War Restitution?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by MenInTights, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Thoughts on war restitution?

    I remember when we first went into Iraq, Bush stated that the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil. This plan was later abandoned, probably in order to strengthen the coalition.

    Now, the military has discovered amazing amounts of wealth in Afghanistan in the form of gold, lithium, iron and other metals: Report: Afghanistan Has Vast Deposits of Iron, Copper, Cobalt, Gold and Lithium

    I can see the dangers of reclaiming our cost of the war. I understand what a dangerous precedent that sets. I've just read that in Iraq, the Americans have gotten screwed on the new oil contracts and we continue to shell out a lot of money into a nation that is becoming increasing more prosperous. Is it fair for a nation to liberate people at a huge cost of wealth and lives and then get screwed? Are the liberated people just ungrateful or do they have good reasons to be less than happy to share the new wealth?
     

  2. Ilus_Unistus

    Ilus_Unistus Registered Member

    Please do not misunderstand how it is I say this, I do not mean to bash Americans.

    But I think Americans see the world as in need of them, they feel it is obligation to fix everything. But I think if you look deeper this is not so, like Iraq does it ever cross American minds that America does not belong there? Did the Iraqi people ask to be liberated?

    I see from European stand point to this I think, if Iraq wanted to be liberated then they should have civil war like most countries who face issues as this.

    Should America expect to be paid for these places they invade and occupy? To me... no. America jumped for chance to be somewhere they are not welcome, why should anyone pay for this?
     
  3. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I'm not a fan of the Iraq war but to be fair, I don't think it's that simple. No the Iraqi people didn't ask to be liberated but at the same time I think they were afraid to, just like they were afraid of even thinking about a civil war.

    I don't think it's as simple as America isn't welcome there, judging by the number of people who risked their lives to vote democratically it's safe to say many welcome the US there and the taking out of Saddam. That's not to say I agree we should have gone in there however, the evidence that he had WMD's or was seeking to obtain WMD's was scant at best.
     
  4. Ilus_Unistus

    Ilus_Unistus Registered Member

    Captain Obvious,

    I do not mean to say American's do not risk lives, they did and many have died. But what I mean more is the way of American government, it is like... Okay Estonia has military in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, but this is only because America uses trade or conditions to have this, and I am sure this is true of other countries as well who know it is wrong to try to "Americanize" the Middle eastern Countries as America would like.

    America is a very powerful nation and uses this power in many ways to get what they want, but only if it suites America. Like for instance after WW2, did America use its power to keep Estonia free? No, America as well as England make deals with Russia to give Estonia to Russia. Why was Estonia America's to give to anyone??? Russia in this time was not so much better than the Nazi's, especially to Estonia, yet during WW2 most of Estonia's Navy ships and crews who escaped from Russian invasion was used by America to help defeat Nazi's with understandings once WW2 was over Estonia would once again be free from Russia who ran from Estonia when Nazi's invaded Estonia. Yet, the USA made sure to liberate France, who barely put up fight against the Nazi's, then for most part France's military became Nazi's, while Estonia fought battles against Russia and Nazi's for most of WW2.

    This did not suite the USA and was of no gain to them after the war, and Estonia was used as part of an agreement to Russia like Estonia had no say in this.

    You see what it is I am trying to say?

    I personally do not think the USA has any intent to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. I know there is talks of many countries in Europe to say they are soon to withdraw military and let the USA continue to make the mistakes they are making in the Middle east. It is believed many Middle Eastern nations are planning to rise against the USA together in the near future if they refuse to stop trying to Americanize the Middle east.
     
  5. Unity

    Unity #AllTogetherNowSTL Staff Member

    Yeah, if anyone should be getting paid it's the countries we've invaded. Especially in the case of Iraq - we went over there without a good reason. And no, "spreading Democracy" doesn't count.

    Even with Afghanistan, which was invaded with more just cause, I don't see how you could morally put yourself in the mindset of "us, us, us" when we've caused damage over there and civilian lives have been lost. Even if it was to get rid of Al-Qaeda, we can't possibly expect a "tip." We chose to stay as long as we did, we have to reap the consequences.
     
