This time it's Iraq. This dude got modded to +5 Insightful. He's about to get modded -2 Fisked.
If I lived under a brutal dictatorship I would do everything to end it myself. Oh wait... I did that already. But it was another country and another dictator I got rid of. So maybe my opinion doesn't count.
And for sure: I would curse the country that basicly said: You are incompetent to deal with your dictator on your own, which we let go 10 years ago because we didn't want him away at this point.
We didn't want to get rid of him at that point? Where have you been living? What part of trade sanctions and the no-fly patrols with constant political pressure gave you that idea?
So this time we will bomb you into shock and awe, then we wreck or let wreck every public service that is and stop you from rebuilding it because we promised the contracts to our buddies first.
Wrecking all your public services? Actually at the moment some of those services are operating at above pre-war levels (water, electricity etc) in fact the water board has been given national control way ahead of the June 30th handover because it's been so competant at bring itself to its feet. I don't see any American companies 'profiteering' there.
What's more most of the damage done to public services has been done, and is still being done by insurgents. The systematic sabotage of oil, power, telecommunications, water and other services has been a hallmark of the insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.
As for Oil, the current production levels are through the roof and without the need to line anyone's pocket to get them there. Would it really be better if ELF was the company dealing with Iraqi Oil? What's more the coallition has said time and time again that the Iraqi Oil belongs to the Iraqi people and that the profits from that Oil will go to the Iraqi people - as it quite patently didn't during Saddam's reign.
What happened to let people decide for their destiny themselves? How long would Saddam Hussein have been in power if the U.S. just said: We don't care? One year? Two? Ok. There is the argument that this would have meant another 10000 or 20000 dead people on the hand of Saddam Hussein's regime every year.
See.. The problem with asserting that there would have been an uprising is quite simple. About 300,000 of the people who would have joined in were dead. Y'know - standard affair of bullet through head, body through shredding machine or into a mass grave.
How is that worse or better than the probably 30000 dead young men enlisted to the Iraqi army and the 15000 dead civilians? The so feared Republican Guards just disappeared. Those actively supporting Saddam Hussein knew when to hide. But not the young people who were serving an army they probably didn't like, but which died by defending the home of their families.
Err... 15000!? Would you care to wipe that number down because I'm fairly certain it wasn't pulled from a spring-fresh field if you know what I mean. Even the 'Maximum' bodycount estimates at Iraq Bodycount.net only stretches up to 10,769.
I do feel sorry for those who were forced to fight however I fail to see how the coalition forces can be blamed rather than the cowardly dogs who put their men on the front lines whilst they fled to safehouses and holes in the ground.
I can't hear anymore the argument that it was best for Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein by first bombing the land into chaos and then fail to have a contingency plan. What if Iraqi people were able to sort out Saddam Hussein themselves? Did anyone ever looked at the alternatives?
Yes we did, for many, many years but as I noted above a lot of people who might want to help out were somewhat on the dead side and naturally not having many of their compatriots with them I don't think many of the would-be revolutionaries would be willing to take on Saddam's men. They rose up in 1991 and we sat around agreeing to follow UN procedure. Good for international relations, pretty fucking bad for anyone in the vicinity of Iraq not professing their undying support for their glorious leader and 'victor' in the "Mother of All Battles".
Or was it that Saddam Hussein had to be removed by external force because otherwise the Iraqi would have dealt with him, and then the U.S. couldn't close the ring around Iran and Russia, because a selfliberated Iraq may have had no incentive to let them in?
Oh man.. Why did I even bother wasting time fisking this comment? That last paragraph told me everything I needed to know. New modding: (-5 Nutcase).
Kinda like shooting fish in a barrel.
Later
John
Posted by John Swaine at April 23, 2004 10:09 PM