Spin? You are endorsing a civil war plan. Cut the country up... give arms to the side we like and let them go at it. Your plan just happens to have 3 sides... not a north/south civil war but...
And they wouldn't be fighting for democracy... they would fight for control of the oil fields and pipelines.
Hey. Does the US have a longstanding history of nationbuilding? Are we so good at it that it was wise to cut the UN out of the process?
Not at all. That's your reading of it, and therefore that's your illegitimate spin on what I'm saying.
I'm saying that we shouldn't actively support an artificial construct created by European imperialists of the last century. The area more naturally divides it self into 3 ethnic "national" zones. This division is there, I didn't create it. There's also mutual hostility between the 3 groups and so trying force them into what we already know is a failed construct, I believe, is simply an exercise in futility. (See former Yugoslavia).
I also believe that the best way to achieve democratic reform is to underpin it with economic incentives. That's where the reconstruction funding comes into play. Since the US is pressed to achieve these democratic reforms in the shortest time frame possible, I believe promoting active competition between the 3 ethnic groups for these funds is the most efficient option available for to achieve this goal of liberalization and democratization.
Also from a tactical point of view, it would be much easier to create a fortified zone around the oil fields and thus eliminate or significantly reduce the casualty rate of allied soldiers. These soldiers are very exposed now, and are too few and diluted to achieve the mission now assigned to them.
Moving our forces to these fortified zones will also force the locals to become more actively involved in their own security and national affairs. It's not for us to fight this fight for them. The toppling of Saddam has leveled the playing field. The Iraqis interested in democracy now need to take over from here. That is if there are enough former Iraqis actually interested in this. If not, the population of Saddam's Iraq will have no one to blame but themselves. The financial and military aid is there on the table. It really should be their move now to take advantage of it, or not.
As regards the UN. I really can't see where it ever played a real constructive role anywhere in the world in its entire history of existence. I've long argued that the UN is part of the problem and not part of the solution. So I'd be very happy with it's dissolution.
Ok so your plan is to control the oil fields... THEN let them compete for the rest. Your plan keeps getting better.
MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct. Their societies were based on ancient nomadic cultures... until oil was discovered.
Well, I think it is essential that the allied forces control the oil fields, least they, again fall into the wrong hands.
As far as "MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct", that's absolute garbage. Where did you get this nonsense?!
It is European societies that are based on Middle Eastern constructs and not the other way round. Middle Eastern cities had modern utilities and amenities for millennia prior to the northern Europeans. They were still living it up and foraging for food in the dark forests of Europe when Middle Eastern societies were already fully civilized and cultured. You really outa read a little more history and rely a little less on the patronizing and condescending leftist propaganda.
Anyway, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about artificial borders drawn up in the 19/20th century by the Europeans, that were artificially drawn up with little regard to ethnic, religious divides. That's what I'm talking about. And trying to enforce these artificial boundaries is simply an exercise in futility.
Now, as far as competing for the "rest" as you refer to it. You make it sound as though there's nothing to compete for. I guess only time will tell if the locals share in that point of view, or not. But, it really is amazing to see how jaded and ungrateful you liberals are for the freedoms allowed you under the capitalistic/democratic system.
It really is amazing! But I'm beginning to understand why so many of you are so lethargic when it comes to confronting the Islamacists and the authoritarian regimes that give them support.
Ok so your plan is to control the oil fields... THEN let them compete for the rest. Your plan keeps getting better.
MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct. Their societies were based on ancient nomadic cultures... until oil was discovered.
you have a resounding knack for simplifying the complex issues of the middle east... and then finding its flaws... you should make like "the middle east for kids" children's books..
I'm sorry but simplifying the inextricably complicated social issues of the world only makes things harder.
the left hand should be shaking instead of slapping... oh and the UN it should be called the United nations of Africa..
And I guess you didn't read aapl's post. My post was in response to his "plan" for Iraq. You can try to talk yourself out of a bag... but the key is to actually look for the opening.
