German Chancellor calls for Iraqi regime change

Former Member

From today's news. He said this today:

BERLIN (AP) - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder for the first time called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in a speech to parliament on Thursday, dropping his objection to regime change as a goal of war.

Great idea! Let's get on that shall we?

Former Member

What I want to know is if Germany would have a role in the post-war Iraq. Would they send troops in peacekeeping missions?

Former Member

They actually have had troops in the Kuwait already since before the invasion was launched.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
They actually have had troops in the Kuwait already since before the invasion was launched.

What about the situation immediately after the war? Would the Germans take a role in maintaining order?

Former Member

It remains to be seen just how much of a US only show the Pentagon is prepared to push for. As things stand its looking more and more that my long held view that this is a conquest and not a liberation will be thoroughly vindicated.

Much was discussed on Hardtalk yesterday evening and it became quite apparent from the US commentator's p.o.v. that what will we get in Baghdad is not what the rhetoric has claimed (i.e. a recognisable western pluralistic democracy) but rather a new strong man (much more in keeping with the history of that nation and its intra-tribal conflicts) but one which bends the knee to Washington and Tel Aviv.

Thus it will prove necessary for Bush's spin doctors to weave some more crafty BS to convince the American public that this is somehow in keeping with all that they have triumphantly claimed to be their aims all along. Those who have paid attention to the issue throughout will recognise this inevitable new U-turn as merely par for the course.

Will any of the pro-war camp modify their unquestioning support for the Bush admin at that point? I doubt it.

Former Member

To be honest Clandestine, I can understand the US p.o.v. - even if I don't agree with it.

If France, Germany, etc didn't support the action, why should they instantly get involved afterwards. We all know that each country will want to act in their own interests anyway...

If you don't take the risks, why should you get the "benefits"

Former Member

They are going to put an Iraqi transitional government in charge next week. It's comprised of members of the old Iraqi monarchy, (is that to play up to Saudi Arabia?), as well as members of the Shiite, Sunni and Kurd communities. All of Iraq will eventually vote on what kind of government they want.

Former Member

MoK, If this is supposed to be a liberation then there is no scope for one nation to even consider it their show. Or are you admitting to finally believing that this no act of justice being undertaken on the part of the US to uphold the UN resolutions??

If it is to uphold UN resolutions then its not the US/UK or any other single nation to tell the international community it can or cannot have a hand in ensuring the legitimacy of the restoration of the country.

To argue otherwise is to sanction the imperial right of conquest (and effectively of domination) by the US of any nation it chooses so long as it can cook up sufficient grounds for doing so.

pnj> That government will be nothing more than an installed puppet, without legitimate constituency mandate from the Iraqi people themselves. Don't ever count on what you consider to be "democracy" ever being allowed to come to pass there.

Unless the Iraqi's bide their time and eventually overthrow the puppet regime set up by Washington they will not reclaim any viable self determination.

Former Member

Surely the US would want to have other nations involved in keeping the peace, lessens the cost and risk for them surely.........

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
MoK, If this is supposed to be a liberation then there is no scope for one nation to even consider it their show. Or are you admitting to finally believing that this no act of justice being undertaken on the part of the US to uphold the UN resolutions??

*cough*

I said I didn't agree with them. But I can see why they believe that the countries who showed little support shouldn't benefit from the additional resources which become available. Be that building contracts or not...

Former Member

I can see all too clearly as well. It was always intended to be a conquest, long before Bush got talked into the minor delay caused by the "UN route" charade. This admin is so stocked with anti-internationalist power mongers and corporate cronies that the true intent was always transparent to anyone with enough sense to look beyond the spin.


Thats what makes this merely the first of many potential crimes against humanity and the international community that Washington is set to perpetrate in its unchallenged might in this new century of imperialism.

The only way to tame this beast now would be for the international community (not the UN itself per se but successive nations alone or in concert) withdrawing all investment from the US until it is fully impoverished. Then and only then would the current pro-war majority wake up and truly scrutinise what Washington has been doing for so long to result in our systematic isolation from the world.

A tall order indeed, but one which could be done by simply switching investment to the much larger European market and thus increasing both its economic and, by necessary extension, its military might as a whole. This would establish the much need counterbalancing pole of power to offset the unfettered unipolar status currently fueling the Bush doctrine.

That is what I would truly like to see happen for the much longer term benefit and the correction of my country's current arrogance in world affairs. Only by being sternly taught to behave itself properly can the US free itself from the increasing strangle hold of the boot stomping authoritarian power mongers that currently have the helm.