What happens if the Iraqis dont want the USA?

[N_Quire]

A picture is emerging of religious Iraqis who are grateful that Saddam has gone and who now want the USA and Britain to depart from the country. What happens if the Iraqis want or choose a government that the United States considers undesirable? Is the United States going to provide pressure and "guidance" until it gets a government with which it is satisfied?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by N_Quire
A picture is emerging of religious Iraqis who are grateful that Saddam has gone and who now want the USA and Britain to depart from the country. What happens if the Iraqis want or choose a government that the United States considers undesirable? Is the United States going to provide pressure and "guidance" until it gets a government with which it is satisfied?

You know that no Iraqi govenrment will be allowed to exist that doesn't put America's financial interests in front of the interests of its people. They will NOT have their oil, no matter what anyone says.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I just had a thought. What if we bungle this up and sour the Iraqi people on the idea of a republic, throwing them into the arms of tyranny.

Think about it, the USA has said that it will bring them freedom and democracy, and what they are getting is chaos. Could the USA be doing the opposite of what it said its goal is by providing a misrepresentation of the West?

 

[Sting]

They will NOT have their oil, no matter what anyone says.

Imperialism at work.

And if it doesn't seem fit, you can call it globilization , exploitation, whatever. It's the same thing.

 

[kyleb]

or you can call it fascism, but most people don't like that word. i think fascism is a poor word too though, i think Mussolini had a good point when he said "fascism should rightly be called corporatism as it is a merger of state and corporate power." that makes a lot of sense really, however i prefer to call it call it feudalism personally. some might consider the term out dated but i always liked classic terminology and it is basically the same thing with a whole new bag of tricks. besides, "feudalism" incorporates the term "feud", and the constant strife of dispute is oh so important for such a social structure.

 

[Zero]

By whatever name, Bush's claim that the oil will belong to Iraq is a lie, since every step in te processing will belong to an American company.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
You know that no Iraqi govenrment will be allowed to exist that doesn't put America's financial interests in front of the interests of its people. They will NOT have their oil, no matter what anyone says.

Zero, that's amazing - you absolutely assume the US is going to steal the oil. WHY is the current situation so different from 1991 when we first put out other people's oil well fires, then GAVE THE OIL WELLS BACK to the countries who owned them?

And I have news for you: since the USA buys a lot of oil, any new Iraqi government will want to sell it to us. Just like the last one did.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, that's amazing - you absolutely assume the US is going to steal the oil. WHY is the current situation so different from 1991 when we first put out other people's oil well fires, then GAVE THE OIL WELLS BACK to the countries who owned them?

And I have news for you: since the USA buys a lot of oil, any new Iraqi government will want to sell it to us. Just like the last one did.

American companies are already bidding on drilling rights. Iraq will ostensibly 'sell' the oil, but in reality they will have no choice, with American companies owning all the equipment, and American troops enforcing the 'deals'.

 

[enigma]

I will never understand this mentality, I don't think.

They have a resourse. They have very little use for the resourse themselves (comparable to the wealth they can make by selling it). We do want the resourse. They have always been willing to sell the resourse. They don't have the technical capability to get the resourse by themselves. Therefore we shouldn't help them harvest the resourse?

I don't understand. I really don't.

We need the oil. Without importing oil, we pay MUCH more for gas to drive to work, we pay MUCH more to heat our homes, we pay MUCH more for electricity, we pay MUCH more for..., we pay MUCH more for..., etc.

They want to sell the oil! To not sell the oil is just plain stupid.

I don't understand. I really don't.

You know that no Iraqi govenrment will be allowed to exist that doesn't put America's financial interests in front of the interests of its people. They will NOT have their oil, no matter what anyone says.

How is selling poisonous black stuff (which is doing absolutely nothing sitting in the ground) for billions and billions of dollars, adding to the GDP of their country putting someone elses interests in front of their own people?
EDIT: Looking at it from the other side: how is keeping their oil helping their interests?

Seriously Zero... I think you need to take a step back and critically evaluate the economics of the situation. Do you have a better solution to the situation than what is currently being planned?

EDIT2: Not only will a company (US European Arab or otherwise) have to pay the government money to extract the oil, but it will do plenty more to help the Iraqis. I doubt severely that any company will pay huge relocation expenses and bring in outside workers to run their plants. They will use the local work force. Since they will likely need trained and educated people to do the more technical jobs, I'd be willing to bet that they will be paying employees to go to college or hiring educated Iraqis who had fled the country and now might return.