I understood his idea completely. That's why it was so easy to condense into a simple argument.
Africa is a large contitent. With lots of problems. It probably needs the UN's help most of all. Don't see why that's a problem.
Well, I think it is essential that the allied forces control the oil fields, least they, again fall into the wrong hands.
Anyway, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about artificial borders drawn up in the 19/20th century by the Europeans, that were artificially drawn up with little regard to ethnic, religious divides. That's what I'm talking about. And trying to enforce these artificial boundaries is simply an exercise in futility.
Now, as far as competing for the "rest" as you refer to it. You make it sound as though there's nothing to compete for. I guess only time will tell if the locals share in that point of view, or not. But, it really is amazing to see how jaded and ungrateful you liberals are for the freedoms allowed you under the capitalistic/democratic system.
It really is amazing! But I'm beginning to understand why so many of you are so lethargic when it comes to confronting the Islamacists and the authoritarian regimes that give them support.
In theory you are correct. It's always perplexed me that the U.N. can talk a flurry about "self-determination", "human rights" and then "non-interference with internal affairs" - as if none of them are ever in conflict (e.g. Kosovo).
Three nations make a lot of sense, but the states of the gulf, mid-east, and Turkey would destroy any such plan. Turkey would likely move against the Kurds, Iranians support shias, Saudi Arabia plunge into Sunni politics, and it would probably end up in war.
What we should have done, in 1975, is have siezed the major gulf oil fields, internationalised oil profits to all 3rd world nations, and told the muslim crazies that's because they're irresponsible (they embargoed oil)...
Maybe in 1975 we should have started program to end dependency on oil. There ARE other forms of energy.
Just a thought.
Not at all. No one is interested in colonizing that area. Again, that's your illegitimate spin on what is said. We are interested in preventing opportunistic thugs from taking control again. Also, Saddam's Iraq had incurred an enormous debt to creditors abroad. There's absolutely no reason why this credit now should not be secured.
That's why regions are colonized, to gain possesion of its resources.
you're saying that the Iraqis people are not responsible enough to manage their own resources... so we should? If they want to bid out contracts to companies that's fine though.
The thing about democracy... you have to let them figure out the best solution for themselves... a powersharing parlimentary system might work... who knows?.. but they should get a chance to work it out.
I don't think Iraqs debt should be forgiven... but to permanently cripple Iraqs economy with debt.. debt obtained by Saddam for his own personal gain and power... doesn't seem responsible either.
That's why regions are colonized, to gain possesion of its resources.
you're saying that the Iraqis people are not responsible enough to manage their own resources... so we should? If they want to bid out contracts to companies that's fine though.
The thing about democracy... you have to let them figure out the best solution for themselves... a powersharing parlimentary system might work... who knows?.. but they should get a chance to work it out.
I don't think Iraqs debt should be forgiven... but to permanently cripple Iraqs economy with debt.. debt obtained by Saddam for his own personal gain and power... doesn't seem responsible either.
Really?! So what's with the Arab land grab for Judea? Or North Africa, or now Central Africa and Central Asia?
As things stand now, "Iraqis" aren't capable of managing their own resources. Furthermore, the Iraqi oil industry is in complete disrepair. That's one of the reasons the bill for the war is so enormous. You need to bring the oil industry back to par.
Saddam's Iraq was a member of the United Nation. It was recognized as the legitimate government of the Iraqi people by the UN. You can't now turn around and say that contracts that government signed and the debt it owns creditors no longer will be honored because Saddam is no longer in power. That's just crazy.
Well they were managing the oil before we went in.... so you can't claim that the Iraqis can't manage their oil...
maybe not at this very moment. But they will. And how is it our right to decide who manages it for them?
I don't care if the UN recognized Saddam's regime... I didn't say that the debts should be forgiven... but something equitable should be done.
The UN recognizes many nations of various political structures... it's part of keeping them engaged in the world diplomatically... it doesn't legitimize the bad deeds one ruler has done and those who seeked to profit from doing business with them.
