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

So, Saddam is gone. Legally or illegally, rightly or wrongly, the US with help from the UK, Australia and Poland (no, I'm not kidding) has removed Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Party from power.

So, what happens now?

Obviously, a democratic Iraq (a trend that will hopefully spread through the arab world) is desirable and was, in fact, one of the aims of the war. But how will that work?

Well, Iraq is going to need aid and a lot of it. Yes, it has oil to sell, but rebuilding a country that has been damaged by no less than three wars (Iran-Iraq war, First Gulf War, Second Gulf War), has been crippled by more than ten years of large-scale UN sanctions and has been ruined by the useless tyranical rule of a fascist gangster is going to take more than oil money.

So, a repproach between the USA and those EU countries (France and Germany) who opposed the war is necessary. They represent the two most powerful trading blocs in the world and their hard cash will be necessary to rebuild Iraq.

Regarding Iraqi democracy. This will need to be sorted out quickly. The WWII days of five-year occupations is no longer politically acceptable. The US will need to create a new Iraqi consititution and restore soveirignty within two years or less. And given the bad-feeling about Western presence in Iraq, any thought of leaving a "garrison" a la Germany should be considered dead in the water. THe US and her allies will have to withdraw following the restoration of soverignty and withdraw fully. Otherwise, there will be tension, a sense of "occupation" and extremism will breed.

Iraq also has the problem of being a multi-ethnic state. This will invariably cause governmental problems. A Federal Iraq seems to be a good solution but, in extreme circustances, the country may have to be divided up.

It's going to be a tough road ahead, but at least Iraq and her people have a future now.

Oh, and can people please add to this debate with something with a bit more substance than "Ha! Yankee Empire will stretch around the world! Iraqi soverignty?! You're kidding! OIL! OIL! OIL!". I've seen the state of some of the threads here. And aren't you lot supposed to be off the Uni computers right now?

Peace and quiet. And who says it has to give *anything* back?
Oh, and by the way mate, democracy can't be implemented from the top down like this. It is a classic bottom up system. You can't bomb people into freedom.
Also, with the recent admission by the USA government that they have been holding people aged fifteen and under in their questionably legal Guantanamo facility, how do you think the average Iraqi is going to respond to this news? Isn't it going to sound like the behaviour of a certain other leader who had an anomolous election result?

"Peace and quiet. And who says it has to give *anything* back?"

They hardly had "peace and quiet" under Ba'athism, you know. Not with all those mass-graves and "disappearing" people. Not to mention the 200,000 liquidated in the crushing of the 1991 uprising.

"Oh, and by the way mate, democracy can't be implemented from the top down like this. It is a classic bottom up system. You can't bomb people into freedom."

If people are denied freedom and the right to choose their own government by an entrenched dicatorship, then I believe as an Internationalist we have the right to remove the government that has denied them their liberty. Calling it "bombing people into freedom" is a gross simplification. The idea that people who had been exterminated en-mass everytime they stood up to their government should be "left alone" to remove the regime "bottom up" is Isolationist, selfish and cynical in my opinion.

You asked what they needed, not what they had before.

"If people are denied freedom and the right to choose their own government by an entrenched dicatorship, then I believe as an Internationalist we have the right to remove the government that has denied them their liberty."

We have no such 'right'. OK, let's suppose we do for a moment - who's next? China? North Korea? Pakistan? Cambodia? Anywhere there's an election result the West disagrees with? Or what about the other way around? Would you support the invasion of the USA by China because there was something fishy about George's election? Get a Grip, mate - that's naive in the extreme. While we're at it, what about the implications of the CIA's involvement of the Chavez coupe? He was/is the people's choice, but wasn't the US's choice, so they attempted to topple him. That's dictatorship. Should we now topple the dictator of the US?
I'm afraid you're politically out of your depth if this is your take on the current situation. You show the naive simplicity of the far right.

"Calling it "bombing people into freedom" is a gross simplification. The idea that people who had been exterminated en-mass everytime they stood up to their government should be "left alone" to remove the regime "bottom up" is Isolationist, selfish and cynical in my opinion."

