Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Post war government

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Post war government

    There are those that think the UN should be heavily involved in any post-war government in Iraq. the reasoning being that this would bring a sort of legitimacy to any Iraqi administration.

    There are also those that think the US/UK should administer Iraq after the war. The reasoning being that an admirable job was done in Germany and Japan following WW II.

    There are good arguments for both sides of the issue.

    On the one hand, Afghanistan's government (arranged through the UN) has been a disappointment of sorts. On the other hand, the resources the western world craves weren't present in post-war Germany or Japan.

    What do you think ???
    Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

  • #2
    I think rebuilding Afghanistan was low on the to-do list for the US. But rebuilding Iraq is critical, therefore a military occupation (and thus direct responsibilty) is in order.

    I guess it's tough **** for the Afghanis? Infuriating, but not really surprising. The world is entirely apathetic to things that happen in places of limited importance. Just the other day 1,000 Congolese were executed and mutilated... barely heard about it on the news. Afghanistan? When was the last time you heard a story about the status of Afghanistan or progress in rebuilding? About the only time it's mentioned anymore is when the US is conducting an operation against suspected Al Qaeda operatives, rather than helping the central government re-establish control of the countryside and wipe out the warlord "fiefdoms".

    Oh wait, that's not it. It's anti-americanism.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Post war government

      Originally posted by tigersqn
      There are those that think the UN should be heavily involved in any post-war government in Iraq. the reasoning being that this would bring a sort of legitimacy to any Iraqi administration.

      There are also those that think the US/UK should administer Iraq after the war. The reasoning being that an admirable job was done in Germany and Japan following WW II.

      There are good arguments for both sides of the issue.

      On the one hand, Afghanistan's government (arranged through the UN) has been a disappointment of sorts. On the other hand, the resources the western world craves weren't present in post-war Germany or Japan.

      What do you think ???
      Hello,

      I prefer to have US/UK to administrate Iraq. Though, I do freely admit this might not be a good idea.

      The reason behind this is because we fought hard, and we deserve to take spoils of war, including a greater say in how the postwar Iraq should be shaped. I also want to keep away the foreign firms that might attempt to benefit from the losses of our troops fighting for the liberation of Iraq and getting rid of its WMDs. I have little heart for any foreigner that dares to chase away dollars in Iraq, making a lot of money off our suffering and worries.

      The second reason would be a greater degree of control over internal affairs within Iraq to ensure a smooth transition from Saddam's regime to a free and democratic government. In both Germany and Japan, we were largely successful in this respect. Sure, it wasn't Middle East, but nobody can say it wouldn't happen in Iraq anyway. Having the UN to administrate is like asking the House of Representatives (about 435 members) to administrate a local town, it's just impossible to achieve.

      The UN has proven to be unwieldy and clumsy in successfully administrating a war-torn country. It would be preferable to stick with the ages old tradition of having a single and victorious entity to rule over a vanquished or at least liberated entity for a while.

      I won't lie to you, I think America will eventually give in and allow some form of UN participation to keep the relations between America and the other foreign powers good and cordial.

      But on the same hand, I'm not really happy with how the world preceives us, no matter how hard we try to improve anything, we always get the rocks thrown at us. We do not deserve it.

      I greatly resent the influence of UN and its goons trying to subvert America's hegemony.

      Dan
      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

      "Aim small, miss small."

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Re: Post war government

        But on the same hand, I'm not really happy with how the world preceives us, no matter how hard we try to improve anything, we always get the rocks thrown at us. We do not deserve it.
        The reason behind this is because we fought hard, and we deserve to take spoils of war, including a greater say in how the postwar Iraq should be shaped.
        I think you answered your own question. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want Americans to dictate to me how I get to live my life, particularly when these same Americans are constantly talking about freedom and liberty.

        And when you did good, what rocks were thrown? A degree of rock throwing will always be there, as the US is a superpower. But surely you can differentiate between some minor opposition and the unprecedented opposition this war faced before a shot was fired?

        Dismissing it all as anti-americanism is an easy way to avoid drudging up the dirty laundry, but it's not going to make it go away.
        "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

        – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

        Comment


        • #5
          The US has not abandoned Afhganistan,several hundred million dollars are budgeted to go towards its aid this year from what i understand.The process of rebuilding there will take quite a few years.The effects of a couple decades of nonstop war will not be undone overnight.

