Log in

View Full Version : US plans military rule and occupatio of Iraq



LeonardoDaVinci
13th October 2002, 14:49
Read this article,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/story/0,276...,810609,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/story/0,2763,810609,00.html)

Basically, the US has plans to establish an American-led military administration in Iraq, similar to the postwar occupation of Germany and Japan, which could last for several years after the ousting of Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein. It would be run by a senior US officer, perhaps General Tommy Franks, who leads the assault on Iraq, and whose role would be modelled on that of General Douglas MacArthur in postwar Japan.

Almost a century ago, the major colonialist powers of the late nineteenth/ early twentieth century (Britain, France and the US) carved up this strategic and oil rich region between them in order to reaffirm their global hegemony and secure their vital interests. It was a grand imperialist game in which the people of the Middle East were led to believe that their freedom, well-being and self-betterment could only be attained by allowing these developed foreigners to take full control of their governments as well as every aspect of their society. Supposedly, these foreigners were going to drag these former Ottoman colonies from the pits of backwardness that they were rotting in and herald a new age of enlightenment, development and wealth for the populace. This was a daunting yet not impossible task, for everyone in the region has been in awe at the great European civilisation, which almost effortlessly disposed of the great Ottoman Empire that reined over their land for many centuries.

There were many “modernisers” in the Arab world such as Mohammad Ali Pasha of Egypt who marvelled at the west’s rapid development and sought to emulate it at any cost. Throughout the region, royal families and members of the upper class have taken upon themselves the onus of determining their people’s future and drawing up the required development path, which will indubitably follow that of the west. Kings, Mukhtars, Pashas and Sheikhs all came to the conclusion that unless industrialisation is achieved very rapidly, the Arab states will lag further and further behind. They all sent their children, aids and executives to the best schools in Paris, London and Berlin. Hence, within a few decades an entire class of westernised modernisers was created across the Middle East, from Morocco to Iran, and they went ahead meticulously with their adopted aggressive and ambitious industrialisation plans. However, what the ruling class had not accounted for, was the simple fact that that it was a chimera to expect to achieve within a few decades what the Europeans have achieved in four centuries of continuous development. Furthermore, in nearly all Arab states, the majority of the population was illiterate, living in abject conditions and most importantly deeply distrustful of foreigners. Nevertheless, it was they who were burdened with this chimera, and it was they who were entrusted with making the miraculous leap from a backward agrarian society to a fully developed industrial state. The conditions in which they worked were intolerable, as they worked long strenuous hours, received smaller wages and almost had no rights; in effect, they were slave labour. They were broken, they were impoverished, and most of all they were fed up of working indefinitely only to see the rich upper classes reaping the benefits of their hard work. And so, they rebelled the only way they knew how to, by turning their back on the kings and Pashas and rallying around the religious leaders who long predicted that the western infidels will only bring them misery and pain. The insurgent crowd took to the streets in one Arab State after the other and challenged their leaders and challenged the ideals of the west.

However, England, France and the US decided that they cannot sit idly whilst their strategic and national interests were being threatened by these insolent and uncivilised people (the Suez Canal was of great strategic importance to both the British and the French). They decided that they must occupy and colonise these states in order to ensure that all the resources of this rich region will flow in the right direction (after all these ignorant inbreeds cannot be entrusted with such valuable resources). And thus under the guise of liberation they went in with their huge armies and arsenal, established military administrations and subjugated the people of an entire region. The insubordinate were mercilessly crushed, lands were expropriated and redistributed between the Imperialist powers and puppet regimes were installed throughout the entire region, such as the Sauds in Arabia, the Hashemite Kings in Iraq and Jordan, and the Shah in Iran. It was this first generation of cronies that started the ensuing trend of subduing and trampling on their own people, with the aid of their western educated armies who played a vital role in the perpetual suffering of the populace throughout the twentieth century.

Now with the dawn of a new century and a new millennia, these same countries are yet again the focus of a great power struggle. However, by the end of the twentieth century, the US emerged as the globe’s sole superpower. It is no longer is in competition with the English and French whose powers have been on the decline since the Second World War. The US now is the world’s sole decision-maker in the twenty first century, and its global hegemony spans from Chile to Indonesia.

With the rest of the competition now out of the way, the US has turned its attention once more to this troublesome region. And once more, under the guise of liberty, democracy and self-betterment, a global power is threatening to destabilise the entire region in order to pursue its selfish interests without a single thought given to the perpetual suffering of its people. Nevertheless, the people of this region have learned some painful lessons, and one of those is that every time a western power comes advocating such egalitarian values as freedom and democracy, then they better run for cover, for they know that whenever these blind slogans are repeated endlessly then what truly awaits them is more pain, more misery and more bloodshed. They also know that whenever they are promised a charismatic leader who upholds their values and believes and advocates liberty and equality then the likes of Saddam, Assad, Fahd and their fellow tyrants will be rubbing their hands in glee for they know that they will be the chosen ones. This is why the west has run out of supporters in the Middle East, and this is why Arabs are more willing to rally fervently behind the likes of Bin Laden and given him their full support than await redemption from the west, for they have been down that path before, and it was a disastrous impasse.

Capitalist Imperial
13th October 2002, 17:47
Spare us the dramatic prose, leftist.

