Bigley is killed

Sand

However, I don't like the way that people seem to believe that they're in the same category as charity workers in a warzone.

Theyre not charity workers. They are unarmed civillians though.

Some may argue that by taking the pay of companies that are operating in Iraq they are making themselves valid targets for terrorists, or that by working at military bases they make themselves military targets. They probably also attack Bush for not adhering to the Geneva Convention to their satisfaction in the same breath without a hint of irony. Im not accusing you personally of this Klaz - your other concern - but its a common belief behind several posts in this thread.

is it hatred though>? I don't think so.

Ive already done a thread on this so youll understand if I dont want to go over old ground, but yeah I think it is. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with Bush - lack of fiscal responsibility, his protectionism, and his stance on gay rights, unwillingess to deal with Israel-Palestine, - but popular opinion has verged well beyond disagreement into hatred for reasons such as his speech impediment, his texan cowboy image, his disagreeable public faith, and his "right or wrong, black or white, with us or against us, this is how it should be" view of the world when we prefer leaders who talk grey, look grey, see grey and are not spiritual and above all are not visionary - i.e. dont have a strong opinion on how the world *should* be. Hence the utter hatred of Bush as compared to Clinton who is loved, when the two men are pretty similar in their foreign policy goals, as much as Kerry and Bush are.

Anyway - this is verging off away from Ken Bigley and Ive done it before. If you want to continue it Id guess PM or a new thread would be best.

Iraqis maybe? They managed to have a running functional country for the past few thousand years, I doubt they are in dire need of foreign contractors "helping them".

Iraq is an artificial creation of the British Empire which carved it out of the former Ottoman Empire they took over after WW1, without regard for the cultural identities of the Kurdish, Shia and Sunni populations that were suddenly told they were all Iraqi - bad call, but the cards have been dealt and moaning about it wont change it. Iraq hasnt existed for thousands of years, let alone has a running functional country unless you consider a dictatorship an acceptable definition of a running functional country. The coalition goal shouldnt simply be a dictatorship but a government that can unite its multi-cultural population and do so under a liberal, democratic approach.

So the coalition could try the Indymedia approach - install a strong man dictator that makes the trains run on time and pull out ASAP and hope the dicator can torture enough of their common enemies to crush the Islamic/Baathist/Kurdish rebels.

Or they can go the hard, unpopular route that makes Iraq the foreign policy priority for the next decade or more and work towards building a better Iraq. That requires foreign involvement, including men like Ken Bigley, because Iraq has never had a functioning liberal democracy - ever. Stabilisers are required to ensure Iraq doesnt become the next Africa. Iraq wont change overnight, it will take a generation or more and it will depend on the Iraqis more than anyone else to accomplish but it can be done.

So you can pull out of Iraq ASAP, or you can have a better Iraq. But you cant have both.

Got any links to prove it?

Water is wet, fire is hot, Iraq needs engineers to rebuild after a conventional war - and an on-going terrorist campaign.

I mean, I know the American media is supposed to be of little more than propaganda, but they *have* got round to telling you about the war in Iraq, havent they?

Yet, all the reconstruction contracts went to Haliburton and Bechtel and other similar US conglomerates on no-bid sweetheart deals, and the Iraqis were relegated to sub-contracting work where they couldn't do decent work and make a profit. End result; shoddy work.

Yeah, Id disagree with that as youve got to legitimise yourself as the occupying power by making your goals the goals of the people. Linking your goals to Iraqi employment would have been the best way to have gone.

As an extenuating circumstance Id argue that several of those contracts, Official Beer of the US Army in Iraq and so on, might have been agreed in the planning stages for the Iraq war, when it would not have been politically advisable for Iraqis to bid for US contracts that assumed the defeat of Saddam?

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Iraq hasnt existed for thousands of years, let alone has a running functional country unless you consider a dictatorship an acceptable definition of a running functional country.

