The Iraq Thread 2

[theavonlady 2]

Why, because a neutral party should look at the facts (wait facts don't matter do they) and decide.  Because they will be doing this with vengeance, as opposed to a neutral party.  You know, I would think you would know a little more about justice, rather than revenge.

I believe a country is allowed to dispense justice against those who agressed it.

[EiZei 0]

Well, you dont allow a judge to judge a killer who happened to kill a judges family member, do you?

[theavonlady 2]

Well, you dont allow a judge to judge a killer who happened to kill a judges family member, do you?

If a Finn commits a crime in Finnland, do you export the criminal elsewhere for trial?

[EiZei 0]

Well, you dont allow a judge to judge a killer who happened to kill a judges family member, do you?

If a Finn commits a crime in Finnland, do you export the criminal elsewhere for trial?

Maybe he indeed should if the criminal cant have a impartial judge.

Not that I have much sympathy for those baathist assholes though, but I still would prefer this to be done by a neutral party.

[theavonlady 2]

Well, you dont allow a judge to judge a killer who happened to kill a judges family member, do you?

If a Finn commits a crime in Finnland, do you export the criminal elsewhere for trial?

Maybe he indeed should if the criminal cant have a impartial judge.

Well, when you get the rest of the world to export their own criminals for trial to different countries, maybe Iraq can join in.

In the meantime, they're entitled to do as everyone else does.

[bn880 5]

Why, because a neutral party should look at the facts (wait facts don't matter do they) and decide. Because they will be doing this with vengeance, as opposed to a neutral party. You know, I would think you would know a little more about justice, rather than revenge.

I believe a country is allowed to dispense justice against those who agressed it.

But that is exactly like: China and EU assist in an assault to remove Israeli Leadership in that state (quite doable), and then Palestinians create a War Crimes Tribunal to (probably) execute Sharon and all involved, including heads of the Israeli military.

How would that sound, even if I think that might be more just than the Iraqi tribunal... maybe

[theavonlady 2]

Why, because a neutral party should look at the facts (wait facts don't matter do they) and decide.  Because they will be doing this with vengeance, as opposed to a neutral party.  You know, I would think you would know a little more about justice, rather than revenge.

I believe a country is allowed to dispense justice against those who agressed it.

But that is exactly like:  China and EU assist in an assault to remove Israeli Leadership in that state (quite doable), and then Palestinians create a War Crimes Tribunal to (probably) execute Sharon and all involved, including heads of the Israeli military.

How would that sound, even if I think that might be more just than the Iraqi tribunal... maybe

It would sound the same as if the Germans, Japanese and Italians had won WWII and put allies on trial.

Winning alone doesn't define a cause as being just.

[bn880 5]

Exactly: winning does not define a cause being just...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]I believe a country is allowed to dispense justice against those who agressed it.

Now if i recall right, Iraq didnt invade USA.

EDIT: my computer broke down,away for a while..

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]I believe a country is allowed to dispense justice against those who agressed it.

Now if i recall right, Iraq didnt invade USA.

LOL! Interesting point.

However, the Iraqis in charge and the Iraqi populace in general don't necessarily regret these "agressors" from accomplishing what they did to the point of placing them on trial.

[denoir 0]

Glad to see its about the welfare of the Iraqis, and not money...

Are you implying that

1. it cannot be both for the Iraqi's welfare and for the money,

or

2. it can't be for the Iraqi's welfare if certain countries are excluded

or

3. no matter who does these projects, it's not for the Iraqi's welfare?

A free market competition is what would be for Iraq's welfare as they would get the best deal at the cheapest price.

This way they end up paying more becuase they cannot take potentially cheaper and better German & French deals.

Personally I think they are just making things worse for them by sending out double messages. They go on about Iraqi sovereignty and rule while at the same time the US makes all the important decisions. Do they really think that the Iraqis won't notice that?

There is an interesting thing going on in the US Iraq policy right now. You have one direction here represented by Wolfowitz, which continues the same pre-war attitude. And the second policy that takes into account the post-war mess in Iraq and that begs the world to come and help out.

