Send Home Our Boys? - Share Your Opinion

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by FZ+
I guess they speak French, so it's close enough, eh?

By they, do you mean Canadians?? cause No, not all Canadians can speak French.
But you had better know how, if you live in Quebec, and you would like to work.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And here I was thinking it was a discussion on getting the American troops, back home, silly moi, as I had been trying to get back to that track...

The topic has been rambling, its just that you were arguing against something that wasn't my point. There was no disagreement on that point - nothing to argue.

France built the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the late 1970s. That was BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war...The France unfortunately did not have precognition.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty went into force in 1970 and non-proliferation has been a big issue ever since. The reactor the French built was PART of the weapons research program - I think it was even still under construction when it was bombed. There was no precognition needed - just blinders and an open wallet.

Also, that supergun guy AFAIK, was not a government agent, he was doing that one freelance. Not the same thing.

 

[russ_watters]

Anyway...

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. so what is the best, or preffered, or fastest way.manner of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, while still ensuring peace, and eventual civil order?

Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.

The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.

 

[kat]

Russ, do you think that perhaps one of reasons that the Marshall plan was, in the end (as it went through some tough times at the beginning as well), was that they had been so devastated in their defeat that they were far more willing to capitulate to Western control?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Anyway... Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.

The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.

Could it be that this is exactly why Saddam Hussien ran the place with an iron fist?!? Maybe he wasn't so crazy after all!(No one with any sense ever thought he was mad, really)

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Anyway... Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.
The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.

Both Kat, and Zero, make good points, but what I would like to know russ, is this meant to be under the auspices of Military rule, or civilian, cause if it's militarily imposed you are probably going to find yourselves meeting with some, how do we put that, resistance.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Could it be that this is exactly why Saddam Hussien ran the place with an iron fist?!? Maybe he wasn't so crazy after all!(No one with any sense ever thought he was mad, really)

[?] [?] Dunno, his plan for handover to a Democratic government musta been slow in its implimentation.

[Insert Iraqi election jokes here.]

Russ, do you think that perhaps one of reasons that the Marshall plan was, in the end (as it went through some tough times at the beginning as well), was that they had been so devastated in their defeat that they were far more willing to capitulate to Western control?

Yes, but that doesn't mean there weren't any resisters (like you said). A few summary executions solved that pretty quick though. In neither case were/are the general populations a problem. A handful of incurable fanatics are the ones who need to get the message.

...what I would like to know russ, is this meant to be under the auspices of Military rule, or civilian, cause if it's militarily imposed you are probably going to find yourselves meeting with some, how do we put that, resistance.

Military rule, MRP. We ARE "meeting with some, how do we put that, resistance." And we need to smash it. Again, that's how it worked after WWII.

 

[FZ+]

And we need to smash it.

How do you propose we do that?

There was no precognition needed - just blinders and an open wallet.

Or the shared belief with the US that Saddam was an important ally.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally stated by russ_watters
(SNIP) Military rule, MRP. We ARE "meeting with some, how do we put that, resistance." And we need to smash it. Again, that's how it worked after WWII. (SNoP)

Ya ARE? Yikes russ, I didn't know THAT! (sarcasm!)

Do you really think that is can be "smashed"? or do you realize that that is simply what incites even more resistance?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
How do you propose we do that?

More force, less coddling. Due process for example has no place in Iraq until the country is secure. And its meaningless anyway until they have a constitution. If that means a summary execution every now and then to send a message, so be it.

Or the shared belief with the US that Saddam was an important ally.

Iraq has never been an ally much less an important one. They were little more than a rabid dog we encouraged to fight another rabid dog so they wouldn't come after us. Flawed policy, but in any case, they cannot be mistaken for an ally. And even Russia (for example) was an ally in WWII, but that doesn't mean we trusted them. In fact, we have a lot of allies we wouldn't trust with nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that is can be "smashed"? or do you realize that that is simply what incites even more resistance?

It is a catch-22, MRP, but overall yes, I think it can be smashed. There is a small and finite quantity of resisters. Smashing say 90% of them will make the other 10% more fanatical, but you still reduced the number by 90%. And not taking decisive action certainly isn't going to make them stop: most of the resiters want the Baath party back and that ain't going to happen.

 

[Zero]

Sounds to me, Russ, like you are suggesting reinstating the regime in Iraq, except with a thin veneer of democracy on top if it...

 

[Njorl]

If that means a summary execution every now and then to send a message, so be it.

This is exactly the wrong philosophy.

Iraq, like most Arab countries has a disproportionately large population of young people. This is in stark contrast with Germany and Japan in 1945, both of which lost a phenomenally large portion of their young men in the war. Young men are predisposed to violence and rebelliousness. Iraq has a large number of them, and no jobs for them to do. They are an ideal recruiting pool for terrorists, and summary executions are essentially recruiting drives for terrorism. There is the added problem that there are still many hidden caches of small arms in Iraq.

In this situation, it is imperitive that both the hands and minds of young Iraqi men be occupied with something other than violence. Even those who are categorically opposed to the US should be given non-violent avenues to oppose us. Strangely, opposition leaders should be encouraged to form political affiliations to oppose us. Only if there is visible, effective political opposition will violent opposition diminish.

