Bush: 'Iraq should be grateful'

[TeeJay]

It’s possible that’s what could have happened – nobody’s ever going to know now – but the fact that that possibility existed just makes Bush’s decision to invade and get rid of the country’s leadership and army without any clear plan for the country afterwards look even more like one of the stupidest decisions in modern history.

How do we know Bush had 'no plan'? Maybe his plan was: 'invade country, occupy it, replace government, wait around for 10 or so years with varying levels of troops and violence, end up with another middle eastern client state' - which is kind of what is happening. Plans don't actually predict numbers of future deaths or outcomes (which is impossible) - they are just plans.

I’ve read that Bush didn’t even know there was a difference between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims at the time of the Iraq invasion, and that seems pretty easy to believe.

Whatever you think of Bush's intelligence (and lets's face it, he managed to win two presidential elections, which is more than a lot of supposedly 'clever' people have) he has a vast number of professionals working for him and a fair number of political allies who he needs to pay attention to.

Even if the aim was a proxy war by the US against Russian and Chinese interests, it’s still a miserable failure – it seems unlikely that any democratically elected Iraqi government will be very kindly disposed towards the US.

Where else are they going to go for support? Do they have any choice? How is turning Iraq into a US client state a failure in the bigger game?

Bush has essentially spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken action that’s led to death of hundreds of thousands, and squandered any goodwill or sympathy the rest of the world had towards the US after 9/11, and it’s all gone to serve the best interests of Iran.

This has yet to been proven conclusively. It may well be that Iran and Syria are the next two states that the US is going to break down and eventually claim as client states for its military and corporations.

The number of dead and cost might matter to you and me but does this actually indicate a "failure" for the people playing the big geo-strategic realpolitik game? sadly I don't think it does - it only matters if it means that they lose office and therefore control of the direction things are going. This isn't yet the case, and even if the Democrats win in the US and the Blairites are ousted in the UK, arguably the general thrust of western policy in the middle east won't actually change that much.

I'd argue that the only criteria for "failure" in these 'great game' terms would be if China and Russia gained ground - militarily and economically - in the middle east and central asia, and the US lost ground. Ofg course you and I might have our own human rights/democracy/welfare/development criteria, but if these aren't met then it is *us* who are losing, not Bush, if you presume that he has different criteria from us.

 

[Yossarian]

Either these professionals surrounding Bush are as stupid as he is, or he’s ignoring them.

I don’t know what makes you think Iraq is any likelier to turn into an American client state than Vietnam did – most Iraqis now despite the USA, any government that even comes close to reflecting their will certainly won’t be turning towards Washington.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Either these professionals surrounding Bush are as stupid as he is, or he’s ignoring them.

I don’t know what makes you think Iraq is any likelier to turn into an American client state than Vietnam did – most Iraqis now despite the USA, any government that even comes close to reflecting their will certainly won’t be turning towards Washington.

But the Vietnamese are clamouring for business with the US, there is a tourism business growing there for US tourists, and everyone wants the Yankee dollar. Meanwhile, the USSR is gone, and they hate China.

So: who won that war after all?

Sometimes you have to take the long view.

 

[Yossarian]

Following that logic, Japan won the Second World War in Asia by a long way!

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Following that logic, Japan won the Second World War in Asia by a long way!

In some ways, it did.

It's an old truism that both Germany and Japan ultimately benefitted from the aftermath of the war.

 

[Dandred]

Are there any Iraqi bloggs (by people actually in Iraq) showing gratitute towards Bush's war?

I've seen many Iraqi bloggs criticising the war.

 

[nino_savatte]

But the Vietnamese are clamouring for business with the US, there is a tourism business growing there for US tourists, and everyone wants the Yankee dollar. Meanwhile, the USSR is gone, and they hate China.

So: who won that war after all?

Sometimes you have to take the long view.

When you say "the Vietnamese", you are referring to the business 'community' and not the average person in the street. Please get it right or back up your 'thesis' with some supporting evidence. This is another narrative, especially this:

So: who won that war after all?

And this:

everyone wants the Yankee dollar.

The US imposes its goods onto other countries through unfair competitive practices that undercut and eventually destroy the internal market of a country (Liberia in 1979 is a good example of this). When it tells other countries to "open their markets", what they are really saying is "let us dominate your markets and your industries". If such countries need financial assistance, then severe limitations are placed on a country by the US dominated IMF and World Bank, who insist that neo-liberal economic policies be implemented. Of course, this means cheap consumer goods for you and a life of miserable pay and equally miserable working conditions for those who produce your consumer items. These people have no safety net, no benefits should they fall ill no right to collective bargaining because the US, through the IMF/World Bank, insisted on it.


L&L will be along at some point to have a quick snipe on your behalf.

 

[nino_savatte]

Are there any Iraqi bloggs (by people actually in Iraq) showing gratitute towards Bush's war?

