Post Iraq takeover?

[bonoman]

What does the US do after(if they attack) they takeover Iraq.

Should this question not be answered first before going into Iraq?

Will this curb all the anti-american sediments in Iraq?

We all know the Us couldnt really stay there because the Iraqies would revolt againist them. Which country sends peacekeepers?

What cost to america and the world are we looking at for helping Iraq?

[CannibalisticArtist]

Originally posted by bonoman
What does the US do after(if they attack) they takeover Iraq.

pipe the oil out.

Should this question not be answered first before going into Iraq?

see above.

Will this curb all the anti-american sediments in Iraq?

who cares! CUUUZ THEY ALL BE JELOUS OF US ANYWAYS!!11!

We all know the Us couldnt really stay there because the Iraqies would revolt againist them. Which country sends peacekeepers?

you mean which country will send in more troops?

What cost to america and the world are we looking at for helping Iraq?

FREEDOM YO! and all that good stuff.+oil and middle-eastern tension control.

[Lilly]

Originally posted by bonoman
[B]What does the US do after(if they attack) they takeover Iraq.

they try to set up a democracy that best fits their economy (right...so something). just like what happened in afghanistan, bomb them to obliteration, then set up something that will be sure to be our allies in the end.

Should this question not be answered first before going into Iraq?

uh, yes yes it should be. chances of the u.s public seeing that answer previous to the war with iraq are almost that of bono coming to my house to tell me he thinks i'm a boofus.

Will this curb all the anti-american sediments in Iraq?

i don't think anything can quell the anti-american sentiment there. i don't have that answer, nor have i an hypothesis about it.

We all know the Us couldnt really stay there because the Iraqies would revolt againist them. Which country sends peacekeepers?

were we to go to war and win, i think we could stay there all we want without much fear of revolt, no one wants to be defeated twice. and the chances of us staying there are slim. we would probably help them set up their own government then leave.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by bonoman
What does the US do after(if they attack) they takeover Iraq.

There aren't any immediate candidates for a new president/leader of Iraq. From what I have heard, the Iraqi National Congress (the main opposition party to Saddam) is full of shady characters, so it might be unwise to give them the keys to the kingdom.

Should this question not be answered first before going into Iraq?

Yes.

Will this curb all the anti-american sediments in Iraq?

Hmm. If the soil on which Iraq rests hates America, there might be problems.

We all know the Us couldnt really stay there because the Iraqies would revolt againist them. Which country sends peacekeepers?

It would probably be necessary to have a large UN/multinational peacekeeping force there for a while until a functional government can be established. The country of Iraq has never known democracy.

What cost to america and the world are we looking at for helping Iraq?

Some number of lives would be lost in a war (hopefully not too many, if America can finish off Saddam quickly) and several countries would have to commit peacekeeping troops to Iraq for a number of years.

And America had better destroy Saddam's alleged WMDs on the first strike.

Personally, I think the planning of a post-Saddam Iraq is the most salient concern when the US decides whether or not to attack Iraq, not the question of whether or not the US is bluffing when it says that it has evidence that Saddam has rehabilitated his WMD programs.

Saddam Hussein runs a police state and is responsible for the deaths of however many Iraqi civilians since 1991. (That's right, Saddam is responsible, not the UN sanctions. Northern Iraq, which is not under Saddam's control but has been subject to the same economic sanctions, by and large does not share the problems of the rest of Iraq.) Why wouldn't you want to get rid of him?

[TylerDurden]

Originally posted by speedracer


It would probably be necessary to have a large UN/multinational peacekeeping force there for a while until a functional government can be established. The country of Iraq has never known democracy.

But if the UN/Multinational Community don't think the US should attack Iraq/don't want the US to attack Iraq, why should they clean up afterwards?
If you don't get a UN mandate in the beginning, it might be entirely up to the US to fix it, and fix it well, at the end.

This of course will open you up to alot of attention and criticism if it doesn't work perfectly. If the US goes it alone, sadly alot of the world will be waiting for you to f*** it up, seeing as they said you shouldn't have done it in the first place. "Told you so" type thing. Plus for Iraqi's it won't feel as much like a liberation, as possibly an occupation, especially for a certain % of the population. Occupied by 'the enemy' and pissed off. Good terrorist farming environment. And the cycle continues....

[speedracer]

Originally posted by TylerDurden


But if the UN/Multinational Community don't think the US should attack Iraq/don't want the US to attack Iraq, why should they clean up afterwards?
If you don't get a UN mandate in the beginning, it might be entirely up to the US to fix it, and fix it well, at the end.

This of course will open you up to alot of attention and criticism if it doesn't work perfectly. If the US goes it alone, sadly alot of the world will be waiting for you to f*** it up, seeing as they said you shouldn't have done it in the first place. "Told you so" type thing. Plus for Iraqi's it won't feel as much like a liberation, as possibly an occupation, especially for a certain % of the population. Occupied by 'the enemy' and pissed off.

It's not completely clear that most of the population of Iraq views the US as an enemy. Of course, it's hard to really know what they think, since Iraq is a police state.

If the US can get rid of Saddam relatively quickly, without causing massive damage to civilian infrastructures, I think the rest of the world will be more willing to help plan a post-Saddam Iraq. It seems to me that the main reason so many countries oppose the possible war is not because they respect Saddam's sovereignity, but because of the short-term loss of life.

Economically, there's no reason Iraq shouldn't be able to recover from a short war, what with all the oil they're sitting on. As long as the oil $ is administered *properly* (and not used to build luxury palaces for the president and such), Iraq should be able to bounce back.

Good terrorist farming environment. And the cycle continues....

For a country that's supposedly been ravaged by the US for the last 10 years, the citizens of Iraq have been real good sports about not flying planes into our office buildings.

It's the guy in charge who's been giving $25,000 payouts to families of Palestinian suicide bombers and possibly cutting deals with al-Qaeda.

[ouizy]

Turn the whle friggin joint into a Disney theme park, oh and an oil reserve, of course.

[bonoman]

I totally agree with tyler. This is lokoing like another Vietnam war. I hate to say it but this is going to blow up in the US's face. Half the congress is up in arms about it. Many people of the world and the US are againist it. Bush is going to slammed. I agree we should take Suddam out but the US needs everyones support and they need to start produce=ing evidence for the rest of the world. They need countries like Canada and Germany and many countries that might not give all milatary support in the war but will commit to send peacekeepers.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by bonoman
I totally agree with tyler. This is lokoing like another Vietnam war. I hate to say it but this is going to blow up in the US's face. Half the congress is up in arms about it. Many people of the world and the US are againist it. Bush is going to slammed. I agree we should take Suddam out but the US needs everyones support and they need to start produce=ing evidence for the rest of the world. They need countries like Canada and Germany and many countries that might not give all milatary support in the war but will commit to send peacekeepers.

Besides being unpopular, there are several criteria a war must meet before it can be called a Vietnam War:

1. There must be no concrete objective in sight.
2. It must go on for 25 years.
3. The US's allies in "Vietnam" must be maximally uncooperative.
4. The US must fight a limited war for fear of provoking "Vietnam's" nuclear-equipped big brother.

It's not clear that any of these other four criteria fit the proposed war against Iraq.

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by ouizy
Turn the whle friggin joint into a Disney theme park, oh and an oil reserve, of course.

Wow, I was going to post the exact same thing!

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by ouizy
Turn the whle friggin joint into a Disney theme park, oh and an oil reserve, of course.

Wow, I was going to post the exact same thing!