The problem is that those are entirely contradictory policies. Reminds me of USA's Israel policy. I wonder if there's another Powell vs Cheny fight going on in the background?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]I can not be bothered to go through this argument again  so I will just post this answere to the same quesions put by Crazysheep you may wish to go back to that part of the thread so your up to speed on this bit.

Then if you make your critique replies to my quoted passage we will be advancing the argument.

Actualy no because there is a soldier on every corner you can close down streets meaning it is easier to catch the sniper. There is a secondary affect in that the resitance are prevented from moving weapons. There are going to be soldiers killed it is inevitable you just have to suck it up.

Quote (Crazysheep @ Nov. 30 2003,04:06)

SOOOOO wrong. you just dont see it. sure you are right,. a larger army means better supervision...BUT the threat right now is not the guerilla itself, but the risk that the civillian population might switch sympathy. A guerilla can kill one us-soldier per day, but if you face a jihad, then you better increase your stock of body-bags. i feel like you havent realy understood what the risk is right now. I personally care little about the attacks on US soldiers, this is just some silly little war of Baathists and coalition forces. I care about the future stability of the entire middle east. The problem is that you people are so determined that if you kill the enemy the rain will stop and the sun will come out and iraq will turn into paradise.

It is time the coalition forces see that their enemy is time and not the Baath party. the Iraqi people are giving the US time to proof that they will fix more than they destroyed. People are being patient, they know that the US is the strongest and richest country in the world and if someone can fix their country, then it is definetly USA. But if they see that their country remains in disorder their patience will turn into anti-americanism. And then the Baath Party is a fiddlers fart compared to the attacks your troops might face from civillian resistance fighters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Your have two alternatives.

1. You first try to break down the attacks of baathists to reduce the (relatively small) amount of coalition casualties.

or

2. You ensure that the Iraqi people get what they demand or soon the word Iraq will soon create the same taste in your mouth as the word Vietnam. That isnt just a bad slogan, that is the culture of the arab world. And the stubborness of muslims can be seen in the Israel conflict.

So what is more important? Safety or existential needs such as electricity and gas. More money for more military or more money for more reconstructional works? Maybe you should have a look at maslows law!

Quote[/b] ]Human beings initially set their priorities according to their existential needs such as food, clothes and sleep. If the existential needs are not met survival is threatened and life itself is in danger.

If the existential needs are satisfied the need for safety is awakened: The desire for protection from the risks to life such as war, sickness, accident, environmental catastrophes etc. take centre ground.

The next level in the priority pyramid according to Maslow concerns the social needs: The human being wants to be with like-minded people, he wants to be accepted and loved.

The following level is concerned with self-regard and the esteem of other people: The human being wants to strengthen his self-confidence and for this purpose seeks regard and recognition from other people.

The top objective is the need for self-realization: The human being wants to be able to be himself and to permanently be able to experience inner peace, happiness and harmony.

More soldiers can prevent people from smuggling weapons? sounds logical but isnt. Not even the Berlin wall and its strictest border controll in the world was able to limit/reduce smuggling. If people want to hide something, they will hide it!

Snipers? Which snipers are you talking about... I must have missed the news

[bn880 5]

Anyhow, news: 41 US soldiers wounded in explosions

Turns out it was over 60 wounded. Can't find the link for it, but something like 62

[denoir 0]

SOOOOO wrong. you just dont see it. sure you are right,. a larger army means better supervision...BUT the threat right now is not the guerilla itself, but the risk that the civillian population might switch sympathy. A guerilla can kill one us-soldier per day, but if you face a jihad, then you better increase your stock of body-bags.

No, Albert, you are very wrong. The issue in Iraq is security. Not security as in preventing attacks on US soldiers, but in basic civil security. Iraq is in a complete mess regarding the civil services. Crime is up beyond comperhension. People are afraid to send their kids to school. Foregin help organizations won't set a foot in Iraq.

And this security problem can only be solved by more soldiers (and in the future a working police force).

