It is easy to say, "they should have given the inspectors more time," etc. and if Iraq continued to refuse to co-operate for another year then we could go in and attack with UN approval.
The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence? No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government. No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)? How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Iraq
Date: 2004-02-02 04:29 pm (UTC)The problem with this is that the only reason Iraq was complying to any degree was the large American military presence just off the coast. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan both acknowledged this. It would have been unreasonable to expect the Americans to keep this force present, at great cost to them, for tiny, tiny, gradual concessions from Iraq. After a year of this, the political will for this would have gone ("Why the hell are you spending billions of my tax dollars for nothing?") and then Saddam's seen off another US president.
Also, does it not strike you as frightening that America either lied while going into the war, or went to war on extremely faulty intelligence?
No. I'm interested in outcomes, not process. The outcome was good. They got a few things wrong in the arguments pre-war. Am I frightened by this? No. And let's remember, even Chirac said that Iraq had WMD's before the war. The point of difference was how to get rid of them.
millions were being killed by the sanctions, not the directly by the government.
No. No no no no no. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq after the 1991 war. Iraq to give up its WMD programmes. It didn't. Sanctions continued while Iraq kept on its WMD programs, and building palaces, and the like. Saddam was more than capable of keeping his people from starving, even with the sanctions. He chose not to. Those millions of deaths are on his hands.
http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm is a reminder from me to you and everyone else to have some patience.
am I the only one who finds it strange America's trying to impose its own version of democracy on Iraq without first asking the Iraqis what they would like (thereby defeating the purpose of that form of government)?
How are you going to ask the Iraqis what sort of government they want? Some sort of representative democratic structures have to be put in place before anything else. Otherwise the well-organised Shi'a leaders will get more votes than the divided "rest of Iraq" and could make Iraq even less secular than now. All parts of Iraq need a voice at first. Once this is in place, they can argue between themselves on what form the final democracy will take.
As long as the executive doesn't get too much power, things should be OK.