Thoughts on War

[eredien]

Well, really. France'd better be opposing possible joint US/British governance over Iraq. I'd be worried if they weren't. I'm worried that we're considering it, and I live here.
Can't say I'm suprised about the fact, though.

About this early surrendering of some bits of the Iraqi army: I can't put my finger on why it's making me feel this way, but I'm getting a really strong, "Oh, no! Don't throw me into the briar patch, Brer Wolf!" feeling off of this entire war.

It might be silly to talk about the war based on a feeling. But hey, I'm not the only one who's done that.

And, finally, let's be accurate. Kim Jong II is a dangerous, obsessive, psycopathic tyrant with nuclear weapons. Not a "pygmy". I have no use for a person who calls anyone, even Kim Jong II, nasty little names.

Comments

[fangtsu.livejournal.com]

Why are we not a lot more worried about Kim Jong???

[homasse.livejournal.com]

*That's what I'd like to know* (sez the chick living in Japan.) Why's Bush so hung up on Saddam--yes, and evil man, I'm not questioning that one at all--when Kim Jong Il is pretty frickin' dangerous himself, and whose people are already starving and without power and have nothing to lose anymore, and if he doesn't have nukes now, will have them soon? Kim Jong, whose regime has children watching anti-American videos from grade-school up and are taught paranoia and distrust of anyone non-North Korean damned near from the cradle? Kim Jong, who has *more than once* launched weapons at Japan just to show that if it wanted to, it could bomb Tokyo? Who launched a missle *the day* the new South Korean president was inaugurated, when Colin Powell was visting S. Korea? A regime that has *admitted* to kidnapping Japanese nationals over a ten-year period, and has lied about the fates of some of them, and who is currently keeping the *families* of these poor people more or less hostage--they allowed the Japanese nationals still *alive* that they admited to to return to Japan for a month, sans their family, and then, when Japan refused to make the people go back to Korea, N. Korea refused to allow their families to come to Japan (chosing instead to let teenagers be left parentless, with no idea where their parents are or that they are the children of kidnapped Jpanese nationals--many of them think there parents are Koreans who had been born in Japan) and has refused to negotiate with Japan until the *kidnapped JAPANESE people* are returned to the country that kidnapped them--the time these poor people have been without their families is approaching the six month mark about now.

Kim Jong Il starves his people while he has lavish parties, authorizes the kidnapping of other foreign nationals just because (he had a prominent S. Korean director and his wife kidnapped and brought to North Korea to make *movies* for him), has millions of dollars stashed away in Swiss bank accounts. Enemies of the state are forced into hard labor and tortured. But we don't care. The American government seems to *totally not give a fuck* at all about any of this.

I don't get it. I just don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Kim Jong Il has the back of China behind him. I *do* hope that Bush will get around to deal with N.Korea, but it'll have to be a subtler process than the notably *unsubtle* one we are seeing in Iraq...

-Aris

[khava.livejournal.com]

You probably haven't read about the plans. The US wants to divide Iraq into several (probably three) jurisdictions and give them western administrators for the course of about a year or two after the war. During that time, weapons would be destroyed, war criminals and other nasty fascists (and yes, they actually are fascists) would be arrested and brought to trial, and the foundations of true democracy would be instilled in the populace (education, trust in the general uncorruptness of your leaders, the experience of freedom, etc.). Without such a transitional period, Iraq would probably fall back under the rule of another strongman murderous dictator like Saddam, and we'd never get to the bottom of the Weapons of Mass Destruction thing.

If there was U.N. control instead, you could probably expect a regime as ineffective as the weapons inspections were. You would also probably see a lot of corruption and secret oil deals, particularly involving France, Russia, China, and Germany. The whole process would take at least three times as long, and might never end.

Take a look around the world at the former British colonies. Some of them are doing pretty well, like India. Others are not such good places, but struggling along. Now look at the former French colonies - Algeria, Ivory Coast, etc. They're full of fighting, dictatorship, torture, human rights violations. Now look at the former U.N. protectorates - they're just as bad or worse. Really, what do you think would be best for the future of Iraq?

[(Anonymous)]

the foundations of true democracy would be instilled in the populace (education, trust in the general uncorruptness of your leaders, the experience of freedom, etc.).

Um, I'd argue that a foundation of true democracy is not trust, but *mis*trust in the "general uncorruptness of your leaders"...

-Aris

Thoughts

[eredien]

I can't honestly say I can answer that question. I do think that democracy is, or can be, the best political structure and system and that a lot of countries would do well to become more democratic.

However, I don't think that dropping bombs on a country (even if they are only trying to attack military bases and other strategic positions) is the best way to get the people of a country to understand this.

I think you're right in saying that without some kind of stability the Iraqi people and nation would just end up with a different dictator (probably the radical Muslim fundamentalist party which is, I believe, the second-most powerful political force in Iraq today (which isn't saying much when Saddam is a comparison, but...)).

Am I wrong in saying that the scheme for the governmental sectioning of Baghdad sounds rather like what happened to Berlin after WWII? Each major player got a slice to administrate for a while. While that situation did eventually end more or less peacefully, it took decades, broke a city and a people. And I think it only ended peacefully because of the timing: Cold War tensions in the late 80's were beginning to wane anyway, and a few years later the USSR even disbanded. That would have been unthinkable even ten years before, and the easing of tensions contributed to the peacefulness of the handover. How long will it take for tensions to ease in Iraq? At least in Berlin there was a societal structure there (Western European) that the Allies could more easily relate to.

I don't understand how a Western European parliment-based or American-style democratic framework could hold up in a situation where the whole economic and social infrastructure would have it imposed upon them from the outside instead of growing organically out of the people's genuine desire to become a more democratic nation--I think that personal conviction and a sense of "we are our own people" drove both the American and the French revolutions, and I don't think that having your country and its administration and infrastructure reworked by a foreign power or powers (even ones with genuinely benevolent intentions) fosters the sense of personal and social responsibility that is needed to bring to fruition a fully democratic system.

I hope I am wrong.

That being said: you know that I go on my intution, Khava, more than logic. I can't help but always feel that there is something intrinsically wrong about war.