Also... the UN had an Oil and Trade embargo on Iraq... rightly so... but that crippled their ability to pay it's debt too.
The French and Brits were doing their best to grab land in those same regions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... wasn't a British installed monarch ruling Iraq until the 50's?
Well they were managing the oil before we went in.... so you can't claim that the Iraqis can't manage their oil...
maybe not at this very moment. But they will. And how is it our right to decide who manages it for them?
I don't care if the UN recognized Saddam's regime... I didn't say that the debts should be forgiven... but something equitable should be done.
The UN recognizes many nations of various political structures... it's part of keeping them engaged in the world diplomatically... it doesn't legitimize the bad deeds one ruler has done and those who seeked to profit from doing business with them.
Also... the UN had an Oil and Trade embargo on Iraq... rightly so... but that crippled their ability to pay it's debt too.
The French and Brits were doing their best to grab land in those same regions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... wasn't a British installed monarch ruling Iraq until the 50's?
I think we're in basic agreement regards the oil thingy. If you read my posts a little more carefully, you'd have noticed that I left the future fate of these oil fields an open question. All I'm saying is that "as things stand now, 'Iraqis' aren't capable of managing their own resources" - be it oil, water, gas, etc. I'm not saying that the Allied Forces should have permanent hold on the oil fields. I am saying, that until there's a representative, responsible and accountable government in there, the US along with its allies should safeguard the oil fields and prevent them from falling into the wrong hands or deliberate harm and abuse.
Also, teh French or Brits or Germans or Italians did NOT actively colonize or try to colonize the area. That's a false charge. Supporting a friendly local regime or having your forces stationed in the area is NOT the same as actively colonizing the place.
We should be safegaurding the whole country... not just the oil fields... and we've been having trouble protecting even the pipelines.
I think you should look to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, South and North America in general, as examples of colonization. If you still can't differentiate than I really don't think I can help you.
And "we" should do what is in our best interest. Frankly, I don't believe that should include guarding anything but the oil reserves. You may have a different opinion, but that's what democracy is for. So far it seems your opinion is the prevailing opinion in this regard. But that doesn't mean it is the correct one..
This is a "plan" ? General platitudes mixed with unrealistic suggestions (get Nato involved, more international support, more democracy) is not a plan - its an evasion or tepid reformulation of existing "plans".
It's a plan. At least a framework of a plan. If you don't think it is plan, then we can simply disagree.
He gives the reasons for U.S. intervention, the current situation, the choices available, and where he stands.
If Clark was President for 10 months, would he not be as clear in a speech?
Quote:
I imagine Kucinich is simple: get out!
Er, isn't this the short vision of Nixon's Vietnamisation speech you linked?
Quote:
By the way, I agree with the three nations concept. However, State would never go along with it (Turkey would freak).
Since the administration had no problems with ignoring the State Department's objections and the objections of Iraq's neighbors prior to the invasion, than why would it bother them (the administration) now? According to them, at least Wolfowitz and friends, unrest in neighboring countries is what they want.
Why doesn't someone suggest that they divide the country in three?!
I suggested it months ago. Then again in this very thread about 6 posts ahead of you.
Quote:
Let those three "provinces" compete for the development money. And those that meet the criteria for an open democratic society will receive help. The US army should guard the oil fields and let the locals fend for themselves. Sell em small arms if they wish for some, but that's it. If the Iraqi people want democracy let em fight for it!
Surely you jest.
Divide the country in 3 and split the oil up equally among the 3. Only non-government people can take advantage of the oil. I'd almost bomb and destroy all the current oil equipment. Then put a ratio on how much oil can be exported and imported, and a ratio on how much gas should cost within the country.
Every country gets the support they need in terms of funding. No one gets a military for a certain amount of time. All Iraqi military personnel become "unarmed" policemen working with peacekeepers. No non-native corporate contracts should be allowed and the only role played for outsiders should be as consultants. All reconstruction contracts go to native companies.