And charging in there, protecting the oil wells while the hospitals and museums are ransacked isn't cynical? I noticed the banks got protection farily swiftly. You also failed to imagine for a moment that I wasn't implying that the people chose their own leader now the invasion is over. Choosing who you want in (which the USA has now done by equiping Barzani with a private army, and Rumsfeld rejecting a cleric ruling body, and the American administrator, Jay Garner, in charge for an 'undefined' amount of time) is selfish and cynical. The Americans are in charge, which was the idea from the begining. They will support any leader that supports their interests, overtly or covertly.

Keep you eye on the ball Zagreb, don't get so high on your own opinions that you forget other people's are valid too.

"charging in there, protecting the oil wells while the hospitals and museums are ransacked isn't cynical?"

I thought that was pretty sloppy to say the least. They should have been at the hospitals protecting tthem since they were there for "humanitarian reasons" They bombed them good grief! No one "planned" on the citizens needing medical attention & supplies?

The museums,I am very cynical. It *could* have been planned & executed by any number of interested groupsThey were certainly not protected.

grr *Indiana Jones* groan

Why all the emphasis on "humanitarian reasons". I do not believe that the war was motivated in the least by "humanitarian reasons". There will certainly be some benefits for people of Iraq but, just like the damage to the same people, it will be "colateral".

Some good came from it all, great.... some bad came, too bad.
At sometime in the future, the people of Iraq - individually and collectively - will weigh up the good against the bad and decide whether it was worth it....
But if they want to keep the US happy, they will have to adopt the pretence that it was a "war of liberation".

If you think I'm cynical just remember events over the past 25 years concerning Iraq and Saddam.

"We have no such 'right'. OK, let's suppose we do for a moment - who's next? China? North Korea? Pakistan? Cambodia? Anywhere there's an election result the West disagrees with? Or what about the other way around? Would you support the invasion of the USA by China because there was something fishy about George's election? Get a Grip, mate - that's naive in the extreme. While we're at it, what about the implications of the CIA's involvement of the Chavez coupe? He was/is the people's choice, but wasn't the US's choice, so they attempted to topple him. That's dictatorship. Should we now topple the dictator of the US?"

As an Internationalist, I believe we have the right to intervene against unelected and tyranical governments. This is a left-wing philosophy. In fact the British right-wing columnist Peter Hitchens has attacked the "left-wing" war in Iraq insisting "the idea that freedom can be achieved by force is a left-wing idea".

Much of the rhetoric of the anti-war movement has taken classic right-wing ideas and tried to bend them into a pacifistic left-wing notion. Thus we should be isolationist, leave the problems of other nations alone and deal with our own problems. My personal belief is that the anti-war movement is not left-wing and certainly not Internationalist. It's just anti-American. And there are some very creepy far-right Islamic movements in those marches too.

Chavez is not relevant here. Yes, the US supported a (failed) coup to remove him which was unacceptable as he was democratically elected. He's no longer popular though, he is an authoritarian leader who was chosen because he promised solutions to Venezuelas problems and he has failed to provide them. If you want a poster-boy for the South American left I would suggest the new Brazilian leader rather than people like Chavez. Anyway, I digress.

"I'm afraid you're politically out of your depth if this is your take on the current situation. You show the naive simplicity of the far right."

Well, I don't see how you can accuse me of being "politically out of your depth" when you compared the crooked Bush election to something like China or Saddam Hussein. As for the "naive simplicity of the far right", if you think anyone who supported the successful toppling of a dictator against cynical isolationism is "far right" then I would suggest you take a look at the plank in your own eye, brother.

Zag

"Why all the emphasis on "humanitarian reasons". I do not believe that the war was motivated in the least by "humanitarian reasons". There will certainly be some benefits for people of Iraq but, just like the damage to the same people, it will be "colateral"."

No, it wasn't but things will now improve for the Iraqi people. World War II was not started to save hundreds of thousands of Jews but that is exactly what it did. Waiting for action done purely for altruistic reasons is a waste of time. The best thing to do is wait for someone to come along and take action for their own reasons and wait for the humanitarian reasons to fall into place behind them.

Incidentally, civilian casualties in this war really were low. 2000 dead for the invasion of a country is exceptionally low. They've been finding more dead than that in some of the mass-graves of the regime's victims they've been uncovering. Without action, that death-toll would have continued to rise, far outstripping those killed by the war.