Look at it on the other foot: Are Japanese and Korean car companies inherintly evil because they build their factories here in the states? Sure, they're skirting import taxes, and the profits go to overseas companies, but the workers get paid, cared for, educated, etc. The towns where those factories are built get huge boosts. With a skilled labor force you now need better schools, better health care, better housing. You need to build shopping facilities, supermarkets, etc.

I cannot understand how anyone can look at development - any development - by any country - and say: "EVIL! EVIL! EVIL CORPORATE GREEDY GLOBALIZATION PIG-DOGS!" or similar. I just can't

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
American companies are already bidding on drilling rights.

Well better us than the French

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Well better us than the French

Why? Which companies are going to give the Iraqi people the best offer for their oil? That should be the main consideration.

 

[kyleb]

well it is the Iraqi peoples oil, or at least that is what i keep hearing. so I'm sure they are taking that into account when they set up these contracts; i mean that would only be fair, right?

 

[Alias]

This thread is so "over". Way to go fellas, you make me proud.

 

[N_Quire]

Alias, you're jumping to conclusions. This might help from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64336-2003Apr20.html

 

[damgo]

American companies are already bidding on drilling rights.

Zero, can you give me reference or pointer to where you heard this info? The bidding going on now has been for reconstruction of Iraq's facilities: US companies are getting contracts where they're paid with US taxpayer money to rebuild styff in Iraq.

Is the United States going to provide pressure and "guidance" until it gets a government with which it is satisfied?

Do you really need to ask that question? You think they're going to let these guys run the country:

"We are all against the coalition because they are infidels," said Sheik Abbas al-Zubaidi, one of the Shiite clerics who have taken control of several Baghdad hospitals. "We are demanding an Islamic state."

"We will have an Islamic state here that mainly orders good and prevents evil," Mr. Zubaidi said. He added in the state he envisions, "Televisions are not allowed, dominoes are not allowed, women wearing makeup are not allowed, dubbed foreign films are not allowed."
...
Clerics loyal to Mr. Sadr have also formed militias to patrol Shiite neighborhoods, shooting with impunity those people they deem threats. In the highly charged, chaotic atmosphere of Al Sadr City, snap judgments have left many people dead.

---

Tens of thousands of Iraqi Muslims took to the streets of Baghdad after Friday prayers today to demand the departure of U.S. and other foreign troops and the establishment of an Islamic state.
...
Converging from several mosques, the demonstrators carried banners with such slogans as "No Bush, No Saddam, Yes to Islam," and "No to America, No to Secular State, Yes to Islamic State." Organizers said the demonstrators included both Shiite Muslims and Sunnis, who represent the majority branch of Islam is most Muslim countries but a minority in Iraq.

Iraqi Shiites, Jockeying for Power, Preach an Anti-American Sermon
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/international/worldspecial/20SHIA.html
Iraqi Muslims Protest Against Foreign Troops
Demonstrators Call for Establishment of an Islamic State
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50762-2003Apr18?language=printer

 

[N_Quire]

Damgo, I do consider the question is worth asking. I think that western democracy is better than an islamic state, better than any system in which religious people have too much say. I would find the notion of a christian state as repulsive as an islamic one.

I can see, too, that America is going to do all it can to make sure that the islamists are not able to use their popular support in order to overthrow a fledging democratic process.

But, what do you do if a significant number of people vote for a party that does not want western-style democracy? Do you say that they can't take part in the elections, do you just hope they won't get a majority or do you actively work against them and thereby increase resentment of the American presence in Iraq?

 

[damgo]

OK, sorry if that came off the wrong way. I do think that how exactly the democratization process is handled is extremely important. My guess is they're not going to hold real elections for some time; during which the transition administration will work to improve the situation in Iraq and hopefully gain goodwill from that. Also, there are various ways to tilt the system by setting it up in a particular way -- gerrymandering, odd election rules, constitutional provisions, etc. If necessary I assume these will be used to make elections favorable.

Personally I don't expect to see truly democratic elections in Iraq for some time -- the emphasis now will be on improving the economic system and establishing a governmental bureacracy not as prone to corruption or overthrow.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by damgo
Personally I don't expect to see truly democratic elections in Iraq for some time -- the emphasis now will be on improving the economic system and establishing a governmental bureacracy not as prone to corruption or overthrow.

I don't see a problem with us selecting the first president like the founding fathers did with the US. Its going to be extremely difficult to make democracy work in Iraq. People are unreasonable to expect the US to just leave in a month.