So, will the left apologise?

[a_unique_person]

So, something of a cakewalk after all, then. No major set-piece battles with the "elite" Republican Guard. No massive numbers of civilian casualties - "millions of women and children killed", as British left-wing politician Shirley Williams, among many others, predicted. No relentless house-to-house street fighting. No insuperable problem with the desert heat - the Iraqi summer seems to have gone the way of the Afghan winter in that earlier impracticable American war effort. No uncontrollably burning oil fields in southern Iraq, leading to intractable environmental catastrophe.





But never mind that. What I want to know is when the perpetrators of the myths that I enumerated above can be expected to offer their apologies. Judging by this week's performance by British MP Tam Dalyell, not just yet. He now seems to be amending the forecast of millions of children killed to millions of children traumatised: a sad enough notion, certainly, but a mite different from the one that was being bandied about by the more hysterical anti-war lobby a week or two ago.

I have this delightful fantasy of left-wingers throughout the Western world putting their hands up and saying: "Well, actually we got that a little bit wrong." And maybe even deciding that, since their analysis of the war was mistaken, their diagnosis of the peace might be open to question too.

But I'm not holding my breath. Those for whom America is always wrong will not be slowed down by this momentary setback. Rather like Mr al-Sahaf, they will not even appear to notice the tanks in the streets of their ideological neighbourhood. They will look away from the welcoming crowds of Basra (yes, they really did cheer, once it was safe to do so) and just move smartly on to the next American "crime against humanity".



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/09/1049567739103.html

I don't feel I have to apologise. We have seen crowds cheering, but others standing back, and others wounded and dead.

Onc commentator here actuall had the gall to talk about the US forces being vastly outnumbered. It was never going to be an even match, the US was always going to win.

I don't resent the US being the most powerful country in the world, I just resent that it acts like, since no one can make it answer to them, it doesn't have to answer to anyone. We can be glad the US is not Stalin, but that does not obviate the need for it to be principled.

And picking out a few choice quotes from leftists makes as much use as accusing every religious person of being another Billy Graham.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I don't resent the US being the most powerful country in the world, I just resent that it acts like, since no one can make it answer to them, it doesn't have to answer to anyone. We can be glad the US is not Stalin, but that does not obviate the need for it to be principled.


But I think that's exactly what it has just demonstrated, it is principled. You may not agree with them, but I don't think you can accuse the US of not having principles. As to not being answerable, of course they are. They're called elections. They might not have the perfect electoral system, but then again who does?

Addressing the thrust of the articles. I don't think that the left will apologise, they'll prevaricate and qualify, as they always do. What I'm interested in seeing is how some of the Arab media unsays some of the incredible rhetoric they've pumped out. When Iraqis are once again in control of Iraq, and its press is operating and independent, it will be very interesting to hear what they think of Al Jazeera, and Abu Dhabi TV

[Baggle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83704,00.html

That's an interesting AP article I read earlier today dealing with specifically how other Arabs now view Al Jazeera and the war in general. Many feel betrayed by Al Jazeera and the Iraqi gov't for lying to them. The article goes on to say that some also feel betrayed by the Iraqi people for celebrating Saddam's removal.

-Baggle

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


But I think that's exactly what it has just demonstrated, it is principled. You may not agree with them, but I don't think you can accuse the US of not having principles. As to not being answerable, of course they are. They're called elections. They might not have the perfect electoral system, but then again who does?

Addressing the thrust of the articles. I don't think that the left will apologise, they'll prevaricate and qualify, as they always do. What I'm interested in seeing is how some of the Arab media unsays some of the incredible rhetoric they've pumped out. When Iraqis are once again in control of Iraq, and its press is operating and independent, it will be very interesting to hear what they think of Al Jazeera, and Abu Dhabi TV

But I don't get to vote for the US. It can act around the world, but it only has to answer to it's own citizens.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But I don't get to vote for the US. It can act around the world, but it only has to answer to it's own citizens.

Consider yourself lucky, previous world powers didnt even have to answer to thier own citizens.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I don't feel I have to apologise. We have seen crowds cheering, but others standing back, and others wounded and dead.


I have an idea, instead of speaking for the Iraqi people, why don't you find me ONE quote from a liberated citizen that thinks the civillian casualites were not an acceptable price to pay for the freedom of a nation? I've searched high and low and found nothing. The worst I saw was one Iraqi is Basara complaining that they didn't have enough water yet.


I don't resent the US being the most powerful country in the world, I just resent that it acts like, since no one can make it answer to them, it doesn't have to answer to anyone. We can be glad the US is not Stalin, but that does not obviate the need for it to be principled.


Of course we do not answer to anyone, its lonely at the top. America is principled, more so than ANY other country in the world. What other country routinely sacrifices its children to help the opressed, while the rest of the world does nothing? Name one country that has done more, or spent more money to minimize civillian casualties in war. Or gives more in foreign aid.


And picking out a few choice quotes from leftists makes as much use as accusing every religious person of being another Billy Graham.


Ha, the problem I have is being innundated with leftist bullsh*t and backpeddling. There are so many laughable quotes and rationalizations I hardly know where to start!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Consider yourself lucky, previous world powers didnt even have to answer to thier own citizens.

Not true, Rome was a Democracy for a while.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not true, Rome was a Democracy for a while.

Wasnt Rome a republic?

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But I don't get to vote for the US. It can act around the world, but it only has to answer to it's own citizens.

Good point, but what's the answer? Do we want a single world gov elected by the whole planet? That would be scary because he'd almost certainly be Chinese!

I personally am glad that the most powerful nation on the planet is a democracy, and is relatively principled. It doesn't appear to have territorial ambitions beyond its borders, all its recent wars have resulted in the US leaving the respective countries in a fairly short period. OK, it has a bit of a thing about communists and their fellow travellers, but maybe they have a point. I don't have a say in their gov, but I don't here either, or anywhere else I've lived.

Perhaps I feel ambivalent about the US because I can at least identify with them. They speak the same language as me, I understand their societal mores. Maybe that's why the rest of the world doesn't take them at face value?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Hypocolius




Perhaps I feel ambivalent about the US because I can at least identify with them. They speak the same language as me, I understand their societal mores. Maybe that's why the rest of the world doesn't take them at face value?

Just courious, where are you from originally?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Wasnt Rome a republic?

that too.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Tony


Just courious, where are you from originally?

Born in UK, spent most of my life as an expat in various African countries, now living & working in UAE.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And picking out a few choice quotes from leftists makes as much use as accusing every religious person of being another Billy Graham.

I appreciate this is a little off-thread, but why identify Billy Graham as a hate figure? Sure, he's keener than most on following his faith, but I'd have thought he was one of the good guys. He doesn't use moral blackmail to get donations on which he lives like a king, he doesn't use religion as a blunt instrument to batter through a political agenda and his financial records are available to anyone that wants them. I'm not a Christian myself, though I have seen him preach. Compared to Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggert, Jerry Falwell and many other, surely he's a good egg?

[BillyTK]

As we carnt replay the war and remove left-wing/communist/whatever anti-war protestors as a variable, we carnt gauge their influence on the prosecution of this war. And as far as I'm aware, whilst Baghdad may have fallen, the war isn't over yet.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

Wasnt Rome a republic?yes -- and republic is a type of democracy; it's a representative (as opposed to Athens' direct) democracy. So yes, USA is a democracy as well, because it's a republic.

[E.J.Armstrong]

If the war was fought because Saddam Hussein wouldn't disarm his WOMD, has any WOMD been found yet?

If the war was fought to give democracy to the Iraqis when will the Iraqis get to run their own ports?

If the war was fought to achieve regime change what will happen if the Iraqis appoint a regime the US and the UK don't like?

If the war was fought because the UN wouldn't support its own decisions, will the US and UK aide by UN decisions?

If the war was fought because Saddam Hussein was terrorising his own people will a war be started against Robert Mugabe etc?

If the war was fought to stop potential terorism, will a war be started on the same terms and in the same manner with the Mafia or the IRA or UVF or the people who supported Timothy McVeigh or the official bodies which supported terrorism in Central and Southern America?

