Iraq's New Government

[Dancing David]

I know that we have strategic reasons for opposing an Islamic Republic in Iraq, I am not debating those.

But if we stand for freedom, democracy and self-determination. How can we tell the Iraquis, it is okay to have your cool new democracy, as long as it isn't Islamic?

Ironic , huh?



Isofunkotropic

[Monketey Ghost]

And we tell these people the US isn't anti-Islam. What else can they possibly conclude?

[aerocontrols]

I support liberty.

Theocracy (of any type) isn't liberty.

I suggest you should have added another choice to your poll:

Freedom to have Saddam back.

MattJ

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I support liberty.

Theocracy (of any type) isn't liberty.

I suggest you should have added another choice to your poll:

Freedom to have Saddam back.

MattJ

But thats the whole point, why would we oppose theocracy if that is the form of goverment that they choose?
We support pleanty of other governments that have all sorts of screwed up stuuf, they aren't liberty, but then we go after this one because it is Islam, no sense.
(Can't say i approve of theocracy, it is usually very oppresive.)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Dancing David


But thats the whole point, why would we oppose theocracy if that is the form of goverment that they choose?


Why would we oppose Saddam's return if that is the form of government that they choose?

[Malachi151]

While I oppose theocracy, I think its a no win sitution. We have to allow them to choose theocracy if they want because if we don't then fundamentlaist opposition will just grow, like it did in Iran with the Shah.

The problem in Iraq from the US perspective is that the two leading political groups are the Democratic Communists and the Islamic Fundamentlaists, and the US wants neither.

People don't give the Iraqis enough credit though. Up until Desert Strom Iraq was the most one of advanced countries in the Middle East with the best schools and many intellectual professionals. Its not some religious fanatic **** hole, well maybe it is now due to the 12 years of sanctions, but it wasn't at one time, and it was the heart of the growing secualrist movement in the Middle East until Desert Storm.

The real problem for he US is that the biggest Iraqi supporters of a secular government in Iraq are Marxist communists.

[DialecticMaterialist]

My answer is E, freedom within the limits of sanity. (Just like everyone in the world has, including the US.)


I oppose theocracy. The fact is democratic election and self-determination is not absolute. I don't even see the merit of self-determination in the first place(to me it just looks like a way to get around international/moral criticism).

There are supposed to be limits to a democracy, that's why we have a constitution. I imagine many Japanese people wanted fascism back after Japan fell, I don't think it would have been wise to give it to them though.

Iraq is I admit(and don't think anyone has denied) a moderate nation fof the Middle east. However look what it has to compare with.

Seriously why invade a country and liberate it, if it will just go back to theocracy?

And why let them choose if it's going to be a stupid decision, with bad long-term consequences that will force is to simply invade them again?

It's interesting how Malachi thinks theocracy will grow if not allowed to be established, ignoring the fact that it will probably grow more and entrench itself *IF* established.

The last thing the world needs is another bastion of fundamentalist opression in the Middle East.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Why would we oppose Saddam's return if that is the form of government that they choose?

Uh, no brainer. We fought the war to depose Saddam, and to free the choclate for the world.
I just find it ironic that our prez said that we were bringing freedom to the Iraqi's and then wants to dictate the form thier demoracy can take.
So maybe the war wasn't about freedom or liberty, just more presidential frosting on the war.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist



And why let them choose if it's going to be a stupid decision, with bad long-term consequences that will force is to simply invade them again?

The last thing the world needs is another bastion of fundamentalist opression in the Middle East.

Because that's what freedom and liberty are about, liberty is the freedom to make choices and live with the consequences. Freedom is freedom, I agree that we need rules but freedom is free to be stupid.


The last thing the world needs is another bastion of fundamentalist oppression in the White House.(Wink)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Because that's what freedom and liberty are about, liberty is the freedom to make choices and live with the consequences. Freedom is freedom, I agree that we need rules but freedom is free to be stupid.

No, there are limits. Freedom is not so much of a value that we allow it to interfere with the freedom of others. Freedom is not a blank check that allows you to violate human rights. Freedom is not served by setting up a system of opression and backwardsness.

In short, I value freedom, but enough to put in a theocracy? Nope.

And lets not forget there is more freedom, in the pursuit of freedom from theocracy not for theocracy.


The last thing the world needs is another bastion of fundamentalist oppression in the White House.

Yes I agree. I don't like homegrown fundies myself either. Most of them are not as bad as those of the ME though. Sure they can be useful, as fanaticism is always useful at times but generally with their anti-technoloy, anti-church state seperation, anti-abortion, superstitious creationist crap, I think them as costing more then they are worth right now.

But I don't understand what you are saying, just because our fundies should be removed we should let theirs take power?

That is creating more problems, not solutions.

[Malachi151]

It's interesting how Malachi thinks theocracy will grow if not allowed to be established, ignoring the fact that it will probably grow more and entrench itself *IF* established.

Well, I just think that its a no win situation, and that history has shown that exclusion of a group like that only makes them stronger.

Communism and Fundamentalism for the past 50 years is the perfect case.

Look at Vietnam. We tried installing TWO puppet rulers through "democratic" elections. BOTH FAILED. 80% of the people wanted Ho Chi Minh, and by not granting them what they wanted all they did was become more militant.

If a majority really wants an Islamic government, which I don't believe they do in the first place, but if they do, then if they don't get it they will just become militant and press for it.

If they DO get it then we can just keep close tabs on the country and make it clear that no human rights violations will be allowed, and let the people figure out for themselves that Fundamentalism is bad and then they can bring about change on their own. I'm saying let it the failure be on their own shoulders not ours.

If we don't grant the people what they want, any failure will be on our shoulders. If they are not ruled in a way that they want failure is emminant because they will not cooperate.

Before this war even started a wrote a "piece" on it that stated that the conclusion of the military campaign would represent the stage of the installment of Bao Dai in Vietnam. We are now at the per-Vietnam War phase of this operation.

What happens now will determine is a real Vietnam is produced out of the situation. The Vietnam War was a result of the people's rejection of "American" (puppet Diem) rule in the country.

The real war is yet to come in the whole affair. It can be avoided, by giving the people of Iraq what they want, whatever it is that they want.

Like I said, I don't think that the majority of people in Iraq want a Theocracy. They never have for 100 years. If they do, then let them have it, its their own issue to deal with and they will have only themselves to blame if they don't like it.

If they hold real free elections and they choose an Islamic Fundamentalist as ruler, then what can we do? Obviuosly the question is to hold real free election or teh fake electiosn like have been done everywhere for the past 50 years with CIA oversights that always result in failure.

Anyway, I think its a no win situation. The only positive outcome is if the people of Iraq don't want theocracy, and if that is the case then it's all fine in that regard.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well, I just think that its a no win situation, and that history has shown that exclusion of a group like that only makes them stronger.

Nonsense. Jews, Gnostics, Pagans all come to mind....

Communism and Fundamentalism for the past 50 years is the perfect case.

Communism never got big in the US. Only under special circumstance. Fundamentalist has hardly been "excluded".

For the most part, Communism is also dying, save in China where it was established. But even in China it is becoming more moderate.

Look at Vietnam. We tried installing TWO puppet rulers through "democratic" elections. BOTH FAILED. 80% of the people wanted Ho Chi Minh, and by not granting them what they wanted all they did was become more militant.

They were backed by established communist regimes. Also the US never fully committed to Vietnam.

If a majority really wants an Islamic government, which I don't believe they do in the first place, but if they do, then if they don't get it they will just become militant and press for it.

You have no evidence for this save a few questionable examples. The communist success in Vietnam can be due to a number of things, not merely exclusion.

If they DO get it then we can just keep close tabs on the country and make it clear that no human rights violations will be allowed,

In a Muslim theocracy?


and let the people figure out for themselves that Fundamentalism is bad and then they can bring about change on their own.

Or maybe they'll find a scapegoat? make up irrational reasons?

Not like the religious never do that.....

And after how long....decades of suffering when we just could have prevented it?


I'm saying let it the failure be on their own shoulders not ours.

Not entirely, because we allowed it when we could have stopped it.

I don't get your logic, basically you are saying if a group of people has the power and rescources to very much help another group, at little cost, they shouldn't help? That not helping because a "majority" disagrees is immoral/wrong?

I guess then that since most Japanese during world war two wanted the US to leave Japan fascist....we should have done it.

To me that is condemning a people to years of stangation and opression, to a reign of fanaticism and delusion. And I think allowing that to happen, allowing whatever "minority" to live under such conditions and allowing such a country to grow just to make problems for the rest of the world and the future is something more to blame someone for then trying to help and failing at it.

If we don't grant the people what they want, any failure will be on our shoulders. If they are not ruled in a way that they want failure is emminant because they will not cooperate.

So you are more concerned about "blame" then possible consequences of such a theocracy being established?

Before this war even started a wrote a "piece" on it that stated that the conclusion of the military campaign would represent the stage of the installment of Bao Dai in Vietnam. We are now at the per-Vietnam War phase of this operation.

