How does the Coalition Win the Public Opinion War?

[Pliablemoose]

The physical part of the war is a pre-determined conclusion, the Coalition froces will win, now how does the US (Coalition) win the political/public opinion war?

 

[freakflag]

[sarcasm/] By killing all who oppose us and thier families. [sarcasm/]

Well, it seems to have worked for Saddam...

 

[kylebisme]

oh ya freakflag? i didn't realise Saddam was in a good spot at the moment.

 

[Czar]

related

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Czar
related

So says the article. Some of it is probably true while some is false.

 

[kylebisme]

or possibly not really false, but at least misconstrued. regardless, that is the way information tends to come HappyPuppy.

 

[freakflag]

oh ya freakflag? i didn't realise Saddam was in a good spot at the moment.

What are you talking about? 1/3 of all french are hoping Saddam wins. They're selling T-shirts in the 3rd world with Saddams big stupid face on them. Everybody seems to love that wack-bag and hate us, so, why not use his tactics? (please be sure to note the sarcasm)

 

[IKeelU]

The best thing the US can do is to carry out their *publicly stated* goals once the war is over. i.e. helping the Iraqi people. This would include setting up an interim government that would oversee the restructuring of Iraq. Eventually, a new government composed of actual Iraqi individuals should be left to run the country. The US should allow the UN to have a hand in all this. By the end of the restructuring process, there should be no military officials running any part of the country. Military bases (composed of American, British, and UN troops) will remain to ensure Saddam supporters do not rise against the new democracy, but the actual governing should be left to civilians.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The physical part of the war is a pre-determined conclusion, the Coalition froces will win, now how does the US (Coalition) win the political/public opinion war?

By bringing in water, food, and medicine.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The physical part of the war is a pre-determined conclusion, the Coalition froces will win, now how does the US (Coalition) win the political/public opinion war?

By bringing in water, food, and medicine.

Heard on one of the news networks today that the Iraqi government was refusing shipments of antibiotics from Jordan. Workers in the hospitals in Iraq (esp. Baghdad) are complaining they are running out of antibiotics.

But, hey, the injured were probably going to surrender anyway so why should their own government help them?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: IKeelU
The best thing the US can do is to carry out their *publicly stated* goals once the war is over. i.e. helping the Iraqi people. This would include setting up an interim government that would oversee the restructuring of Iraq. Eventually, a new government composed of actual Iraqi individuals should be left to run the country. The US should allow the UN to have a hand in all this. By the end of the restructuring process, there should be no military officials running any part of the country. Military bases (composed of American, British, and UN troops) will remain to ensure Saddam supporters do not rise against the new democracy, but the actual governing should be left to civilians.

Sounds like a good plan. I might add that the US needs to abide by International Law concerning the rebuilding. The most important being that an Occupying force can not establish longterm contracts for the Occupied state. If US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to "reconstruction contracts" that should be fine, but if US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to Oil Exploitation that would likely contravene International Law. These statements are assuming that the "government" giving the "contracts" are US/Coalition governments, if an Iraqi controlled government decided to give exclusive contracts to US/Coalition corps out of appreciation(or whatever other reason), then that would be fine.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: IKeelU
The best thing the US can do is to carry out their *publicly stated* goals once the war is over. i.e. helping the Iraqi people. This would include setting up an interim government that would oversee the restructuring of Iraq. Eventually, a new government composed of actual Iraqi individuals should be left to run the country. The US should allow the UN to have a hand in all this. By the end of the restructuring process, there should be no military officials running any part of the country. Military bases (composed of American, British, and UN troops) will remain to ensure Saddam supporters do not rise against the new democracy, but the actual governing should be left to civilians.

Sounds like a good plan. I might add that the US needs to abide by International Law concerning the rebuilding. The most important being that an Occupying force can not establish longterm contracts for the Occupied state. If US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to "reconstruction contracts" that should be fine, but if US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to Oil Exploitation that would likely contravene International Law. These statements are assuming that the "government" giving the "contracts" are US/Coalition governments, if an Iraqi controlled government decided to give exclusive contracts to US/Coalition corps out of appreciation(or whatever other reason), then that would be fine.

How is access to oil infrastucture contracts different than contracts for any other infrastructure? In the end these contracts are going to employ many iraqi citizens.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Time will show that we've done the right thing. The stories of the liberated will be enough once they start piling up. We'll find more and more of Saddam's ruthlessness as we clean up the country and the rebuilding continues. As long as we keep our word, the rest of the world will eventually come around, and if they don't than nothing ever would. It's just going to take time, probably years and years.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Time will show that we've done the right thing. The stories of the liberated will be enough once they start piling up. We'll find more and more of Saddam's ruthlessness as we clean up the country and the rebuilding continues. As long as we keep our word, the rest of the world will eventually come around, and if they don't than nothing ever would. It's just going to take time, probably years and years.

True, the goverment SHOULD have done a better job on public relations. It hard to belive bush is losing against Saddam Hussian.

 

[skyking]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The physical part of the war is a pre-determined conclusion, the Coalition froces will win, now how does the US (Coalition) win the political/public opinion war?

By bringing in water, food, and medicine.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: IKeelU
The best thing the US can do is to carry out their *publicly stated* goals once the war is over. i.e. helping the Iraqi people. This would include setting up an interim government that would oversee the restructuring of Iraq. Eventually, a new government composed of actual Iraqi individuals should be left to run the country. The US should allow the UN to have a hand in all this. By the end of the restructuring process, there should be no military officials running any part of the country. Military bases (composed of American, British, and UN troops) will remain to ensure Saddam supporters do not rise against the new democracy, but the actual governing should be left to civilians.

Sounds like a good plan. I might add that the US needs to abide by International Law concerning the rebuilding. The most important being that an Occupying force can not establish longterm contracts for the Occupied state. If US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to "reconstruction contracts" that should be fine, but if US/Coalition corps get exclusive access to Oil Exploitation that would likely contravene International Law. These statements are assuming that the "government" giving the "contracts" are US/Coalition governments, if an Iraqi controlled government decided to give exclusive contracts to US/Coalition corps out of appreciation(or whatever other reason), then that would be fine.

How is access to oil infrastucture contracts different than contracts for any other infrastructure? In the end these contracts are going to employ many iraqi citizens.

It's not. Infrastructure is infrastructure, meaning the gadgets/roads/whatever used. The longterm type contracts would be Exxon or some other corp having control of oil wells and such. Infrastrucure repair is merely the construction of wells and such.