Right then, the general area of Mesopotamia had a functioning infrastructure.
My point was, the country was there in one form or another for a long time, it had buildings/roads/electricity/water for a long time too. Now it does not (not in an acceptable level anyway) have some of these things, and in order to rebuild the country very little of it's inhabitants are being used in the rebuilding process.

bonkey

sovtek wrote:

Got any links to prove it?

In fairness, I think that the state of the nation makes it a given that engineers are needed.

What Sand failed to explain is why Iraq needs foreign engineers. More importantly, perhaps is the question why Iraq needs so many foreign workers in every spectrum while so few Iraqis are being given comparable work...

By and large, the cynic in me says that there's a very simple reason....the US is stumping up the lion's share of the money. It has two main choices : spend the money on US companies, or on foreign companies.

In the former case, the benefit of the expenditure is felt both at home and abroad: Iraq gets rebuilt, US companies get a cash injection from the government in the form of contracts collectively worth hundreds of billions.

In the latter case, the benefit of the expenditure is felt far less at home, and far more abroad. Iraq gets rebuilt, and foreign companies get the hundreds of billions. Now, if those foreign companies were Iraqi, it would sure help rebuild the country faster, but there's no real benefit whatsoever to the US from the expenditure (other than perhaps goodwill and the ability to get out of Iraq quicker)

Maybe I'm overly cynical, but this approach seems typical of foreign aid from most large nations (main exceptions in my mind would probably be Japan and the Scandinavian nations, but thats just an impression). You donate money to spend on your nation's companies, and give the "output" of that expenditure to the needy.....

I'm not saying they're right in doing so, or that they should do it to such an extent...but lets face it....Iraq is nothing new in this regard.

jc

This is an assumption without anything to back it up, but wouldn't there be plenty of trained Iraqi's capable of doing those same jobs the foreign contractors are doing, and probably for a much smaller wage. (Ex-Military engineers, college grads etc)

Regardless if this indeed a move to rebuild Iraq wouldn't they be supporting a drive to have Iraqi's rebuild the country themselves, and train in those that are needed to maintain the country, or is this just a gambit to make Iraq dependable on a foreign work pool once peace returns for a number of years. Kinda a way to keep Iraq in "western" control.

Theyre not charity workers. They are unarmed civillians though

whooptie do. If I walk into a warzone, I know that I'm in danger. Whether i'm carrying a weapon or not. My native country is at war and has been part of the occupation. Bit naive to think there'd be no backlash.

Iraq is an artificial creation of the British Empire which carved it out of the former Ottoman Empire they took over after WW1, without regard for the cultural identities of the Kurdish, Shia and Sunni populations that were suddenly told they were all Iraqi - bad call, but the cards have been dealt and moaning about it wont change it. Iraq hasnt existed for thousands of years, let alone has a running functional country unless you consider a dictatorship an acceptable definition of a running functional country.

Sand. Iraq has existed for the last 70 years, which is more than enough to declare its existance, regardless of ancient peoples rights. Their rights (the ancient peoples) are as dust.

And a dictatorship is very capable of running a country. Whether its capable of running a country in the best interests of the citizens, I doubt it. However, Iraq was quite successful prior to the invasion of Iran. High standard of education, medicial facilities, food programs, initiatives to fight the spread of the desert, etc. There wasn't much good abt Saddam's regieme, but it wasn't all bad.

Water is wet, fire is hot, Iraq needs engineers to rebuild after a conventional war - and an on-going terrorist campaign.

But does it need foreign Engineers, that are obviously unwanted, when (Again an assumption by me) there are qualified Iraqi engineers?

Hobbes

Water is wet, fire is hot, Iraq needs engineers to rebuild after a conventional war - and an on-going terrorist campaign.

Read Baghdad Year Zero. Iraq certainly did not need forigen contractors. The US basically put a puppet government in to help rape the country. Iraq is starting to wake up to that fact and most of the people joining the militants are in fact people who have been fired.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=193697

mycroft

Sands wrote:

So the coalition could try the Indymedia approach - install a strong man dictator that makes the trains run on time and pull out ASAP and hope the dicator can torture enough of their common enemies to crush the Islamic/Baathist/Kurdish rebels.