Totally different enviroment. Vietnam as you know had support from China and the North. Iraq has no strong support and we are not as unpopular a force. Ho Chi Minh was a popular leader, Saddam Hussein was not. We are viewed by many Iraqis as saviors, not opressors.

What happens now will determine is a real Vietnam is produced out of the situation. The Vietnam War was a result of the people's rejection of "American" (puppet Diem) rule in the country.


Couldn't be communist propoganda, lack of american conviction, proximity to powerhouses like China, the fact that North Vietnam had a standing army, that the military was largely untrained draftees could it?

Also I imagine, and perhaps this is wild speculation, that the US army is far more efficient then it was in Vietnam. I also imagine guerilla campaigns are harder to pull off in a desert then in a jungle, I also imagine other enviromental differences are relevant as well.

The real war is yet to come in the whole affair. It can be avoided, by giving the people of Iraq what they want, whatever it is that they want.

The "real war"? Pure conjecture. Kind of like how many radicals promised intense door to door fighting, huge american causalties....another Vietnam.

Now we get more promises of another Vietnam....in the future. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Like I said, I don't think that the majority of people in Iraq want a Theocracy. They never have for 100 years.

You know this how?


If they do, then let them have it, its their own issue to deal with and they will have only themselves to blame if they don't like it.

So you are actually advocating theocracy....in order to avoid supposed "blame" and the much anticipated second Vietnam.


If they hold real free elections and they choose an Islamic Fundamentalist as ruler, then what can we do? Obviuosly the question is to hold real free election or teh fake electiosn like have been done everywhere for the past 50 years with CIA oversights that always result in failure.

Or we can make them draft a constitution, which includes separation of powers and church state separation like we did Japan. They can hold elections within a constitution.

Anyway, I think its a no win situation. The only positive outcome is if the people of Iraq don't want theocracy, and if that is the case then it's all fine in that regard.

So you are basically saying that theocracy is wrong here but right there?

I guess then that if the majority here want theocracy....we should just give it to them?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Uh, no brainer. We fought the war to depose Saddam...

Right-O


Originally posted by Dancing David
I just find it ironic that our prez said that we were bringing freedom to the Iraqi's and then wants to dictate the form thier demoracy can take.

This is also a no-brainer, in my opinion.

Which do you think is more important: Individual freedom or collective freedom? If the 60% majority Shia want a Shia Islamic state, then that's fine with you and to h#ll with the 20% Sunni Arab, 15% Sunni Kurd, and 5% 'other' minorities?

MattJ

[DialecticMaterialist]

Maybe if 75 percent vote to enslave the Kurds we should accept that as well.....

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Right-O




This is also a no-brainer, in my opinion.

Which do you think is more important: Individual freedom or collective freedom? If the 60% majority Shia want a Shia Islamic state, then that's fine with you and to h#ll with the 20% Sunni Arab, 15% Sunni Kurd, and 5% 'other' minorities?

MattJ

I did not say that at all, unless I am your sock puppet. And I did not state more than a case for irony can be made. Are you a little sensitive about your beliefs, or something?

I mean no offense, I think that had our prez just stated, "I don't like saddam, I am gonna go there , kick his butt and install a freindly government.", then I wouldn't be making a statement about irony at all. I'd be giving him kudos for his honesty and integrety.

Our government thinks it's cool to support pakistan, paragon of freedom, oh but we don't care that they are full of hate mongering madras, that constructive engagement in the war on terrorism.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I did not say that at all, unless I am your sock puppet. And I did not state more than a case for irony can be made. Are you a little sensitive about your beliefs, or something?

Thus I put in in the form of a question, rather than accusing you of saying it. I'm asking you about the nature of freedom.

It is only a case for irony if they in fact attempt to choose theocracy and we say 'no'. Thus far, neither we nor they have done so, though we might. Afghanistan is attempting to choose theocracy, and we are doing far too little to sway them, in my opinion. I would not consider a theocracy in Afghanistan a good thing, nor a victory for Afghan 'freedom' nor 'democracy'.

Originally posted by Dancing David
I mean no offense, I think that had our prez just stated, "I don't like saddam, I am gonna go there , kick his butt and install a freindly government.", then I wouldn't be making a statement about irony at all. I'd be giving him kudos for his honesty and integrety.

Our government thinks it's cool to support pakistan, paragon of freedom, oh but we don't care that they are full of hate mongering madras, that constructive engagement in the war on terrorism.

Are you serious? If Bush made that statement you would be happy with that? If 'friendly government' was his only goal, I would be outraged. Luckily, we're trying to do a little more than that, which involves building a free society that respects all views, where the candidate who loses can try again next time, rather than one man, one vote, one time - and then theocracy.

It's clear to me that if we were attempting to build a new Pakistan, as we are doing to Iraq, Musharraf and his form of government would be off the table. Luckily, we have a chance to make Iraq into something better. We have much less leverage over Musharraf. If one pays attention, one sees that Musharraf, while not a democrat, is also not a theocrat. The madrassas are his enemy as well.

MattJ

[Malachi151]

Maybe if 75 percent vote to enslave the Kurds we should accept that as well.....

Well I didn't think we were going to try and Americanize them? ;) That is what the Founding Fathers did afterall.

Nonsense. Jews, Gnostics, Pagans all come to mind....

I thought it was obvous that I was talking about majorities. Not minorities. If the Fundamentalists don't have majority support its a mute point.

Communism never got big in the US. Only under special circumstance. Fundamentalist has hardly been "excluded".

For the most part, Communism is also dying, save in China where it was established. But even in China it is becoming more moderate.

Totally not what I was talking about. Over the pat 50 years Communism and Fundmentalism has been reactionary movements to foreign invasion and foregin captialist opression. Every country outside the Soviet Block that went Communist did so in order to get rid of foreign contol of the coutnry. Remember that up until WWII most of the world was either a colony or an empire.

They were backed by established communist regimes. Also the US never fully committed to Vietnam.

Totally beside the point I am talking about condtions that came priro to the start of the war. The US was involved in Vietnam since the 1940s, it was a French colony from before the war.

You have no evidence for this save a few questionable examples. The communist success in Vietnam can be due to a number of things, not merely exclusion.

Umm... how about Iran...

I'm not talking about Commnist success I'm talking about opposition to the regiemes that were put in in South Vietnam. They were rejected on their own merits. Communism was just an effect, the regimes were the cause.

In a Muslim theocracy?

:p

Or maybe they'll find a scapegoat? make up irrational reasons?

Not like the religious never do that.....

And after how long....decades of suffering when we just could have prevented it?

All possible. We have 50 years of examples of the opposite side fo this coin though. Indonesia, Iran, Ba'athist Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba (prior to communist takeover), Nigeria. Just off the top of my head, all of those places have had American puppet leaders within the past 50 years all have caused nothing but trouble and most were overthrown.

I don't get your logic, basically you are saying if a group of people has the power and rescources to very much help another group, at little cost, they shouldn't help? That not helping because a "majority" disagrees is immoral/wrong?

Its worth a try, but if they people object then what can you do? You can't help people that don't want help. I say that Religion in America is bad, I want to help America, therefore I will install an atheist leaders that will "make the people see". I think that's what the Bolsheviks did eh? You can't make people accept something.

So you are more concerned about "blame" then possible consequences of such a theocracy being established?

Yes, in that if they blame us then all they will do is support Islam to overturn the government like in Iran.

Totally different enviroment. Vietnam as you know had support from China and the North. Iraq has no strong support and we are not as unpopular a force. Ho Chi Minh was a popular leader, Saddam Hussein was not. We are viewed by many Iraqis as saviors, not opressors.

Exactly, Ho Chi Minh was popular. What if some Islamic leader is aas popular as Ho Chi Minh was? What if 80% of the people want that leader you think they will accept rule from a US puppet instead? No way.

Couldn't be communist propoganda, lack of american conviction, proximity to powerhouses like China, the fact that North Vietnam had a standing army, that the military was largely untrained draftees could it?

Also I imagine, and perhaps this is wild speculation, that the US army is far more efficient then it was in Vietnam. I also imagine guerilla campaigns are harder to pull off in a desert then in a jungle, I also imagine other enviromental differences are relevant as well.

I'm not talking about the military aspect, I'm talking about the 20 years that lead up to the military aspect.

The "real war"? Pure conjecture. Kind of like how many radicals promised intense door to door fighting, huge american causalties....another Vietnam.

Now we get more promises of another Vietnam....in the future. Despite all evidence to the contrary.

If the people reject this leader and they then have a leader that they support and will fight for, then yes. See, now they thought they coudl get rid of Saddam and possibel get what they want. If they don't get what they want, then NEXT TIME, they WILL BE fighting for what they want. Now they wanted Saddam gone, if there is a next time it will be to put one fo their own into power people will fight for that.

You know this how?

From studying Iraqi history :p

So you are actually advocating theocracy....in order to avoid supposed "blame" and the much anticipated second Vietnam.

I'm saying whoever the people want is who the people should get.