Why is everyone winging about it all blaming everyone for everything. Ask yourself what did you do about Iraq? probably nothing maybe a wee protest just to say "Go on Saddam, we think its okay to murder loads of people we wont do anything about" If you see someone getting murdered in the street and you could stop it would you? or would you sit back and let it happen? if the latter that makes you just as bad.

If you saw someone getting murdered in the street would you help them? I'd like to think I would. But what would you think of me if I then helped myself to the would-be victim's wallet to reward myself?
Don't, for a moment, get confused here. What you have is two immoral sh*tbags scrapping over a patch of oil in a patch of sand.
Bush used the UN to denude his enemy of any capability of defending itself before then dimissing the UN as irrelevant and embarking on a legally questionable oil-grab. The man he is equiping with a private army (private army - this is, by the way, Bush's definition of democracy) is widely distrusted by everyone except Bush and has been convicted of fraud.
Just because you pick on a killer doesn't automatically make you a good guy. Bush is bent to hell, and will be backing killers of his own liking. Just like his daddy backed Saddam during the gassing of the Kurds in '88.
There are people who would love inquiring minds to be reset to black and white, to believe in such imbecilic notions such as political 'good and evil' scenarios.
Sorry Nizzy but to reduce the situation to a 'would you stop a murder if you had the chance' is totally irrelevant. The situation is much more complex than a simpe analogy could ever illustrate. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but even a shallow dip into the history of the last 100 or so years will reveal patterns of power-struggles played out by the major governments of the time. The conflict we witnessed was just another move to keep the military-industrial complex well oiled and re-equiped, ready for the next move.
Please don't get fooled into thinking in black and white, Nizzy, it just forces you to take sides in a game you haven't a clue about.

"Why all the emphasis on "humanitarian reasons".
If that was in reguards to my comment about the hospitals being unprotected.? Not sure it was

By the time the war started, here in the US it was touted as "humanitarian reasons". The need to find WMD was downplayed by then.

Dissenters were against the good "humanitarian efforts" being done.
(to hear GW-ish talk)

"Sorry Nizzy but to reduce the situation to a 'would you stop a murder if you had the chance' is totally irrelevant. The situation is much more complex than a simpe analogy could ever illustrate. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but even a shallow dip into the history of the last 100 or so years will reveal patterns of power-struggles played out by the major governments of the time. The conflict we witnessed was just another move to keep the military-industrial complex well oiled and re-equiped, ready for the next move.
Please don't get fooled into thinking in black and white, Nizzy, it just forces you to take sides in a game you haven't a clue about."

Your thinking is pretty black/white too. You're not even willing to consider that the USA could in any way improve things in Iraq (even if it does), and you seem to be quite happy to let dictatorships thrive just so the Americans can't buy oil from a country. Not really the most moral standpoint.

And stop insulting people with this "you don't understand the situation". Your opinions strike me as simplistic handed-down sixth-form recieved opinion. You don't strike me as remotely interested in the complexities of Middle East politics, just determined to pessimistically see everything through blinkered anti-American glasses. I'm sorry to be rude, but if you're going to come here and insult people by arrogantly assuming that you know all the facts (when you plainly don't) then you should expect to be treated with the appropriate amount of respect.

Unless you want to actually debate this and give the "other guy's" opinion an open-minded listen, in which case welcome to the club.

Zag

"Why all the emphasis on "humanitarian reasons".
If that was in reguards to my comment about the hospitals being unprotected.? Not sure it was

By the time the war started, here in the US it was touted as "humanitarian reasons". The need to find WMD was downplayed by then.

Dissenters were against the good "humanitarian efforts" being done."

The whole WMD thing was an attempt to legitimise the war. Basically, the USA (and pretty much most of the world, if they were being honest) wanted rid of Saddam Hussein. The WMD was a legal prop, since his posession of them would mean he was breaking the agreement with the UN which could legitimise action.

Saddam *had* been trying to obtain them, this was pretty much an open secret. He had been very keen on chemical weapons before 1991 (and was at one point supplied them thanks to one Donald Rumsfeld), not to mention the absurd "Iraqi supergun". The sanctions placed on the country by the UN were designed to cut Iraq off from WMDs, and short-wars such as Operation Desert Fox in 1998 were intended to "keep him under control". There is never any guarantee that you can keep WMDs out of a country, though.