          By the way,ever hear the expression no news is good news

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by John Paul
            The US has not abandoned Afhganistan,several hundred million dollars are budgeted to go towards its aid this year from what i understand.The process of rebuilding there will take quite a few years.The effects of a couple decades of nonstop war will not be undone overnight.

            By the way,ever hear the expression no news is good news

            But there is news about Afghanistan. Police and military are abandoning their posts because they haven't been paid in months. now I'm not saying the world community is to blame. It could just be corruption on the part of Karzai's government which I might add, is backed by the UN.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by John Paul
              The US has not abandoned Afhganistan,several hundred million dollars are budgeted to go towards its aid this year from what i understand.The process of rebuilding there will take quite a few years.The effects of a couple decades of nonstop war will not be undone overnight.
              Abandon may have been harsh, but there are a lot of Afghan officials who are alluding to this, not to mention that rebuilding is going to be severely hampered by the lack of control.

              I would think that given the option to militarily occupy either Iraq or Afghanistan, Afghanistan would be the choice as it's been under decentralized, tribal rule for a long time. Iraq on the other hand has had a strong central government for decades and this will make it much easier for a government like the one setup in Afghanistan to work. Not easy, but relatively much easier than in Afghanistan. Outside the major population centers the central government exerts little control and even inside some of the population centers the government is having seroius problems. Perhaps Afghan officials look at the billions earmarked for that country and resent it... but either way it's hard to rebuild a country when the government exerts little control of the country. Either the world community needs to get more funds in there so that the Afghan national army isn't outclassed by the warlords, or the troops (US and other nations) need to be permitted to help the central government re-establish control and not strictly stick to rooting out Al Qaeda/Taliban. If we leave Afghanistan to rot a second time around we're just creating future problems.



              By the way,ever hear the expression no news is good news
              Touche. hehe. It's dropped off the radar though much as Africa has for a long time.
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Re: Re: Post war government

                Originally posted by MikeJ

                I think you answered your own question. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want Americans to dictate to me how I get to live my life, particularly when these same Americans are constantly talking about freedom and liberty.
                I don't see how Americans are dictating to you how to live. Where do you come up with this paranoia?
                "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Re: Post war government

                  Originally posted by Cheetah772


                  Hello,

                  I prefer to have US/UK to administrate Iraq. Though, I do freely admit this might not be a good idea.

                  The reason behind this is because we fought hard, and we deserve to take spoils of war, including a greater say in how the postwar Iraq should be shaped. I also want to keep away the foreign firms that might attempt to benefit from the losses of our troops fighting for the liberation of Iraq and getting rid of its WMDs. I have little heart for any foreigner that dares to chase away dollars in Iraq, making a lot of money off our suffering and worries.
                  I believe at first the US military should stay in Iraq until the situation is stabilized. In the longer term however, any American military presence in Iraq will probably affect the credibility of the new Iraqi government to a point where it could be seen as illegitimate by the Iraqis, as a by-product made in U.S. If this happens, the whole purpose of the U.S. invasion will be defeated.

                  So when the situation is stabilized (one year? two years?), I would see the American military leave and be replaced by UN peacekeeping forces. But I still envision a major role for America in Iraq, e.g. American advisers and American civilians stay in Iraq to continue the rebuilding process along with other nations.

                  I certainly recognize the right that America has in shaping the new Iraq since the U.S. paid the price for this war, but on the other hand, the U.S. need to understand that their very presence might just make that objective impossible to reach. The right balance will need to be struck.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by MikeJ
                    I guess it's tough **** for the Afghanis? Infuriating, but not really surprising. The world is entirely apathetic to things that happen in places of limited importance. Just the other day 1,000 Congolese were executed and mutilated... barely heard about it on the news. Afghanistan? When was the last time you heard a story about the status of Afghanistan or progress in rebuilding? About the only time it's mentioned anymore is when the US is conducting an operation against suspected Al Qaeda operatives, rather than helping the central government re-establish control of the countryside and wipe out the warlord "fiefdoms".