I've seen many Iraqi bloggs criticising the war.

I don't think there are many Iraqis who would willingly support neo-liberal economic policies but according to the mind of Canuck, the Iraqis want to be a US vassal and they're more than willing to let a handful of US oil companies take the oil from underneath their feet.

 

[slaar]

When you say "the Vietnamese", you are referring to the business 'community' and not the average person in the street. Please get it right or back up your 'thesis' with some supporting evidence. This is another narrative, especially this:

And this:

The US imposes its goods onto other countries through unfair competitive practices that undercut and eventually destroy the internal market of a country (Liberia in 1979 is a good example of this). When it tells other countries to "open their markets", what they are really saying is "let us dominate your markets and your industries". If such countries need financial assistance, then severe limitations are placed on a country by the US dominated IMF and World Bank, who insist that neo-liberal economic policies be implemented. Of course, this means cheap consumer goods for you and a life of miserable pay and equally miserable working conditions for those who produce your consumer items. These people have no safety net, no benefits should they fall ill no right to collective bargaining because the US, through the IMF/World Bank, insisted on it.

It's worse than this. A lot of people in Africa would be grateful for basic manufacturing jobs. But global business doesn't need to touch most countries here except as a source of raw materials.

The Vietnamese are certainly getting the best and the worst of capitalism, but at least they are creating jobs, and this has as much to do with their rejection of stringent neo-liberalism than its adoption.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's worse than this. A lot of people in Africa would be grateful for basic manufacturing jobs. But global business doesn't need to touch most countries here except as a source of raw materials.

The Vietnamese are certainly getting the best and the worst of capitalism, but at least they are creating jobs, and this has as much to do with their rejection of stringent neo-liberalism than its adoption.

We never really hear about the true economic impact of such policies in African countries until it's too late. as for Vietnam, I can't help but notice the sheer volume of consumer goods such as trainers and other sports items (much beloved of the overweight) and I can't help think what conditions these workers must labour under. Individual Vietnamese people will have a different view on this compared to their captains of industry or, rather, the CEOs of the corporations leading the charge into Vietnam.

But for Johnny to say "who won the war"? smacks of pro-US cheerleading. It's ugly stuff.

 

[slaar]

We never really hear about the true economic impact of such policies in African countries until it's too late. as for Vietnam, I can't help but notice the sheer volume of consumer goods such as trainers and other sports items (much beloved of the overweight) and I can't help think what conditions these workers must labour under. Individual Vietnamese people will have a different view on this compared to their captains of industry or, rather, the CEOs of the corporations leading the charge into Vietnam.

But for Johnny to say "who won the war"? smacks of pro-US cheerleading. It's ugly stuff.

Absolutely. The reason it is so ridiculous though is because it illustrates precisely the point that it is intended to refute. Vietnam is strong now because it made its own way. Its workers are suffering, but hundreds of thousands are being lifted out of poverty, and also creating the power bases to challenge capitalism's worst excesses; it's a classic industrial revolution, very different from the neo-liberal stagnation evident in much of Africa.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

When you say "the Vietnamese", you are referring to the business 'community' and not the average person in the street. Please get it right or back up your 'thesis' with some supporting evidence. This is another narrative, especially this:.

I can't claim to know much about what the person on the street of Hanoi is thinking, nor can you. I have to interpret the signs that are available, as best I can.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The US imposes its goods onto other countries through unfair competitive practices that undercut and eventually destroy the internal market of a country (Liberia in 1979 is a good example of this). When it tells other countries to "open their markets", what they are really saying is "let us dominate your markets and your industries". If such countries need financial assistance, then severe limitations are placed on a country by the US dominated IMF and World Bank, who insist that neo-liberal economic policies be implemented. .

If the world economic system were this simple, the US would have owned everything long ago. It doesn't.

'Financial assistance' exists in other forms besides IMF loans. Otherwise, how would the Chinese have come to occupy such a strong position in the US bond market?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Of course, this means cheap consumer goods for you and a life of miserable pay and equally miserable working conditions for those who produce your consumer items. .

Not 'me', bucko: 'us'. You do live in London, as opposed to Liberia, don't you?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't think there are many Iraqis who would willingly support neo-liberal economic policies but according to the mind of Canuck, the Iraqis want to be a US vassal and they're more than willing to let a handful of US oil companies take the oil from underneath their feet.

He's a feckin' mindreader to boot!

Although a fairly inaccurate one....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But for Johnny to say "who won the war"? smacks of pro-US cheerleading. It's ugly stuff.

Compare Germany's or Japan's economic position in the world in 1925, with what it was in 1985, and get back to me.

 

[Dandred]

Compare Germany's or Japan's economic position in the world in 1925, with what it was in 1985, and get back to me.

You could say the same about South Korea, but it's not some economic miracle thanks to the US blowing the shit out of the countries like your suggesting.