The only aspect of the war (apart from the American "friendly fire/mis-aimed missile" nonsense) which I thought was done wrongly was the humanitarian aspect. They completely misunderstood the amount of food a population that had scant little to eat *before* the war started would actually need. Oh, and the lax policing whilst the looting was going on was pretty disgraceful too. To be honest, I think the Americans were undermanned to deal with huge looting mobs and just shrugged their shoulders. However, it was something that they should have taken into account.

I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant, Zagreb, I was just trying to keep the tone set by posting #1.
I'm pleased to see you're promulgating Bush's 'anti-war, anti-America' stance, the poor love seems to be so short for support for his actions right now.
For the record (not that it'll make a jot of difference to you Zagreb, as you seem to know everything there is to know about me) I am not anti-American, but I am anti corporate take-over. Coca-Cola runs some South American companies, and all we are witnessing at present is global commercialism openly flexing its military muscles for the first time.
"We want something, we take it. Leave those fool-headed peace-niks to clear up afterwards."
Also, I don't believe dictators should be left to torture their own people. I believe strongly in interventionism (not that you asked) but not when the interventionists are so obviously interested only in lining their own pockets, and also support (finacially and militarilly) other regimes which behave in the same manner as those they would destroy for profit. The list of bent regimes supported by the USA *government* (to emphasise that these are the people of whom I speak) contains regimes who are as bad if not worse than Hussein, and who definately own WMD's and torture their own people.
To return once again to the attempted Chavez coupe last year, we all witnessed the government of the USA pretending outrage at what an insult to democracy Hussein represented, while they (practically openly) toppled a *democratically elected* president to replace him with an *unelected* posse of generals. It was openly stated that Chavez didn't have the interests of the USA at heart, and this is why it happened.
Now, you don't seem to think much of Chavez, but in this matter, it was plain that millions of the people that voted for him *did* think a lot of him, or at the very least, didn't think the alternative was better.
You dinsmissed this as irrelevant yesterday, Zagreb, but I disagree strongly. If the government of the USA thinks nothing or organising or backing a coupe against a democratically elected government of a country which has nothing to do with it, then how much seriousness can you attach to their rhetoric about democracy in the Middle-East?

If you think the USA, or any of their appointed unelected interim leaders of Iraq have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart, then I'm afraid you are in for a sore disappointment.

Again, for the record, I never made it to the Sixth-form. Given your current stance and style I have to ask, did you ever leave it?

"I'm sorry if I come across as arrogant, Zagreb, I was just trying to keep the tone set by posting #1."

What was wrong with posting number 1? It wasn't hostile.

"I'm pleased to see you're promulgating Bush's 'anti-war, anti-America' stance, the poor love seems to be so short for support for his actions right now."

Not at all. But your posts did strike me as classically anti-American.

"For the record (not that it'll make a jot of difference to you Zagreb, as you seem to know everything there is to know about me) I am not anti-American, but I am anti corporate take-over. Coca-Cola runs some South American companies, and all we are witnessing at present is global commercialism openly flexing its military muscles for the first time."

I'll take your word that you aren't anti-American (but I have a feeling your attitude to the war would have been different were it, say, waged by France or Cuba). The anti-corporate thing doesn't make much sense. The war was not waged by US corporations. Yes, American business will take a stake in Iraq post-Saddam (as it would have done during the dictatorship, if only it were allowed to) but is it really worth letting 20 million people live under a dictatorship just so coca-cola can't sells cans of brown fizzy stuff over there?

""We want something, we take it. Leave those fool-headed peace-niks to clear up afterwards.""

Even if that was their attitude (and I don't think it is), then fine. Let them remove the dictatorship and then those of us who care about Iraqis *will* clear up afterwards. We didn't have much choice either way when Saddam was in power.

"Also, I don't believe dictators should be left to torture their own people. I believe strongly in interventionism (not that you asked)"

Good.

" but not when the interventionists are so obviously interested only in lining their own pockets, and also support (finacially and militarilly) other regimes which behave in the same manner as those they would destroy for profit."

Then you can't be Interventionalist realistically. You are *never* going to get a government doing these things for purely altruistic reasons. You can either wait for one to come along a do the job and accept that it has it's own interests at heart or you can accept that Iraq, or anywhere else, has to remain under dictatorship to keep US (or whoever) interests out of the country.