Or we can make them draft a constitution, which includes separation of powers and church state separation like we did Japan. They can hold elections within a constitution.

Sure, sounds good. Whoever comes to power will do what they want anyway if it is the will of the people.

So you are basically saying that theocracy is wrong here but right there?

I guess then that if the majority here want theocracy....we should just give it to them?

I'm saying theocracy is wrong everywhere, but if people want it they will fight for it. The same applies here. If the American people want it bad enough we'll have Civil War or else go to theocracy. I don't see that happening, but if 50% or 60% of the population wanted a theocracy it would happen.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Are you serious? If Bush made that statement you would be happy with that? If 'friendly government' was his only goal, I would be outraged. Luckily, we're trying to do a little more than that, which involves building a free society that respects all views, where the candidate who loses can try again next time, rather than one man, one vote, one time - and then theocracy.

MattJ

I agree, no I would not be happy, no I said that I would give him kudos for honesty. I would like to believe that we are building a free society, that would be very cool.

However I hope that Bush is better than many previous presidents when it comes to that 'free society' thing. There is a long string of us being friends with dictators and deposing freely elected governments.

I think it is an admirable thing to fight evil, I just question the hyperbole that always accompanies it.

I still think we should dump pakistan as a lly, although there is always the case for contructive engagement.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Right-O




This is also a no-brainer, in my opinion.

Which do you think is more important: Individual freedom or collective freedom? If the 60% majority Shia want a Shia Islamic state, then that's fine with you and to h#ll with the 20% Sunni Arab, 15% Sunni Kurd, and 5% 'other' minorities?

MattJ

Um, this might be a test of my knowledge according to the disclaimer in your signature, but isn't this a case of individual freedom supporting collective freedom by ensuring the freedom of the minority groups to be minority groups? Majority rule doesn't equal collective freedom...

Btw I chose the Planet X option, as I don't see a theocracy being allowed to happen any time soon, but I also don't see the Shia majority or the Sunni Kurds being willing to work through those annoyingly anti-freedom aspects of Islam. Nor being ready to forgive the Sunni Arabs (and particularly the Ba'athists) quite yet.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Um, this might be a test of my knowledge according to the disclaimer in your signature, but isn't this a case of individual freedom supporting collective freedom by ensuring the freedom of the minority groups to be minority groups? Majority rule doesn't equal collective freedom...

If the freedoms of minority groups are protected, but he's supposing that the collective wishes to do away with personal liberty. Thus I'm asking him if collective freedom trumps individual freedom.

Originally posted by BillyTK

Btw I chose the Planet X option, as I don't see a theocracy being allowed to happen any time soon, but I also don't see the Shia majority or the Sunni Kurds being willing to work through those annoyingly anti-freedom aspects of Islam. Nor being ready to forgive the Sunni Arabs (and particularly the Ba'athists) quite yet.

I didn't pick any option, because it seems to me that the poll fails by not distinguising freedom for Iraq and freedom for Iraqis.

MattJ

[Luke T.]

This is one of the most fragile periods for any country to go through, and very few survive it well.

When a nation has been under an oppressive regime for an extended period of time, there usually aren't any surviving moderates to choose from. Those who haven't been executed have been polarized to the opposite extreme.

Democracy has a difficult time taking root in such poisonous soil. Add to the mix the influence of surrounding nations who each have their own interests in how things go, and you have Trouble. Capital T.

There is a power vacuum. And in the initial ecstacy of this release from oppression, the people are vulnerable to excitement and incitement.

And when the power collapses, everything else does, too. The economy, political stability, everyday predictability. Soon, the people will cry for a return to the old days, just out of a desire to return to something that at least feels familiar, not necessarily comfortable.

We now face this ugly reality. And so we must face and implement a necessary evil. And that is to write a Constitution for the people of Iraq, and to occupy the country long enough for things to stabilize, and to foster a moderate political environment, and oversee an election. We must run the outside agitators out of town.

This was my biggest concern prior to the war, and the one that caused me to have serious doubts about whether we should even get involved in this war. The long term committment of our country. We don't exactly have a great track record in that department.

I am not optimistic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I know that we have strategic reasons for opposing an Islamic Republic in Iraq, I am not debating those.

But if we stand for freedom, democracy and self-determination. How can we tell the Iraquis, it is okay to have your cool new democracy, as long as it isn't Islamic?

Ironic , huh?



Isofunkotropic

I think UCE made that point before the war.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I didn't think we were going to try and Americanize them? That is what the Founding Fathers did afterall.

Oh yeah good point. Maybe we should allow slavery everywhere because the founding father's had slaves.....

Red Herring.




I thought it was obvous that I was talking about majorities. Not minorities.If the Fundamentalists don't have majority support its a mute point.

Fascists in Japan during reconstruction.



Totally not what I was talking about.

Of course not, counter-examples are NEVER what an ideologue likes to talk about. ;)


Over the pat 50 years Communism and Fundmentalism has been reactionary movements to foreign invasion and foregin captialist opression.

Pure conjecture. Likely from a failed, pseudoscientific, Marxist theory.

Every country outside the Soviet Block that went Communist did so in order to get rid of foreign contol of the coutnry. Remember that up until WWII most of the world was either a colony or an empire.

What are you talking about? Colonialism actually was bigger prior to world war two. Ever heard of the Spainish Empire? The British Empire? How the Middle East and African were carved into imperialist sectors?

How China was carved up? How austrialia and the US were once part of England? How England owned India?

And notice in your example the biggest communist nation, the Soviet Union wasn't even invaded/a colony.


Totally beside the point I am talking about condtions that came priro to the start of the war. The US was involved in Vietnam since the 1940s, it was a French colony from before the war.

Totally the point actually. Having a superpower or the world's most populous nation backing up makes a big difference in whether or not you will be succesful.


Umm... how about Iran...

I didn't know we ever occupied and reconstructed Iran. :rolleyes:

I'm not talking about Commnist success I'm talking about opposition to the regiemes that were put in in South Vietnam. They were rejected on their own merits. Communism was just an effect, the regimes were the cause.

Same thing. They were succesful because they had strong communist forces backing them, the US military was not used to jungle warfare etc.

Are you telling me a fascist or Buddhist movement would have done as well, if so, why didn't any ever crop up? Buddhism was acutaully more popular then Marxism in soth Vietnam.


All possible. We have 50 years of examples of the opposite side fo this coin though. Indonesia, Iran, Ba'athist Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba (prior to communist takeover), Nigeria.

We were not involved in any Cuban revolution or reconstruction. We did not give the Cuban government prior to Castro any strong military support.(One reason Castro went communist actually).

Vietnam I've already explained.

Iraqi Ba'athists came to power on its own, actually against the US wishes.

Iran was never recontsructed.

Panama was very indirect and we did eventually remove the dictator. To date no fundamentalist or communist runs panama. (I've spoken to Panamnians, most like the US).

In none of your examples was the US involved in a reconstruction. In only three is a fundamentalist or communist regime even in power.

All of them are basically buzz words, which scapegoat the US and are said merely for effect. Post hoc.






Just off the top of my head, all of those places have had American puppet leaders within the past 50 years all have caused nothing but trouble and most were overthrown.

Iran's Shah, Castro, Cubas leader prior to Castro, Iraq, and Noriega was actually taken out by the US(and the Panammanians I talk to think that a good thing.).

Basically you are assuming in all these places the US did have puppet leaders, and I should tell you, having influence over a leadership does not automatically make the leader a "puppet leader" or mean the US has lots of control over that leader's domestic policies.

You are presuming that just because the US can get good trade deals, it means the US was setting the laws of the land.

Hence all your examples fail because the difference is now, in Iraq, we can set policy, the US can draft a constitution. On your examples the US either could not or did not.

If anything, your examples are reasons why the US should intervene more, helping to set policy and establish freedom and prosperity, not interfere less and let the country sink down to a level of misery and stagnation.

All your examples involve the US getting involved a little, usually(but not suprisingly) with very little to no results. However on issues of full reconstruction, where the US did set policy, like Japan and Germany(closer examples), the US had great successes by making and enforcing constitutions.


Its worth a try, but if they people object then what can you do?


Stuff the "majority" might not like immediately but what would best benefit the country in the end.

You can't help people that don't want help.

Sure you can. We did this for Japan.

I say that Religion in America is bad, I want to help America, therefore I will install an atheist leaders that will "make the people see".

Big difference. Electing a religious leader is not the same as forming a theocracy. False dillema.


I think that's what the Bolsheviks did eh? You can't make people accept something.

Well the Bolsheviks did. And did so for much of East Germany for many years.

But like I said, you are again being simplistic and failing to distinguish between merely electing a religious leader and establishing a theocracy.

Yes, in that if they blame us then all they will do is support Islam to overturn the government like in Iran.

And what do you think in the end will bring us more hatred....

Forcing a country to be Democratic and prosper.

Or promising a country democracy, freedom and propserity, bailing on it, letting it slide into an opressive theocracy and having a population in a couple decades that are poor, opressed, fanatical and resentful?


