• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bush wants to rule a post-war Iraq! Liberation or invasion...?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Ari Fleischer before Bush's meeting today:

Fleischer said the president is not ready to name who will be running the country after the conflict ? particularly because the conflict isn't over. He said the decision will be made by Iraqis.

"The president has said that it should be a matter for Iraqis from both inside and outside Iraq to govern their country, and the territorial integrity of Iraq must be maintained. That's our approach," Fleischer said, adding that the United States will be there to help the nation get back on its feet.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is said to be leaning toward an interim Iraqi government led by exiles. In a memo prepared for the White House this week, Rumsfeld called for quick action and said those who have been living outside the torment of Saddam are probably better prepared to take up the reins of democracy


From here
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,093
1
0
Hrmm...the last time the US did something like that it worked out ok (ie. Japan & Germany)
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
I feel the toughest part of the conquest will be deciding what to do after the last shot is fired (optimistcally hoping acts of terror in Iraq stop shortly after Bagdad is taken and the Remnants are scrapped up).

There is no quick and easy way to "democratize" and Westernize Iraq especially if they don't want it.

As for military occupation, of course that has to happen and troops will be there for 10+ years, no doubt. Since the U.S. and Britain (and a few others) are already there it figures they'll do the occupying.

As for the role of the U.N. and Europe, well, what have they done to liberate the Iraqis and why exactly should either be put in charge of a post-invasion Iraq?
 

cracgor

Banned
Apr 4, 2003
40
0
0
Originally posted by: Richdog
Bush and Blair have been arguing long and hard about the government and administration of post-war Iraq, and Europe and the UN's role in it. But will there be an accomodation? Apparently not, as Bush wants to have FULL control of the high-level government and also of the money that oozes forth from the oil wells and is supposedly entering a trust fund for the Iraqi people. He wishes to leave the UN high and dry on this one. Any thoughts? :frown:
If i were a member of the UN I wouldn't help anyway...you can't call me useless, leave me out of the decision making process, then ask for help to clean up a mess.

I'm glad to see a postwar thread though. Personally I feel Arab nations don't want democracy. If the people don't want democracy shouldn't they have something else? democratically speaking of course
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
I feel the toughest part of the conquest will be deciding what to do after the last shot is fired (optimistcally hoping acts of terror in Iraq stop shortly after Bagdad is taken and the Remnants are scrapped up).

There is no quick and easy way to "democratize" and Westernize Iraq especially if they don't want it.
Agreed. Baby steps ;)

As for military occupation, of course that has to happen and troops will be there for 10+ years, no doubt. Since the U.S. and Britain (and a few others) are already there it figures they'll do the occupying.

As for the role of the U.N. and Europe, well, what have they done to liberate the Iraqis and why exactly should either be put in charge of a post-invasion Iraq?
[/quote]
That's where the UN needs to come into play. I know they didn't help with removing Saddam but the UN's area of expertise is peacekeeping. And I, for one, certainly don't want a U.S.-led interim government as that will only spark the ire of extremists already bent on removing U.S. influences from the Middle East.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
17
81
you should have made a poll.

invasion is my vote.

if bush were here right now i would perform degradation-x on him and lay some smack down.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
And I, for one, certainly don't want a U.S.-led interim government as that will only spark the ire of extremists already bent on removing U.S. influences from the Middle East.
Playing Devil's Advocate, because I will never fully trust the Bush administration, I wonder if that's not the desired outcome of some in the Executive. Brewing a Christian-Islamic war, I mean (or Western-Arab war if the more secular matchup floats your boat).

Some say it's coming, some say it's here, some say it's always been around and will continue until one side destroys the other.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
2
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
And I, for one, certainly don't want a U.S.-led interim government as that will only spark the ire of extremists already bent on removing U.S. influences from the Middle East.
Playing Devil's Advocate, because I will never fully trust the Bush administration, I wonder if that's not the desired outcome of some in the Executive. Brewing a Christian-Islamic war, I mean (or Western-Arab war if the more secular matchup floats your boat).

Some say it's coming, some say it's here, some say it's always been around and will continue until one side destroys the other.
Good gawd I sure as f*** hope not!