"The list of bent regimes supported by the USA *government* (to emphasise that these are the people of whom I speak) contains regimes who are as bad if not worse than Hussein, and who definately own WMD's and torture their own people.""

Who are the "bent regimes" these days, incidentally? I know in the past we had the South Korean generals and the South American fascists but these have all now passed into history. Who are the dictatorships left supported by the USA?

And if the USA supports one dicatorship, does that mean it can never remove another one. Do both dicatorships have to stand because both will not fall?

"To return once again to the attempted Chavez coupe last year, we all witnessed the government of the USA pretending outrage at what an insult to democracy Hussein represented, while they (practically openly) toppled a *democratically elected* president to replace him with an *unelected* posse of generals. It was openly stated that Chavez didn't have the interests of the USA at heart, and this is why it happened."

It's not strictly relevant to Iraq but OK, let's go back here. I've said before that the USA's actions (failed, incidentally, you seem to suggest they were successful) were illegal and wrong. No, I don't care much for Chavez, he has failed to do what he said he would, stifled Free trade unions (with US help, incidentally) and his police have fired on unarmed crowds. I think he's a bit of a scumbag, but he *is* an elected scumbag and unless he seizes power, we don't really have much right to take action against him.

"Now, you don't seem to think much of Chavez, but in this matter, it was plain that millions of the people that voted for him *did* think a lot of him, or at the very least, didn't think the alternative was better."

That was before he came to power. Now he's pretty unpopular because he has failed to deliver on his promises. And if he's voted out, trust me that's not the Evil USA fixing the votes, it's him being a useless leader.

"If the government of the USA thinks nothing or organising or backing a coupe against a democratically elected government of a country which has nothing to do with it, then how much seriousness can you attach to their rhetoric about democracy in the Middle-East?"

This is a fair point, but Bush has attached a great deal of his own credibility to democracy for Iraq. He wants to present himself to the World and Iraq as The Great Liberator. Any attempts at election fixing will be seized on almost immediately, and the Democrats in the Senate will drag Bush over the coals as a crook, a liar, and a poor leader not fit to run the Great Republic.

And, more to the point, whatever follows for Iraq will be one hell of a lot better than the personal dictatorship of a fascist gangster.

I would agree that the Iraqi cituation is not black and white. But i do not nelieve this has its roots in oil (even though it is a factor) I believe it's Bush's "war on terror" or fight every weak country till you get someone to take the heat off september the 11th. What about North korea? thast right they arn't weak. We will probably never know the real reasons, but I would keep an eye on those that benefit through the situation. As undoubtably they will have played a part. Always remember we live for ourselves nobody else, it may sound selfish but it is true. I prefer to look at it more that sadam is gone (thats good) and so will Iraq most probably (no great shake) and the middle east will probably become less stable as a result. And the thing is America will get the blame. The other point to mention is could you have came up with a better soloution ? Its easy to critisize others, Not so easy to come up with your own.

Well this is more like it.
The point about coke in S.A. (the drinking kind) was to indicate that the government of the USA has more corporate men on it than any previous US government. These guys appear to be manipulating the worlds resources for profit. Now I know that that is what governments do, but usually they're a little more cagey about it, and the lead men aren't quite so obviously attached. Normally I'd say that this transparency was a good thing, but unfortunately the only message being displayed to other corporate pirates right now is "Get immune. Get in government."
George keeps saying in relation to Iraq; "Government by the people, for the people".
I can think of another good place for this idea.

" My personal belief is that the anti-war movement is not left-wing and certainly not Internationalist. It's just anti-American."

and then "classic anti-American"

How can a term so young be called classic so soon. Zagreb (he who seems to be obsessed with the sixth form) if you're honest with yourself you have to see that "anti-American" is just a labell used on anyone who dissagrees with what the US govt is doing at the time.

Persoanlly I think the phrase is sick and shouldn't mean anything outside of America. If it means something to a non american then that person is at least unpatriotic

It does seem to be a feature of some people to claim that anyone who disagrees with the actions of the US goevrnment is anti_american.

I objected to this war.

I'm not anti_American. In fact, i've been to America, lovely country, many Americans are absolutely spiffing people. if I objected to the policies of Tony Blair would I be "anti-British"?

This was supposed to make more sense, but I'm very tired, so it won't. just wanted to respond.