SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 06-07-06, 04:42 PM

I do not share some people'S relative optimism on Iraq's future, and that this future is not decided. It very much is. The only question is to what degree American companies that tried to secure a foothold in the Iraqi oil business and other sectors they seized during the massive privatization wave under Bremer (as Scandium referred) can keep that foothold and preserve their influence.The argument that it was worse under Saddam I find to be almost insane. No, it has not been as bad under Saddam as it is now. There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now, there was not that ammount of organized crime, there was not that masisvely climbing influence of religious ultraorthodx wings (in Baghdad people now get shot for selling Falafels on the street - for in Muhammad'S time, so is the argument, there were no Falafels). Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings (couting by the thiusands poer quarter of a year), there has not been such a lack of water, eletcricity, sec urity on the streets. and last but not least, it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out. Saddam is gone, fine - but that is only of concern for Saddam. If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".But all that is decided now, it is history, and the future will be a logical conseqeunce of the current state. I am not surprised by the outcome, how could I. The important question now is if and when Bush will bring home his people's sons and daughters. It's high time, and every further death is an even more useless one. For many of them a diffrent kind of battle will begin once they arrived back "home" - if they are able to think of it as that anymore. I repeat what I said repeateldy before: psychological consequences of traumatitzation by war action and stress in war can be very very massive and can ruin the whole rest of your life. American casualties are without doubt in the high tens of thousands, if not higher.the only winner of this is the American defense industry. They get payed for replacing detsroyed equipement, and repair and maintain all the equipement that after three years action must be very much worn out. the looser: the Iraqi people, and the American young generations. The taxes that are spend on Iraq are those taxes that not only are not available for their education and future life, but who are added to the monumental debt bill that has been added to the already high debts of the US, and that future generations will need to serve.Or should we assume that it never was planned to pay back national debts?

Saw a movie yesterday, where one man said: why borrow money, if one has the intention to pay it back?

Crazy planet this is. The older one gets, the less fun it makes.

06-07-06, 04:42 PM	#20
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,816 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I do not share some people'S relative optimism on Iraq's future, and that this future is not decided. It very much is. The only question is to what degree American companies that tried to secure a foothold in the Iraqi oil business and other sectors they seized during the massive privatization wave under Bremer (as Scandium referred) can keep that foothold and preserve their influence.The argument that it was worse under Saddam I find to be almost insane. No, it has not been as bad under Saddam as it is now. There was not that ammount of murder and torutre as we see now, there was not that ammount of organized crime, there was not that masisvely climbing influence of religious ultraorthodx wings (in Baghdad people now get shot for selling Falafels on the street - for in Muhammad'S time, so is the argument, there were no Falafels). Under Saddam there has nopt been an industry of orgnaized kidnappings (couting by the thiusands poer quarter of a year), there has not been such a lack of water, eletcricity, sec urity on the streets. and last but not least, it was Saddam keeping the Iranian Mullahs and Taleban-style extremists out. Saddam is gone, fine - but that is only of concern for Saddam. If I had to choose in what Iraq I had to live, before or after 2003, my vote would clearly go for "before 2003".But all that is decided now, it is history, and the future will be a logical conseqeunce of the current state. I am not surprised by the outcome, how could I. The important question now is if and when Bush will bring home his people's sons and daughters. It's high time, and every further death is an even more useless one. For many of them a diffrent kind of battle will begin once they arrived back "home" - if they are able to think of it as that anymore. I repeat what I said repeateldy before: psychological consequences of traumatitzation by war action and stress in war can be very very massive and can ruin the whole rest of your life. American casualties are without doubt in the high tens of thousands, if not higher.the only winner of this is the American defense industry. They get payed for replacing detsroyed equipement, and repair and maintain all the equipement that after three years action must be very much worn out. the looser: the Iraqi people, and the American young generations. The taxes that are spend on Iraq are those taxes that not only are not available for their education and future life, but who are added to the monumental debt bill that has been added to the already high debts of the US, and that future generations will need to serve.Or should we assume that it never was planned to pay back national debts? Saw a movie yesterday, where one man said: why borrow money, if one has the intention to pay it back? Crazy planet this is. The older one gets, the less fun it makes. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.