How on earth do you equate that approach with "indymedia" :rolleyes:

Sand

My point was, the country was there in one form or another for a long time,

But it *wasnt*. The first problem the coalition had was convincing the Kurds not to delcare independance, to convince the Shias they would have appropriate democratic respresentation, and yet to try and convice the Sunnis that this wouldnt mean their slaughter. Thats not a sign of country thats been there for a long time!

And the infrastructure which you were referring to was in decay from about the Iranian war or the first gulf War when sanctions really began to bite.

Now it does not (not in an acceptable level anyway) have some of these things, and in order to rebuild the country very little of it's inhabitants are being used in the rebuilding process.

What Sand failed to explain is why Iraq needs foreign engineers. More importantly, perhaps is the question why Iraq needs so many foreign workers in every spectrum while so few Iraqis are being given comparable work...

Iraq certainly did not need forigen contractors.

But does it need foreign Engineers, that are obviously unwanted, when (Again an assumption by me) there are qualified Iraqi engineers?

I thought Id already covered this - in fact I did. Ill try again, with the disclaimer that Ive already stated that I feel Iraqis should be made involved where ever possible as liberal democracy in Iraq will only be possible if theyre on board - otherwise its doomed to failure.

Once thats done lets move on.

Imagine youre a planner in the Pentagon. The President rings you and tells you he needs a plan for post war Iraq, including choosing companies to help in immediate reconstruction in Iraq, help stop any repeat of the oil wells being fired like in kuwait, build US bases in Iraq for troops and supplying those troops etc etc. When you think about it youre talking about at least a 2-5 year plan for up to 200-300,000 troops and civillian personnel.

Do you A) Hire firms and grant contracts now so you can go to your Boss and say we got that build bridging thing sorted? Or Decide youll wait till you come to that bridge before you start looking for someone to build it for you?

Now imagine youre an Iraqi bussinessman. You hear the Americans are planning to invade and remove Saddam. Theyve got a lot of contracts lying around for post war Iraq. Saddam is known for his strong disaproval of traitors.

Do you A) Advertise in advance of the invasion that you want to bid for contacts that assume Saddams defeat and hope he sees the funny side? Decide its wiser to wait for the American to arrive before bidding for their contracts?

The answers are obvious in both cases - its catch 22. The Coalition needed to have contracts either decided in advance of the war in its immediate aftermath - its a massive logistical undertaking. The Iraqis were not in a position to bid until the war was over and it was clear Saddam was defeated. Hence foreign engineers are coming in because they have the contracts to do the work. Given the defeat of saddams government there was no other central authority to organise reconstruction. Hence the requirement for foreign engineers, though this *should* be decreased in the future. Enough chaos has been caused by a failure to rapidly establish law and order in iraq - inviting more chaos through some "find contractors as you go" ideal is .... well, just inviting more trouble.

whooptie do. If I walk into a warzone, I know that I'm in danger. Whether i'm carrying a weapon or not. My native country is at war and has been part of the occupation. Bit naive to think there'd be no backlash.

Cmon Klaz, the "asking for it" defence has been discredited in many rape trials for a long time.

Read Baghdad Year Zero. Iraq certainly did not need forigen contractors. The US basically put a puppet government in to help rape the country. Iraq is starting to wake up to that fact and most of the people joining the militants are in fact people who have been fired.

Do you want to come clean out my house with that sweeping assessment? I read the article, and I read Naomi Kleins No Logo book. Im going to take a very scenic route to my point here, so bear with me.

I read a book recently, Al Queda and What it means to be Modern. Essentially the author, John Gray, spent the whole book disparging the "universalist" philosophy of the enlightment - that people are generally the same, want the same things and that as technology and prosperity advances ( i.e. become more modern or "western" ) they will come more and more together and become more reasonable in their dealings with each other. He spent the whole book disparging the idiocy of a concept that argues people can view the world in basically the same way, or want the same thing. Everyones a unique snowflake etc etc.