Exactly, Ho Chi Minh was popular. What if some Islamic leader is aas popular as Ho Chi Minh was? What if 80% of the people want that leader you think they will accept rule from a US puppet instead? No way.

You are overly romantic. If the US wanted to install a puppet it could. Any malitias that stood up would be squased. Remember there were rebelions against Saddam too, they were squashed very quickly. If they could not stand up against Saddam, what makes you think they can overthrow the US?

Secondly, like I said again, if they wish to elect a fundy, that's fine. There are limits, but as long as the guy isn't too extreme/abuses his power: sure.

However that is very different then establishing a theocracy.




I'm not talking about the military aspect, I'm talking about the 20 years that lead up to the military aspect.

So you want to talk about why we failed in Vietnam....without mentioning the military aspect? That's ridiculous.


If the people reject this leader and they then have a leader that they support and will fight for, then yes.

That's your proof of another Vietnam? The people *might* get a leader they are willing to fight for to the death?

Not even close to sufficient.


See, now they thought they coudl get rid of Saddam and possibel get what they want. If they don't get what they want, then NEXT TIME, they WILL BE fighting for what they want.

Oh just like they fought and overthrew Saddam....


Now they wanted Saddam gone, if there is a next time it will be to put one fo their own into power people will fight for that.

And lose very badly. *IF* they fight which itself is pure and wild speculation.


From studying Iraqi history

Oh wow, I'm convinced. "I've studied history so I know what will happen."

Proof surrogate.


I'm saying whoever the people want is who the people should get.

That's a nice romantic theory, but the people don't always want what is good for them, or what is good for other people.


Sure, sounds good. Whoever comes to power will do what they want anyway if it is the will of the people.

Oh yes, just like Japan and Germany ignored their constitutions.

You seem to back up ad hoc hypothesis with more ad hoc hypothesis. "They WILL Just ignore the constitution" No evidence for this other then " I studied history".

Not very convincing.





I'm saying theocracy is wrong everywhere, but if people want it they will fight for it.

So why aren't people fighting for it here?


The same applies here. If the American people want it bad enough we'll have Civil War or else go to theocracy.

Maybe. Or maybe the fundamentalists will not go that far, recognizing some basic liberal values.


I don't see that happening, but if 50% or 60% of the population wanted a theocracy it would happen.

Not if those on power didn't. If the Generals, Supreme Court, FBI, CIA etc did not want a theocracy then I doubt a mere 50-60 percent would not get it.

They'd have to go against the other 40 percent AND those in power.

Also you need to realize some popular movements in the US have failed. The creationist, school prayer, etc.

All popular causes knocked down by the Supreme court and to an extent staying in their place. And guess what? There is no fighting in the street.

Again your reasoning ignores a lot though. Iraqi's have families, businesses, jobs, personal LIVES. For them to risk their life fighting a superpower, especially when they couldn't even beat a pipsqueek dictator, they need a damn good reason. I doubt, merely not getting the EXACT, opressive government you want is reason enough.

That's why no Japanese people were coming out and fighting occupying American forces after world war 2. Even though we did have a puppet government and we literally had a General runing much of Japan. Normal people don't just go out and start shooting unless there is severe opression.

And this severe opression is exactly what we are trying to avoid by not allowing a theocracy or any other dictatorship to establish itself.

[Trollbane]

DialecticMaterialist said it quite well. A religious leader is okay, but establishing a theocracy is out of the question. Although I dont consider it a big threat.

The thing that worries me a bit more is the possible dismantling of the whole Iraq as a country, lets face it Kurds want their own country and the Shias and Sunnis hate each others guts. It will be a small wonder if the USA can prevent it.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I didn't pick any option, because it seems to me that the poll fails by not distinguising freedom for Iraq and freedom for Iraqis.

MattJ

Is there such a thing as an Iraqi, in terms of national identity rather than geographic location? I suspect that identities are formed on religious/ethnic lines exactly as you describe, which would make freedom for Iraqis impossible, and freedom for Iraq a form of tyranny.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Pure conjecture. Likely from a failed, pseudoscientific, Marxist theory.

Sorry, but I've got to chuckle at this statement from someone who styles themselves DialecticMaterialist. Your alias is meant to be ironic, isn't it? :D

[reprise]

Option 5 should have been "appoint the Zetas to govern Iraq".

[DialecticMaterialist]

Sorry, but I've got to chuckle at this statement from someone who styles themselves DialecticMaterialist. Your alias is meant to be ironic, isn't it?

LOL. Jesus Christ. I've heard this before. Basically I saw the word one day(In an encyclopedia), thought it looked cool and took it. I believed it had something to do with discourse and materialism. Ever since then it stuck, even when I try to change my name I can't think of another I like quite as much as this. It's grown on me and aside from the occasional confusion over Marxism I'm happy with it. :)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Is there such a thing as an Iraqi, in terms of national identity rather than geographic location? I suspect that identities are formed on religious/ethnic lines exactly as you describe, which would make freedom for Iraqis impossible, and freedom for Iraq a form of tyranny.


And what an awful tyrrany it would be....

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


LOL. Jesus Christ. I've heard this before. Basically I saw the word one day(In an encyclopedia), thought it looked cool and took it. I believed it had something to do with discourse and materialism. Ever since then it stuck, even when I try to change my name I can't think of another I like quite as much as this. It's grown on me and aside from the occasional confusion over Marxism I'm happy with it. :)
Well, it kind of is to do with discourse and materialism but obviously not in the way you thought it would be... and I guess it's only Marxists or people who've read Marx who would find it... amusing ;) :D

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Is there such a thing as an Iraqi, in terms of national identity rather than geographic location? I suspect that identities are formed on religious/ethnic lines exactly as you describe, which would make freedom for Iraqis impossible, and freedom for Iraq a form of tyranny.

No matter the answer to your first question, we still have the same problem.

Absolute freedom is always impossible. There are separatists in the Midwest who say that our government is a tyranny, since we're too secular and we impose on them with our taxes and laws.

MattJ

[rikzilla]

If the people of Iraq elect a leader based on a desire for a muslim theocracy, so be it. I think any government of the people in Iraq will have to be, by necessity, a coalition. The most important factor will be Iraq's constitution. As long as the constitution is written so that the rights of the minority are protected...and power is diluted between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches,...then I can see no difference between the Iraqis electing a Shia cleric to serve as president....and the US electing a stiff like Pat Robertson.

Sure, we'd ALL hate to see such a thing....but under an iron-clad constitution the amount of harm such an individual leader could do would be limited.

Let them elect whomever they wish....as long as they first ratify an iron-clad constitution that stipulates how the government will function, guards the human rights, and insures the democratic process for all.

As long as they stick to this principle I think the US government must allow them to administer their country without interference. Even if they take decisions we do not like.

As Matt has said before...even our constitutional democracy is not a blank check of freedom. We have voted in laws that have proved to be unconstitutional and have been struck down. Under such a system, a theocracy...no matter how popular...would inevitably prove to be unconstitutional.

-z

[Dancing David]

I didn't know we ever occupied and reconstructed Iran.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Funny Hahaha

Gee DM why don't you just gloss over the fact that we put the Shah in power and as a superpower , held him in place so we could be closer to the CCCP border.

Specious arguement.

[Malachi151]

What are you talking about? Colonialism actually was bigger prior to world war two. Ever heard of the Spainish Empire? The British Empire? How the Middle East and African were carved into imperialist sectors?

How China was carved up? How austrialia and the US were once part of England? How England owned India?

And notice in your example the biggest communist nation, the Soviet Union wasn't even invaded/a colony.

I said UP UNTIL, which means BEFORE. :p

Pure conjecture. Likely from a failed, pseudoscientific, Marxist theory.

Umm... no, if you care to read through the paper in my sig I go through many examples.

Cuba, dominated by American plantations and with Americans owning 90% of the property and not giving the people control over their own politics and economic, result supprt for radical leaders to expel American from Cuba.

Vietnam, ruled by French, and then by American puppet dictators trying to enforce Catholic religion and abusing the country econmically, result support for radilas to expel the foreign intertests from the country.

Iran, Shah usuing secret police and not supporting people's poltical desires in foavor of actions meant to benefit the United States, result, support for radical leaders that expel foreign intersts from the country.

Venezuela same deal, support for Hugo Chavez, a more moderat but still socoail leader forms and Chavez becomes leader. US tried counter coup to reinstal puppet dicator under President Bush Jr, the coup thwarted and Chavez remains in office.

China, imperialists from all over the world carving up China, Boxer Rebellion, later the people reluctantly give support to Mao becuase they want the foreigners out of their country at any cost.

Indonesia same thing happened in teh 1960s, the US supported counter coup, Indonesia has been a US puppet state ever since, East Timor finally broke away, I see Indonesia as a future problem as Islamic Fundmentalism grows in order to throw US interests out of Indonensia.

You can pick any of a dozen South and Central American countries and the story is the same.

Same thing. They were succesful because they had strong communist forces backing them, the US military was not used to jungle warfare etc.