If the war was started to avoid potential terrorism what happens if any other country is found to be helping a dictator brutally suppress his own people or attack a third party country by supplying chemical, biological, nuclear or other weapons or equipment designed to suppress the citizens? In such cases will affected countries be legally entitled to attack the guilty governments without UN sanction now?

If the war was fought for freedom of information, democracy and openness, presumably we can be be told in detail which countries and companies supplied Saddam Hussein with his array of chemical, biological and nuclear agents, when they did so and who was involved in the transactions?

If the war was not fought for commercial gain, then presumably we can confidently predict that no contracts will be awarded and paid for by the people of Iraq without them having full and democratic control over the placing of those contracts?

If the war was not fought for oil then presumably we can confidently predict that no US or UK company will be awarded any licence or contract to carry out any hydrocarbon related exploration, appraisal, production or transmission activities of any kind in Iraq at any point in the future other than through a completely transparent and democratic process controlled by freely elected politicians and properly carried out by qualified officials who permit full access to every qualified company in the world without fear or favour.

If the war was not fought as part of full spectrum domination then presumably we can confidently predict that no US military presence will reman in Iraq after the war is over and that there will be no US appointed power wielding body in Iraq after the war and that the US will not demand any such rights at any time from any Iraqi body and that the Iraqi people have the right to decide every aspect of their future in whatever way or by whatever legislative process they choose for themselves without any outside influence other than that they freely choose for themselves.

Etc.

Just wondering.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
As to not being answerable, of course they are. They're called elections. They might not have the perfect electoral system, but then again who does?

When the Democrats and Republicans stop putting up prohibitive barriers preventing competition in ballot access, when they stop prohibiting free speech of competing candidates in the name of "campaign finance reform," when they stop ignoring constitutionally valid write-in votes, when they stop having the courts decide the elections before they happen, and when they are subject to the same regulations and restrictions that apply to any other candidate running for office, then I'll be glad to listen to you tell me how they're answerable to the people. Until then, don't pretend that we run our elections any differently than the banana republics we criticize.

[Agammamon]

Will the right apologize for telling us that we have to go into Iraq because we "know" they have WMD, support terrorists and will sell them the WMD making this is a war of self defense, and then when the WMD doesn't show up, telling us that this was a war of liberation all along?

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Will the right apologize for telling us that we have to go into Iraq because we "know" they have WMD, support terrorists and will sell them the WMD making this is a war of self defense, and then when the WMD doesn't show up, telling us that this was a war of liberation all along?

This is the big problem with all this. People are making up things.

The justification for the war was resolution 1441 and its predecessors. Under these numerous resolutions, Saddam was to give full cooperation in investigating and documenting the distruction of all WMD.

In this he failed, as the UN inspection team under Hans Blix reported to the UNSC as required under 1441.

Whether he had them or not was irrelevant. US administration representatives might have voiced their opinions on whether the extenet to which Saddam's WMD program were still in place, but that was not relevant to the war.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But I don't get to vote for the US. It can act around the world, but it only has to answer to it's own citizens.

That's called Freedom. When government is accountable to the citizens and not the other way around.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence - 1776

[Gregor]

Probably a little too soon to answer any questions.

Enough with the right-wing "we liberated a people" arguments. Will they stay 'liberated.'

Enough with the left-wing "you imperialist, capitalist, egotistical Americans."

Only with the passage of time will we learn whether:

1. This was the start of the spread of democracy in the troubled mid-east, or a momentary blip that turns into a fundamentalist neo-Iran.
2. The Iraqi people are much better off or not
3. All of the doom and gloom vs. liberty and human rights is the outcome.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Supercharts


That's called Freedom. When government is accountable to the citizens and not the other way around.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence - 1776

When one country can impose its will on another country, that's freedom? :eek: That's not what you mean, is it? :confused:

[crackmonkey]

I think the barking from the left and from the right should subside, and we should listen to what the Iraqis have to say. What I've heard so far - the voices I've heard just detest the 'human shields' and the point of view that motivated them, and love Bush for intervening.
That's powerful stuff, and the more zealous anti-war people should reflect on this, contemplate their error, and perhaps make a quiet apology. And remember the events of yesterday... don't make the same mistake twice. Presuming to speak for a people without bothering to ask the opinion of the people themselves is the height of arrogance.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by BillyTK


When one country can impose its will on another country, that's freedom? :eek: That's not what you mean, is it? :confused:
You are correct. That's not what I meant as you can see from my post. I quoted the Declaration of Independence to help define a free country.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper


This is the big problem with all this. People are making up things.

The justification for the war was resolution 1441 and its predecessors. Under these numerous resolutions, Saddam was to give full cooperation in investigating and documenting the distruction of all WMD.

In this he failed, as the UN inspection team under Hans Blix reported to the UNSC as required under 1441.

Whether he had them or not was irrelevant. US administration representatives might have voiced their opinions on whether the extenet to which Saddam's WMD program were still in place, but that was not relevant to the war. Maybe one for the historians, but I don't think I agree with your analysis Drooper.

I've just taken a look at the text of Bush's televised ultimatum speach on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2859269.stm) and I don't think things are as clear-cut as you suggest.

Here is a sample :
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbours and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East.

It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harboured terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it.

Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security.

That duty falls to me as commander-in-chief by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Well, my personal objections to war were primarily two-fold.

The first point was international law and the rule of law in general, and this problem cannot be alleviated by anything US does -- US violated internaitonal law.

The second point is my conclusion that you cannot impose democracy by force, that you cannot create a democratic spirit in people who knew no democracy before, and that Iraq won't become a democracy just because Saddam is gone. The second point, should it be proven wrong, will take a couple of years; and if it is indeed proven wrong, then I will retract that objection to regime-changing interventions of this sort.

[ceo_esq]

E.J. Armstrong,

It's not clear on what you are basing your "if ... then" assumptions in the post above, but pretty clearly you haven't drawn them from historical experience.

For example, a significant U.S. military presence has remained in Germany, Japan and Italy ever since the end of World War II. For a considerable time following the war, “power wielding bodies” installed by the United States and its allies existed in Germany and Japan. At least in practice, Marshall Plan dollars were doled out to American companies on a preferential basis (spurring a postwar economic boom).

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether all this constituted good policy after World War II and whether the same things ought to occur with respect to Iraq. I would simply note that according to your logic, America's postwar conduct indicates that the Second World War was waged “as part of full spectrum domination” and “for commercial gain”. I conclude from this that your assumptions are faulty and that, even if the same things are observed in postwar Iraq, they cannot establish post hoc that the Iraq war was fought for domination or economic gain.

Also, that the United States and the United Kingdom will abide by UN decisions is practically a foregone conclusion. Only the Security Council renders binding decisions, and for obvious reasons the Security Council has never made, and presumably never will make, a decision not supported by the United States and the United Kingdom.

Finally, I would also point out that in the near term, the lion’s share of reconstruction-related contracts in Iraq will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, rather than by the Iraqi people. I assume that your remarks concerning contracts “awarded and paid for by the people of Iraq” were not intended to apply to such contracts.

ceo_esq

[Lisa]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


Born in UK, spent most of my life as an expat in various African countries, now living & working in UAE.
If you're the one getting my husband into bar fights, you and I are going to have a long, long talk.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Supercharts

You are correct. That's not what I meant as you can see from my post. I quoted the Declaration of Independence to help define a free country.

Thought so. But in the context of a response to AUP's comment about one country imposing its will on another, it was... confusing.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


When the Democrats and Republicans stop putting up prohibitive barriers preventing competition in ballot access, when they stop prohibiting free speech of competing candidates in the name of "campaign finance reform," when they stop ignoring constitutionally valid write-in votes, when they stop having the courts decide the elections before they happen, and when they are subject to the same regulations and restrictions that apply to any other candidate running for office, then I'll be glad to listen to you tell me how they're answerable to the people. Until then, don't pretend that we run our elections any differently than the banana republics we criticize.

Whats up with the primary system. Why should taxpayer money go to a process that consolidates power for specific political parties? How'd that happen.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whats up with the primary system. Why should taxpayer money go to a process that consolidates power for specific political parties? How'd that happen.