"oh no, big bad america is going to set up a nation state in iraq likened to postwar japan or germany".

well, sir, it just so happens that US involvement in both of those nations allowed them to develop from post- WWII defeated and destroyed nations into some of the worlds most successful and powerful nations, and G7 members

so, thanks for the comparison

Xvall
13th October 2002, 19:51
well, sir, it just so happens that US involvement in both of those nations allowed them to develop from post- WWII defeated and destroyed nations into some of the worlds most successful and powerful nations, and G7 members

Yes. Completely overlook Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden. The defeat of those nations helped in NO way. NOTHING good came out of it. I don't care if they're powerful now; that's no excuse to anihialate those back then.

so, thanks for the comparison [/quote]

LeonardoDaVinci
13th October 2002, 20:16
Not to mention that neither of them possessed an oil reserve of over a 100 billion barrels. Furthermore, the US did not aid Germany and Japan out of its own goodness you moron, it was pure self interest.

Also what I was discussing in my post was the impact of the so-called benevolent western powers on middle eastern states, such as Iran, Iraq and Egypt throughout the twentieth century. They were screwed over many times, and you americans have no qualms about doing it again.

Now go and get yourself a history book that hasn't been handed to ou by the school and educate yourself you ignorant yank.

Tkinter1
14th October 2002, 01:58
"Now go and get yourself a history book that hasn't been handed to ou by the school and educate yourself you ignorant yank."

So becuase he doesn't agree with you he should educate his yanky ass on the leftist view of history. Which is ALWAYS accurate and 'right'.

PaulDavidHewson
14th October 2002, 02:09
There is something postive to say for capitalist imperials argument.

I must say dispite the fact that the US might have done it for self interest I cannot deny the fact that the living standards in Europe nowadays are pretty dang high because of USA funds back then(marhall plan and such).
But also USA isn't entitled to getting all the credit, it must also be noted that Europe did a big part of it thereselves(cheap labor and such).

If a nation is to succeed in recovering the people are still the ones who must do all the work(supported by foreing funds). If the people are unwilling then the concept will fail.
In Iraq the concept will fail in my opinion.

Panamarisen
14th October 2002, 03:29
PDH, why don´t you try to read mass media BETWEEN LINES?
Even being right-winged, you should try to THINK by YOURSELF! Try to put YOURSELF under the skin of the other one, under the one that HAPPENS to be the oppressed! It may happen to YOU tomorrow!!!
Is it so great to attack children , women and elder, specially in a country with a 10-year embargo???

You should shame of yourself because of your criminal and coward opinions!

HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!

PaulDavidHewson
14th October 2002, 04:35
You should shame of yourself because of your criminal and coward opinions!

Fallacy - Ad hominem.
attacking the arguer and not the argument

Try to put YOURSELF under the skin of the other one, under the one that HAPPENS to be the oppressed! It may happen to YOU tomorrow!!!

Is it so great to attack children , women and elder, specially in a country with a 10-year embargo???

Fallacy - Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)


Even being right-winged, you should try to THINK by YOURSELF!

Fallacy - Non sequitur.
Also, please supply me with evidence supporting your claim that I am Right winged? Where ever did I state that I am right winged or where did I supply arguments supporting your view?

You should read my posts more carefully, I already sai dthe USA has self interests there and are not doing it from the goodness of their hearts.
Also, nowhere did I state that i'm advocating the systematic destruction of the people of Iraq.

Also this is a perfect example of collectivist statement:
"You should shame of yourself because of your criminal and coward opinions! "

You want to know what criminal is?
Criminal is people like you denying my right to speak.
You would like to deport me to siberia wouldn't you, just because I don't agree with your standards.

But for your information, I'm somewhat of a liberal social democrat that sees many valuable aspects of capitalisme.

carry on.

LeonardoDaVinci
14th October 2002, 10:37
It is a fact that every time the US has interfered in the region, it was acting on a basis of pure self-interest (i.e. Gulf War, Iran, Israeli/Palestinian conflict), and regardless of the overall outcome for the indigenous population. In the Middle East, the major concern was (and remains) the incomparable energy reserve of the region, primarily in the Arabian peninsula. As in Latin America, it was necessary to displace traditional French and British interests and to establish US control over what the State Department described as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history,…probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.”

When Saddam Hussein's ruthless B'ath Party came to power, the US backed it in the overthrowing of the popular government of Abdul Karim Qasim who was one of the most liberal, charismatic and popular leaders in the Arab world, and who was also a known sympathiser with the Iraqi Communist Party. Within a few years of that coup, Iraq was turned from one of the most liberal and developed countries in the Middle East into a most oppressive police state. Dissent was not tolerated at any scale, the number of political prisoners soared dramatically and assassinations became the norm. Did the US think about the well-being of the Iraqi population back then? I think not. As George Kennan (one of the policy makers in the Harry S. Truman administration) once put it “Since the main threat to our interests is indigenous, we must realise that the final answer might be an unpleasant one.”- namely, “police repression by the local government.” “Harsh government measures of repression” should cause us no qualms as long as “the results are on balance favourable to our interests.” In general, “it is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and relaxed and penetrated by communists.”


(Edited by LeonardoDaVinci at 5:12 pm on Oct. 14, 2002)

LeninCCCP
16th October 2002, 01:32
Attacking and Taking over Iraq still isnt justified. None of you can make an argument to change that fact. Not to say i dont hate Saddam he is comparable to mussulini but he aint invading no one yet...