I will stand in front of the White House, myself, protesting a U.S.-led interim government. Appears Bush is already meeting with Iraqi exiles and is planning something for most of Iraq (leaving Baghdad alone until things stabilize). I've been called hopefully optimistic all of my life as I tend to look on the brighter side of things and hope :) things work out that way.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
I feel the toughest part of the conquest will be deciding what to do after the last shot is fired (optimistcally hoping acts of terror in Iraq stop shortly after Bagdad is taken and the Remnants are scrapped up).

There is no quick and easy way to "democratize" and Westernize Iraq especially if they don't want it.
Agreed. Baby steps ;)

As for military occupation, of course that has to happen and troops will be there for 10+ years, no doubt. Since the U.S. and Britain (and a few others) are already there it figures they'll do the occupying.

As for the role of the U.N. and Europe, well, what have they done to liberate the Iraqis and why exactly should either be put in charge of a post-invasion Iraq?
That's where the UN needs to come into play. I know they didn't help with removing Saddam but the UN's area of expertise is peacekeeping. And I, for one, certainly don't want a U.S.-led interim government as that will only spark the ire of extremists already bent on removing U.S. influences from the Middle East.[/quote]

Well everytime the UN gets involved with peacekeeping, the US does most of the work. The UN lost its chance to take an active roll in reconstruction.

 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
reading an article on msnbc.com, it looks like bush is demanding that all iraq aid be pushed through the white house and then the pentagon, instead of through congress.
i wonder what he's trying to hide? he's got no respect for the laws of this country, a$$
 

calpha

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,287
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Let the French run the country, they already have a good relationship in place....
LOL :)

The thread title is a little misleading to me. Fox and CNN both said what everyone else here already posted.

BUSH = UN -> Minor
Blar = UN ->Major

But, I really don't like the Russians and French having a say in the gubernatiorial decisions.

Methinks it will be alot like Afghanistan where we provide the support network and infrastructure help to setup the new government.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
It'll be a military occupation, that is the only way to make sure that the old rulers don't try to take back the country. If you look at most countries that deposed bad rulers, you would quickly realise that they just got rid of the figure head. The economic and political regime still remains and the high-level bueracrates from the previous government just take over the new one, usually on the pretense that have experience needed to control the resulting devistation after a internal war.

A democracy is a very fragile thing in the beginning. The old rulers still have a lot of control and most people fear them, and agressive opurtunistic leaders seek personal power from the caos of a social transition. That's why you need the military occupation to set limits on what happens and how quickly different people gain power.

The UN basicly trashes every thing it touches, I doubt it hasn't had a successfull campain to make positive changes in any conflict. It mearly drags on and on year after year after year, because the more situations that the UN controls and is involved in the more powerful it becomes. To actually solve problems would be counterproductive. The US on the otherhand can only benifit from other people being free, mostly from a economic standpoint, but also from a social one. Once you are able to trade and travel freely between 2 countries it benifites the people from both countries much more than a continual expensive military conquest in which one side dominates the sociaty of the other ones. If the US took that track then we wouldn't be were we are today. It's impossible for a Empire to self-sustaning, that's why Great Britian, France and Germany are just european nations and not world powers like they were at one point in time. The US has learned from the mistakes of the Europeans.

Japan and Germany (and France in a lesser way) are 2 major examples of what can happen when we are able to establish peace in a region thru dominate military force, that is the only way sometimes, unfortuantly. We did not set up puppet governments in France and Germany like the nazis and the communists/socialists did. We could of continued to run Japan and turn into a second Hawaii, but we didn't. And I don't want to hear on how the middle easterners are not Germans or Japanese and are not capable of living side by side because of the tribal mentality. That viewpoint is actually realy racsist if you think about it. You are jsut assuming that europeans have some sort of generic intellectual and moral superiority over the brown races of the planet.

And do you think that George Bush after working this hard and putting his military forces thru this strain is going to allow a orginization that has Libya of the leader of the human rights council to control another middle eastern nation, your freking nuts.

(sarcasm)
Also I am sure that Europeans have a much more pure "democracy" than the US, because it's just SO obvoius that they don't elect leaders to represent their viewpoints like us heathens in this Representative Republic, but they hold referendums on every law and statute that gets passed and every European votes on everyting like in a "pure" democracy.. the majority rules constantly, eh? (/sarcasm)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY