Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (131131)	5/3/2004 11:30:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

The two primary assumptions that underlie many of your passionate posts are first, that we have the RIGHT to "rebuild..create..," etc. an Iraqi society that is not a threat to our interests and, second, that we have the ABILITY to do so. I think you're wrong in both assumptions. Listen, Iraq was defeated in its invasion of Kuwait. We waited 13 years to finally the topple the intransigent regime of Saddam Hussein, and now we're occupying the country in hopes of creating a better political and economic system less threatening to regional and international order and security (as mandated under UNSC binding resolutions). Thus, we have just as much "right" to rebuild and restructure Iraq as we did with Japan and Germany. It took us 7 years, count them... 7 years, to create a viable government in Germany. We had a HUGE expenditure of economic and humanitarian assistance via the Marshall Plan focused on rebuilding Germany so it could be a bulwark against Soviet encroachment. Are you saying we didn't have the right then? We obviously had the ability, because our 20/20 hindsight confirms the wisdom of what we did.. But the same debate was going on then.. People said it was just throwing good money after bad by trying to rebuild Germany. Henry Morgenthau, SecTreas, made some very strong arguments that we should never permit Germany to re-industrialize. He wanted to turn the country into an agricultural pasture, never able to once again threaten Europe, or American interests. But thankfully, for us and them, he lost that debate. We have as much "right" to rebuild that country as any of the other non-elected power elites in Iraq who might want to dominate the country. They lost their right when they supported the invasion of another sovereign nation and defied the mandate of the UNSC. They certainly don't have a right to use violence to intimidate and exploit the population, now do they? Absent some imminent threat we should let them work through their darkness while we exercise diplomacy. We should support those factions, if there are any, that lead in a direction that we view as in our interests and the interests of civilization while we carefully watch to counter any imminent threat that might develop. One... I thought that was what we are currently doing.. Attempting to create a structure where the various factions can debate, negotiate, and reach compromises regarding governing power and authority? Is there something wrong with that? What right do we have to support any particular faction over another? What we MUST do is lay out a standard of what we expect in return for our financial and economic support. We don't take sides. We set standards of conduct and performance and then LET THEM decide if they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to obtain the benefits. The last thing we must do is be seen as taking sides.. We must be use paternal love and the attitude of "I love you, but I don't love what you do/did... But I'm there for you if you decide to shape up and behave". Certainly something that sounds rather patronizing, but under current circumstances, I think it's the best approach. Set the minimum standards for receiving our support, and then let them make the decision.. suffering the benefits, or the repercussions of their actions. Hawk