|
Mocker
|
 |
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
|
|

Apr 3rd, 2003, 03:17 AM
"Discussion of post-war Iraq should have been central to the pre-war dicussion. . ."
No. Thats the single most short-sighted comment I've heard uttered today, no disrespect intended CLA. War should never, firstly, have been regarded as a foregone conclusion - which it would have to necessitate dwelling on a post-war Iraq. We had other options, and if we'd had a real president, one of them might have been embraced before war.
Secondly, thats assuming we're going to win this war. How long did Russia fight with Afghanistan? How successful was she? It is not inconcievable that we could very well lose this engagement, or more accurately be suckered into a conflict of such duration and casualty loss that we are forced to resigned altogether, and with Bush purposely trying to force nations into either aiding him or the enemy, he is going to continue alienating potential allies and possibly create dangerous antagonists.
Third, who knows how much infrastructure will be lost in the war, what figured will be alive or interested or capable of assuming leadership roles when the war ends. How can we possible try and figure out what the puzzle should look like upon completion without even having the pieces yet?
As an aside, I personally believe the more of an influence we have in the design of their post-war governmental heirarchy or design, the more criticism we will receive from the international community.
|
|
|
|