The Iraqi people just want to live a normal life as they are used to. They want safety, electricity, water and hospitals. They don't get it now and that's also the biggest regional concern. If the coallition can't provide it, the common people will turn against them and then you have a really big problem.

There needs to be a soldier on every street corner to restore normal life to Iraq.

[theavonlady 2]

Anyhow, news: 41 US soldiers wounded in explosions

Turns out it was over 60 wounded.  Can't find the link for it, but something like 62

NY Times.

Quote[/b] ]The military officially reported 31 soldiers wounded, but later reports from wire service reporters who spoke with commanders there put the number of injuries as high as 58, most of them minor.

The first reports I read said over 40. But that was after only the first attack. There was a second attack and I think that's how the numbers shot up.

[theavonlady 2]

Lotsa luck, EU!

EU to Study Legality of Iraq Contract Row

Quote[/b] ]EU to Study Legality of Iraq Contract Row

10 minutes ago

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The European Union said Wednesday it would examine whether the United States violates world trade rules with its decision to bar countries that opposed its war in Iraq rom bidding for $18.6 billion worth reconstruction contracts.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

SOOOOO wrong. you just dont see it. sure you are right,. a larger army means better supervision...BUT the threat right now is not the guerilla itself, but the risk that the civillian population might switch sympathy. A guerilla can kill one us-soldier per day, but if you face a jihad, then you better increase your stock of body-bags.

No, Albert, you are very wrong. The issue in Iraq is security. Not security as in preventing attacks on US soldiers, but in basic civil security. Iraq is in a complete mess regarding the civil services. Crime is up beyond comperhension. People are afraid to send their kids to school. Foregin help organizations won't set a foot in Iraq.

And this security problem can only be solved by more soldiers (and in the future a working police force).

The Iraqi people just want to live a normal life as they are used to. They want safety, electricity, water and hospitals. They don't get it now and that's also the biggest regional concern. If the coallition can't provide it, the common people will turn against them and then you have a really big problem.

There needs to be a soldier on every street corner to restore normal life to Iraq.

Fine, and you think Baghdad is like London, you put a Bobby on every corner and criminality will go down? I doubt that resistance can be minimised by such an simplistic approach. Maybe it works, who knows, but considering the time it will cost I believe the iraqis might loose patience before. And as I said, that you better dont risk.

[Longinius 1]

"Are you implying that

1. it cannot be both for the Iraqi's welfare and for the money,

or

2. it can't be for the Iraqi's welfare if certain countries are excluded

or

3. no matter who does these projects, it's not for the Iraqi's welfare? "

I go with option nr 2. Exclusion is rarely a good thing as it limits your options, and makes some people feel, well, excluded.

[walker 0]

Hi Albert Schweizer

Right back at you

Quote[/b] ]Human beings initially set their priorities according to their existential needs such as food, clothes and sleep. If the existential needs are not met survival is threatened and life itself is in danger.

The electricity supply and other esential services are the target of the terrorists as well. You cant cook food cause no electricity or fuel so "existential needs" You misread Maslow there. Food in your fridge goes off real quick. Hospitals dont work and dont think Iraqis are from the stone age they are one of the most advanced cultures in the Middle East so; they dont live some hand to mouth agrarian existance where millions can live off the land. That is the Phol Pot year one falicy.

They are a modern state if you take away their electricity and infrastucture people die. They are affected by loss of power as much as any NY citizen who lives in a rich apartment overlooking central park.

If your quoting Maslow you must at least done some higher eduction.

Baghdad is like London. It is the capitol of a modern state with very few differences. Fast Food, computers, red tape traffic jams etc.

The tactics of terrorism are to disrupt society. The methods that can beat it are those that improve social activity and prevent the disruption.

As to Coalition soldiers in body bags, get used to it you can not fight wars on the cheap and that obviously includes lives.

Pulling out would mean that a blood bath.