  6. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Starting a civil war when you know you're going to lose is a bad idea.

    Just for the record, we give them lots of money for damage caused and lives lost.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2010
  7. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Liberation was a side order to the whole WMD farce. Neither were genuine reason for going to war in Iraq although both were often seen as justifications, that is all they were, feel good factors.

    As for whether or not the US contractors are getting screwed. They are but only because they put themselves into the position to be and Im surprised they would expect anything else.

    They are just people. It does not matter if they are liberated or if the Coalition installed a puppet tyranny of their own, the people have no good reason to directly share their wealth with anybody.

    However those who "liberated" them will in time reap the rewards of having new allies and trading partners whom they have a positive control and influence over. Its the second best thing to conquest.

    Life under Saddam may not of been great, but life in a war torn country is certainly worse. In 2002, Iraq by western standards may of been living in the 1970's but by the end of 2003 they had been sent back to the 19th century. The infrastructure was largely destroyed, the economy collapsed, the political power vacuum and complete lawlessness that followed. That is going to take more than 7 years to repair and a lot more money than has thus far been pumped into Iraq(or Afghanistan for that matter). So when we talk about new wealth, do we refer to 1.) old wealth that had been destroyed and is re-establishing, 2.) old wealth that had previously not (but should of) existed, or 3.) a country enjoying a golden age? ...Id be very surprise if we have even got to the second stage and are certainly no where near the 3rd.

    Not if you have powerful supporters.

    I would not go as far to say the voters were so much as "welcome" the US were there but are accepting that the US is there, just like they were accepting to live under Saddam.

    I should also add, the Iraqi people did risk their lives to vote, but these are the same people who risk their lives day in and day out just going to the marketplace. They are also the same people who went and voted previously (whether the elections were rigged under Saddam is a different matter). I dont think it is a very good measure to if they welcome the taking out of Saddam.
     
  8. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    Let me ask this another way.

    Is it ok for Estonia, American and English troops to have secured and continue to secure security so that Russia's Gazprom can get large contracts in Iraq? Russia's Gazprom Neft signs contract to develop Iraqi oil field | Business | RIA Novosti The Chinese and other non-coalition companies are doing the same.

    I realize that this is a really thin line to walk. I'm in no way in favor of invading a country to develop their resources. And I don't think that's what happened in Iraq. If that was the mission, clearly it was a failure. At the same time, Iraq is a relatively safe and secure nation free of a tryrant. So, should the coalition that went through great expense to make that happen recoup some of the money? Not all and not even most, but some?

    Its a tough question for me. I don't see an easy answer.
     
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2010
  10. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Yes it is okay.

    Had the Coalition not distabilised Iraq then Im sure these other countries would not of left, or would of arrived under Saddams tenure to do their business. The only reason Estonia, American and English troops have had to provide security is because they were the ones who introduced the insecurity in the first place.

    The real question is to why it wouldnt be okay for Iraq to do business with who they feel fit? I know you go on to say about recouping costs but to recoup costs you trigger the above question.

    From this point I should say it really is a two part question you are asking and I think bridging the two together (liberation = payment) is wrong.

    First thing is Iraq maybe free of a tyrant but it is not relatively safe and secure. Whilst under Saddam they may of had a tyrant yet they were safe and secure. SO the coalition went through great expense to dispose a tyrant, they still have a lot more to do to make the other two factors happen, and part of that process includes setting up Iraq to do its own business with whom it wants. To deny it of that would be to reinstall tyranny, so the coalition would then of failed on all three points.

    So should the coalition recoup costs. Personally I dont think they have any right to do so and to do so would undermine western values and expose the true intention of going to war in the first place. War is going to cost money and lives, it would be wrong to soften the blow by theft, if it is not theft it would be conquest. Both in my books are not fit for the 21st century.

    Edit; food for thought. If the war is about liberation, why not cease the oil fields in Iraq, pay the war debts off, then make enough profit to march on Tehran and liberate the Iranians, then do the same with their oil, once Iran is liberated with all those oil profits the coalition can expand their "freedom and their unfree wealth control" and can march on Tripoli, Havana, Caracus, Pyongyang....Beijing!
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2010

Share This Page