SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (72670)2/9/2003 6:34:54 PM
From: Sig  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Post Saddam Iraq:
I don't have a problem with that, why do others?
Obviously similar to Afghanistan. Find the Tribal or religious leaders who are most respected so there is no immediate threat of a revolution. One who will listen to various segments of the population, giving a chance for democracy to take hold- not necessarily our present form, but a form that Iraqis can live with.
The US already has in mind one exiled person who might be suitable or accepted for the job.
Two factors exist that will make it more difficult than for the Afghans
The three major religious sects must find some common ground in order to make agreements and be permitted to have a say in whatever political structure develops. As victors the US would have some say in how it all pulls together, and would have to stay temporarily on -site to prevent the sectors from eliminating each other until the central government has enough authority and power to implement whatever system they ( the Iraqis) chose to set-up.
Could the UN be useful at this stage ? Beats me. Their agenda includes maintaining the peace, but has no authority to take action on doing so.

2. The cursed oil problem:
Afghanistan has no world shaking resources to deal with- and thus no similar problems. Although the Mafia may get pissed if they stop growing poppies.
The French, Germans, and Russians have billions invested in the Iraq oil industry, but only two firm contracts
in the whole area, the rest being "agreements". With Saddam ? They have something to lose , which may explain the infightings at the UN
It is really painful to them to see the US step in and do what is needed, to help develop or control the fields so the new government will have some money to feed the people and rebuild ( instead of building more palaces).
So- post Saddam planning is not a primary goal or even secondary goal.
The US will do its best to prevent Saddam from setting those wells on fire, destroying the storage tanks and pipelines, contaminating the Gulf, and polluting the air. Would think the EPA should have fined him for last time. What kind of gratitude can we expect from the French for saving their investment? If thats even possible?
Its all in the words.......
" Let no good deed go unpunished"
( the Russians seem to have a much clearer understanding of what is at risk, they have one of the firm contracts
and the Chinese have the other)
Sig
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext