Talk:Iraq crisis of 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Iraq crisis of 2003/archive

---

I removed:

Many opponent think the goal of the disarmament hides an ambition of much greater scale, which is the democratization of the Middle East. According to neoimperialist theorists', this area of the world remained apart from the process of political and social modernization, and the roots of terrorism (as of the israelo-Palestinian conflict) would precisely be there. Though coarse, the analysis sounds relevant. Whether disarmament and new pro-american government will change that state of affair is another issue. The constant reference to the German and Japanese examples shortly after the second world war is not very convincing. In these two cases, seeds of a civil society existed, that may not in the Middle-East. Opponents say that likely, liberal imperialism is at risk to feed an anti-Westerner resentment, and to cause even further terrorism. War might also cause reactions of rejection in the modern Arab World. The traumatism of 11 September 2001 having released against Islam many inhibitions, part of the Occident is thus available, even candidate to exert a secular "civilizing mission again", even if there is controversy on the means: the recourse to the weapons frightens, but not, under hardly modernized names, the recolonisation, protectorates, the mandates.

Because I can't understand what it's saying. There are many POV and misleading statements, but I can't even figure out what the POV is or, or if there is any information there to gather. Tuf-Kat

in short, you mean this article should only contain the "digested" information that you are fed by tv ? Or do you mean that only good english speakers should try to render what they hear around them ? Do you think this is the way this article would be neutral ? I would like you to explain more precisely what you don't understand, so that you may help me to express it better. The above paragraph is the opinion held by the majority of people around me, and relayed by most newspapers in my country. You may consider it pov, but that's the pov of quite a noticeable number of people. So, I think it should be taken into consideration. Sorry if it is very unclear, but it is no reason to remove it. Also, please explain where the misleading statements are.

You will not meet a more anti-government American than me outside of a militia camp or a terrorist cell. In addition, the most mainstream news source I use is bartcop or fair.org, with reuters only to see if there is any breaking news. The English in the paragraph isn't too bad itself, but there are dozens of vague subjects, prepositions and verbs with no objects. I agree it probably does represent a POV shared by a lot of people, and I tried to fix it so that it would meet our NPOV policy, but I can't figure out what it is saying. I don't know what's misleading, what's POV, what's theory or what's fact. I have no problems with non-native speakers contributing -- vagueness is a problem shared by plenty of native writers, and I didn't know English was not your first language. Tuf-Kat

Ah, awful lot of questions.

Many opponent think the goal of the disarmament hides an ambition of much greater scale, which is the democratization of the Middle East.

Opponents of what? The war? Are you saying opponents of the war think its true purpose is to democratize the Middle East? The exact opposite is true.

Let's say that generally speaking, I am giving the the most widely common view in my country, not in any other opponent ones. What my country say is that terrorism has replaced nazism and communism as the new ennemy of the United States. But terrorism is neither an ideology, nor a strategic threat - being based on any State. It makes it possible to discredit an enemy, especially when it is associated with weapons of massive destruction. This "war against terrorism" started with the offensive in Afghanistan and continued with making illegals hundreds of organizations and individuals. But the criteria of selection remain fuzzy, more in conformity with the unique American visions than with one definition of the terrorist phenomenon. Most of my fellows don't believe it is to destroy the weapons of massive destruction of Iraq that the United States decided to go on war, don't believe it is for disarmament. They say US did not bring the proof that the Iraqi government was such a threat for the peace and the safety of the world to justify such a war (though they agree upon the threat). Of course, the problem of the proliferation of the weapons of massive destruction is real, but most say it asks a multilateral answer, through the existing treaties and the reinforcement of controls, in particular exports. Not just a war. They believe this disarmament is just an excuse, to set up a brand new type of colonialisation of the middle east. Removing dictators, putting some pro-american puppets, in hope they will built a democracy and a market-economy in the whole area.

This said, likely, in case of democratic elections, chiites would probably be elected , and unless americans succeed to put the 'right' person to replace Saddam, there won't be democracy in Irak.

However, what most of the citizen of my country believe is that Bush will succeed to get a pro-american government in Irak, then will be able to impose economical liberalism and controlled democracy over there, and will try to have it radiates. This is one fear more, and another reason to reject war.

According to neoimperialist theorists', this area of the world remained apart from the process of political and social modernization, and the roots of terrorism (as of the israelo-Palestinian conflict) would precisely be there.

Does this mean that because the Middle East did not modernize like US/Canada/Western Europe, it is therefore the logical breeding ground for terrorism? Why? Why didn't this happen in sub-Saharan Africa or Latin America, where terrorism is relatively rare and not generally directed at westerners?

right. Plus religious extremism. Plus the money and power that petrol give them.

Though coarse, the analysis sounds relevant.

Sounds relevant to who? What does coarse mean in this context?

Coarse = first level analysis ?

Most of these articles *here* focus on weapons of total destruction and focus on a target : Irak. Most articles and interviews in my country focus on "US taking power over the middle east", focus on "modern colonization", focus in saoudia arabia. There is no puzzlement over the US planning to attack Irak.

If USA only wanted to make disappear only dangerous weapons (except their) from the face of the world, they could go for Israel maybe. If Saddam tyranny was the issue, there are numerous countries where tyranny is just as bad. More likely, they go fight to control the irak oil and have it for a good price.
However, most people in my country think Bush is not only going after the Irak oil but also after Saoudia Arabia. They think this is the real reason of Bush move. In 1945 (?), roosevelt made a deal with this country, oil against security. But with wahhabite fondamentalism things are working so well. Irak oil is important for the future. And if the political system of Arabia can somehow be "modernized", pushed to a more liberalized system, which would take distance with religious wahhabites (key of extremism and terrorism), this would be beneficial to americans.

Though in truth, it could also happen that fondamentalism take the power and the money from the oil...

Whether disarmament and new pro-american government will change that state of affair is another issue.

What's the first issue? That terrorism exists in the Middle East? Does anybody argue that the war in Iraq will end terrorism?

Disarmament is one issue. Setting up a democracy is another (especially with more than 60% of chiites). Having the government be pro-american is yet another.

The constant reference to the German and Japanese examples shortly after the second world war is not very convincing.

Who refers to Germany and Japan? Who isn't convinced by these examples, and what aren't they convinced of?

In these two cases, seeds of a civil society existed, that may not in the Middle-East.

I think Bush referred to the situation of Germany and Japan after WWI. Last fall. He then referred to the responsabilities assumed by the US to help those two countries in their reconstruction. Weakened and defeated countries helped by the winner, to ensure they go in the right direction afterwards.
My fellow citizens are not convinced at all with the comparison with the german reconstruction after the war. The situation was rather different, if only in terms of religious fondamentalism. They aren't convinced that trying to apply the rather rude techniques of economical liberalism and democracy will work in Irak, and be enough to remove the seeds of existing religious differences, and help instore good relationship between us and Irak; between Europe and Irak.

What does a civil society mean in this context? Democracy? IIRC, Japan had always been a monarchy until after World War 2.

Not a good translation I fear. Rather, not a tyranny. (?)

Opponents say that likely, liberal imperialism is at risk to feed an anti-Westerner resentment, and to cause even further terrorism.

What does this have to do with Germany and Japan? Are we on a new subject now?

New subject. US are now scared by terrorism. But, there is no need for planes and towers for terrorism to occur. Terrorism is also bombs places in supermarkets, in trainstation, in trashcan. Not as destructive maybe, but quite easy to do. Terrorism is new to american, not new for others. USA might open a pandora box, remove Saddam, get his oil, lower the oil price so much that iran will be in financial distress, impose an agreement in the israelo-palestinien conflict, visit Syria...They could also light the entire arab world. Then victims won't be only in american towers.

War might also cause reactions of rejection in the modern Arab World.

Does "reactions of rejection" mean terrorism? Does it mean Arab reactions caused by western rejection (of... Arab nationalism? Arab sovereignity? Terrorism?) or western reactions caused by Arab rejection (of... western capitalism? western intervention?)?

There is a rather modern current, who might not appreciate american action at all. My country fear that the single Irak end up a vicious cercle of violence, resentment, which will shake the whole region, and in particular moderate coutries. Reactions of rejection do not mean terrorism by any mean, but could deepens the break. In my country in particular, it will mean that a good 10% of the population could reject even more western traditions and religion that is already not very tender to them. Il will also mean that maybe 1/3 of the 'western' population will reject even further the 10% population already so difficult to integrate.

The traumatism of 11 September 2001 having released against Islam many inhibitions, part of the Occident is thus available, even candidate to exert a secular "civilizing mission again", even if there is controversy on the means: the recourse to the weapons frightens, but not, under hardly modernized names, the recolonisation, protectorates, the mandates.

Any meaning to this sentence is drowned in a sea of commas. What inhibitions were released? Anti-Arab racism?

yes. Usa had finally to rupture with its isolationism

Part of the Occident is available in what way, to whom? What is the object of exert? What is "civilizing missions" again a quote from?

What sense would it have to give a quote in another langage ? In any case, this is a quite widespread idea, upon which most media here agree upon, be they on the left or on the right. Exert a pressure on another civilization, another culture, to force it to adopt a "supposingly" right frame of behaviour.
It is quite a similar situation to the old crusades, when deeply religious men left their productive life, to go to another place where deeply religious from another religion men lived. The first thought a mission of God to teach the second the right way, to civilize them, to bring them the new concepts that were supposed to make them more modern. This is a very deep feeling in my country that it is exactly what the us are doing right now. And - beyond any issues of oil and religion - one of the main reason the citizen of my country reject the war - is this one - rejection of the overbearing one, feeling invested of a mission of civilization

And what were the first "civilizing missions"?

from who ? From europeans ? well, about everywhere, from Africa to America. From the US ? well, us for example.

What do the "inhibitions" (which I'm reading as anti-Arab racism) have to do with the "availability" (which I'm reading as western intervention in the Middle east -- does it therefore mean that anti-Arab racism causes western intervention in the Middle East? The subject is traumatism, so is that (i.e. revenge) the cause of western "availability" to intervene?)?

No. Likely not only a simple revenge. Maybe also an opportunity.

Even if there is controversy on the means modifies...? Are you using candidate as a verb? the mandates appears to be the object of frightens, but mandates don't get frightened. What does the but not modify? Is there a missing word there? What names are modernized? Are you saying that the war is only superficially different from previous incarnations of imperialism?

No, candidate as a name, not a word. As if it was a deep compelling feeling that one's country being a superpower is somehow in charge of the whole world, and should assume a fatherly role toward all the other smaller and less powerfull nations. As if against a country felt so much in charge of all the others, that it has to assume and carry on the work to change the world in the way it things best. Just as colonists felt toward the countries they colonized.

The use of weapons, such as the weapons the US could use against Irak is frightening to anyone. My country - as any other country - knows well not only buildings will be destroyed. We know humans will be killed. We know a country already apparently damaged will suffer even further from american attack. However, we say what is wrong is not only the physical damages done by weapons but also the damages done to a society taken over by colonists. But these damages are not so obvious to others, probably not obvious at all to part of the american society. When european colonized the american continent, the word used was colonization. Now, more modern names are being used, such as protectorate. But in the end, it will be similar.

Anyway, when Europe tries to give more room to multilateral mechanisms, pacific resulution of conflicts, they see the US getting rid of diplomatic action, to favor armed power (preemptive war), in search of an absolute military hegemony only based on power and war instruments.