Not all colonization efforts have the same intentions... or results, that's true.
I'm sure that would go over really well... the equivalent of american "forts" surrounding oil fields. While the rest of the country goes nuts. It would confirm their worst fears of the U.S.'s intentions.
Not all colonization efforts have the same intentions... or results, that's true.
I'm sure that would go over really well... the equivalent of american "forts" surrounding oil fields. While the rest of the country goes nuts. It would confirm their worst fears of the U.S.'s intentions.
Really most people including myself are beyond caring what the "worst fears" of detractors of the war are. You (royal you) would always invent the worse possible motives for everything that is or isn't being done. This is clearly evidenced in the posting on the issue by many of Leftist on this board. There's just no reasoning with youz. You guys just like to whine.
..(added)
Anyway, my suspicion is that your objections to my suggestion(s) really stems from a rather sinister motive. I think you deliberately want to keep these soldiers exposed so that the casualty figures mount. I don't believe you ever wanted the US to succeed in this war. And that is the real source of all your objections.
I suggested it months ago. Then again in this very thread about 6 posts ahead of you.
Surely you jest.
Divide the country in 3 and split the oil up equally among the 3. Only non-government people can take advantage of the oil. I'd almost bomb and destroy all the current oil equipment. Then put a ratio on how much oil can be exported and imported, and a ratio on how much gas should cost within the country.
Every country gets the support they need in terms of funding. No one gets a military for a certain amount of time. All Iraqi military personnel become "unarmed" policemen working with peacekeepers. No non-native corporate contracts should be allowed and the only role played for outsiders should be as consultants. All reconstruction contracts go to native companies.
Surely you jest.
Even communist China allows for foreign completion.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Spin? You are endorsing a civil war plan. Cut the country up... give arms to the side we like and let them go at it. Your plan just happens to have 3 sides... not a north/south civil war but...
And they wouldn't be fighting for democracy... they would fight for control of the oil fields and pipelines.
Hey. Does the US have a longstanding history of nationbuilding? Are we so good at it that it was wise to cut the UN out of the process?
Not at all. That's your reading of it, and therefore that's your illegitimate spin on what I'm saying.
I'm saying that we shouldn't actively support an artificial construct created by European imperialists of the last century. The area more naturally divides it self into 3 ethnic "national" zones. This division is there, I didn't create it. There's also mutual hostility between the 3 groups and so trying force them into what we already know is a failed construct, I believe, is simply an exercise in futility. (See former Yugoslavia).
I also believe that the best way to achieve democratic reform is to underpin it with economic incentives. That's where the reconstruction funding comes into play. Since the US is pressed to achieve these democratic reforms in the shortest time frame possible, I believe promoting active competition between the 3 ethnic groups for these funds is the most efficient option available for to achieve this goal of liberalization and democratization.
Also from a tactical point of view, it would be much easier to create a fortified zone around the oil fields and thus eliminate or significantly reduce the casualty rate of allied soldiers. These soldiers are very exposed now, and are too few and diluted to achieve the mission now assigned to them.
Moving our forces to these fortified zones will also force the locals to become more actively involved in their own security and national affairs. It's not for us to fight this fight for them. The toppling of Saddam has leveled the playing field. The Iraqis interested in democracy now need to take over from here. That is if there are enough former Iraqis actually interested in this. If not, the population of Saddam's Iraq will have no one to blame but themselves. The financial and military aid is there on the table. It really should be their move now to take advantage of it, or not.
As regards the UN. I really can't see where it ever played a real constructive role anywhere in the world in its entire history of existence. I've long argued that the UN is part of the problem and not part of the solution. So I'd be very happy with it's dissolution.
MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct. Their societies were based on ancient nomadic cultures... until oil was discovered.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ok so your plan is to control the oil fields... THEN let them compete for the rest. Your plan keeps getting better.
MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct. Their societies were based on ancient nomadic cultures... until oil was discovered.