Actually, primaries are paid for by the filing fees that the candidates file. They aren't paid for with taxpayer money, at least in NC. I do think, though, that all political parties should have the optopn of nominating in convention, thereby waiving the primary and the need to pay a filing fee.

The general election is paid for with taxpayer money, which is legitimate since it is an election of the people, as long as everyone is given fair access to the ballot, which, unfortunately, is rarely the case.

[Dancing David]

Why should I apologise?

I am so far past the left that leftist won't even come close.

I have to apologise because the US is 'winning' the war, or I have to apologise because some british MP makes some outrageous statemen.(That is the norm in the UK parliment)

I AM DA*M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!

The last time I checked that gave me the right to disagree with the goverment and the 'moo-cow herd' mentality if I chose to do do.

I take a WW II vet shopping and socialize with him every week, I see it as my human duty to smoeone who actually fought for freedom.

The Iraq war is being fought for oil. If it was being fought for freedom then we would also be fighting the Pakistani's who routinely practise tortue, slavery and oppresion, it is a great place where if your sister does something you don't like you can kill her or permanently scar her face with acid. Yeah brother thats freedom allright, and there are plenty more wars we have fought for 'freedom' that have been fought for nothing more than the political power of the president.

I support the troops and thier commitment to be the long arm of our country. I just wish that the president would stop draping himself in the flag and saying this war is about freedom, yeah and tell that to all the citizens of Chile who were killed and tortured by Pinochet, after we deposed thier deomcraticaly elected goverment, yeah to give them freedom.

Peace
dancing david

[Skeptic]

I don't feel I have to apologise.

Leftists never do.

That's understandable, with their record of being about 100% wrong about everyone they supported (Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Arafat, Castro, Saddam, etc.) and everything they predicted (the coming "socialist revolution" with the collpase of capitalism and the triumph of the USSR, prosperity in Cuba, peace in the middle east, a "quagmire" in Iraq, "freedom" in Vietnam, etc.)

If leftists felt they need to apologize for being wrong, they would be doing so 24/7. This would not leave much time for anything else, least of all the left's favorite game of "f-ck the facts", also known as "support the murderous dictator for all the right touchy-feely emotional reasons".

Instead, the left will simply forget Saddam, and move on to look for the next bloodthirsty father figure--just like they did a year ago, when they stopped supporting the Taliban the instant it became clear the Afghanis are very glad they are gone, and started supporting Hussein. Expect a smooth transition: the left has much experience with such matters. I wonder who the next "cause" will be...

P.S.

The left, of course, keeps forgetting not only the dictator, but his victims.

Remember how the left, two months ago, was terribly impressed by the "popular" demonstrations in Baghdad against "US imperialism", and how it "proved" to them conclusively that "the people of Iraq don't want this war"? Well, don't expect the left to care much about THEM any more, now that they can actually talk without fear of the Muhabarat (Saddam's secret police)...

Such ingrates, these Iraqis: the left fights SO HARD to keep Saddam in power over them (for their own good, of course)--and then they have the hutzpah to embarras the left by cheering his fall! Who they think they are, anyway? Who CARES what they say--unless it's what they say in a state-sponsored demonstration they join out of fear for their lives?

(Naturally, such coercion is the only way you can get most people to say things that agrees with the left's position in the first place. Remember Stalin?)

[Gem]

The left "never" apoligies?
How can a whole group aplogize if some of them still think they're right?
Btw, did right wingers ever apologies? Probably as often as the left.

[Dancing David]

Well I think the left apologising is about the same as the right apologizing.

If by right we mean 'social conservative':then perhaps they should apologise for slavery and the evils of the economic slavery or the great depression.

If by the right I mean the Republican Presidents, then they could apologise for the deposition of Allende, the support of facist governments across the world, etc..

Perhaps the question should be, can anyone apologise for the left or the right, it's not like they are monlithic entities comprised of automatons.

Peace
dancing David

[Marquis de Carabas]

Should the left apologise? No.

In this situation, it seems we're calling anyone against the war "the left" and anyone for it "the right." I doubt it's nearly as clear cut as that (what is?), but I'll work with these definitions for now.

I was on the right, then. I supported this war from the beginning because I believe, after consideration, that it was the right thing to do.

As far as I see it, we basically have two types on the left. (How's that for clear cut? ;)) There are the ones who would have opposed this war no matter what, either just because it's a war, or just because Bush was calling the shots. And there are those that considered the information, and decided it was not the right thing to do.

It would be pointless to expect the first group to apologise.

Most of those in the second group probably still believe that the war was not the right thing to do. Last time I checked, this was America. They should not be apologising for expressing their beliefs, period.

Hell, last I checked, wasn't that one of the things we on "the right" say our men and women are fighting for?

PS I fully realise that those for the war can just as easily be divided in the same way as I did above. There are rational and irrational people on both sides, as always.

[Richard G]

I just wish they would shut up when they are wrong. They're too stupid to know it though.

[gnome]

Come on... last time I checked for people that wouldn't shut up when they were wrong, it was about 95% of everyone, regardless of their politics.

What gives you the idea that the left has a monopoly on this?

I don't really feel an urge to apologize either. I still feel that this invasion (and especially the way it was handled diplomatically) was an example of bad policy. It's good that disaster so far has been avoided, and I hope that this action gives the Iraqis a chance for freedom. But that doesn't mean I think I was wrong in the first place.

[Mike B.]

Oh my gosh...I think the person that wrote this article knows AUP:

"But I'm not holding my breath. Those for whom America is always wrong will not be slowed down by this momentary setback. Rather like Mr al-Sahaf, they will not even appear to notice the tanks in the streets of their ideological neighbourhood. They will look away from the welcoming crowds of Basra (yes, they really did cheer, once it was safe to do so) and just move smartly on to the next American "crime against humanity"."

:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
E.J. Armstrong,

Finally, I would also point out that in the near term, the lion’s share of reconstruction-related contracts in Iraq will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, rather than by the Iraqi people. I assume that your remarks concerning contracts “awarded and paid for by the people of Iraq” were not intended to apply to such contracts.

ceo_esq

The reconstruction of Iraq, with contracts let out to foreign countries, will be paid for with Iraqi oil The last thing that is going to help Iraq rebuild is to make them dependent on the west. From what I understand, Saudi is largely run by the West, and totally dependent on their technological expertise.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Richard G
I just wish they would shut up when they are wrong. They're too stupid to know it though. Such astounding eloquence! :rolleyes:

[Richard G]

Indeed. I used to try to be elequent, but no amount of reason, logic, data, or historical precedence or evidence will sway the opinions of the left.

They're so good at being wrong historicaly, I think they like it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Richard G
Indeed. I used to try to be elequent, but no amount of reason, logic, data, or historical precedence or evidence will sway the opinions of the left.

They're so good at being wrong historicaly, I think they like it.

I think you meant "right" instead of "left"?

Oh, wait, maybe it's both?

[crackmonkey]

Nah. It's 'left'.

[Richard G]

"Right" is right. Wrong is wrong. :)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The reconstruction of Iraq, with contracts let out to foreign countries, will be paid for with Iraqi oil.
I said that in the near term, it would be largely paid for by foreign largesse, and I think that's true. I think it will be quite some time before Iraq can earn more than $20 billion/year from oil, and it'll probably earn substantially less over the first couple of years. Far less if the Saudis start a price war. Even if all that money could go toward reconstruction, it's not enough to do the job.

Of course, the majority of oil revenues, for the foreseeable future, will go towards humanitarian needs rather than reconstruction (and that's assuming that Iraq's foreign debt is renegotiated; otherwise the majority of oil revenues will go to foreign creditors).

In short, Iraqi oil can't cover the costs of Iraqi reconstruction. Most of the very early reconstruction will, as I said, be paid for by foreign grants and other forms of financial aid. As time goes by, the percentage should go down. Nonetheless, U.S. taxpayers, in particular, are in for a big hit over the next 10 years.
Originally posted by a_unique_person
The last thing that is going to help Iraq rebuild is to make them dependent on the west. From what I understand, Saudi is largely run by the West, and totally dependent on their technological expertise.
Nothing makes a country dependent on the West quite like having an economy founded on petroleum exports, so Iraq is going to be dependent on the West either way. I get your point, however. Although I'm not sure what you mean about Saudi being "run by" the West.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Historically, conserevatives have been wrong about pretty much everything. Today's conservatives largely hold the political views of the liberals a few decades ago. As someone said, all it takes for a liberal to become a conservative without changing any views, is to wait a couple of decades. :D

How can you win, if by the very definition of the political segment you partake in, you oppose progress? Until we achieve a near-perfect sociopolitical state where change will necessarily be a change for the worse, liberals will be right more often than conservatives.