I don't find all I put above in any article really. Nor in Worldwide government positions on war on Iraq, nor in Popular opposition to war on Iraq. Not even that we are scared of being among the first ones to suffer from an islamism eruption in our own country.

I think it would be fair that somewhere is explained why my country decided to go against us will. I know some say my government did so because it was also looking for that oil. Politically speaking, maybe true. But, that's not why the population made protests. And that's not only because of Irak and weapons disarmament my country has been protesting. It is a question of the total sovereignty not fitting with the cult of liberty. Military hegemony not compatible with democracy. Just as if there should necessarily be a perfect identity between the interests of the USA and the interests of democracy, which would legitimate a liberty of action and a domination without sharing.

Okay, these were just feelings of the reasons why my country is an opponant. At least what I perceive while reading around sources, which seem to reflect the main view.
But clearly, given your comments, that is too difficult to me to explain clearly. So unfortunately most american reading these articles will probably go on having the wrong idea about why we disagreed. I understand the need for clarity and being short. But if neutrality implies agreeing over fair reporting, well, this is not fair.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, American policy began focusing on terrorism as the the country's primary enemy worldwide, in contrast to the previous fifty years of that country's history, fighting against international Communism. Many critics of the American War on Terror do not believe that American actions will help to end terror, and will actually increase the ranks and capabilities of terrorist groups. American presence in Middle-Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia are one of the major sources of discontent that leads Islamic fundamentalists to commit acts of violence; hence, additional American presence in Iraq will likely increase the ranks of terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, especially with the collateral damage of civilian deaths inevitable in any invasion. However, supporters of the Bush Administration's policies point out that with direct American control over countries where terrorist groups could flourish, the American presence will make it easier to combat these groups. In addition, the American policy of combatting terrorism focuses exclusively on non-state groups with a history of violence, while supporting undemocratic and violent regimes in places like Turkmenistan, which generally harm only their own polity; critics of the Bush Administration believe that this form of state-sponsored violence is more dangerous to more people than traditional forms of terrorism.

Perhaps the most common criticism of the Bush Administration's proposed war is that the stated purposes are merely a cover for an attempt at grabbing control over the Iraqi nation and its natural resources, especially oil. Though few doubt that nuclear proliferation is a serious threat to the stability and well-being of the planet, some argue that a war on Iraq will not aid in eliminating this threat and that the only logical reason for a war is to secure control over the vast Iraqi oil fields. It is possible, as has happened in some similar invasions for ostensibly peacekeeping purposes, that the new regime will be little better than the old one in its attention to human rights and peace. The weapons of mass destruction that Iraq allegedly has may end up in the hands of a more dangerous leader, or be sold off to terrorist groups or other rogue nations, like Syria or Libya; supporters of the war remain hopeful that the American military will capture any weapons of mass destruction, and hence prevent their proliferation to groups more dangerous than Hussein's Iraqi government. Some observors claim that American intervention in Iraq is driven by a desire to establish a new form of colonialism, with the war in Iraq a first step in establishing hegemony over Saudi Arabia and other Middle-Eastern nations.

President Bush and his supporters have pointed to Germany and Japan as examples of countries which developed into stable and peaceful democracies during American occupation following World War 2. Bush's opponents do not agree that these are valid comparisons because both of these examples took many years of occupation, and large amounts of money invested into their economies; this has not happened in Bush's previous invasion, Afghanistan, which has not shown signs of developing a stable democracy, nor signs of economic progress.

Does this adequately represent your POV? And, to others, this probably isn't done yet -- especially the third paragraph needs some work on neutralizing, so feel free to modify. Let's not place this, or any derivative of it, into the article before some others, preferably people in support of the war, comment on it. Tuf-Kat

Agreed. Thanks alot for your help.

[edit] Article redirected.

The articles was hopelessly updated and no one was actively trying to merge. I'll leave a note on the other talk page asking people to salvage any useful content. --Jiang 22:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)