Well, I think it is essential that the allied forces control the oil fields, least they, again fall into the wrong hands.
As far as "MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct", that's absolute garbage. Where did you get this nonsense?!
It is European societies that are based on Middle Eastern constructs and not the other way round. Middle Eastern cities had modern utilities and amenities for millennia prior to the northern Europeans. They were still living it up and foraging for food in the dark forests of Europe when Middle Eastern societies were already fully civilized and cultured. You really outa read a little more history and rely a little less on the patronizing and condescending leftist propaganda.
Anyway, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about artificial borders drawn up in the 19/20th century by the Europeans, that were artificially drawn up with little regard to ethnic, religious divides. That's what I'm talking about. And trying to enforce these artificial boundaries is simply an exercise in futility.
Now, as far as competing for the "rest" as you refer to it. You make it sound as though there's nothing to compete for. I guess only time will tell if the locals share in that point of view, or not. But, it really is amazing to see how jaded and ungrateful you liberals are for the freedoms allowed you under the capitalistic/democratic system.
It really is amazing! But I'm beginning to understand why so many of you are so lethargic when it comes to confronting the Islamacists and the authoritarian regimes that give them support.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Ok so your plan is to control the oil fields... THEN let them compete for the rest. Your plan keeps getting better.
MOST of the middle east is based on a European construct. Their societies were based on ancient nomadic cultures... until oil was discovered.
you have a resounding knack for simplifying the complex issues of the middle east... and then finding its flaws... you should make like "the middle east for kids" children's books..
I'm sorry but simplifying the inextricably complicated social issues of the world only makes things harder.
the left hand should be shaking instead of slapping... oh and the UN it should be called the United nations of Africa..
I understood his idea completely. That's why it was so easy to condense into a simple argument.
Africa is a large contitent. With lots of problems. It probably needs the UN's help most of all. Don't see why that's a problem.
Originally posted by aapl
Well, I think it is essential that the allied forces control the oil fields, least they, again fall into the wrong hands.
Anyway, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about artificial borders drawn up in the 19/20th century by the Europeans, that were artificially drawn up with little regard to ethnic, religious divides. That's what I'm talking about. And trying to enforce these artificial boundaries is simply an exercise in futility.
Now, as far as competing for the "rest" as you refer to it. You make it sound as though there's nothing to compete for. I guess only time will tell if the locals share in that point of view, or not. But, it really is amazing to see how jaded and ungrateful you liberals are for the freedoms allowed you under the capitalistic/democratic system.
It really is amazing! But I'm beginning to understand why so many of you are so lethargic when it comes to confronting the Islamacists and the authoritarian regimes that give them support.
In theory you are correct. It's always perplexed me that the U.N. can talk a flurry about "self-determination", "human rights" and then "non-interference with internal affairs" - as if none of them are ever in conflict (e.g. Kosovo).
Three nations make a lot of sense, but the states of the gulf, mid-east, and Turkey would destroy any such plan. Turkey would likely move against the Kurds, Iranians support shias, Saudi Arabia plunge into Sunni politics, and it would probably end up in war.
What we should have done, in 1975, is have siezed the major gulf oil fields, internationalised oil profits to all 3rd world nations, and told the muslim crazies that's because they're irresponsible (they embargoed oil)...
Plunder regions for their resources.
Maybe in 1975 we should have started program to end dependency on oil. There ARE other forms of energy.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Sounds an awful lot like modern colonialism.
Plunder regions for their resources.
Maybe in 1975 we should have started program to end dependency on oil. There ARE other forms of energy.
Just a thought.
Not at all. No one is interested in colonizing that area. Again, that's your illegitimate spin on what is said. We are interested in preventing opportunistic thugs from taking control again. Also, Saddam's Iraq had incurred an enormous debt to creditors abroad. There's absolutely no reason why this credit now should not be secured.
you're saying that the Iraqis people are not responsible enough to manage their own resources... so we should? If they want to bid out contracts to companies that's fine though.