[iain]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Historically, conserevatives have been wrong about pretty much everything. Today's conservatives largely hold the political views of the liberals a few decades ago. As someone said, all it takes for a liberal to become a conservative without changing any views, is to wait a couple of decades. :D

How can you win, if by the very definition of the political segment you partake in, you oppose progress? Until we achieve a near-perfect sociopolitical state where change will necessarily be a change for the worse, liberals will be right more often than conservatives. Victor's analysis is pretty much on the mark in UK politics over the last 20 years. The UK Conservative party currently advocates higher spending on public services and even supports gay rights.

The left in the UK has moved to the centre too. Hard left Labour MPs are a small minority today; in the 70s and early 80s they were in a majority (and many current members of the Labour Government were among their number).

The centre ground is pretty crowded in the UK.

[Tony]

In american the so-called "liberals" have become the authoritarian party. Any party that wants to ban cigs, raise taxes, ban gun ownership, over-regulate cars, over-regulate business, and abolish private land ownership is one step away from communist russia.

[crackmonkey]

Victor - give me example of how conservatives today embrace the positions of liberals decades ago...
And if you claim that conservatives oppose progress - how do you define 'progress'? In what way have conservatives been wrong consitsently, yet liberals have been proved right?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

In american the so-called "liberals" have become the authoritarian party. Any party that wants to ban cigs, raise taxes, ban gun ownership, over-regulate cars, over-regulate business, and abolish private land ownership is one step away from communist russia.First of all, you overstate democratic (don't confuse it with liberal) position. By no stretch of imagination can even the democratic party be compared to USSR -- and there are plenty of liberals who are for freedom much more than democrats.

That being said, you are being ridiculously biased. yes, democrats want to reduce economic freedoms; but republicans want to reduce social freedoms. Republican party is trying to push religion into government, continue to discriminate against gays, increase government spendings on defense, continue war on drugs, ban various consensual economic activities as long as they are sexual economic activities, eviscerate the first (yes, the one that comes before the second) amendment, etc.

Republicans don't want small government. they want a big government that spends money on their favorite projects. Republicans are not for freedoms -- they are for freedoms they want for themselves, and against freedoms they don't care about.

get a friggin' clue.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
In american the so-called "liberals" have become the authoritarian party. Any party that wants to ban cigs, raise taxes, ban gun ownership, over-regulate cars, over-regulate business, and abolish private land ownership is one step away from communist russia. I don't think this is true at all, but I suspect a ban on cigarettes is one thing the Soviets would never have tolerated. Maybe communism would have ended a few decades earlier if they had tried it.

[Victor Danilchenko]

crackmonkey

Victor - give me example of how conservatives today embrace the positions of liberals decades ago...Segregation. Suffrage. Civil rights. Racial marriage restrictions. Government sponsorship of higher education (in the form of subsidized loans). Greater government transparency and accountability (remember Kent protest during Vietnam)? Social-engineering tax manipulation, even...

Not all of the changes I listed above will be universally agreed to be progressive; but most of the socially progressive changes that the conservatives now publicly embrace, were forced by liberals in the past.

And if you claim that conservatives oppose progress - how do you define 'progress'?A change for the better. Sometimes, what is "better" is very clear -- such as universal suffrage or de-segregation.

In what way have conservatives been wrong consitsently, yet liberals have been proved right?Liberals have continuously pushed for increase in social freedoms we enjoy; these changes I would say are clearly progressive. Liberals have also been pushing for greater government participation in various aspects of social and economic life -- and whether you consider these changes progressive or not, conservatives have certainly swung quite a way in that direction from their past positions (as per my remark on what sort of "big government" each party wants). Today's economic conservatives are 40-years-ago economic liberals...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

First of all, you overstate democratic (don't confuse it with liberal) position. By no stretch of imagination can even the democratic party be compared to USSR -- and there are plenty of liberals who are for freedom much more than democrats.

That being said, you are being ridiculously biased. yes, democrats want to reduce economic freedoms; but republicans want to reduce social freedoms. Republican party is trying to push religion into government, continue to discriminate against gays, increase government spendings on defense, continue war on drugs, ban various consensual economic activities as long as they are sexual economic activities, eviscerate the first (yes, the one that comes before the second) amendment, etc.

Republicans don't want small government. they want a big government that spends money on their favorite projects. Republicans are not for freedoms --
et a friggin' clue.

Why do you assume I am a republican? And when have republicans tried to eviscerate the 1st amendment?

How is increased spending on defense against the idea of social freedom?

And I disagree republicans are trying to push religion into government. Religion has always been in government, republicans are trying to preserve the role of religion in government.


they are for freedoms they want for themselves, and against freedoms they don't care about.

Thats true for both parties. More so for the "liberals".

[crackmonkey]

Liberals are against a whole slew of personal freedoms that affront their constituents; gun rights, tobacco, 'hate' speech (which can be construed to be anything opposing liberal thought), penalties for using SUVs (and motorized vehicles in general), restrictions on using personal land...
Not to say that conservatives don't have their embarrassing shortcomings as well, but the issue isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

Why do you assume I am a republican?Because your previous lunatic rantings sounded like those of a typical authoritarian republican.

And when have republicans tried to eviscerate the 1st amendment?Whenever is suits them. How about porn? How about burning the flag? How about Ashcroft's many fascinating antics?

How is increased spending on defense against the idea of social freedom?it's not; it's against the oft-proclaimed republican value of small government.

And I disagree republicans are trying to push religion into government. Religion has always been in government, republicans are trying to preserve the role of religion in government.No,. religion has largely been pushed out, and republicans now want to bring it back in.

Thats true for both parties.My point exactly. You cannot simply say that liberals or democrats are anti-freedom etc.

More so for the "liberals".I disagree; but even had i agreed, the differende would be small and quantitative, certainly not enough to justify adopting the attitude you have displayed.

[Victor Danilchenko]

crackmonkey

Liberals are against a whole slew of personal freedoms that affront their constituents; gun rightstrue; but speak to some actual liberal liberals (think Green 'power to the people' folks), and you will hear rather different answer from the one democrats usually give. I, for example, am strongly in defense of 2nd amendment, while being very much a liberal. My co-worker, another Green, says that guns should only be banned when the government is willing to apply the same ban to itself.

tobacco,they are? Since when do democrats want to ban tobacco? Now restricting smoking is a different matter -- smoke affects everyone around, restricting smoking in public places is a defense of individual rights.

'hate' speech (which can be construed to be anything opposing liberal thought),Many people on both sides of the fence want to ban the speech they dislike. This is not an exclusive province of democrats, they simply dislike different things from republicans.

penalties for using SUVs (and motorized vehicles in general), restrictions on using personal land...Arguably true... read on.

Not to say that conservatives don't have their embarrassing shortcomings as well, but the issue isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.I deliberately over-stated the case. :)

My point was to show that the common conservative association of conservative position with the defense of freedom is BS, and also to remind people what liberalism is about and what it gave us. No, I don't really think conservatism to be useless; but i do think that on the balance, liberalism offers more -- it's active, while conservatism is reactive.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

Because your previous lunatic rantings sounded like those of a typical authoritarian republican.



Please, this is ********. I am adamantly anti-authoritarian.

Whenever is suits them. How about porn? How about burning the flag? How about Ashcroft's many fascinating antics?

Its the same as when leftists proclaim they want to ban "hate speech".

it's not; it's against the oft-proclaimed republican value of small government.

No its not, big military does not equal big government.

No,. religion has largely been pushed out, and republicans now want to bring it back in.

How has it been pushed out? how do they want to bring it in?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


But I think that's exactly what it has just demonstrated, it is principled. You may not agree with them, but I don't think you can accuse the US of not having principles. As to not being answerable, of course they are. They're called elections.

a_u_p is pissed because we are only answerable to ourselves and our constitution. The "world" doesn't get a vote.