When it came to Al Queda though they werent an Islamic "concept" - he argued there had been no such organisation before ( wrong, but anyway ). Al Queda were modern in that they were a mixture of Bolshevik vanguards, Nietzsche and a smattering of Islam ( Which he already argued was pretty much the same as Christianity anyway ). All "western" philosophies. So he pretty much went back on his point, because now Al Queda should be explained by resorting to western ( or modern?) philosophy rather than to Islamic culture. So he was a universalist himself.

Kleins another universalist. She cant explain Islamic fundamentalism - cant get behind it. Shes about anti-globalisation, anti-private enterprise. Am I to be honestly surprised that she paints Iraq as another front in the war against the corporate machine?

Whats her backing for this? A conversation with a security guard in a resteraunt and a line in a Al Sadrs propaganda fliers - Christ, its No Logo 2. Well yippee ay yae! Al Sadrs militia are painted as disgrunted shop stewards, fighting for public ownership of factories. Workers of the world unite! However even Klein is forced to admit theyve got some outside influences that involve tormenting unveiled women and unfortunate religious devotion. Thats about the closest she gets to admitting that it mightnt be Genoa with RPGs. God alone knows what shed make of Al Zaqawri - a Che Guevera perhaps?

And while Bremners policies and execution were poorly advised, Klein admits theyve been furiously backpeddling and yet the terrorists havent calmed down. Perhaps this is time for Corinthian to pop his head in and remind everyone that just because A and B occur at the same time it does not mean A is causing B?

In short Klein is an interesting read but you have to allow for the fact that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

How on earth do you equate that approach with "indymedia"

The whole "WEEEEREEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOOOOOOOOOOMMMEEEEDDDDD - PULL OUT THE TROOPS AND RUN FOR YOUR LIFE NOW!1!1!1!" vibe. Or do you think theres a liberal democratic Iraqi government just waiting for the Americans to leave?

Like i said you can pull out now, or you can have a better Iraq. You cant have both.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Hence the requirement for foreign engineers, though this *should* be decreased in the future.

It should be. But there's a problem, in that it should have already been.

It is unquestioned that the situation in Iraq is (put charitably) not what the Bush Administration believed it would be by now. Their contractors have suffered setback after setback after setback, through increased violence, direct attacks, kidnappings, and so on. The need for materials is unquestionably higher than could have been forseen (or else someone is missing some very obvious evidence that the Administration are telling little fibs), and the manpower is a far, far greater problem than was forseen.

And yet there is little evidence that solutions to these problems have been sought locally, but rather back home in the US. or by seeking addtional foreign assisatance. We can be sure there is little evidence, because if there was, there is no doubt but that it would be strongly used by Bush in his election campaigning as evidence of how his plan for Iraq is working.

Enough chaos has been caused by a failure to rapidly establish law and order in iraq - inviting more chaos through some "find contractors as you go" ideal is .... well, just inviting more trouble.

No, the initial contracts definitely needed to be pre-arranged. Unquestioably. How long they needed to be, or indeed were, I can't say. However, the furhter expenditures....the unforseen problems....why has there been so little Iraqi assistance sought, or no explanation offered as to why it wasn't suitable? Maybe this isn't a big enough issue on the Presidential landscape, and addressing it would only draw attention to another issue Bush could be tackled on....maybe there is a good explanation, and he just doesn't want to have another front opened as both sides in the election interpret the figures as they see fit...

Personally, I think an explanation is deserved, but unlikely to ever come. If it does, I'm sure issues of security will paradoxically be key, as will working knowledge of the chosen party and language barriers.

[quopte]Like i said you can pull out now, or you can have a better Iraq. You cant have both.[/QUOTE]
Yup, but its entirely possible to end up with neither....and thats the real issue. Simply staying in Iraq and deciding how to "put it right" (according to your vision of right) is not necessarily enough. Your vision of what is right has to be right, as does the path you choose to try and take to get there.

jc

But it *wasnt*. The first problem the coalition had was convincing the Kurds not to delcare independance, to convince the Shias they would have appropriate democratic respresentation, and yet to try and convice the Sunnis that this wouldnt mean their slaughter. Thats not a sign of country thats been there for a long time!