I have made my thoughts on the going to war clear but they do not alter the need for a force to stay there to correct the error. Would I prefer it was under the UN? Yes but they aint going in under TBA's rules

I made it clear the country needs rebuilding and that the soldiers need to speek Arabic and understand the culture to act as a police force.

Are TBA dragging their feet on rebuilding Iraq? Yes.

Do I think there is a lot of pocket linning going on at the expence of the Iraqis? Yes.

The snipers point was in reply to something said by crazysheep read back in the thread the dates are there.

Kind Regards Walker

[ralphwiggum 6]

A free market competition is what would be for Iraq's welfare as they would get the best deal at the cheapest price.

This way they end up paying more becuase they cannot take potentially cheaper and better German & French deals.

Personally I think they are just making things worse for them by sending out double messages. They go on about Iraqi sovereignty and rule while at the same time the US makes all the important decisions. Do they really think that the Iraqis won't notice that?

There is an interesting thing going on in the US Iraq policy right now. You have one direction here represented by Wolfowitz, which continues the same pre-war attitude. And the second policy that takes into account the post-war mess in Iraq and that begs the world to come and help out.

The problem is that those are entirely contradictory policies. Reminds me of USA's Israel policy. I wonder if there's another Powell vs Cheny fight going on in the background?

AFAIK, the handling of Iraq is now in Condolezza Rice's hand, instead of Rummy's. Seems like TBA wasn't too happy with Rummy's performance, so decided to give Rice the task.

With regards to barring some nations for contracts, good job. Now reconstruction of IRaq is going to be tougher with limited supply of workers and goods. Way to go TBA.

[theavonlady 2]

With regards to barring some nations for contracts, good job. Now reconstruction of IRaq is going to be tougher with limited supply of workers and goods.

I don't think they're going to have a problem getting goods or workers. There are plenty of candidate firms and numerous qualifying countries.

[denoir 0]

Lotsa luck, EU!

EU to Study Legality of Iraq Contract Row

Hehe, I see another WTO suit coming up.

I'll bet a euro on that USA will have changed its position within a month or two.

Bush is currently licking his wounds from losing the steel tariff battle to the EU. I don't think he wants to go through with the process again. Limiting contract-bidding is a clear violation of a number of treaties and WTO rules. It would just result in retalitatory sanctions against the US. We saw in the steel row how close that became reality and how the sanctions would have targeted for Bush politically important states...

And 2004 is an election year. Nah, it's not very likely that Bush will stand by the current decision. He can't afford it. As for the EU & Co, it pretty much doesn't matter if the money comes from Iraq contracts or sanctions against the US. IIRC they could actually make a lot more money through sanctions and added tarrifs on US goods as the WTO allows for something like 4:1 compensation for those whose economic rights have been violated...

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I don't think they're going to have a problem getting goods or workers. There are plenty of candidate firms and numerous qualifying countries.

Oh yes, the "broad coalition". :rolleyes:

I doubt a US/UK corporate wankfest will provide the best quality/price-ratio.

[theavonlady 2]

Oh yes, the "broad coalition". :rolleyes:

I doubt a US/UK corporate wankfest will provide the best quality/price-ratio.

Quote[/b] ]Companies likely to benefit most come from Britain, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, South Korea and Poland.

Other supporters of the war include Albania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan and the Philippines.

SOURCE: U.S. Calls Iraq Contract Restrictions Appropriate.

[EiZei 0]

Oh yes, the "broad coalition". :rolleyes:

I doubt a US/UK corporate wankfest will provide the best quality/price-ratio.

Quote[/b] ]Companies likely to benefit most come from Britain, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia, South Korea and Poland.

Other supporters of the war include Albania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Honduras, Hungary, Kazakhstan and the Philippines.

SOURCE: U.S. Calls Iraq Contract Restrictions Appropriate.

UK and US have combined population of 350 million people, the combined amount of population of the "likely benefitors" is somewhere around 300mil and their GPD per capita is in some cases (ie. poland) three times less than the US.

Do you think that excluding rest of the world is going to create a better deal for the aid money?

EDIT: Population errors.