The thing about democracy... you have to let them figure out the best solution for themselves... a powersharing parlimentary system might work... who knows?.. but they should get a chance to work it out.
I don't think Iraqs debt should be forgiven... but to permanently cripple Iraqs economy with debt.. debt obtained by Saddam for his own personal gain and power... doesn't seem responsible either.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
That's why regions are colonized, to gain possesion of its resources.
you're saying that the Iraqis people are not responsible enough to manage their own resources... so we should? If they want to bid out contracts to companies that's fine though.
The thing about democracy... you have to let them figure out the best solution for themselves... a powersharing parlimentary system might work... who knows?.. but they should get a chance to work it out.
I don't think Iraqs debt should be forgiven... but to permanently cripple Iraqs economy with debt.. debt obtained by Saddam for his own personal gain and power... doesn't seem responsible either.
Really?! So what's with the Arab land grab for Judea? Or North Africa, or now Central Africa and Central Asia?
As things stand now, "Iraqis" aren't capable of managing their own resources. Furthermore, the Iraqi oil industry is in complete disrepair. That's one of the reasons the bill for the war is so enormous. You need to bring the oil industry back to par.
Saddam's Iraq was a member of the United Nation. It was recognized as the legitimate government of the Iraqi people by the UN. You can't now turn around and say that contracts that government signed and the debt it owns creditors no longer will be honored because Saddam is no longer in power. That's just crazy.
maybe not at this very moment. But they will. And how is it our right to decide who manages it for them?
I don't care if the UN recognized Saddam's regime... I didn't say that the debts should be forgiven... but something equitable should be done.
The UN recognizes many nations of various political structures... it's part of keeping them engaged in the world diplomatically... it doesn't legitimize the bad deeds one ruler has done and those who seeked to profit from doing business with them.
Also... the UN had an Oil and Trade embargo on Iraq... rightly so... but that crippled their ability to pay it's debt too.
The French and Brits were doing their best to grab land in those same regions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... wasn't a British installed monarch ruling Iraq until the 50's?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Wasn't a British installed monarch ruling Iraq until the 50's?
Yep. And the Brits used poison gas on the Kurds too.
Totally different, of course, to Saddam doing it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well they were managing the oil before we went in.... so you can't claim that the Iraqis can't manage their oil...
maybe not at this very moment. But they will. And how is it our right to decide who manages it for them?
I don't care if the UN recognized Saddam's regime... I didn't say that the debts should be forgiven... but something equitable should be done.
The UN recognizes many nations of various political structures... it's part of keeping them engaged in the world diplomatically... it doesn't legitimize the bad deeds one ruler has done and those who seeked to profit from doing business with them.
Also... the UN had an Oil and Trade embargo on Iraq... rightly so... but that crippled their ability to pay it's debt too.
The French and Brits were doing their best to grab land in those same regions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries... wasn't a British installed monarch ruling Iraq until the 50's?
I think we're in basic agreement regards the oil thingy. If you read my posts a little more carefully, you'd have noticed that I left the future fate of these oil fields an open question. All I'm saying is that "as things stand now, 'Iraqis' aren't capable of managing their own resources" - be it oil, water, gas, etc. I'm not saying that the Allied Forces should have permanent hold on the oil fields. I am saying, that until there's a representative, responsible and accountable government in there, the US along with its allies should safeguard the oil fields and prevent them from falling into the wrong hands or deliberate harm and abuse.
Also, teh French or Brits or Germans or Italians did NOT actively colonize or try to colonize the area. That's a false charge. Supporting a friendly local regime or having your forces stationed in the area is NOT the same as actively colonizing the place.
We should be safegaurding the whole country... not just the oil fields... and we've been having trouble protecting even the pipelines.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Installing rulers isn't colonization? O.k. Puppet regimes then.
We should be safegaurding the whole country... not just the oil fields... and we've been having trouble protecting even the pipelines.
I think you should look to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, South and North America in general, as examples of colonization. If you still can't differentiate than I really don't think I can help you.