Thats not much a sign of anything except instability. Russia has sections of its country which have been calling for indepence for decades, Spain has the same, certain peoples in Eqypt, have all claimed for independence. Most nations will have those that want to be separated. Some of the oldest countries will have those separtist groups as part of their earlier conquests.

And the infrastructure which you were referring to was in decay from about the Iranian war or the first gulf War when sanctions really began to bite.

Which is exactly what I said. Prior to the invasion of Iran, Saddam did a fair job at running the nation. And those before him did better. But the dictatorship in Iraq did produce some decent results. Far better results than the last year of occupation.

Cmon Klaz, the "asking for it" defence has been discredited in many rape trials for a long time.

You're sidestepping. If I walk into a minefield and I step on a mine its my own fault. Period. This has nothing to do with Rape or "askin for it". It has to do with common sense, and knowing when you're in danger.

ionapaul

klaz, do you really believe it was Bigley's fault that he was killed? Does al-Zarqari and gang get any of the blame? 50-50 maybe? Or would 80% Bigley - 20% Tawhid and Jihad be about right?

mycroft

Sand wrote:

The whole "WEEEEREEEEEEEEEEEEEE DOOOOOOOOOOMMMEEEEDDDDD - PULL OUT THE TROOPS AND RUN FOR YOUR LIFE NOW!1!1!1!" vibe. Or do you think theres a liberal democratic Iraqi government just waiting for the Americans to leave?

Like i said you can pull out now, or you can have a better Iraq. You cant have both.

And can post proof that that's the indymedia attitude.

I think most liberals and leftwingers who have a firm grasp of the praticalities and take a realistic approach to the occupation, have resigned themselves to the fact that the US is stuck in Iraq for the long haul. That they have to build a Iraq for the Iraqi people and not a puppet oil state for the US, which is whats happening now

klaz, do you really believe it was Bigley's fault that he was killed? Does al-Zarqari and gang get any of the blame? 50-50 maybe? Or would 80% Bigley - 20% Tawhid and Jihad be about right?

I haven't said that it was Bigley's fault for getting killed. What I'm saying that part of the responsibility lies with him. If you want to use percentages, I'd lean towards the 20% responsible for his own death. He worked and lived in a warzone. He accepted those risks in return for the "danger money" he received.

However, the main responsibility lies with those who killed him.

I'm not saying anything unreasonable here. I'm saying that if someone decides to work & live in a warzone when they have the choice not to, they bear some responsibility for what happens. If I go to South America, and I'm kidnapped & held for ransom, it was my choice that placed me in that situation. The kidnappers are responsible for actually kidnapping me, however, I'm responsible for entering an area thats known to be dangerous for westerners.

ionapaul, do you believe that he beared no responsibility for choosing to live in Iraq, knowing the attitude of many people about Westerners, and also knowing what had happened to a number of other westerners?

ionapaul

Knowing that Allied planes regularly bomb suspected terrorist safe-houses in Fallujah, how much responsibility do the dead of that city bear for their own deaths? If it is possible for them to move to Basra, and they didn't take this chance, would they bear more of the responsibility should their home get hit?

This is like a horribly morbid maths puzzle.

Knowing that Allied planes regularly bomb suspected terrorist safe-houses in Fallujah, how much responsibility do the dead of that city bear for their own deaths? If it is possible for them to move to Basra, and they didn't take this chance, would they bear more of the responsibility should their home get hit?

There is a bit of a difference between the residents and the Bigley case. Are you really serious in that you don't see or understand my point?

Bigley wasn't poor. He had the money and education to work/live in most countries worldwide. He had the easy choice of where to live/work. Most residents wouldn't have that choice.

Can u answer my question, as well?