So, you are angry at many of your fellow countrymen?
Yes, and for more reasons than French Hating.
For the second point: it is not the rogues fault, it is the occupational forces job.
This is more sematical, i guess, but it is the rouge’s fault becuase they are doing it. They are the ones to blame. We can be critized for having poor security, maybe we should be critized, but is not our “fault”. The ones to blame are the rogues. We can be blamed for not solving the problem, or letting it happen, but not the problem itself.
Trying as hard as i can, i can’t follow this logic. The point probably is that i do not see why only USie companies can work withour a prior infrastructure …. or do they have more experience at that?
Its not that we are working without an infastructure, we are buidling one. no iraq organization has the resources to repair the wells, take over the management and guard the pipelines and such. Hell, we cant even guard the pipelines effectively, but i doubt the Iraqi’s have a stronger security force to guard it. It would be a mess if it werent for our control over it. American companies are using their infasture and resources to build a new one, and thenw e are going to give it over to the Iraqi’s.
The relevance comes from the situation after the war. Only after the war it matters which companies you let in, and only after the war it matters wheter you do your job as occupational force well. It seems that more emphasize is put on the oil and then on the people (as it was done during the war already, with the Brits near Basra).
Well, yes, if you want to talk about in that context, then it is relevant. I thought it was brought up in the section about justifying the war, and in that context it was not relevant. First, though, i disagree that more attention is being payed to the oil than to the people. We are pouring lots of money into development unrelated to Oil, such as education and social services. Only a relatively comparitivelyamount of money if being placed into oil development, when compared to security costs and other combied infastruture totals. Second, paying attention to the oil IS paying attention to the people. Oil is the life blood of the Iraqi economy, their oil industry has to be developed for them to survive. We certainly are not exploiting them for oil, as our oil prices have gone up since the war began, not down, and any profits form oil have not matched the security and reconstruction costs. We cant ignore other aspects in favour of it, and we arent, but paying attention to it is important.
Just burning resources is no good plan (look at eastern germany for example). What you need is a proper plan in advance. You didn’t have that, and it doesn’t seem that you have a lot of plan now.
Yes, but a proper plan needs resources. For example, rbinging back the old Iraqii armies and training large amounts of Iraqi’s to be police costs alot of money, so taking away some of our sources of income would be counterproductive. We are doing those things right now, and we are short of money anyway. If anything, we need to “exploit” the iraqis mroe in order to ensure thier saftey.
We were talking of the infrastructure, especially the one you need to sell oil (that is more taken from the direction the argument evolved).
If you want specifically the oil industry, that is becuase Sadaam destoyed them as we invaded, like he did in the gulf war. Terrorist attacks have further complicated the problem. Like I have said before, though, not a whole ton of money is being put into rebuilding the oil industry, we are putting alot of moeny in rebuilding the education system, water system, electricty system, roads, housing, etc. Alot fo money is going to oil, btu alot is going to other places as well.
Does it matter wether it is intentionally? And for some of those: I think i just read the news that Rumsfeld actually gave an order to emply the torture (an order that was later withdrawn by GWB).
A crime stays a crime regardless of your inentions. You might get “parole” if the purposes were “nice”, but still you commited a crime.
Yes, but it greatly affects who and what you punish. If individuals violate those on their own initaitive, then you punish individuals. If a whole government has a set policy to violate those rights, and does so at every level, then the whole government needs to be punished and removed to ensure the saftey of it’s citizens. Often, the only way to do this is war.
As in your example, that is pending investigation, and if it is revealed that our president authorized such acts, then he should be removed. but we will remove him, as our govenrment calls such acts illegeal. We will do our best to ensure that those crimes dont happen again. Sadaam would have done the opposite.
Those he hurt are not the international tribunal that is required and was brought by you as a reason to go in. And i am not sure that the UN has not expressed that they want him .
Or, with WMD-logic: Of course they said they wanted him. Prove me wrong !
What i was trying to show was that genocide was a crime that should be punished, whether or not the international tribuanl tried him was not really pertinent. However, ill concede the point, since punishment attempts have to be conducted under UN approval. I guess technically, it could be considered “illegal”, but i still stand by my arguement that a war against nations like Rwanda and Indonesia would have been “illegal” too. We are removing a mass murderer who invaded other nations, sponsered terrorism, shot at our planes, and abused the UN’s “oil for food” program. I guess I just think vigilante justice is acceptable in certain circumstances.
Oh, in case you wanted to know, a trial for genocide can be held by either an international tribunal or the nation in which the genocide occurred, accoring to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Even if the war was UN sanctioned, the trial would most likely have been an Iraqi one.