And "we" should do what is in our best interest. Frankly, I don't believe that should include guarding anything but the oil reserves. You may have a different opinion, but that's what democracy is for. So far it seems your opinion is the prevailing opinion in this regard. But that doesn't mean it is the correct one..
Originally posted by MaxParrish
This is a "plan" ? General platitudes mixed with unrealistic suggestions (get Nato involved, more international support, more democracy) is not a plan - its an evasion or tepid reformulation of existing "plans".
It's a plan. At least a framework of a plan. If you don't think it is plan, then we can simply disagree.
Its ironic, but even Nixon had a plan for withdrawing from Vietnam. If you want to see the kind of directness I'd like see this link: http://www.nixonlibrary.org/Research...html#TopOfPage
He gives the reasons for U.S. intervention, the current situation, the choices available, and where he stands.
If Clark was President for 10 months, would he not be as clear in a speech?
I imagine Kucinich is simple: get out!
Er, isn't this the short vision of Nixon's Vietnamisation speech you linked?
By the way, I agree with the three nations concept. However, State would never go along with it (Turkey would freak).
Since the administration had no problems with ignoring the State Department's objections and the objections of Iraq's neighbors prior to the invasion, than why would it bother them (the administration) now? According to them, at least Wolfowitz and friends, unrest in neighboring countries is what they want.
Originally posted by aapl
Why doesn't someone suggest that they divide the country in three?!
I suggested it months ago. Then again in this very thread about 6 posts ahead of you.
Let those three "provinces" compete for the development money. And those that meet the criteria for an open democratic society will receive help. The US army should guard the oil fields and let the locals fend for themselves. Sell em small arms if they wish for some, but that's it. If the Iraqi people want democracy let em fight for it!
Surely you jest.
Divide the country in 3 and split the oil up equally among the 3. Only non-government people can take advantage of the oil. I'd almost bomb and destroy all the current oil equipment. Then put a ratio on how much oil can be exported and imported, and a ratio on how much gas should cost within the country.
Every country gets the support they need in terms of funding. No one gets a military for a certain amount of time. All Iraqi military personnel become "unarmed" policemen working with peacekeepers. No non-native corporate contracts should be allowed and the only role played for outsiders should be as consultants. All reconstruction contracts go to native companies.
I'm sure that would go over really well... the equivalent of american "forts" surrounding oil fields. While the rest of the country goes nuts. It would confirm their worst fears of the U.S.'s intentions.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Not all colonization efforts have the same intentions... or results, that's true.
I'm sure that would go over really well... the equivalent of american "forts" surrounding oil fields. While the rest of the country goes nuts. It would confirm their worst fears of the U.S.'s intentions.
Really most people including myself are beyond caring what the "worst fears" of detractors of the war are. You (royal you) would always invent the worse possible motives for everything that is or isn't being done. This is clearly evidenced in the posting on the issue by many of Leftist on this board. There's just no reasoning with youz. You guys just like to whine.
..(added)
Anyway, my suspicion is that your objections to my suggestion(s) really stems from a rather sinister motive. I think you deliberately want to keep these soldiers exposed so that the casualty figures mount. I don't believe you ever wanted the US to succeed in this war. And that is the real source of all your objections.
Originally posted by THT
I suggested it months ago. Then again in this very thread about 6 posts ahead of you.
Surely you jest.
Divide the country in 3 and split the oil up equally among the 3. Only non-government people can take advantage of the oil. I'd almost bomb and destroy all the current oil equipment. Then put a ratio on how much oil can be exported and imported, and a ratio on how much gas should cost within the country.
Every country gets the support they need in terms of funding. No one gets a military for a certain amount of time. All Iraqi military personnel become "unarmed" policemen working with peacekeepers. No non-native corporate contracts should be allowed and the only role played for outsiders should be as consultants. All reconstruction contracts go to native companies.
Surely you jest.
Even communist China allows for foreign completion.