B-O-O...H-O-O... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
a_u_p is pissed because we are only answerable to ourselves and our constitution.

Well, the former, certainly. The latter is sadly becoming more and more questionable.

[Richard G]

Liberals are against a whole slew of personal freedoms that affront their constituents; gun rights, tobacco, 'hate' speech (which can be construed to be anything opposing liberal thought), penalties for using SUVs (and motorized vehicles in general), restrictions on using personal land...

Add to the list frowning... http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/5576044.htm


This will of course require legistlation creating "frown police".

Liberals are the biggest enemy to my personel freedoms since the British Monarchy was thrown out.

[DavidJames]

"Liberals are the biggest enemy to my personal freedoms since the British Monarchy was thrown out."

Show me a liberal equivalent of the Patriot Act, version 1 and Version 2 and then, maybe you will have shown conservatives and liberals as equal threats. Your link is an over zealous example of how local controls can be abused. Conservatives are in favor of local government control over things aren't they?

I am a realist, I vote for the person/party that both come close to representing my views and (and this is key), has a chance of getting elected. I have mostly liberal views, but some libertarian and a few conservative views. Voting then becomes a compromise.

One example of a choice is between banning political protest (flag burning) or banning hate speech. I will choose banning hate speech. You may choose differently.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames

One example of a choice is between banning political protest (flag burning) or banning hate speech. I will choose banning hate speech. You may choose differently.

Burning the flag can be construed as "hate speech".

[Gregor]

Crimany folks - there are enough straw man arguments going on.

What with Victor assuming all conservatives are Pat Robertson clones and Tony thinking all liberals are Jerry Brown socialists, what's a person to think.

Look - the terms are too broad to really be debated logically.

The only political term that is specific enough to analyze is libertarian. That party has a more definitive policy statement than 'republican' or 'democrat.' The major parties have extremes on both ends. What you have to decide is are the negatives of your party tolerable for the positives that you trade for.

And parties keep moving towards the middle to increase their share of middle of the road voters.

Personally, since I think: (i) excessive taxation, (ii) political correctness, (iii) social engineering through government intervention and frivilous lawsuits, and (iv) a huge federal, state, and local government is a colossal waste of money, the down side to the democratic party is too great.

[Skeptic]

I don't resent the US being the most powerful country in the world,

Of course you do.

I just resent that it acts like, since no one can make it answer to them, it doesn't have to answer to anyone.

So you don't resent the US is powerful in principle, you just resent the fact that it actually USES this power instead of submitting to somebody else before it does so.

The truth is, the US IS accountable: to its citizens, and more generally, to other freedom-loving people anywhere, who influence its public opinion from abroad.

You rather have the US be acocuntable to a corrupt (and rather disgusting) body of unelected beuroctratic hypocrites who usually represent dictatorial regimes, known as the UN--or some other "world court" of that nature.

We can be glad the US is not Stalin, but that does not obviate the need for it to be principled.

The US IS principled (if imperfect in the application of these principles.) Americans are widely known for loving freedom and democracy and supporting it against opression and dictatorship--that's what they did, essentially, ever since WWI, when the US first played a significant role on the world stage.

Sure, there have been exceptions to this rule, but overall, there is no country in the world with a record of doing good that even remotely approaches the US's record. It's just not principles YOU like, that's all.

And picking out a few choice quotes from leftists makes as much use as accusing every religious person of being another Billy Graham.

But it's NOT "choice quotes". It's perfectly representative the kind of nonsense we've been subjected to repeatedly from the left ever since it was suspected the US will attack Iraq.

As usual, these predictions were given with an air of absolute authority, with a contemptous sneer for the simple-minded right-wingers who "don't understand the complexity of the situation", and as usual, they were completely wrong on just about every point.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:

Historically, conserevatives have been wrong about pretty much everything. Today's conservatives largely hold the political views of the liberals a few decades ago.

The 1980's were dominated by conservative thinking in the field of economic policy. So much so that the British Labour party had to morph into "New Labour" and kill off a few sacred cows to become palatable again, while Bill Clinton said "The era of big government is over". If you harbour any doubts as to whether this was a desireable development compare the British and American economies with those of France and Germany, where the social economy and a generous welfare state are still extant.

[Mike B.]

There is a bit of deja vu here.

If one recalls the left in Europe strenously objected to Reagan putting Pershing missles in Western Europe in the 1980s in response to the Soviets putting SS-20s in Eastern Europe in their hopes of turning Western Europe into "Finland."

Reagan was, "a cowboy," "simplistic," "war-monger"...

(sound familiar?)

People were lying in the roads trying to stop the missles from being deployed. Luckily the mainstream left like Helmut Schmidt in Germany allowed the missles to be deployed.

Guess what happened?
The Soviets backed down. They signed the IMF treaty that removed all of those mid-range missles from Europe, and shortly their system imploded and allowed people in "New Europe" to control their own destiny.

So I am still waiting for the apologies for opposing Reagan on that...;)

[Kiri]

Nope.

Okay, we've destroyed the Baathist regime, and Saddam's history.

Now what?

Are we really gonna create a modern, terrorist-free, pro-Western democracy in Iraq?

We've done a good thing, and bought ourselves a truckload of trouble by doing it. We now need to act like our rhetoric means a damn, but I don't trust our leaders' intentions, and I put no faith in the line of reasoning that brought us to this point.

Intentions and motives are important, regardless of the eventual goals.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kiri
Nope.



Intentions and motives are important, regardless of the eventual goals.


Why? If the goal is achieved, and the situation ends with a positive result, why should motivation matter?

[jj]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Historically, conserevatives have been wrong about pretty much everything. Today's conservatives largely hold the political views of the liberals a few decades ago. As someone said, all it takes for a liberal to become a conservative without changing any views, is to wait a couple of decades. :D

How can you win, if by the very definition of the political segment you partake in, you oppose progress? Until we achieve a near-perfect sociopolitical state where change will necessarily be a change for the worse, liberals will be right more often than conservatives.

Err, Victor, I hold very similar views to what I held 20 years ago, and I've been forcibly moved from "conservative" to "marxist leftist dupe moron" according to some of the people on this board, so I fear I'm a serious counterexample.

Of course, I'm still a moderate rightist, but what passes for the right in the USA these days thinks a moderate rightist worships Marx. Of course, they don't even LISTEN to the moderate right, because it won't kneel and pray to their leaders (and no, I don't mean deific ones) for forgiveness for being "too liberal".

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony
In american the so-called "liberals" have become the authoritarian party. Any party that wants to ban cigs, raise taxes, ban gun ownership, over-regulate cars, over-regulate business, and abolish private land ownership is one step away from communist russia.

Whoopie, which party is it that regulates "vice" related things? Hint, mate, it ain't the Democrats.

Your straw may is simply dishonest. Perhaps you should go spend some time talking to human beings and find out what people to the left of you (which from what you say would appear to be about 99% of the universe) really do say.

Then come back to us with a documented, statistically analyzed summary.

[jj]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Liberals are against a whole slew of personal freedoms that affront their constituents; gun rights, tobacco, 'hate' speech (which can be construed to be anything opposing liberal thought), penalties for using SUVs (and motorized vehicles in general), restrictions on using personal land...
Not to say that conservatives don't have their embarrassing shortcomings as well, but the issue isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.


'Scuse me, but your straw man is showing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


Whoopie, which party is it that regulates "vice" related things? Hint, mate, it ain't the Democrats.



Most of your post was tripe, but you got a point with this quote.

I agree, the republicans do want to regulate more "vice" things. It doesnt really matter to me because no matter how many "vices" are regulated, im still going to do what I want.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Tony



Why? If the goal is achieved, and the situation ends with a positive result, why should motivation matter?

Because our motivations greatly affect the choices we make. Look, we started on this "War on Terrorism" because of 9/11: it took us to Afghanistan. Then suddenly, the (publicly stated) motive changes: it's all about WMDs now, and we're in Iraq (which we STILL have not believably established as having had anything to do with 9/11). Forget all about bin Laden, Bush now has other fish to fry.
Do you take my meaning? "Fighting terrorism" is a noble motive, but I don't see how our actions are in support of that motive. I therefore suspect it's not the real motive.

