bush's post-iraq

[womps]

so now it's all revealed.

the US has announced that following the destruction of the Saddam regime (and teh thousands of lives and fragile infrastucture in the process) the US will - with or without UN backing - take control of Iraq's govt depts for at least 2 years. Thus attempting to instill the american dream of capitalism/democracy to a nation as unwest as the dawn itself.

additionally, $900 Billion will be set aside for rebuilding Iraq. Oh how commendable! Who will be rebuilding Iraq? American contractors ONLY! so even if Australia does lend its support financially and militarily we don't get to reap the 'benefits' of rebuilding a nation.

[Adam]

It was pretty obvious right from the start that this would be their plan, but what it doesn't say there is that it's going to be a military government. It's dodgy as fuck. And since America doesn't like to learn anything from past-experiences, as soon as "New Iraq" is set up, they won't have a need for any other allies in the region that are really only allies because they need air bases there, and will drop them and create new tensions in the region.

No foresight whatsoever.

Of course the American owned oil companies will get first dibs and special treatment and will then sell it to anyone who will buy at exorbitant rates using the old "we just fought for World stability; you owe us" argument - like they are saying to the French (ie "You don't have the right to oppose our right to go to war, we saved your Frenchie asses in WWII; you owe us" omitting, of course, the fact that they didn't get involved in said war until they were attacked) - and any promises of "free-trade" (there is no such thing, American taxes have been introduced time and time again to thwart external competition; Australian companies have been put out of business because they made a good product that was in high demand in America, but because they were beating American companies, a new tax was introduced (or an existing one raised) that made it impossible for the company to continue selling their goods at a competitive price. John Howard is so starry-eyed (pardon the pun) with GWB whispering sweet-nothings in his ear that he is ignoring what is our most likely market (Asia) and is essentially promoting a racist foreign policy.

Meanwhile America are steamrolling towards what amounts to a war on "the-guy-that-tried-to-kill-my-Dad" and are doing their best to ensure that only they and their allies have enough power to blow whatever shithole country they like away in the name of 'terrorism', and are creating a climate that borders on hysteria as a means to an end when you've got a country that has a massive army - and we're pretty sure a couple of nukes, and are running around telling everyone they can't wait to see how well they work, and shooting missiles into the ocean at the same time that the Secretary of State is in the area.

So you've got either a country with nukes, a decent army and a madman leader, or a country with oil that has been bombed fairly consistently for around 10 years, an army mostly made up of conscripts who'll turn tail the first time they hear a "yeeehaw" and a starving or starved population who have been even further oppressed by UN sanctions. Untruths, injustice; that is the American way.

[OB1]

Onya's Adam + Womperstomper!

Surely Mr Magoo could have seen this from the start.
(anyone else reckon Little Johnny looks like Mr Magoo??

I like how the grand ol' USA has already got the next 'leader' lined up for Iraq - now that's democracy at work - betcha bottom US dollar he used to work for one of Georgiu Porgie's old Texan (now bankrupt) oil companies.

Little Johnnie is gonna look an even bigger dickhead in a few months when every body - even his 'mate' at the white house has shat on him as he is no longer needed, and the US does no favours to Johnny and slugs him extra for that good ole Texas Tea

Bring on the next election!

[Adam]

The damage will have been done by the next election.

Here is the full text of his sickening speech:
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/27/1046064153744.html

It includes such gems as:
"...Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us."
"...the new government of Israel - as the terror threat is removed and security improves - will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state." -- Of course it's Iraq that are standing in the way of peace in Gaza.
"In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council - so much that we want its words to have meaning. "
"...If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm.."
And many, many more.

[goo]

Warning, long-winded rambling thoughts...

For all the cynicism about the motives for “the war”, I don’t think it’s such a simple question. While I find the idea of “blood for oil” abhorrent, what about the deals Australian Oil & Gas companies got out of the East Timor situation. Is there a place for a fascist dictatorship in the modern world? Many Arab countries still have monarchy government’s and those country’s leaders fear the rise of democracy, whether it be in the form of a religious tate or not, because democracy is a threat to their hold on power. By the same token there’s the US support of the Israeli state, and how that affects the view Arabs have of the US & the West.

Strangely enough, I feel the more balanced opinions are coming from the politicians; especially those that favour a UN endorsed approach. I feel there’s a little too much knee jerking and not enough thought going into opinions, they’re too polarised, which means, IMO, important issues are falling through the cracks. There was interesting letter in The Age Opinions sections last Saturday from a guy who was an anti Vietnam War activist and still considers himself to be left wing, and he argued that anyone who considers themselves ‘left wing’ would have to be against the Iraqi regime. Strange how you have a bunch ‘human shield’ protesters claiming to want to protect the people, I understand what they’re trying to do, but in affect they are supporting a fascist government. Is it a Catch 22? Surely war is a Catch 22. What if the West had’ve gone to war earlier in the Balkans, thousands would still alive today, sure hindsight is 20/20, but where’s the foresight.

Conclusion, I don’t really have one, but there are reason’s that could justify a war against Saddam, and then are reason’s that make it folly. When does the ‘world’ have a right to make a decision to do something?

[Adam]

The guy is a bad man, no doubt about it, but if it is case of American humanitarianism (isn't that an oxymoron?), then why have they been sitting back watching him oppress the Iraqi people since he came to power in 1979?
They didn't seem to care when he was using chemical agents against Iranian soldiers in a war started by Iraq, then the UN got involved and forced Iran to accept a ceasefire. Iran. Then he gassed 200 000 Kurds, no-one seemed to be too bothered about that.

