Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould America pay reparations to all countries in which they do battle?
Results so far:
| No | 75% | 100 votes | Total: 134 votes | |
| Yes | 25% | 34 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites
The notion of paying war reparations is both dangerous and counterproductive. Paying reparations to Iraq is absurd:
1) The term "reparations means "the making of amends for wrongs or damages done". No matter what the domestic debate is about how America got into Iraq, it can not on the INTERNATIONAL stage take measures that admit it was wrong. Nations may make poor decisions, but can never publicly admit they were wrong
2) Sometimes reparations lead to the opposite effect. After World War One, the Allies penalized Germany to such an extent that the result in Germany was not a democratic government, but such turmoil that Hitler was allows to come to power. In Iraq, characterized by factional fighting, pouring reparation in would be like pouring oil on fire.
3) Who gets the reparations? A country which has been attacked will likely have a breakdown of central government. There will be tremendous unrest in trying to re-establish a form of government. Paying reparation to one faction simply screws up the natural flow of rebuilding government.
4) Most countries are not as sophisticated as America. They operate on systems of paybacks, graft, and such. America already faces a situation in which there are 10 billion dollars missing in redevelopment costs. Reparation would only benefit the few, and not the general population
For these reasons America or any other country should pay reparations to nations that are attacked.
Learn more about this author, Lorne Yacuk.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Of course, America should pay for the damage it inflicts on other countries. Although America often has ended up giving economic assistance to countries where we have fought, if it were automatic, the neo-cons amongst us might not be quite so eager to undertake pre-emptive strikes. Warring on another country is serious business and if America can attack at will, without having to be financially responsible for the damage caused, there is no check on neo-con intervention. Going to battle in foreign lands should be much more difficult than it has been. There needs to be some balance to the war mongering from Washington, D.C. and a requirement to pay war reparations would be a good place to start.
America should use its satellite eyes to mark and follow up on real bombing damage, inadvertent artillery collateral damage and intensive combat war zones in order to ensure that all who should be compensated are in fact. Particularly, when reconstruction after a war involves more fighting and killing and sabotage potentially appears around every corner, it is important to record and document collateral damage. Without that designation, America does not compensate for damage incurred.
In a country America has been occupying for over five years, different areas of Iraq are conquered and released into "no man's land". It is a unique strategy akin to fishing by capture and release. It is a policy for endless war, because the land is not held. It is taken and let loose again. It is no wonder there are insurgent safe houses available throughout Iraq. Most of Iraq is liberated from American control soon after it is secured.
US military officers now acknowledge that methods learned from Vietnam had been forgotten and had to be relearned again. That is an amazing criticism and it is made up through the general level. How could insurgency and guerrilla warfare knowledge be lost so quickly? Colin Powell was in Vietnam, so presumably were the other high level generals! Even those who weren't have got to have awareness and knowledge that fighting insurgencies is different from fighting conventional armies. Ironically, originally the US military was the insurgency and guerrillas against the British "redcoats".
Unless America bribes foreign nationals to forgive our heavy handed treatment and priority to warfare, instead of economic development, we are destined to make many enemies. Nobody likes people who destroy the property of another. If an Iraqi sustains damage from the invasion and mop up operations and he is not compensated, he certainly would be angry with America. You don't win wars by making locals angry.
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Should the government put a limit on lottery winnings to welfare recipients?
- Did President Obama's speech in Cairo launch a 'new beginning' in relations between Muslims and the U.S.?
- Is George Bush an able commander-in-chief for the US military?
- Is the U.S. ready for a viable third party?
- Has Obama's stimulus plan been written too quickly?
- Will President Obama's National Health Care Reform be effective?