Oh, of course... "Liberating the oppressed peoples of Iraq".
We'll see how well that one sticks.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Kiri


Because our motivations greatly affect the choices we make. Look, we started on this "War on Terrorism" because of 9/11: it took us to Afghanistan. Then suddenly, the (publicly stated) motive changes: it's all about WMDs now, and we're in Iraq (which we STILL have not believably established as having had anything to do with 9/11). Forget all about bin Laden, Bush now has other fish to fry.
Do you take my meaning? "Fighting terrorism" is a noble motive, but I don't see how our actions are in support of that motive. I therefore suspect it's not the real motive.

Oh, of course... "Liberating the oppressed peoples of Iraq".
We'll see how well that one sticks.


That didnt answer the question. Let me re-phrase it. If we accomplish what we wanted, while changing the world for the better. Why should the motivation for our choices matter?

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Tony



Why? If the goal is achieved, and the situation ends with a positive result, why should motivation matter?

Consider this

13. September 1900
Anna Schicklgruber strangled her little son to death because the damn brat wouldn't stop crying.

Terrible, isn't it?

But hey she didn't really, the little guy turns out to become Adolf Hitler.

Suddenly it's "Oh if she only had killed him..."

Motives matter because we can't predict the outcome.

Zee

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Lisa

If you're the one getting my husband into bar fights, you and I are going to have a long, long talk.

Not guilty yerhonour!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DavidJames
[BShow me a liberal equivalent of the Patriot Act [/B]

Always with the patriot act. Its the new whipping boy. It has a bad enough reputation due to ignorance and political shilling that it can be used in such a fashion. Sad.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


a_u_p is pissed because we are only answerable to ourselves and our constitution. The "world" doesn't get a vote.

B-O-O...H-O-O... :rolleyes:

No, that the US is not answerable for the actions it takes on the rest of the world. All we can do is hope for the best.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony



Why? If the goal is achieved, and the situation ends with a positive result, why should motivation matter?

Because all of a sudden we are talking about chaos, and hoping that out of these acts that may or may not be principled, some will achieve good. Sounds like an excellent recipe for a descent into anarchy.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by ceo_esq
It's not clear on what you are basing your "if ... then" assumptions in the post above, but pretty clearly you haven't drawn them from historical experience

For example, a significant U.S. military presence has remained in Germany, Japan and Italy ever since the end of World War II. For a considerable time following the war, “power wielding bodies” installed by the United States and its allies existed in Germany and Japan. At least in practice, Marshall Plan dollars were doled out to American companies on a preferential basis (spurring a postwar economic boom).

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether all this constituted good policy after World War II and whether the same things ought to occur with respect to Iraq. I would simply note that according to your logic, America's postwar conduct indicates that the Second World War was waged “as part of full spectrum domination” and “for commercial gain”. I conclude from this that your assumptions are faulty and that, even if the same things are observed in postwar Iraq, they cannot establish post hoc that the Iraq war was fought for domination or economic gain.

Also, that the United States and the United Kingdom will abide by UN decisions is practically a foregone conclusion. Only the Security Council renders binding decisions, and for obvious reasons the Security Council has never made, and presumably never will make, a decision not supported by the United States and the United Kingdom.

Finally, I would also point out that in the near term, the lion’s share of reconstruction-related contracts in Iraq will be paid for by U.S. taxpayers, rather than by the Iraqi people. I assume that your remarks concerning contracts “awarded and paid for by the people of Iraq” were not intended to apply to such contracts.
.

You claim that my 'if...then' scenarios were not based on historical experience. You are entitled to imagine that is the case but unfortunately you are factually incorrect. To support your claim you raise what happened after the second world war. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has little, if any, correspondence with WWII and the comparison is therefore essentialy false for a number of reasons.

Can I just suggest that America conveniently left forces in Europe after WWII primarily for its own self interest and is not a decent reason to do so in the future. Those bases have been used for may reasons including as floating aircraft carriers to act as early warning sites so that America rather than Europe would be more effectively protected from any potential merely supports my 'if...then' scenarios.

That the doctrine of preferentially giving contracts to American companies post WWII had a beneficial effect on American companies and therefore on America there is no doubt. Can I suggest that giving contracts to companies from the countries involved might have had an even better effect on the indigenous economies. Can I respectively suggest that while self interested bias worked for America many times in the past that is not a good reason to continue to impose the same doctrine on others at every opportunity.

As such I do not agree that many of the things that happened after World War II such as the advantage the US took of the British position is a decent model for the post war situation in Iraq. My 'if...then' scenarios remain valid.

Secondly, few if any of the primary reasons given for starting the war have been substantiated to date or are unique to Iraq and Sadam Hussein. For example no WOMD have been discoved to date. That is one of the reasons why much of the world believe that the war was started for American commercial and strategic objectives and little that has happened to date has contradicted that view.

Thirdly, there was a UN supported process in operation to see if Iraq actually had WOMD prior to the start of the war. That internationally supported effort was thwarted by the US and the UK to the detriment of world peace and international law.

Fourthly, the UK and US started the war against the expressed view of other members of the Security Council that a justification had not properly been made at that time. In addition there is no UN resolution explicitly permitting military action. In the opinion of many intenational law experts the war is illegal and the US and the UK have damaged the UN and shown contempt for international law. How can we tell other countries to obey any laws without obeying them ourselves?

Fifthly, America previously forced a dictator onto the people of Iran for its own commercial and strategic interests leading ultimately to the fundamentalists in charge of Iran today. Once agan America's actions related to the supply and control over oil in that country and in its own and its companys' economic and strategic self interest.

Finally America only directly entered WWII after its own strategic and economic interests were specifically attacked. The fact that a dictator with WOMD was actually invading other countries and was engaged in abusing those people was not, interestingly enough, in itself not a reason for America to engage in regime change. That only happened when American strategic and commercial interests were directly attacked.

In this way the war in Iraq is very similar. After all America is in desperate need of a secure supply of oil and having military bases in Iraq or the ability to base forces there at will would be very useful c.f. the fracas with Turkey which initially denied American forces access to their soil.

Given America's track record in subverting democratic groups around the world such as that in Iran and in supporting dictators and terrorists in their murderous campaigns against ther own people such as Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, General Pinochet, the Contras and the Shah of Iran, its track record of vetoing humanitarian resolutions at the UN such as those relating to Apartheid and Iraq, its actions against international norms on the environment and the law, is it any wonder that the people of the world are so cynical about American motives.

Incidently our politicians have a good laugh when America regularly offers Turkey membership of the European Union to further American strategic interests and the recent intervention by Bush in Northern Ireland caused much more laughter when Bush called the people of the North, Northern Irelanders and the White House press corp wore passes giving the address of the meeting as Belfast, Ireland. Such fundamental miscomprehension about what happens in the world outside the US appears to be a characteristic of the Bush admninistration's foreign policy and imposing American companies on Iraq without any Iraqi input and against the wishes of the so called 'coalition' partners simply confirms such cynicism rather than allays it as would ideally be the case.

You also claim that the US and the UK will abide by UN resolutions as practically a foregone conclusion. If that is the case they would have sought formal backing for their war. They effectively ignored the UN and the other members of the Security Council and as such have damaged the international framework of our world. One wonders why, with all the thinly veiled contempt in which Bush holds the UN he does not simply leave that ineffectual body.

You claim that the lion's share of reconstruction related contracts will be paid for by the US taxpayers. I have never heard that announced by any official American source before and note that you did not support it with a link to any official site.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by EJ Armstrong:

Incidently our politicians have a good laugh when America regularly offers Turkey membership of the European Union to further American strategic interests and the recent intervention by Bush in Northern Ireland caused much more laughter when Bush called the people of the North, Northern Irelanders and the White House press corp wore passes giving the address of the meeting as Belfast, Ireland.

When, and indeed how, could the US offer Turkey membership of the EU?

UK politicians have a good laugh at Bush? Considering their deputy PM is John Prescott, their mirth at the expense of Bush is disingenuous.