The fact is that Iraq isn't so much of a threat to anybody, and the 'links' to al Qaeda are a total load of crap. Bin Laden is quoted saying some pretty nasty things about Saddam, and even the CIA can't find a definitive link.
"Some CIA analysts have complained that senior Administration officials have
exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq -
particularly about its possible links to terrorism - to strengthen their
political argument for war, Government officials said.
At the FBI, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush
Administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin
Laden's network.
"We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we
just don't think it's there," a Government official said."
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122260727.html

Saddam is bad, yes, but the way they are going about this is all wrong. They want this war for alot of reasons; a diversion from the fact that they went into Afghanistan for Osama and screwed up; oil; revenge; economy; morale; etc. None of them are the right reasons.

I just saw on The Age's website that he's agreed to destroy his al Samoud missiles.

[goo]

I am aware of the shortfalls of American Foreign Policy, and much of it maybe dominated by the interests of Multi-National companies with foreign interests, as might a war against Iraq, but there’s still other issues going on here. How long should the world humour a despot? Sure you can argue that a war serves no other purpose than a backhanded attempt to open up the oil fields, but if you're a humanitarian, don't you think that the treatment of the Iraqi people could figure in a decision to remove Saddam from power. People maybe sick of comparisons between Hitler & Saddam, and though I have reservations that Saddam would lead the world to another world war if left alone, but does that make it right to ignore human rights violations perpetrated by the Iraqi government within Iraq's borders? Is it too long a bow to compare the gassing of the Kurds with the gassing of the Jews in WW2? It seems like attempted genocide to me. If during the last Iraqi war the ‘Allies’ had have marched on and removed Saddam then the gassing of the Kurds would never have happened. Now I know very little about the relations between the Kurds & the Iraqi’s, the Turks are also in conflict with the Kurds, or vica versa. We’re talking age old conflicts here, just like those of the Balkans.

What I’m saying is that I think there’s a lot more to it than a lot of people are basing their opinions on. It’s not as black and white as people might like to believe. I consider myself to be ‘left’ and anti-war as a rule, but do you seriously think you can slap a fascist warlord on the wrist? Sure there are right and wrong reasons to get involved in such things. How long did it take Australia to get involved in East Timor? How many deaths would have been avoided if we got involved in 1975? What about West Papua? What about Australia 200 years ago and the long forgotten Aboriginal wars? When does the world step up to make this place more livable for everyone? Tough questions, no easy solutions.

[Adam]

He gassed the Kurds before the Gulf War.

"When does the world step up to make this place more livable for everyone?"

Firstly: "..the world.." Not the US and a couple of lap-dogs.

Secondly: Since when does making it more livable for everyone involve saving them from a dictator only to exploit them in another way?

And thirdly: What about all the other countries around the world with oppressed people or nasty leaders? Zimbabwe?

What about the millions of people in Africa starving? What about the millions of poverty stricken people in America? The massive amounts of crime, etc?

What about the Palestinians? Claiming that this is the first step in a new middle-east peace process is a complete and utter load of shit, all it will achieve is paranoia in a few governments around the world that aren't allied with the US.

After Vietnam I don't think any government would've sent troops over to Timor at that time, rightly or wrongly.

As far as the invasion of Australia goes, that's a whole different can of worms, and is probably better off left untouched, but, I'd like to think that countries (or governments) don't have the same colonial aspirations these days, or at least they shouldn't.

[goo]

What about, what about?

Exactly!

[Adam]

Just to keep things balanced:
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/02/1046540066389.html

[Adam]

It seems they've already started offering contracts to mates:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2837657.stm

"Among the companies invited to tender is the Texas-based Halliburton, where US Vice-President Dick Cheney served as chief executive from 1995 to 2000. "

[womps]

oooh, i've been missing this intellectual exchange....
so i'll buy in now...

firstly, i feel that anti-war sentiment should not be confused with pro-saddam sentiments. i have little doubt that saddam has been a very naughty boy. BUT....

as a human rights activist, i see as many incidences of human rights violations in the US as i do in Iraq.

when looking at the US, one needn't look further than Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier or Imam Jamil al Amin to see how the US suppress their dissidents.

I see Bush Jnr's interference in the last presedential elections akin to Saddam Hussein forcing his leadership upon Iraq.

I see the number of WOMaDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in the US far outweighs that of Iraq.

I see a US pre-emptive strike without UN backing as being more a threat to world peace than Iraq's supposed WOMaDs.

I see the ingredients for such weapons being supplied by the US, and the UK (and Europe and USSR) when they supported Saddam in the war on Iran.

I see the US's plans to rebuild a war-torn Iraq by contracting SOLELY US businesses.

So, yes, while my pacifist, humanitarian nature knee-jerks against a war, it also knee-jerks against the US Empire.

Yes, Saddam needs to be ousted - but that is what the UN was established for. You cannot free the people by bombing them!

If Bush's argument is to disarm Saddam Hussein - then Hussein is complying.

If it's objective is to improve humanitarian issues, then you don't bomb the civilians.

If, however it's about oil, and persoanl vendettas, and hopeful money-making, then Bush is doing all the right things.

[0.]

bingo!

[womps]

From the latest Onion:

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

[Adam]

Yeah I saw that, how good is that site?

In other news....

"Prime Minister John Howard will today present evidence he claims will prove terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction, as he tries to build public support for a war to disarm Iraq."
Ummm?
www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/12/1047431097312.html