Are you telling me a fascist or Buddhist movement would have done as well, if so, why didn't any ever crop up? Buddhism was acutaully more popular then Marxism in soth Vietnam

Still not at all what I was talking about. I think your just missing some history here. Bao Dia and Diem were rulers fo Vietnam propped up by foreign interests. The people didn't like them because they were oppressive. OUt of their dislike for these leaders and their foreign ties the suport for Ho Chi Minh grew, because they wanted the foreign powers out. The hate for foreign intervention is why they were sucessful. Communism was just the manefestation of this becuase China was close for support.

We were not involved in any Cuban revolution or reconstruction. We did not give the Cuban government prior to Castro any strong military support.

We were involved. The Spainsh America War. We were invovled in Cuban reconstruction after the Spainish Americna War. After that war Cuba was tunred into a giant Americna plantation where Cubans had little representation and no hope but to be a sugar farmer for Americna companies who owned all the land. Hence support for Castro.

Iraqi Ba'athists came to power on its own, actually against the US wishes.

You would be wrong. We did help the Ba'aths to power, I have it documented in my paper. It ws a covert CIA operation, I've read the interviews with members of the CIA that were invovled. At the time they beleived the Ba'aths to be more moderate. The supported the Ba'aths because the Ba'aths were anti-Soviet. When the Ba'aths go tin they assissnated many communist party memebrs for the CIA in IRaq, then a radical faction including Saddam took control and eventally they started working with Russia themselves. Its all documented. The Ba'aths have been anti-Communist/anti-Marxist all along, thats why they had been getting support. Its a complex issue.

I didn't know we ever occupied and reconstructed Iran.

No, but we had a ruler in office that did that task based on our guidance.

Basically you are assuming in all these places the US did have puppet leaders, and I should tell you, having influence over a leadership does not automatically make the leader a "puppet leader" or mean the US has lots of control over that leader's domestic policies.

Exactly, so what you are really sayign here is that the US will be running Iraq is it not? Wil the US be running Iraq or will the Iraqis be running Iraq? If the Iraqis run Iraq then we have no more guarnetee then in the other cases. If the US runs Iraq then were doing what we said we weren't going to do.

Germany and Japan were sucessful becuase they were strong societies prior to reconstruction. Iraq has been in turmoil for 12 years. Germany and Japan were two of the most powerful and advanced countries in the world at the time with people who's ideologies were relatively similar to American ideology.

Also this is a religoius issue in dealing with the Fundamentalists. There was no religious issue in Japan to deal with at all.

And what do you think in the end will bring us more hatred....

Forcing a country to be Democratic and prosper.

Or promising a country democracy, freedom and propserity, bailing on it, letting it slide into an opressive theocracy and having a population in a couple decades that are poor, opressed, fanatical and resentful?

I'm not so sure a country can be forced to prosper. :p

bleh. I think its a mute point actually because I don't think the Iraiqs even want a Theocracy in the first place. Does anyone have evidence that there is serious support for theocracy in Iraq? I really can't imagine. I can see support for a religious ruler maybe, but maybe I'm missing somethere here, is this even an issue or just the American imaginiation running wild? Maybe 12 years of sanctions were worse then I thought, but Iraq has always been the most secular of the regions in the Middle East.

Just because the Iraqi version of Pat Robertson may be jumping around in Iraq getting attention does not mean that people want theocracy. The more this thread goes on the more stupid I think it is because there has been no discussion of evidene that the Iraqis even want a Theocracy in the first place.

[Dancing David]

Gee malchi you have to stop presenting historical facts here, politics and reality drink in the bar but they never sleep with each other.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla
As Matt has said before...even our constitutional democracy is not a blank check of freedom. We have voted in laws that have proved to be unconstitutional and have been struck down. Under such a system, a theocracy...no matter how popular...would inevitably prove to be unconstitutional.

-z

Would you consider that a constitution, which doesn't capture the imagination and support of the people it's meant to serve, is imposed from without, then not only would it be unworkable, it would also be tyrannical?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No matter the answer to your first question, we still have the same problem.

Absolute freedom is always impossible. There are separatists in the Midwest who say that our government is a tyranny, since we're too secular and we impose on them with our taxes and laws.

MattJ

I agree. Strange, huh? :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


No matter the answer to your first question, we still have the same problem.

Absolute freedom is always impossible. There are separatists in the Midwest who say that our government is a tyranny, since we're too secular and we impose on them with our taxes and laws.

MattJ

Very true, as it was the first time you said it. Absolute freedom is anarchy.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I said UP UNTIL, which means BEFORE.

All my examples(British empire,US colony, Spainish empire) were pre-world war two. That means BEFORE.


Cuba, dominated by American plantations and with Americans owning 90% of the property and not giving the people control over their own politics and economic, result supprt for radical leaders to expel American from Cuba.

Proof?

Vietnam, ruled by French, and then by American puppet dictators trying to enforce Catholic religion and abusing the country econmically, result support for radilas to expel the foreign intertests from the country.

I agree a bit here, but keep in mond the opressive communist regimes treated them no better and weren't exactly kind to the local religions aka Buddhism themselves. You're theory is not quite solid and hardly sufficient.

Iran, Shah usuing secret police and not supporting people's poltical desires in foavor of actions meant to benefit the United States, result, support for radical leaders that expel foreign intersts from the country.


Proof? I've read up on some history of Iran. So far as I see the US did help with a coup to take out a harsh leader....in 1953. Another Shah was then installed. And yes the US did give Iran military AID and weapons.

But Iran was not favoring the US with any extra rescources for this(quite the other way around) nor is this evidence that the US was making policy in Iran.

In fact Iran DID raise the prices for oil with the US, as it did with other trade partners: Britain, France, Dutch and Japan in 1951. (These trades were established, if you notice, before the coup.)

The Shah at the time did have secret police and was opressive, but the US did not tell it to be. That was somewhat tolerated but not endorsed.

However in the end what does this example matter? Is it an example of reconstruction? Of making a country draft a constitution or is it a coup?

Oh I know, it had a US operation and some US support so I guess that since the US was merely involved that automatically makes it a good example of US reconstruction. As the actual important thing is not reconstruction or establishing a government(which is what we are talking about), but that the US just be involved. No matter the actual situation.

History of Iran: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp




Venezuela same deal, support for Hugo Chavez, a more moderat but still socoail leader forms and Chavez becomes leader. US tried counter coup to reinstal puppet dicator under President Bush Jr, the coup thwarted and Chavez remains in office.

Proof?



Also what does a failed coup have to do with the reconstruction of Iraq?

Again you are positing that since the US was merely involved, they are comparable. That ignores some vital differences.


China, imperialists from all over the world carving up China, Boxer Rebellion, later the people reluctantly give support to Mao becuase they want the foreigners out of their country at any cost.

Mao and the Nationalists were involved in a Civil War and Mao won for many reasons(not just because China was opressed). In fact prior to world war 2, Mao was losing.

Indonesia same thing happened in teh 1960s, the US supported counter coup, Indonesia has been a US puppet state ever since, East Timor finally broke away, I see Indonesia as a future problem as Islamic Fundmentalism grows in order to throw US interests out of Indonensia.

Oh so a potential fundamentalist takeover now.....

It just gets more and more relevant. ;)

Also do you have any proof that the US orchestrated this coup? Or are we now just assuming every coup now is orchestrated by the US?


You can pick any of a dozen South and Central American countries and the story is the same.

So the US has been orchestrating coups and installing puppet dictators in all of south america.....

Please prove this.


Still not at all what I was talking about. I think your just missing some history here. Bao Dia and Diem were rulers fo Vietnam propped up by foreign interests. The people didn't like them because they were oppressive. OUt of their dislike for these leaders and their foreign ties the suport for Ho Chi Minh grew, because they wanted the foreign powers out. The hate for foreign intervention is why they were sucessful. Communism was just the manefestation of this becuase China was close for support.

Yes CHINESE support which was part of my point. I'm not missing any history here, though I will admit I am no Vietnam expert.

However you cannot just go into why an ideology was successful and how foreigners were pushed out without getting into the military aspect(since pushing out foreigners was a military affair), internal politics(especially in the US case) and foreign support: China.

That is why Vietnam turned Marxist instead of Buddhist. Both groups may have disliked Westerners, but only one got China's support.


We were involved. The Spainsh America War. We were invovled in Cuban reconstruction after the Spainish Americna War. After that war Cuba was tunred into a giant Americna plantation where Cubans had little representation and no hope but to be a sugar farmer for Americna companies who owned all the land. Hence support for Castro.

Only half true.

In 1895 the US helped free Cuba from Spain, we DID exploit it economically under certain amendments and "protect" it with military aid however you forget this little tid bit:

Machado was overthrown in 1933, and from then until 1959 Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar , a former army sergeant, dominated the political scene, either directly as president or indirectly as army chief of staff. With Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration a new era in U.S. relations with Cuba began: Sumner Welles was sent as ambassador, the Platt Amendment was abandoned in 1934, the sugar quota was revised, and tariff rulings were changed to favor Cuba. Economic problems continued, however, complicated by the difficulties associated with U.S. ownership of many of the sugar mills and the continuing need for diversification.