How did these same politicians react when Sinn Fein took an active part in the Irish "anti-war" movement?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane CostelloWhen, and indeed how, could the US offer Turkey membership of the EU?
It appears you haven't been listening to Chris Patten the Conservative MP who became the last Governor of Hong Kong. It was his comment on the BBC and relayed to the nation thereby. He made the comment as a joke at the expense of the activity of the Americans.UK politicians have a good laugh at Bush? Considering their deputy PM is John Prescott, their mirth at the expense of Bush is disingenuous.
You might like to reread what I actually posted Shane. What exactly are you suggesting here? That because you choose to laugh at John Prescott it is somehow not kosher to laugh at George Bush when he doesn't know what to call the people in the country he visits or that when one has a buffoon in ones own ranks one cannot laugh at another buffoon? I appears that you don't seem to realise that Labour MPs laugh at John Prescott all the time and apparently he doesn't give a monkeys. I am also sure tha George Bush doesn't give a monkeys that he is laughed at all the time and I do believe by many Americans as well.How did these same politicians react when Sinn Fein took an active part in the Irish "anti-war" movement? I have absolutely no idea Shane. Do you? If not, why don't you ask them yourself? What exactly is your point? It is not very clear.

Personally I always think it funny for a political party representing an organistation which refuses to get rid of its arms stashes firstly to join in an anti-war movement and then to choose to meet the instigator of the war. At least it made me laugh. Likewise I also note that rather than launch a war against the self same terrorists George Bush chose to have talk with the party that represents them. I note that the members of the political party who met him have personally been accused of ordering the killing of people in Northern Ireland and that the terrorist organisation they helped run killed children and an innocent mother who simply tried to help an injured British soldier. A nice savoury bunch to sup with are they not? But then as Churchill said - to Jaw Jaw is always better than to War War. Its a pity that dictum is not followed more consistently but it appears that while GW knows about the oil in Iraq he has yet to be told about the lignite reserves of the Northern Irelanders. I guess the terrorists are hoping he never finds out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Always with the patriot act. Its the new whipping boy. It has a bad enough reputation due to ignorance and political shilling that it can be used in such a fashion. Sad.

No, it has a bad reputation because it's probably the single biggest threat to freedom passed in recent years.

[Victor Danilchenko]

jj

Err, Victor, I hold very similar views to what I held 20 years ago, and I've been forcibly moved from "conservative" to "marxist leftist dupe moron" according to some of the people on this board, so I fear I'm a serious counterexample.I will only admit you as a counter-example if you divulge who thinks you to be a marxist dupe. Their initials wouldn't be JK or some synonym thereof, would they?..

Of course, they don't even LISTEN to the moderate right, because it won't kneel and pray to their leaders (and no, I don't mean deific ones) for forgiveness for being "too liberal".there you go.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

I agree, the republicans do want to regulate more "vice" things. It doesnt really matter to me because no matter how many "vices" are regulated, im still going to do what I want.that's exactly what I am talking about. You refuse to recognize GOP authoritarian tendencies because their pet restrictions don't bother you; so you divide the political landscape into "bad" and "good" simply according to whose policies bother you personally more.

[Edited to add]
That's as bad as saying that segregation of sffrage or gay rights don't matter because you aren't black/female/gay.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

that's exactly what I am talking about. You refuse to recognize GOP authoritarian tendencies because their pet restrictions don't bother you; so you divide the political landscape into "bad" and "good" simply according to whose policies bother you personally more.

They won't bother you, until you get busted. Then, when you are labelled a 'criminal', that's the end of the line.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

That didnt answer the question. Let me re-phrase it. If we accomplish what we wanted, while changing the world for the better. Why should the motivation for our choices matter?Because in that case improving the world is merely incidental to you accomplishing what you wanted; which is to say, your motivations matter because unacceptable motivations that accidentally resulted in a desirable outcome, aren't sure to result anything of the sort in the future. So, as a matter of policy, we shouldn't accept undesirable motivations, even if doing so occasionally resulted in a desirable outcome.

The method matters. There has to be a solid causal link between the method and the outcome. As a matter of long-term perspective, the method is the only thing that matters. The motivations are equivalent to the method in this case -- motivations are acceptable only if there is a causal link between them and the desired outcome (but of course this is not a sufficient criterion, only the necessary one).

[Clancie]

The U.S. policies (under Bush, who historians will argue, didn't "win" the election anyway) have totally undermined the work and power of the United Nations. They have destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq and caused a shortage of food and water, one that reportedly is causing a health crisis for Iraqis.

The "Bush Doctrine" allowed thousands of priceless artifacts of world civilization to be destroyed while preserving Iraqi oil resources. They continue to display no understanding of the nature of "terrorism", the Palestinian situation, or how bombing an Arab counry will not end terrorism and, if Mid East policies don't change in other ways, probably has only encouraged it.

The U.S. military killed thousands and wounded thousands more. They found neither Saddam Hussein nor any weapons of mass destruction (and in the process destroyed some of the record-keeping previously done by the United Nations on low grade uranium in Iraq). They have no idea where most of the top Iraqi leaders are now, or if any potential WMD have been stolen or given to others.

We still have not shown a plan for a peaceful transition to a new Iraq, but it seems highly unlikely (given our enmity with the Shites in Iran) that we will want the Sh'ite majority running a country that has these rich oil reserves. (And wasn't that one major reason the U.S. looked the other way about Saddam--or outright gave him our support--for so many years?)

Apologize? I hope I'll be proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. (Anyone remember the "democracy" we brought to Afghanistan? How's it doing?)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You claim that my 'if...then' scenarios were not based on historical experience. You are entitled to imagine that is the case but unfortunately you are factually incorrect. To support your claim you raise what happened after the second world war. Unfortunately the war in Iraq has little, if any, correspondence with WWII and the comparison is therefore essentialy false for a number of reasons.
I didn't claim that WWII has any particular correspondence with Gulf War II. Any comparison is strictly your own interpolation. My intention was to note that WWII provides historical counterexamples to several of your assumptions. Your post assumed as true, for example, that U.S. forces will not remain in previously hostile territory, and U.S. companies will not gobble up postwar contracts, unless a war was waged for domination and/or gain. I merely pointed out that this logic did not hold true for WWII; therefore the assumption must have a formal flaw in it and should be revised. That’s all; it doesn’t matter from a formal point of view how different WWII and Gulf War II are from each other, or whether U.S. conduct after WWII was good or bad precedent.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
After all America is in desperate need of a secure supply of oil and having military bases in Iraq or the ability to base forces there at will would be very useful c.f. the fracas with Turkey which initially denied American forces access to their soil.On what do you base the statement “America is in desperate need of a secure supply of oil”? The United States has increasingly diversified its sources of oil since the 1970s. Significantly, America is much less dependent now on Middle Eastern oil than it was at the time of Desert Storm. I note that Western Europe has been less successful than the United States at reducing its reliance on Arab oil (source (http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/reports/energy/02summer/oilimports.htm)), and oil surely has a greater influence on, say, French foreign policy in the Middle East than it does on U.S. foreign policy.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You also claim that the US and the UK will abide by UN resolutions as practically a foregone conclusion. If that is the case they would have sought formal backing for their war. They effectively ignored the UN and the other members of the Security Council and as such have damaged the international framework of our world.
The US and the UK did seek formal backing for the war. People disagree as to whether they actually received it, or needed to. But what does this have to do with whether or not the US and UK will abide by UN resolutions? Failing to get the resolution you wanted (or acting in the absence of a resolution) is not the same thing as violating a resolution you didn’t want. But on a more fundamental level, the US and UK always abide by Security Council resolutions because, thanks to their veto power, all Security Council resolutions must receive prior US and UK approval in order to take effect.
Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You claim that the lion's share of reconstruction related contracts will be paid for by the US taxpayers. I have never heard that announced by any official American source before and note that you did not support it with a link to any official site.
I’ll reiterate once more that I said this was true “in the near term” (let’s say for 2003).

