraq is met by protest from someone or other, every attempt to fight the resistance is met with hostile coverage of that, every time a policy is changed it is interpretted as a failure. Ultimately it beggars the question as to whether people want to see Iraq rebuilt and democratic, or whether they want to use it as a political football, which it is right now.

And yet you will still see the USA referred to as an all powerful superpower.

Light wrote:
> dumb old Dubya rode roughshod over any objections
> raised because they insisted on doing things their way.

Agreed.

> And now that they have, they're starting to find just how many of the
> initial objections were valid. Amusingly, the US Govt and their
> apologists are retorting to this by chanting "Saddam is gone,
> the war was worth it" like some sort of mantra, but when senior
> members of the US Govt have gone on record as saying that removing
> Saddam is not, on it's own, justification for war, they just make
> themselves look even more ignorant and stupid than they actually
> are.

I think removing Dictators and liberating a country is one of the best reasons for war. It is a shame the re-construction is so slow and in-efficient, but it is the best way of doing it. Most people knew it would be decades before Iraq was better off. The fact that the terrorist attacks are gaining more support from general Iraqi's is because they expected the American Tanks to be followed straight away with truck loads of food, supplies and stuff to re-build. They, through no fault of their own, expected it to be as it was for French towns during WW2, Liberation, and instant benefits.

> Speaking for myself, if there was a clearly defined timetable for a
> handover to power, then I'd be much happier about the coalition
> staying in Iraq and overseeing that handover. But they're only
> agreeing to hand over power now because of the hassle they're
> getting. In other words, it's going to be a rush job. I hope that the
> UN flood the country with aid and peacekeepers to help rebuilding the
> country. But I'm inclined to think that the US, thanks to the
> ignorance and arrogance of their government, have condemned Iraq to
> years of strife, civil war (as you rightly say, Iraq is a false
> construct anyway and the Kurds will assuredly want their own nation),
> and religious intolerance. Even I find that too high a price for the
> priveledge of saying "I told you so".

I think their only handing over in such a rush, because of the lack of support their getting from the UN. At the moment, US troops are well over streched, perhaps if the UN helped a bit more, as in Kosovo, things would be better. The people would see it as a peace keeping force, and not an American Occupation. And, the Americans could be out sooner, perhaps moving on to other horrible places, e.g. North Korea. But i do agree, the US have made a pigs ear of the reconstruction. I think it could/ should have been done a lot better.

Skarra wrote:


> I think removing Dictators and liberating a country is one of the
> best reasons for war.

I don't disagree with that in the least. Unfortunately, it wasn't the reason America and the UK invaded Iraq. The US government have admitted as such,

> It is a shame the re-construction is so slow
> and in-efficient, but it is the best way of doing it. Most people
> knew it would be decades before Iraq was better off. The fact that
> the terrorist attacks are gaining more support from general Iraqi's
> is because they expected the American Tanks to be followed straight
> away with truck loads of food, supplies and stuff to re-build. They,
> through no fault of their own, expected it to be as it was for French
> towns during WW2, Liberation, and instant benefits.

Yeah, I do agree that the more rabidly anti-american people seem to be criticising the US for not waving a magic wand. Even if it was being done properly, it would take a lot of time, and the terror attacks wouldn't magically stop.

But by the same token, the US aren't doing a very good job of reconstruction due to their own poor planning. Rumsfield insisted on an invasion force that was as small as possible. He also insisted on disbanding the Iraqi army and (I seem to recall) police force. So the few troops in Iraq are being expected to keep order in a chaotic situation whilst also protecting UN and aid agencies. The problems in the reconstruction are of the coalitions own making.


>
> I think their only handing over in such a rush, because of the lack
> of support their getting from the UN. At the moment, US troops are
> well over streched,

See above. They're overstretched because of poor planning, and the US ignoring it's allies. Had the US government listened then perhaps we wouldn't have this mess.

Also, the US are doing their best to oppose a greater role in Iraq. They only want the UN there on their terms. If the US handed things over to the UN, then perhaps we'd see less of this overstretching.

> perhaps if the UN helped a bit more, as in
> Kosovo, things would be better.

Perhaps. But perhaps the US and UK should have made more of an effort to involve the UN in the first place? After all, the coalition lied through their teeth about France's intention at the Security council in order to start the war.

> The people would see it as a peace
> keeping force, and not an American Occupation. And, the Americans
> could be out sooner, perhaps moving on to other horrible places, e.g.
> North Korea. But i do agree, the US have made a pigs ear of the
> reconstruction. I think it could/ should have been done a lot better.

Yup, it should. And whilst it's easy for us to criticise from here, one would sort of hope that the people responsible for running the most powerful nation in the world would have more of a clue than they do. Such a pity then that they only seem interested in lining their pockets and staying in power.

Belldandy wrote:

> And yet you will still see the USA referred to as an all powerful
> superpower.

The sheer level of half truth, hypocrisy, and parroted propaganda in this post is breathtaking. I've only left the last line of it in as it typifies your whole attitude; that of "Well...my team are still the best, even though I have been proved wrong! So nyah!".

But anyway, that is by the by. I'd actually like to draw your attention to the posts between Skarra and myself. Now we don't agree at all about Iraq. Yet by being civil, by not trying to argue about things that we have no knowledge of, and by seeking clarification of each others views, we seem to be agreeing to disagree whilst learning more of the others views.

You might want to bear that in mind the next time you steam into a thread with a borrowed opinion and cowardly desire to avoid thinking about what you've written. Because for all your complaining about being picked on, and for all your whining about how you get treated differently by notables/staff members/anyone who disagrees with you, the only reason that you come in for such grief is because of your own appalling attitude.

So you still see the USA as a superpower then ?

It was a perfectly reasonable comment to make, and had anyone else made it you would be civil.

Noticeably when I made a few posts under a different user name a month or so back, with no change in opinion, you posted in a civil manner. Yet when you see it is me that civility goes.

You can't even discuss a point without whining.