Article

2003-02-26 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank Martin 2003-02-26 10:40 am|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Considering that Sadam has already targeted a U.S.Priesident then he has placed himself outside of the protections of U.S.and International law.

If the U.N.does not back-up the war then they have no right,reason,or excuse to be in post-Sadam-Iraq(screw-em).

????:I thought the Kurds wanted our troops there?

Posted by raptor 2003-02-26 05:57:33|| 2003-02-26 05:57:33|| Front Page Top

#2 "A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator," How being viewed as a "liberator" is somehow bad is beyond my little peabrain."

try rereading Joe's statement. He is opposed to a US administrator BECAUSE he wants us to be viewed as a liberator.

And mentioning Thatcher is not a bad idea. It least it goes in the right direction - IE just because it might be a UN administrator doesnt mean we have to accept whoever they give us. If they give us the civil administration equivalent of Hans Blix we go back to plan B, a US administrator. A suitably hawkish Brit would be an excellent choice. Or an Aussie. How about Richard Butler?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-02-26 09:05:37|| 2003-02-26 09:05:37|| Front Page Top

#3 A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator,"

How being viewed as a "liberator" is somehow bad is beyond my little peabrain.

I think he was saying "occuping power = bad, liberator = good"

Posted by VAMark 2003-02-26 09:17:41|| 2003-02-26 09:17:41|| Front Page Top

#4 "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. Typical liberal response. He want's to be a liberator, but doesn't grasp that means you'd actually have to actually liberate them first...or maybe he's ok with just being a "liberator" and then letting them fall into civil war afterwards. Either way shows typical liberal callousness towards the oppressed Iraqi people.

As for Levin calling it "sobering" - was he drunk?

Posted by becky 2003-02-26 10:03:19|| 2003-02-26 10:03:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Yes, it's a real word. Germanic construction, but real. Grim, grimmer, grimmest.

Posted by mojo 2003-02-26 10:26:48|| 2003-02-26 10:26:48|| Front Page Top

#6 Havel for administrator! Havel for administrator! Actually, I think Sen. Lieberman (who, let us not forget, is gung-ho for the war, no matter what else he's doing on the domestic political front) has a point. We're going to be in a tough political situation after the war because of all the crap the Weasels have been spreading around. I'd be very very careful, to say nothing more, of going to the UN for anything at all having to do with running Iraq (unless it's applying to a specialized arm for specific help, as liberalhawk says) but finding some non-US dignitary who is pro-Western and has a lot of prestige would be, at the least, an important symbolic plus - and symbols DO matter.

Posted by Joe 2003-02-26 17:04:16|| 2003-02-26 17:04:16|| Front Page Top

#7 Havel would be perfect.

Posted by Ptah 2003-02-26 21:16:00|| 2003-02-26 21:16:00|| Front Page Top

#8 A U.S. civilian administrator "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator,"

I must've read that sentence a dozen times, but I think I filter anything suggesting UN competance right out of my head. I reject the good senators postion anyway.

Posted by Frank Martin 2003-02-26 11:50:02|| [varifrank.blogspot.com] 2003-02-26 11:50:02|| Front Page Top

#9 "would put America in the position of an occupying power, not a liberator. Typical liberal response. He want's to be a liberator, but doesn't grasp that means you'd actually have to actually liberate them first...or maybe he's ok with just being a "liberator" and then letting them fall into civil war afterwards. Either way shows typical liberal callousness towards the oppressed Iraqi people. "

Lieberman supports US intervention in Iraq (perhaps you are confusing him with Levin?) And he certainly recognizes a need for US troops to miantain order. The dispute is over the organization of the post war Iraqi admin.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-02-26 12:16:36|| 2003-02-26 12:16:36|| Front Page Top

#10 "I must've read that sentence a dozen times, but I think I filter anything suggesting UN competance right out of my head. I reject the good senators postion anyway."

The specialized arms of the UN are competent - WHO, FAO, World Food Program, etc. The UN is a failure as a POLITICAL body, for reasons to complex to go into here. The UN WILL be involved in post-war Iraq - the US DOD has already mentioned plans to have the UN World Food Program in on the ground very quickly. The question is can they help on the political side - they DO have experince AND competence with "nation building" see Cambodia, East Timor, etc. OTOH they could be handicapped the post war politics of Iraq, esp with France and Russia pushing their own interests against the Iraqi people. While I wouldnt rule out a suitable UN administrator, a "coalition of the willing"administrator not in UN employ, but not an American might he a better idea.

Doesnt Vaclav Havel need a job???

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-02-26 12:23:50|| 2003-02-26 12:23:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Dammit, I want to be Grand Mufti of Baghdad!

Havel is a mind blowing choice. And he's available soon.

Posted by Chuck 2003-02-26 15:45:51|| [blog.simmins.org] 2003-02-26 15:45:51|| Front Page Top

07:52 raptor
07:50 Frank G
07:35 raptor
07:30 phil
07:28 raptor
07:18 raptor
07:04 raptor
06:49 raptor
06:44 raptor
06:19 raptor
06:01 raptor
04:40 True German Ally
03:48 RW
02:51 R. McLeod
02:47 R. McLeod
02:44 R. McLeod
02:41 R. McLeod
02:32 anon
00:59 Patrick W
00:21 Bill
23:35 badanov
23:23 Anonymous
23:21 Anonymous
23:17 Anonymous