The fact is the US pumped shit-loads of money into the economies of Germany Japan and South Korea to undermine the communist neighbors, and it worked.

Somehow I don't see the same method working for Iraq, especially after we've just seen the countries oil wealth divided up with huge involment by the US government.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=191283

 

[Yossarian]

Compare Germany's or Japan's economic position in the world in 1925, with what it was in 1985, and get back to me.

Yeah, but compare the size of Germany or Japan (including colonies) from 1925 to 1985 - and for both those countries the Second World War had a lot more to do with wanting to extend their territory and power rather than anything purely economic.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yeah, but compare the size of Germany or Japan (including colonies) from 1925 to 1985 - and for both those countries the Second World War had a lot more to do with wanting to extend their territory and power rather than anything purely economic.

We're not talking about why they fought the war; we're talking about relative 'benefits' vs losses accruing to the different combatants following the war.

Don't forget, this discussion arose out of a consideration whether, in the long run, the deposing and execution of saddam, along with the losses from the war and civil war, will be counterbalanced by positive outcomes in the years ahead.

 

[Yossarian]

Even by that criteria, I reckon Germany and Japan would have been a lot better off in 1985 if the Second World War hadn’t happened.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Even by that criteria, I reckon Germany and Japan would have been a lot better off in 1985 if the Second World War hadn’t happened.

That's debatable. It was WW2 that pulled the world out of the Depression; hard to forecast what would have happened on the world economic front without the war.

Germany was still labouring under the reparations burden from the first world war, and thus was suffering a double economic whammy. Without the rise of fascism, it likely would have become a communist country.

Japan pre war was in some ways a post feudal backwater, and at the same time a country trying to be reborn as a modern industrial state. Again, it's hard to predict what would have happened if Japan hadn't tried to implement the East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. Where would the raw materials and oil have come from? The ending of the war was what ultimately let it gain access to these things without resort to force of arms.

 

[nino_savatte]

He's a feckin' mindreader to boot!

Although a fairly inaccurate one....

Really? Your posts on this thread are evidence enough. Pity you find it difficult to discuss anything without resorting to lies and cheap shots - isn't it?

The idea is to wind up the other poster in order to get them into trouble and, hopefully, banned.

 

[nino_savatte]

I can't claim to know much about what the person on the street of Hanoi is thinking, nor can you. I have to interpret the signs that are available, as best I can.

You provided a narrative that claimed that "everyone wanted the Yankee dollar". You typed it (or words to that effect). All you can do is rely on 'signs' and that's where you and your leadership fall down: your signs are meaningless yet you cling to them, even when the truth is slapping you around the face.

 

[nino_savatte]

Not 'me', bucko: 'us'. You do live in London, as opposed to Liberia, don't you?

What does this have to do with anything? Here, once again, you resort to a misrepresentation in order to 'win' the argument. It's pretty low and most people leave that shite behind in the playground...not you - eh?

 

[nino_savatte]

If the world economic system were this simple, the US would have owned everything long ago. It doesn't.

'Financial assistance' exists in other forms besides IMF loans. Otherwise, how would the Chinese have come to occupy such a strong position in the US bond market?

The US doesn't have to "own everything" though, does it? It can dominate a nation's markets and economies in other ways...although you wouldn't understand that since your job, here, is to defend the USA (odd thing for a Canadian to do).

I gave the xample of Liberia....pity you had to misrepresent my post in order to make a cheap shot.

 

[nino_savatte]

Compare Germany's or Japan's economic position in the world in 1925, with what it was in 1985, and get back to me.

Irrelevant and a diversion. Your claim of "who won the war" was specific to Vietnam. The US got a bloody nose, and, like Cuba, it has never forgotten this indignity. It has spent a great deal of time, effort and money trying to hijack the economy and get its 'revenge'.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Compare Germany's or Japan's economic position in the world in 1925, with what it was in 1985, and get back to me.

Johnny, These were well-off developed countries to begin with, the impact the war had was to just to give them a blip in their progress, they would have become what they are now anyway - I can't believe you are falling for such spurious logic.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Really? Your posts on this thread are evidence enough. Pity you find it difficult to discuss anything without resorting to lies and cheap shots - isn't it?

The idea is to wind up the other poster in order to get them into trouble and, hopefully, banned.

Pa-ra-noid.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You provided a narrative that claimed that "everyone wanted the Yankee dollar". You typed it (or words to that effect). All you can do is rely on 'signs' and that's where you and your leadership fall down: your signs are meaningless yet you cling to them, even when the truth is slapping you around the face.

Who's my leadership?

Who's yours: lizards?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What does this have to do with anything? Here, once again, you resort to a misrepresentation in order to 'win' the argument. It's pretty low and most people leave that shite behind in the playground...not you - eh?

Can't be arsed...