So we are so proud that the citizens are finally free from Sadamm

[Ben E Lou]

Here's a thought which some on here may have overlooked when considering how well we do when installing governments:

Iraq is VERY, VERY different from anything we've ever undertaken. In Afghanistan, we went in with minimal criticism from the international community. To put it bluntly, putting emphasis on a nearly-fail-safe reconstruction plan just wasn't that important, politically speaking, in Afghanistan. In the case of Iraq, our government is fully aware that EVERYONE is watching on this one, both in-country and abroad, most at least a little skeptical about whether we can really pull this off. Dubya has a very sharp group of people around him, the mistakes of Afghanistan readily available to learn from and the knowledge that getting this one right would be one of the most amazing political victories in human history. We might just do a pretty good job.

[Fidatelo]

SkyDog, I hope for the sake of the Iraqi people and the stability of the middle east that they prove me wrong, but until they do I remain skeptical.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fidatelo
SkyDog, I hope for the sake of the Iraqi people and the stability of the middle east that they prove me wrong, but until they do I remain skeptical.

Fair enough.

[Butter]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Don't you think it is wise to deal with each situation as its own unique issue, rather than follow through on foreign policy with broad brush strokes? Iraq was a lot easier to deal with for the reasons we've just witnessed. Just because we used force there, doesn't mean we should also use force everywhere else we perceive a threat. And it certainly doesn't mean that failure to do so means we're not attempting to eliminate the threat by other means. You can't have it both ways - you can't argue we should never use force, then argue that because we used force in one place, we have to use it in every other instance.

I think that if Iraq was at the point that North Korea was at in terms of readiness to use nukes, we probably would not have gone in guns blazing. But we were able to head it off before it got that far. I have no problem with that. Just like I have no problem with dealing with the reality of the North Korea situation by addressing the issue in a different way. if need be.

I didn't say we should address the situation the same. But so far, the issue has not been addressed AT ALL. If Bush believes that despotic regimes should not have access to Weapons of Mass Destruction, then North Korea needs to be dealt with immediately. As for how it should be dealt with.... that's why I'm not a world leader.

[panerd]

Just trying to start a flame war, eh? It's going to be real easy to instill a democratic, free-enterpise system is towns like these.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_mosul_25



"The northern city of Mosul fell into U.S. and Kurdish hands Friday after an entire corps of the Iraqi army surrendered. The city quickly descended into anarchy, with looting, arson and shootings, and U.S. special forces were sent in to restore order. "

Townspeople plundered the central bank, grabbing wads of money and throwing bills in the air. Mosul University's library, with its rare manuscripts, was also sacked, despite appeals blared from the mosque minarets to the people to stop destroying their city, the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera reported.


At Saddam General Hospital, three of the five ambulances were stolen and armed men, described as Kurds, tried to enter the hospital, but the staff managed to hold them off. Doctors' cars were stolen at gunpoint. Jumhuriya Hospital said all eight of its ambulances were taken at gunpoint.


"There is absolutely no security. The medical staff is scared for their safety. The city has fallen into anarchy," said Saddam General staff physician Dr. Darfar Ibrahim Hasan.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
I didn't say we should address the situation the same. But so far, the issue has not been addressed AT ALL. If Bush believes that despotic regimes should not have access to Weapons of Mass Destruction, then North Korea needs to be dealt with immediately. As for how it should be dealt with.... that's why I'm not a world leader.

Have not done anything, or have not done anything that the news has reported. Actually in the last week I've seen where China is making moves against NK (which will be much more affective than the US) and that NK has said they would agree to talks with the US. More moves are being made than you know.

[Dutch]

The US government helps where and when it benefits them, plain and simple.

Okay, I give up. How is that bad?

[TroyF]

Panerd,

Nobody ever said this would be an easy thing to do. I don't think there will be any true "democracy" for sometime. You don't just take people who have lived under a tyrant for their entire lives and suddenly turn them into a democracy.

The looting will die down and the work of rebuilding will start.

I was for this war from the start, but I always have steadfastly believed this war's success would not only be held in how well the military did their jobs. (of which I never had a doubt) I think this war will be judged on how well we help rebuild Iraq now that the military part is over.

I strongly believe that Bush knew this part from the start (as Skydog mentioned above) and that he would take this part as seriously as he did the war itself. I've seen nothing so far to believe that isn't going to be the case.

TroyF

[Butter]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Have not done anything, or have not done anything that the news has reported. Actually in the last week I've seen where China is making moves against NK (which will be much more affective than the US) and that NK has said they would agree to talks with the US. More moves are being made than you know.

Yeah, let's leave it to China! While we're at it, let's make them the human rights observers in N. Korea!

[Marc Vaughan]

What worries me more than anything is whether the allied forces will actually see things through properly for a change and ensure that a fair and just goverment is put in place and supported properly by the 'world community'.

There is a very poor track record historically with regards to this in similar past situations.

If you doubt this if a real concern then I would sugget further investigating what is happening in Afghanistan since the war was 'won' there:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=afghanistan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/09/attack/main548413.shtml

might act as starting points for anyone interested in this side of things (the second one is a particularly interesting article about the Taliban starting to reassert themselves).

One of the main reasons why the 'western world' is percieved so poorly in many countries is that 'we' have a reputation for starting revolutionary wars or propping up regimes and then not following through and fulfilling our initial promises.

The rebuilding that is required in Iraq now is huge, the basic infrastructure of the country has effectively been shattered by the war and it will be very expensive and time consuming to restore it to even a shadow of its former self.

If this isn't done then the allied forces will have given the inhabitants of the country valid reasons to hate the west, which in turn will encourage the west to fear them and continue this cycle once again at some point in the future.

I sincerely hope that all countries in a position to help do so, however history doesn't help nurture this hope at all ..

PS. Please note I am/was neither for or against the war itself as I don't have enough information to judge whether the war was 'just' or not.
I do believe that Saddam was a cruel and horrible dictator and as such I believe the war was of use (regardless of weapons of mass-destruction being found etc.) - but ONLY if it the allied countries ensure that he isn't simply replaced with a similar dictator in the future.
The allied forces inability to control the looting in the country currently and the general apparent lack of planning about what to do now Saddams regime has been crushed does not fill me pesonally with much confidence about this.

[Dutch]

What worries me more than anything is whether the allied forces will actually see things through properly for a change and ensure that a fair and just goverment is put in place and supported properly by the 'world community'.

There is that fine line, Marc.

You know Bush and Blair would be glad to stick around for as long as it takes.

But I'm sure others, who do not feel we are there for a just and right reason are calling for us to get out now.

And when we stay, they grow to hate us.
And when we leave, they grow to hate us.

So we should stay as long as it takes to take care of our business and then leave. Many people think that by being good and just in a Western ideology will translate perfectly to backward middle-eastern societies. It just won't.

[WillyWTE]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Actually, the last poll I saw showed a clear majority of Canadians disapprove of Jean Cretien and his handling of Canada's position on the war.

So, whenever you're ready for regime change... just let us know.

I will back up this statement 100%.

I am one who initially didn't want to see Canada or any part of it in this war. On the day following the first attack, I read an article by a Canadian writer who stated a different view and when I finished the article had completely changed my view. He said how Canada and the US have been allies for years and when Bush called up Chretien and told him he was going to war, Jean should have had the army on the boats before they were through with the call. I find it too be a stab in the back to our American brothers and IMO, like the poll suggests, shouldn't be taken as the view of an entire nation.


Willy