In Mar., 1952, shortly before scheduled presidential elections, Batista seized power through a military coup. Cuban liberals soon reacted, but a revolt in 1953 by Fidel Castro was abortive. In 1956, however, Castro landed in E Cuba and took to the Sierra Maestra, where, aided by Ernesto ?Che? Guevara , he reformed his ranks and waged a much-publicized guerrilla war. The United States withdrew military aid to Batista in 1958, and Batista finally fled on Jan. 1, 1959.

http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/cuba_history.asp

In other words Roosevelt changed that policy with Cuba, turning it from a puppet state to an independent nation in the 1930s.

After that the so-called siezure of power was completely internal, afterwhich the US showed disaproval by withdrawing military support. Afterwhich,(by some strange coincidence) rebels were finally able to take the guy out only 1 year later.





You would be wrong. We did help the Ba'aths to power, I have it documented in my paper.

Proof surrogate.

Also doesn't this actually go against your hypthesis: that US involvement strenghtened fundamentalist or communist i.e. anti-american forces(forces the US did not want to come into power)?

Now it seems you are creating your own counter-examples.


It ws a covert CIA operation, I've read the interviews with members of the CIA that were invovled.

Proof?


At the time they beleived the Ba'aths to be more moderate. The supported the Ba'aths because the Ba'aths were anti-Soviet. When the Ba'aths go tin they assissnated many communist party memebrs for the CIA in IRaq, then a radical faction including Saddam took control and eventally they started working with Russia themselves. Its all documented. The Ba'aths have been anti-Communist/anti-Marxist all along, thats why they had been getting support. Its a complex issue.

Yes that is interesting and may be true.

However you fail to realize 1) This actually goes against your Fundamentalist/Communist thesis. It shows the US can install governments which are not simply taken out by mobs or rebels.

2) This still has nothing to do with the reconstruction of Iraq. You are still under the impression that mere intervention is one situation is equivalent to mere intervention in under merely because both are intervention.


No, but we had a ruler in office that did that task based on our guidance.

Not the same as reconstruction. As I said, the US got trade and gave the guy military/economic aid. That doesn't mean the US was setting legal policy.


Exactly, so what you are really sayign here is that the US will be running Iraq is it not? Wil the US be running Iraq or will the Iraqis be running Iraq?

False dillema. The US will help set up the system at first and get Iraq on its feet, then turn it over. Just like the US did with Japan and Germany.


If the Iraqis run Iraq then we have no more guarnetee then in the other cases. If the US runs Iraq then were doing what we said we weren't going to do.

But if the US helps run Iraq and then turn it over, we can get better results i.e. Japan and Germany. And these two examples are far closer as they actually involve reconstruction.

Germany and Japan were sucessful becuase they were strong societies prior to reconstruction.

Germany? Nope. And why then didn't the Soviets reconstruct Germany so well? Why did the Soviets merely create a puppet state?

You need to remember they lost a war, were bombed to hell, Japan had been A-Bombed twice and their economy was in shambles.

Japan maybe, but Germany, no. Perhaps prior to their actual defeat in world war 2, but not after.




Iraq has been in turmoil for 12 years. Germany and Japan were two of the most powerful and advanced countries in the world at the time with people who's ideologies were relatively similar to American ideology.

Fascism was not similiar to American ideology.

Again they did suffer a lot from world war 2 as well.

But that's not even relevant. What is relevant is whether they had the rescources to build themselves up, whether Iraq does. If Iraq does, the US can help them use it.

If Iraq does not, Iraq must rely on handouts and there is nothing the US or Iraquis can do to help themselves. This means Iraq would need US aid even more, not less.

Also this is a religoius issue in dealing with the Fundamentalists.

Japanese fascism was supported by religion. State Shinto.


There was no religious issue in Japan to deal with at all.

They thought the Emperor was a God....

And what do you think in the end will bring us more hatred....


I'm not so sure a country can be forced to prosper.

You have yet to show one counter example. You have shown US coups that went sour. One failed military operation. But you have yet to show even one example of US reconstruction that failed.

The only large, semi-modern examples we have were complete successes, as Afghanistan is becoming a success.

All you can do is then be an alarmist, making up "prediction" about *possible* failure.

Japan and Germany were DEFEATED during world war 2. Many Japanese still thought of the Emperor as God. Many were not happy with US presence, US policy etc. Such things were forced on the Japanese via a surrender.

Yet Japan has prospered.

bleh. I think its a mute point actually because I don't think the Iraiqs even want a Theocracy in the first place. Does anyone have evidence that there is serious support for theocracy in Iraq? I really can't imagine.

I imagine some people want one, but I doubt the majority does.


The last point I agree with: I doubt Iraqis want a theocracy. At least not the majority.

However the issue is whether if they want one we *should* give them one. So far you have yet to show why. You have merely given some text book radical examples of failed coups, possible fundamentalist movements, possible US involvement with the Ba'ath party, and some puppet governments that fell. All of which have apparently no relevance whatsoever.

You then dismiss the two best examples we have under ad hoc reasons. i.e. Japan and Germany were just stronger nations. ANy proof of that? Nope. Any proof that that's the main or only reason reconstruction worked there but may not work in Iraq? Nope. Any proof the Japanese and Germans did not have any religious qualms and were happy to see us? Nope.

[dsm]

There's been a lot of talk here about the problems of letting Iraq become a theocracy. Let's broaden it a little:


Would any type of oligarchy (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/49/o0064900.html) be acceptable?
If so, which and why?

[Baker]

Totally not what I was talking about. Over the pat 50 years Communism and Fundmentalism has been reactionary movements to foreign invasion and foregin captialist opression. Every country outside the Soviet Block that went Communist did so in order to get rid of foreign contol of the coutnry. Remember that up until WWII most of the world was either a colony or an empire.

Therefore, they want from one foreign control of the country to another foreign control of the country.
I don't see what your point is.


Indonesia same thing happened in teh 1960s, the US supported counter coup, Indonesia has been a US puppet state ever since, East Timor finally broke away, I see Indonesia as a future problem as Islamic Fundmentalism grows in order to throw US interests out of Indonensia.

So you are saying all of these country's chose a more oppressed type of government to get away from US interests?


You would be wrong. We did help the Ba'aths to power, I have it documented in my paper. It ws a covert CIA operation, I've read the interviews with members of the CIA that were invovled. At the time they beleived the Ba'aths to be more moderate. The supported the Ba'aths because the Ba'aths were anti-Soviet. When the Ba'aths go tin they assissnated many communist party memebrs for the CIA in IRaq, then a radical faction including Saddam took control and eventally they started working with Russia themselves. Its all documented. The Ba'aths have been anti-Communist/anti-Marxist all along, thats why they had been getting support. Its a complex issue.

Saddam worked with the Ba'ath party from its beginning in Iraq and considered Stalin his idol.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Because dsm, if the majority wants it, you better give it to them. No matter how ridiculous. I mean otherwise you might face BLAME. :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

It's kind of funny DM, but you support no eveidence in your argument with the long poster, our country has a very long history of double dealings and back door policies, especialy in Central America. You kind of act like the idealists in the Philosophy Forum , who always go 'where's the proof' without any counter argument.

The recontruction aspect has nothing to do with the fact that our country has done many evil things in the name of getting things done. If you really think that we did not strongly influence Cuba and Iran, I am just shocked.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Yes and you offered sooo much evidence for your assertions. Maybe it's just that I don't blame everything that goes wrong in the world on the US.

And maybe even if the US makes mistakes I believe it overall has benevolent motives(at least more benevolent then other nations).

BTW yes I believe the US didn't really influence Iran or Cuba's domestic policies, just as it doesn't influence Saudi Arabia or Taiwan today. I know, very "shocking", but haven't been disproven. ;)

[dsm]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Because dsm, if the majority wants it, you better give it to them. No matter how ridiculous. I mean otherwise you might face BLAME. :rolleyes:

I don't understand your point.

Maybe I should have said "would any type of oligarchy be acceptable to the US?". :confused:

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm


I don't understand your point.

Maybe I should have said "would any type of oligarchy be acceptable to the US?". :confused:

Do you mean Bush? Do you mean Congress? Do you mean the State Department? Do you mean the Pentagon? Do you mean a majority of the People?

I'm pretty sure that Republicans in congress would be satisfied with an Oligarchy, if it was friendly. So would the Dems in congress, if the war had been prosecuted by a Dem president. (and vice versa)

The State Department (along with the CIA) was actively pushing for a policy of setting up another strongman before the war.

The Pentagon has consistently advocated democracy.

Bush, I believe, has accepted the Pentagon's argument. I will note, however, that in Bush's speeches about Iraq during the run-up to war, the words 'freedom' or 'liberty' were common, while the d-word was noticably scarce.