I do not advocate passivism in the face of terrorism. Success is also a great recruiting tool of terrorists, and can not be allowed. We must constantly strive to make violence on the part of Iraqi opposition counterproductive. However, we must avoid overreaction. We must keep in mind, much of terrorism is specifically intended to goad a nation into overreaction.

It is important to note the differences between rebuilding Germany and Japan, and Iraq. The people of Germany and Japan were called upon to give their all, and did so. They fought as a people, and were exhausted and defeated. The same is not true of Iraq. Only the Baathists fought. Not only did the people not rise against the coalition, most of the army did not bother to fight. As a people, the Iraqis are not exhausted, nor defeated. As a whole, they had no motivation to oppose us. We should not give it to them.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Njorl
I do not advocate passivism in the face of terrorism. Success is also a great recruiting tool of terrorists, and can not be allowed. We must constantly strive to make violence on the part of Iraqi opposition counterproductive. However, we must avoid overreaction. We must keep in mind, much of terrorism is specifically intended to goad a nation into overreaction.

Just a note..Iraq has little to do with terrorism, and no known or logical link to 9-11...is this invasion the sort of overreaction you mean?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Good answer Njorl! russ, a responce??

 

[Njorl]

Just a note..Iraq has little to do with terrorism, and no known or logical link to 9-11...is this invasion the sort of overreaction you mean?

I was not referring to the time before the invasion at all.

I was rather loose with the word terrorism, my error. I was referring to the attacks since the fall of the Iraqi organized opposition. Some of these are from terrorists infiltrating the country, some are from Baathist die-hards, some are from newly inspired guerrillas. Regardless of their origins or legality, their goals are the same - eliminate US influence in Iraq. Their methods are intimidation through random attacks on people, and disruption of order through attacks on infrastructure. Though they may share the common aim of inflicting terror, they are not all technically terrorists.

Njorl

 

[GENIERE]

Some posters seem to ignore.

Prior to Gulf 2 no country including France, Germany, and Russia denied the fact that Saddam possessed WMD. Saddam kicked out the inspectors, then under duress allowed them back but did not allow unfettered access. Indeed, Saddam promulgated the notion that he had such weapons. Whatever hindsight tells us is irrelevant.

The US had no vested economic interest in Iraq. If stealing oil was a goal we simply could have remained in Kuwait after Gulf 1.

An Iraqi regime change was a stated goal of all recent US administrations including Clinton’s.

The countries carrying most of Iraq’s debt are France, Russia and Germany. Most of that debt was incurred during the time the UN proscribed trade for everything but items necessary for the welfare of Iraqi people. Obviously the large debt accrued from illicit dealings. Nations act, and should act, in the best interest of their own citizens while maintaining a degree of moral integrity. Whereas the US and Britain fought the war because of, and in a manner attesting to their high standards, the actions of France, Russia, and Germany were, and continue to be, entirely self-serving.

If ethical considerations were held in high esteem, the governments of France, Germany and Russia would be contributing materially to Iraq’s recovery.

Prior to Gulf 2, had France, Germany, and Russia acted in an ethical manner the war would likely have not taken place.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by GENIERE
(SNIP) Prior to Gulf 2 no country including France, Germany, and Russia denied the fact that Saddam possessed WMD. Saddam kicked out the inspectors, then under duress allowed them back but did not allow unfettered access. Indeed, Saddam promulgated the notion that he had such weapons. Whatever hindsight tells us is irrelevant??[/color]. (SNoP)

Yes, he had them, we know that, because the US was (Part) supplieing him with chemical precursors, for chemical weapons??
(in his war with Iran??)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Sounds to me, Russ, like you are suggesting reinstating the regime in Iraq, except with a thin veneer of democracy on top if it...

Nope.

In this situation, it is imperitive that both the hands and minds of young Iraqi men be occupied with something other than violence. Even those who are categorically opposed to the US should be given non-violent avenues to oppose us. Strangely, opposition leaders should be encouraged to form political affiliations to oppose us. Only if there is visible, effective political opposition will violent opposition diminish.

Not bad, Njorl. Along with any political reconstruction you of course need economic reconstruction. That'll reduce the number of idle hands doing the devil's work.

And another thing to remember about terrorists is not as many are as suicidal as most people think. It is believed for example that only the pilot of each plane in 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. I've even heard that most suicide bombers don't have triggers - the bombs are detonated by remote by others. So fear of death is a bigger concern for terrorists than most people realize.

Good answer Njorl! russ, a responce??

Yeah, MRP - you other guys should learn from him how to construct an argument isntead of just shooting back at me with one-liners.

 

[GENIERE]

Mr. Parsons – Any change to a quote, however innocuous, is a no-no! Tsk, tsk,tsk

 

[FZ+]

Prior to Gulf 2 no country including France, Germany, and Russia denied the fact that Saddam possessed WMD.

Because they were presented with biased and false data by the US and UK governments, through either gross incompetence or political will.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Mr. Parsons – Any change to a quote, however innocuous, is a no-no! Tsk, tsk,tsk

Sorry? what change are you talking about? please...