The 2003 supplemental appropriations request (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/amendments/supplemental_3_25_03.pdf) approved by Congress allots, when all items are tallied up, about USD 2.5 billion for the earliest, most urgent reconstruction projects. Earlier, the Council on Foreign Relations in its report Iraq: The Day After (www.cfr.org/pdf/Iraq_DayAfter_TF.pdf) estimated that it would take about USD 3 billion initially in order adequately to fund Iraq's urgent reconstruction needs.

Consider also that (1) Iraqi-source funds (from frozen Iraqi assets abroad and the resumption of oil exports, primarily under oil-for-food) will not be immediately forthcoming and are expected to go largely to humanitarian relief rather than reconstruction and (2) reconstruction needs to begin now, rather than waiting for the international donor conference that will surely be organized in the coming weeks or months.

Given all of the foregoing, it seems safe to conclude that the majority of reconstruction taking place in Iraq for the first year is going to be executed pursuant to contracts paid out of Bush's 2003 supplemental appropriations – i.e. by U.S. taxpayers.

[jj]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

[Edited to add]
That's as bad as saying that segregation of sffrage or gay rights don't matter because you aren't black/female/gay.

Well, Vic, I think most of them are saying that suffrage and gay rights are BAD, in fact.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of their policies. I support Barry Goldwater's own words on this "straight? Who cares if they are straight, can they shoot straight?"

As to suffrage, I think they're clueless how they look, and I don't think I want them to understand that, yet.

[E.J.Armstrong]

I didn't claim that WWII has any particular correspondence with Gulf War II. Any comparison is strictly your own interpolation. My intention was to note that WWII provides historical counterexamples to several of your assumptions. Your post assumed as true, for example, that U.S. forces will not remain in previously hostile territory, and U.S. companies will not gobble up postwar contracts, unless a war was waged for domination and/or gain. I merely pointed out that this logic did not hold true for WWII; therefore the assumption must have a formal flaw in it and should be revised. That’s all; it doesn’t matter from a formal point of view how different WWII and Gulf War II are from each other, or whether U.S. conduct after WWII was good or bad precedent.
My post specifically discussed the position in Iraq and your example specifically introduced what happened after WWII. Can I suggest that the comparison was strictly yours rather than mine?

The purpose of my 'if...then' scenarios was to suggest a template for contrasting the actual performance of the 'Coalition' against their rhetoric. In other words - can we believe the claims of Bush and Blair? I suggest that, based on the initial results, we have little reason to do so. Hopefully that will change in the future but I am not putting any money on it.

I posted for example that 'If the war was not fought for commercial gain, then presumably we can confidently predict that no contracts will be awarded and paid for by the people of Iraq without them having full and democratic control over the placing of those contracts?' The fact that American companies disproportionately benefited after WWII does not invalidate that scenario because WWII was fought with American strategic and commercial gains in mind, amongst other things.

Likewise, in relation to the invasion of Iraq, if the invasion was really not for commercial gain why should any US or UK company preferentially get contracts when alternative Iraqi companies and/or personnel can carry out those same tasks? US companies pay tax to the US from their operations and the average American will benefit commercially from that money and from those jobs in a variety of ways. Unfortunately it appears that your 'logic' has a number of formal flaws in it and should be revised.

On what do you base the statement “America is in desperate need of a secure supply of oil”? The United States has increasingly diversified its sources of oil since the 1970s. Significantly, America is much less dependent now on Middle Eastern oil than it was at the time of Desert Storm. I note that Western Europe has been less successful than the United States at reducing its reliance on Arab oil (source), and oil surely has a greater influence on, say, French foreign policy in the Middle East than it does on U.S. foreign policy.
.
On many sources. I will cite only one. A person who has access to all the official US data. John Peterson a Republican Congressman claimed in March 2003 on www.house.gov/johnpeterson/press/030603NHAConference.htm that "From gasoline and diesel fuel to natural gas and home heating oil, we are facing skyrocketing energy prices as a result of our dependence on politically unstable nations for our energy supply. With America close to 60 percent dependent on foreign oil and producing only 2 percent of the world's oil supply, we must make it a top priority to wean America from foreign energy by developing promising alternative energy sources."

Most European states did not start a war for commercial and strategic gain in the Middle East. The security of their supply, particularly with enormous gas reserves in Russia being plumbed into the heart of Europe, would seem to be less threatening than America's massive and increasing import requirements.

The US and the UK did seek formal backing for the war. People disagree as to whether they actually received it, or needed to. But what does this have to do with whether or not the US and UK will abide by UN resolutions? Failing to get the resolution you wanted (or acting in the absence of a resolution) is not the same thing as violating a resolution you didn’t want. But on a more fundamental level, the US and UK always abide by Security Council resolutions because, thanks to their veto power, all Security Council resolutions must receive prior US and UK approval in order to take effect. It seems that a sizeable proportion of the worlds population do not believe that the US and the UK sought a formal backing for the war in Iraq. The US and the UK did not have the courage to submit a formal resolution to the Security Council in a decision making session. In invading Iraq they did so against the clearly voiced wishes of some veto weilding members of the Security Council and in the current opinion of many international legal experts the invasion was illegal. The balsawood crutch of the difference between acting in the absence of a sanction, when such is needed before invading another country and acting in defiance of a resolution reflects the thinly veiled contempt in which international law appears to be held by the current US and UK administrations. Fortunately much of the rest of the world appears to recognise the concerns expressed by Kofi Annan and the action which thwarted a UN supported WOMD inspection programme. Bizarrely the self same inspectors may now be allowed the time they previously asked for but were denied because of the need to 'rush' to war in order to find that damn elusive Pimpernel/WOMD.

I’ll reiterate once more that I said this was true “in the near term” (let’s say for 2003). As I understand it from the document you cite much of the Iraq money will be spent primarily with American companies to the resultant betterment of the American economy. In effect, the contracts are a direct subsidy to American industry from Federal funds. Was the tendering process fully open or did some companies with close associations with Bush and Cheney get preferential treatment? Hmmm.

If the statements of the administration in Washington were reflected in the field then surely that money would be allocated for the Iraqis to spend as they see fit - not doled out by America for America to American companies. Naturally every country has its own national interest at heart but it is hypocritical for some to accuse others of self interest while practising self interest themselves. American arms, oil and construction industries will gain commercially from the war to an enormous extent as laid out in the document you cited and only time may show the world the true extent of the commercial and strategic gains obtained from invading Iraq.

The document you cited is also very instructive in that a significant element of the funds is allocated to building facilities in Guantanamo bay so that further alleged terrorist suspects from the continuing war can be held outwith the US constitution and where they will not be subject to US norms for legal trial. Other funds are interestingly for giving to undemocratic regimes such as Pakistan.

What was the war fought for again? Ah yes - democracy was in there somewhere - wasn't it? Do I detect a hint of deep cynicism in giving hard cash to undemocratic states to keep their noses clean in a war supposedly fought to bring democracy to another undemocratic regime? I do believe I do. But then politics is a dirty business and no doubt in a few years time no doubt we will see poor democracy dusted off and wheeled out again as a reason to attack Pakistan when the current military regime becomes too uppity. 'With friends like the US and the UK... 'as Saddam said with a shrug of his shoulders - just after his restaurant went AWOL '...Oi Vey. Maybe I should just have sent them back the biological and chemical WOMD they sold me?'

When we see Iraq run by Iraqi politicians selected by Iraqis and Iraqis in full control of their country's resources and their own future of whatever shape they want and of the money supplied to repair the damage caused by the US and the UK perhaps we might begin to believe the rhetoric. Unfortunately the current and not totally inclusive regime building process is already showing signs of fraying at the edges with one of the more important groups proclaiming their unhappiness with the process. It is generally not possible to impose a political structure onto an unreceptive people in perpituity - and talking about imposing democracy on unreceptive people - who actually 'won' the vote in Florida again?

Oh yes, the brother of the State governor with the help of judges appointed by his father and with his electoral officer responsible for 'counting' the 'votes'. And who was it that started the war in Iraq? The very same 'winner'. And who was the 'victor' funded by in his quest for the office which allowed him to attack Iraq? Ah yes, (the beauty and symmetry of it all) by some of the companies benefiting from the contracts in Iraq.

Is this a modern case of one undemocratic regime changing another undemocratic regime or what?

'Progress' - it's a gas.