I suspect a majority of the people would make Bush pay a heavy price if he fails to show progress towards establishing a democracy. We expect a democracy to follow our war in Iraq, while we merely hope that fundamentalist-dominated Afghanistan might develop into one. If he fails, and gets the boot, whoever succeeds him then would not be blamed if the effort in Iraq falls apart, and if it looks like it might, Bush's successor would likely get kudos from the majority if a friendly oligarchy is established rather than a hostile state.

Most of this (except the pre-war positions of the State dept., CIA, and Pentagon) is speculation, is that what you wanted?

MattJ

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

is that what you wanted?


Sort of.

There has been talk (both by the Administration and here in the forum) about how the war was done to free the Iraqi people from the repression of Saddam so that they would be able to choose their own form of government -- as long as it wasn't fundamentalist (or theocratic).

I guess my question was would any form of oligarchy in Iraq be acceptable to the people of the US (and this forum) after the war was put on such a "freedom of Iraqis to choose" level? The problem with an oligarchy of any type is that, once it is installed, it cannot be removed (except through revolution) -- regardless of any other freedoms it may impart to its people.

If Iraq chooses to go non-democratic, was the war a failure?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm
If Iraq chooses to go non-democratic, was the war a failure?

I think so.

[dsm]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I think so.


So, do we impose our own oligarchy on Iraq to ensure that doesn't happen?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by dsm


So, do we impose our own oligarchy on Iraq to ensure that doesn't happen?

We already have. Of a type that doesn't fit your definition:

once it is installed, it cannot be removed (except through revolution) -- regardless of any other freedoms it may impart to its people

MacArthur is no longer in Japan.

MattJ

[reprise]

Even when the framework for democracy is in place, the people don't always make wise decisions and despots can still rise to power - Haiti, Indonesia, and The Phillipines are just three nations in which tyranny prospered post-democracy, I'm sure there are many others.

[E.J.Armstrong]

In his National Press Conference on March 6, 2003 Bush stated

The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.

Now we are told that he will not accept a government the Iraqi people choose if it is not in the form he wants.

Either we can trust his words or we cannot. Which is it?

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
In his National Press Conference on March 6, 2003 Bush stated



Now we are told that he will not accept a government the Iraqi people choose if it is not in the form he wants.

Either we can trust his words or we cannot. Which is it?

He didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering you seem quite determine to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I can't speak for the US but I would accept some Oligarchy, though I fail to see why theocracy would imply Oligarchy at all. Theocracies can be majoritarian, autocratic or oligarchy. Oligarchies can be secular i.e. China.

Also there is a dfference between tolerating an Oligarchy, and establishing one either directly or indirectly.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
He didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering you seem quite determine to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government.

Can you supply one link to support either of your claims? Just one would do. Perhaps you are privy to inside information not availble to the rest of us?

In contrast I posted Bush's very own words and am very happy to repost them again. President george W. Bush clearly stated and I quote -
'The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. '

Either we can believe him or we can't. It really is very simple. Are you saying that we can't believe his words any more? After all Bush would never exaggerate to us or tell us lies - would he?

On a matter of fact I agree with President George W Bush on this one. You however seem to be saying that he cannot be trusted and that the people of Iraq should only be allowed to select a form of government Americans are happy with? I am happy to allow them to do exactly what Dubbya promised - are you?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Baker


He didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering you seem quite determine to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government.

Would it not make sense that if the Iraqui determine they want hard line Islamic government, then 'free to choose' means free to choose a hard line Islamic government.

Believing in freedom means believing in freedom, not 'the freedom I say you should have'...

Now on a pragmatic scale, goodness forbid! I hope that they install some warm fuzzy copy of our government, with an elected administratot named "The Dubya'

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Can you supply one link to support either of your claims? Just one would do. Perhaps you are privy to inside information not availble to the rest of us?

In contrast I posted Bush's very own words and am very happy to repost them again. President george W. Bush clearly stated and I quote -
'The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. '

Either we can believe him or we can't. It really is very simple. Are you saying that we can't believe his words any more? After all Bush would never exaggerate to us or tell us lies - would he?

On a matter of fact I agree with President George W Bush on this one. You however seem to be saying that he cannot be trusted and that the people of Iraq should only be allowed to select a form of government Americans are happy with? I am happy to allow them to do exactly what Dubbya promised - are you?



I’m saying we should not let it turn into another Terrorist state like Iran.
And a government that enslaves its citizens a Democracy doesn’t mean having one election to decide its permanent government.

Here is one link you might find interesting.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7749

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


Can you supply one link to support either of your claims? Just one would do. Perhaps you are privy to inside information not availble to the rest of us?


One more link to add


ABSTRACT - United States officials say Iranian-trained agents have crossed into southern Iraq since fall of Saddam Hussein and are working in Najaf, Karbala and Basra to promote friendly Shiite clerics and advance Iranian interests; say agents reportedly include members of Badr Brigade, military wing of Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Iraqi Shiite group with headquarters in Iran; other agents may include irregular members of special unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards; express concern that Iran may be meddling to promote Iranian model of government, Islamic republic headed by Shiite cleric
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F3081FFD355E0C708EDDAD0894DB4044 82

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
I’m saying we should not let it turn into another Terrorist state like Iran.

That is your opinion but I do not know what it has got to do with what Bush said or what I said either. Either we can take Bush at his word or we can't. In his own words he said that the war was being fought amongst other things to allow the Iraqi peple to choose their own government. Unless he allows the Iraqi people to choose the type of government they want then he will be a liar. He needs to back up his rhetoric with action to achieve exactly what he promised them and the citizens of the USA and the world before he invaded Iraq.

And a government that enslaves its citizens a Democracy doesn’t mean having one election to decide its permanent government. I am not quite clear wha you mean here. Is it that you willl only allow the people of Iraq to elect their own government if it coincides with what you want?

The USA has tried this stunt before with disasterous consequences. Look at what the USA did in Iran and Argentina and the deaths that resulted from its support for the murderous dictators Pinochet and Noriega.

With regard to your link, I asked you for any links to support your claim that Bush had failed to take interference from Iran into account (because he was presumably either badly advised/forgot/doesn't knowwhere Iran is or why the Mullahs got into power in Iran in the first place). Bush and his supporters seem to be very prone to accuse people around the world of lots of things. Some of which (WOMD springs to mind for some reason) turn out to be wrong. Taking Bush aned his administration at their word is thereore becoming a harder and harder thing to do.

This is particularly relevant when he promises to allow the Iraqi people to select their own form of government and you seem to be saying that he didn't mean what he said and his words cannot be taken at face value. The link you posted made some weird and loony claims including the staement that the peace movement is a fifth column. Now how lunatic is that? It did not support your contention that Bush had not taken Iran into account. You have also failed to support your contention about me. Can I ask you again to support either of your claims about Bush or me.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker[/I]
One more link to add
I don't mean to be rude but perhaps we can deal with the claim you actually made.

You stated that
He didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering...
What you have to do therefore is to support your contention that when he promised to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government Bush had forgotten or had not taken the Iranians into account. In other words you claimed to know something that was in Bush's mind namely that he had not anticipated something when he made his promise. That is the claim you have to justify. I look forwards to seeing a link to justify that claim.

In making your claim you also seem to be saying that we cannot take Bush at his word when he promises something. The USA interfered in Iraq by force on the basis of WOMD - are you really arguing do as I say not as I do - to all the other countries in the world.

Your link also does not address your initial claim about Bush that he had specifically not anticipated something when he promised that 'The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. '

You also claimed

...you seem quite determine (sic) to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government.

You are factually incorrect and I note that you have provided no link to support your contention. I simply desire to follow President George W Bush in this matter when he stated clearly and unambiguously that: -
The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. When you claim that I seem quite determined to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government then you are also making the self same claim about President George W Bush. Are you really saying that is what he wants?

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

That is your opinion but I do not know what it has got to do with what Bush said or what I said either. Either we can take Bush at his word or we can't. In his own words he said that the war was being fought amongst other things to allow the Iraqi peple to choose their own government. Unless he allows the Iraqi people to choose the type of government they want then he will be a liar. He needs to back up his rhetoric with action to achieve exactly what he promised them and the citizens of the USA and the world before he invaded Iraq.

Having one election that places a hard-line Islamic government that abolishes further elections isn't a Democracy.
This is no easy task do you think he planed on having a government influence by Iran.
Do I have to mention the human rights violations of Iran?



The USA has tried this stunt before with disasterous consequences. Look at what the USA did in Iran and Argentina and the deaths that resulted from its support for the murderous dictators Pinochet and Noriega.

Pinochet and Noriega? Could you explain what you mean here?


With regard to your link, I asked you for any links to support your claim that Bush had failed to take interference from Iran into account (because he was presumably either badly advised/forgot/doesn't knowwhere Iran is or why the Mullahs got into power in Iran in the first place). Bush and his supporters seem to be very prone to accuse people around the world of lots of things. Some of which (WOMD springs to mind for some reason) turn out to be wrong. Taking Bush aned his administration at their word is thereore becoming a harder and harder thing to do.

Show me where you asked for any links to support the claim that Bush had failed to take interference from Iran into account.
You appeared to be asking for evidence that Iran was interfering what would you accept as evidence that he failed to take interference from Iran into account?