                    Oh wait, that's not it. It's anti-americanism.
                    No, if the US executed 10 Congolese it would of been big news. There would of been huge protest all across Europe...just admit it.
                    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: Re: Post war government

                      Originally posted by Tzar


                      I believe at first the US military should stay in Iraq until the situation is stabilized. In the longer term however, any American military presence in Iraq will probably affect the credibility of the new Iraqi government to a point where it could be seen as illegitimate by the Iraqis, as a by-product made in U.S. If this happens, the whole purpose of the U.S. invasion will be defeated.

                      So when the situation is stabilized (one year? two years?), I would see the American military leave and be replaced by UN peacekeeping forces. But I still envision a major role for America in Iraq, e.g. American advisers and American civilians stay in Iraq to continue the rebuilding process along with other nations.

                      I certainly recognize the right that America has in shaping the new Iraq since the U.S. paid the price for this war, but on the other hand, the U.S. need to understand that their very presence might just make that objective impossible to reach. The right balance will need to be struck.
                      I think it would depend on how much of a "hands off" approach the US takes. I would agree that the US certainly has the right to help in shaping the future Iraqi government, but they have to allow the Iraqis to choose for themselves their style and indeed even their composition of government.

                      If the Iraqi people are left to their own devices in forming their government, a US presence in guaranteeing their security shouldn't be a problem unless other countries interfere (Syria, Iran Turkey, etc.....)
                      Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Re: Post war government

                        Originally posted by Cheetah772

                        The UN has proven to be unwieldy and clumsy in successfully administrating a war-torn country. It would be preferable to stick with the ages old tradition of having a single and victorious entity to rule over a vanquished or at least liberated entity for a while.
                        These 'age old traditions' are supposed to be any better? The age old traditions that built Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (to name but only a few) into stable and reliable nations? Korea was a peaceful nation that had minded its own business for thousands of years, until Japan showed up. The US and USSR didn't help any at the end of WW2. Foreign intervention, imperialism, and colonialism has destroyed more societies than it has helped. If only we could mind our own business more often, we would avoid many of these problems altogether.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by John Paul
                          The US has not abandoned Afhganistan,several hundred million dollars are budgeted to go towards its aid this year from what i understand.The process of rebuilding there will take quite a few years.The effects of a couple decades of nonstop war will not be undone overnight.

                          By the way,ever hear the expression no news is good news

                          All I've heard from the anti-american crowd is how the US was going to abandon Pakistan and Afghanistan shortly after the conflict was over. However so far this hasn't happened.

                          Pakistan - Just forgiven 1 billion dollars in debt.

                          Afganistan - $900,000,000 million in aid so far.

                          If you want to help out you can donate here:
                          http://www.schoolsforafghankids.org/
                          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Post war government

                            Originally posted by Chuck


                            I don't see how Americans are dictating to you how to live. Where do you come up with this paranoia?
                            It's a by product of all the absolutism coming out of the Bush administration.

                            With us or with the terrorists. Good/evil. Right/wrong. ad infinitum.

                            And the US has proven they will act, even without consensus based on it's unilateral idea of how things should be.

                            You might think it's absurd and that the US is a benevolent/benign superpower, but from my view the US has been actively securing global economic hegemony, often under the cover of fabricated "communist threats" during the Cold War. Now we have the Bush administration taking an official stance on changing the Middle East to their view. Why? Well obviously rooting out terrorism at its source can be viewed as one. There's no question that the opressive and often fundamentalist regimes in the region are part of the problem of Islamic militancy. But long before Islamic militancy was a major issue the US had an active role in the ME, for economic reasons and PNAC has no qualms about being direct about it.

                            So who is next and when does it end? After the end of the Cold War, I thought we'd seen the last of it. I thought wrong. Iraq is case in point.
                            "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                            – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chuck


                              No, if the US executed 10 Congolese it would of been big news. There would of been huge protest all across Europe...just admit it.
                              You're right. But it's not only the US. Any country that has a global influence and is a major player will be critiqued more. China, Russia, Europe... etc... all the big players are in the same boat. Iin comparison to Africa, every single one of those nations could claim anti-<insert nation here> because of the "double standard" of places like Africa.

                              This is not an American only issue, thus I don't see that it qualifies to be anti-Americanism.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X