Originally posted by: alexruiz
Originally posted by: etech
alexruiz
What do these events that happened decades ago under different administrations and while the world was involved in a Cold War with communism have to do with what is happening now?
What is the exact link you are trying to make?
Simple, my point is that the objective to "liberate" is a nice rethoric point, but in practice is a falacy. 2 of the person that I mentioned should easily be in the top 5 dictators of XX century. However, the USA did NOTHING to take them out of power or "liberate" their people.... in fact, some of them were put in power by Washington. Why??? Was the money or power more important that the VALUES of freedom that gave birth to your country??? If nothing was done, maybe not that big of a problem, but going as far as being supporter of dictators..... (in fact, a lot of countries would live a more peaceful life if the word RESPECT was understood better)
No, liberation is not a fallacy. The people will be out from under Saddam's rule. I already said why I don't think what the US did in the Cold War applies to this situation. If you want to go back 30, 40, 50 years and try to draw paralles to what is happening today then you may but you ignore history and the context of the world events when you do.
History is cyclical (a teacher used to say that is like a helix: it move forward with time, culture and science changes; but some conditions and tendencies tend to repeat) The Cold War gave the USA an "enemy", so they were trying to fight or "stop the evil created by communism"..... replace communism with terrorism and the pattern is the same..... History is cyclical. The goverment has clearly an agenda in Iraq, and in order to go ahead without popular opposition they need to convince people that the right thing is being done (what is partially true, as I wouldn't ask Saddam to be my president). The main excuse was "weapons", which we haven't seen so far (and we won't), but the message delivered by the media says "Iraqui freedom"...... There are dictators and oppressors RIGHT now in other parts of the world, but the USA says nothing. North Korea has the weapons and admit it, yet Bush still thinks negotiations are possible.
Saddam is the only dictator that has had twelve years of ignoring the world's demands to disarm. He is the only one that has UN resolutions that threatened him with serious consequences if he did not. But for the sake of argument, what other dictator in the world would you say deserves to be removed more than Saddam?
Korea is a different situation and all of this has been covered countless times before. Suffice it to say that a cookie cutter diplomancy argument is stupid.
The people in Iraq DIDN'T ask to be "liberated", in fact, they now feel more the need to support the president against the invaders. They are not fighting for Saddam, they are patriots fighting for their country (the image of the apache down is proof, those people playing with the chopper were civilians, yet they looked proud of their accomplishement). When people really want freedom, they will fight for it no matter the cost. Despite the fear, despite the oppression they will look for their freedom!! I am not seeing it here, and unfortunately it won't happen (again, the overlooked patriotism of Iraq). This is going to be bloody.
How do you know what the Iraqi people want? The can't speak their mind in Iraq. Almost every interview I have seen with Iraqis out of that country want Saddam gone. Again, bull, the people fighting are fighting for their power that they have under Saddam.
Convince yourself, the likely companies to reconstruct Iraq have been announced, and the name Halliburton was there.... Many people saw it as "effect", but the people that said it was the "oil business" know it was part of the cause...... If the objective is ONLY liberation and not OIL, give the contracts to companies of other countries. If OIL was not the issue, make sure the new goverment respects the current contacts..... What is the answer for this????
Alex
Wow, Haliburton was chosen, big deal. It is chosen for a large number of governmental contracts. Unless you can prove that VP Cheney had a direct hand in giving that contract all you have is theory and supposition.
The current contracts were made with Saddam, he's going to be out of business fairly soon. The new government will make contracts with the companies that it wants to do business with.