h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why would outsiders be asked to rebuild mosques?

Government structures would be rebuilt. I doubt they'll look or feel much like the Red Lion. It's also possible Kuwaiti or similar businesses are awarded these contracts. Although the Kuwaitis might hide caricatures, private parts, and vulgar gestures in the frescoes, so they might not be the best choice for government structures.

I've asked you before to provide some concrete basis for your concerns regarding military bases. You should do so. Otherwise, I'll have to dismiss this argument as petulant conjecture.

You're right... the government established in Iraq is established by the US. It's a transitional government. Its only tasks are to get basic services running and get the process started for creating the real government. That's how these things are done. It's a process. You can't simply hold an election and everything is automagically in place. There isn't even a voting process or infrastructure yet... nevermind that there isn't even anything or anyone to vote on. All in good time.

"The decisions to remake a country are being made in Washington and have absolutely nothing to do with the wishes of the people at this point."

Eventually, they will have to take the wishes of the Iraqis into consideration fully. At the moment, it's all transitional and, yes, Washington is effectively in charge, but that can't last.

There's been a great deal of talk about the rejection of a fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq and I can't argue with that. It's like the rejection of another German Nationalist government in 1945. However, as I think I've said before, the US will have to be pragmatic and accept that Iraq will probably not be completely secular on the Western model.

So far, I think the US have been handling things fine. They've been surprisingly quick in inviting Iraqis to assist in the rebuilding of the country politically and I've seen nothing to suggest that Bush will reign-back on his promises for a democratic Iraq.

Regarding this "military base" talk. I think the US will have to accept that Iraq does not want a long-term US presence.

Blatherskite, I will provide one shortly. I did see an article, and I clipped it and have it at home...

The Irish seem to think so:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2003/0421/2889026400FR21OCLERY.html

As do some UK media outlets:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/042103_us_wants_permanent_access_to_mil.htm

The Southern Hemisphere:
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6320144%255E25777,00.html

Several online sources are worried:
http://www.blackwebportal.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=6&Topic=2705

Rumsfeld recently denied the possibility and The US government has repeatedly denied permanent bases BUT (I quote from the State department):
*The New York Times article indicated that the U.S. military will minimize the size of its presence in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq and would probably not announce the stationing of troops there permanently. The Times also quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying permanent access rather than permanent basing is all that the U.S. military requires.*
Meaning that permanent access to non-miltary air fields would be required. Much like the US which has military components in most of it's civilian airports.

>>I think the main reason the USA is seen in such a bad light in the area is its support of Israel with arms and money. Israel having broken numerous UN resolutions and international conventions, including nuclear non-proliferation.<<
Yes, exactly, that's a very big part (though not all) of it.

Thank you Ste, your reference is better than the one I would have supplied

"Why would outsiders be asked to rebuild mosques?" - because they destroyed them.

It's funny that zoomer has to come up with hard proof of military bases while blather gets to make hopeful statements like "Its only tasks are to get basic services running and get the process started for creating the real government."

alec trician, the point is that the USA claimed that they *knew* where to look and where it all was! That was obviously untrue, as we can now see.

>>Saddam was a murdering thug who brought Iraq to its knees and murdered its people for fun while looting its national coffers. Whether in your eyes the wars was justified or not surely you agree the Iraqis are better off without Saddam in power!<<
(a) It should have been *their* choice
(b) why are they (in your eyes)better off with the Americans in power?
(c) Why did you Yankees not give a toss about Saddam when he was one of yours, back in the 1980s (and presumably was just as much of a murdering tyrant?

>>No not a lie Della. There are bio agents, gases and delivery systems in Iraq.>>
This is obviously something you take on *fauth* Starbirth. I admire your adherence to your beliefs!

Zagreb, I just don't believe you! Are you naive, or are you aware you're not telling the truth?
>> It's like the rejection of another German Nationalist government in 1945.>>
Surely you *knew* Saddam's government was secular, not Islamic fundamentalist! Revisionism, all right!

And the troll pokes his head out from under the bridge...

"It's funny that zoomer has to come up with hard proof of military bases while blather gets to make hopeful statements like 'Its only tasks are to get basic services running and get the process started for creating the real government.'"

The first paragraph of this says exactly what I said: http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_interim.php

Laughing at my statement has only made you look stupid. And if you had simply asked for references, I'd have given them to you in a much nicer tone.

...get real della...

are you honestly trying to say that Saddam H. was not in the least bit interested in WMD's??

i think the american government stated the bleeding obvious in saying that 'we know SH HAS a WMD programme'...i don't recall them saying anything about knowing where they are.

The inspectors couldn't find them, surely that says more about the capabilities of the UN?

Perhaps we should ask the fr*nch, i bet THEY know where they are.

alec.

zoomer: It still sounds like all of this base talk is still in the speculative phase. I do see that you have good reason to be concerned... my apologies. However, until there is a government in Iraq to negotiate this sort of thing with, I think any discussion of the topic remains premature.

After all, the new government may decide it's in their own benefit to give the US bases to their country. And they certainly wouldn't be the first to come to that conclusion.

Agreed, once again we must wait. Until then on other matters we must agree to disagree (and I promise I will not search your basements for anthrax)

In regard to the other link I am glad to see that the spirit is willing. Paragraph three troubles me in that there is no timeline involved. Most of all the UN paragraph bothers me:
*U.S. officials have resisted any U.N. role in reconstituting the Iraqi government. Some members of the Security Council insist that the United Nations must be involved in reconstruction, both because its agencies have deep experience in nation-building and because U.N. participation would give the new government instant international legitimacy. This dispute will play out in the coming weeks and months.*

I agree with the UN that they have much more experience rebuilding and with the legitimacy issue. I have found the *international* flavour of help and rebuilding to be only a sad list of mobile hospitals and refugee camps from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and some eastern European states. The *nation building* seems to be exclusively US. As I have said we will have to wait and see but in the mean time valuable world opinion is being frittered away by the US not to mention their image in the Islamic world.

Here is another media report I find enlightening:

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmo...E3A701F-4385-4BBF-855F-B09A6254C1A6

I particularly am interested in these two excerpts:

* ...asking whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. According to some of the scientists who once oversaw production of nerve agents and other programs -- and who no longer need fear Saddam -- the answer is a resounding no.*

and

"We want to help rebuild the country," he said. "We have the people and the knowledge to fix things quickly."

...bad link zoom, sorry.

alec.

Sorry, try this:

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/archives/story.asp?id=9E3A701F-4385-4BBF-855F-B09A6254C1A6

"And the troll pokes his head out from under the bridge..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F122145?thread=271986 Trolls should be careful when using the labell troll. ----------------------- Alectrician, "The inspectors couldn't find them, surely that says more about the capabilities of the UN?" Actually it says more about those who wouldn't let them finish. They had no promlem finding thing after the first war. But then the was no issue over wether or not they existed.

...perhaps you would like to have another go at your last paragraph?

alec.