This is particularly relevant when he promises to allow the Iraqi people to select their own form of government and you seem to be saying that he didn't mean what he said and his words cannot be taken at face value. The link you posted made some weird and loony claims including the staement that the peace movement is a fifth column. Now how lunatic is that? It did not support your contention that Bush had not taken Iran into account. You have also failed to support your contention about me. Can I ask you again to support either of your claims about Bush or me.


We didn't free them from Saddam to be governed by Iran that's the only problem we must remove their interference then have them select their government.
And just how are you as a none US citizen have the right to tell the US what they should or should not do these arguments have turned into non-US citizens vs US citizens with few on the far left supporting your claims.

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

In making your claim you also seem to be saying that we cannot take Bush at his word when he promises something.


Show me where I said that?


When you claim that I seem quite determined to see Iraq with a hard line Islamic government then you are also making the self same claim about President George W Bush. Are you really saying that is what he wants?

You don't seem to care as long as Iraq gets a govement that defys the US I could be wrong but thats what I'm getting from your responces.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
Having one election that places a hard-line Islamic government that abolishes further elections isn't a Democracy.
This is no easy task do you think he planed on having a government influence by Iran.
Do I have to mention the human rights violations of Iran?
.

I note that you are not prepared to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government unless it is the one you want. Interesting notion of democracy. Choose what we want or else. The only problem is that President Georgr W Bush promised in his own words that:-
The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. I look forward to him keeping his word.
Are you telling me that we cannot believe Bush or that he did not actually mean what he said? Are you really calling him a liar? We should be told. Do I have to mention the human rights violations in all the countries the USA supported such as Panama, Iran, Chile, Iraq etc. Pinochet and Noriega? Could you explain what you mean here? THe USA supported Pinochet and Noriega at a time when it knew they were murdering and disappearing and terorising their own people. I recommend some light reading for you such as http://www.smmirror.com/volume3/issue10/blowback.asp and http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/usa/chile_1973.html for some factual history lessons. As you can see the USA has exported and supported terrorism around the world so it seems somewhat hypocritical to the rest of the world when Bush claims to be leading a fight against terrorism - particularly when he sees fit to have tea with former terrorists some of whom help lead the political wing of an organistation which still terrorises Northern Ireland with hidden caches of weapons. Show me where you asked for any links to support the claim that Bush had failed to take interference from Iran into account. OK. You specifically claimed that
He didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering ...

You therefore made the claim that when Bush promised the Iraqi peple could choose ther own form of government he failed to take the Iranians into account. I specifically askedCan you supply one link to support either of your claims? QED. Either you can support your claim about what was in Bush's mind or or you cannot. We didn't free them from Saddam to be governed by Iran that's the only problem we must remove their interference then have them select their government.
And just how are you as a none US citizen have the right to tell the US what they should or should not do these arguments have turned into non-US citizens vs US citizens with few on the far left supporting your claims.
The problem for you is the Bush promised The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. Now either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. Are you calling him a liar? Can I also just remind you that it was not the USA that freed the people of Iraq. It was a so-called coalition of countries of which the USA was a part. Are you claiming that all the so-called coalition partners don't want the Iraqi peple to choose their own government or are the views of the so-called coalition partners to be ignored?

Bush made a very simple and unambiguous promise. You seem to be saying that he didn't actually mean what he promised. In other words tha he is a liar. I am happy to take him at his word in this specific matter after all he couldn't have made his promise any simpler. Just in case you have forgotten what that promise actually was here it is again. In President George W Bush's own words :-
The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein Are you really calling Bush a liar?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
Show me where I said that?
OK. Bush made a simple promise. Just in case you have forgotten it here it is again. President George W Bush promised The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. Rather than take President George W Bush at his own word you instead claimed to know what was not on his mind when you claimed thatHe didn’t anticipated the Iranians interfering... In other words we can not take President George W Bush's simple pledge to the people of the world and Iraq at face value. Now, either we can take him exactly at his simple unabiguous word or we cannot. You don't seem to care as long as Iraq gets a govement that defys the US I could be wrong but thats what I'm getting from your responces. Once again you are factually wrong about me and seem to find a simple telling difficult to follow. Once again you ignore the fact that it was not the USA that invaded and 'freed' Iraq. Unless the so-called coalition was indeed a fig leaf for American expansionism in the Middle East that is. Can I just remind you once again that it was a so-called coalition of countries that President George W Bush himself relied on to get rid of the (still missing) WOMD. Instead you talk about defying just the USA. What about al the coalition partners? Don't they get a say now? Have you forgotten about the soldiers of all the other counties who gave ther lives?

The whole crux of this matter is extremely simple. Either we can believe President George W Bush's simple and unambiguous promise or we cannot. To remind you again he promised thatThe form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. Note the words 'form' and 'leadership'. Either he will keep his word with the help of the so-called coalition forces or he will not. You seem to be saying that we cannot take him at his word. I trust you are not calling President George W Bush a liar.

[dsm]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I note that you are not prepared to allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government unless it is the one you want.


You know, an interesting question comes up with respect to this. Given the US constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state, could the US even choose a government based upon theological teachings? Could it choose to implement a theocratic government without tearing down the Constitution?

If not, is it truly democratic?

:p

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DSM
You know, an interesting question comes up with respect to this. Given the US constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state, could the US even choose a government based upon theological teachings? Could it choose to implement a theocratic government without tearing down the Constitution?

If not, is it truly democratic?

An interesting and learned question indeed. Does democracy by definition include all possible outcomes or by its very nature preclude some? Is the constitution of the USA which allowed the miasma of the last presidential elections to fester on and permitted the export of terrorism around the world, really a good model for others to base a new democracy on?

In the case of Iraq if the rules of the game are for redrawing shouldn't the Iraqis be the sole owners of the process unless the war was really fought for US strategic benefit as the rest of the world seems to believe? Do the natives really require a patriarchal hand on the tiller guiding them benevolently (or not)towards the solution that best serves the USA's own strategic interests?

[dsm]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

In the case of Iraq if the rules of the game are for redrawing shouldn't the Iraqis be the sole owners of the process unless the war was really fought for US strategic benefit as the rest of the world seems to believe? Do the natives really require a patriarchal hand on the tiller guiding them benevolently (or not)towards the solution that best serves the USA's own strategic interests?


Can a case not be made that, after 20 years of dictatorial rule by Saddam (what type of rule was before Saddam?), that the Iraqis may not be of "right mind" to choose what's best for them and might instead choose on the basis of passion rather than intelligent thought?

A case in point is right next door in Iran. Removal of the Shah was seen as a good thing by the Iranian people and Khomeini capitalized on that. After Khomeini became "leader for life", many Iranians (as friends tell me) began to realize that perhaps Khomeini was not as good as he appeared, but it was too late to do anything about it. There was no strong leader to rally another revolution against Khomeini and the formerly friendly US had moved to siding with Iraq against Iran (thus the Iran-Iraq war).

Could it happen again in Iraq if the US doesn't "manage" the process (better)?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Armstrong Bush said that the Iraqis could choose their own government but there are reasonable limits. Choosing a theocracy would violate these limits. Bush I believe meant they could choose a government in the democratic sense of electing parties, not starting up some totalitarian or authoritarian system. You are taking the "Bush promised" statement out of context and being simplistic with it.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DialecticMaterialistArmstrong Bush said that the Iraqis could choose their own government but there are reasonable limits.
Can I just remind you what President George W Bush actually said in his own words.The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
No mention of limits of any kind. In fact President George W Bush went to far as to say that 'anything' they choose will be better that the misery and torture the have known under Saddam Hussein. The word 'anything' by definition specifically does not suggest limits on the Iraqi's choice unless Bush is using a special dictionery. Bush's own word 'anything' is therefore very important particularly when coupled with the words 'they choose'. Together they make a very simple and totally unambiguous promise to the Iraqi people and the rest of the world. Either we can trust what President George W Bush promises or we cannot. It really is that simple.

Now that we have establised exactly what President George W Bush promised the world we can turn to some your other words. You mentioned the word 'reasonable'. Reasonable is a value judgement. You fail to state who is to make this value judgement. Perhaps it should be left to the unreasonable people who aided the export of WOMD to Iraq while Saddam Hussein was terrorising his own people. Aren't they just terrorist helpers? Perhaps it sould be the members of the so-called coalition because after all it wasn't the USA that 'freed' Iraq but coalition forces. For some reason some in the USA and elsewhere are quick to forget the contribution of dead soldiers from the coalition. Aren't their views important or is it only what Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld sayis reasonable? I hope that the rest of the world has a say in what those reasonable limits are.

But let us not forget the important crux of the matter here namely President George W Bush's own words. In Bush's own words the people who will have the say will be the people of Iraq if we can take him at his own words. After all - he promised in completely unambiguous terms that .The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.Surely you are not giving the lie to President George W Bush's own promise and making one of the primary reasons for invading another country into a sham by claiming that they will only get the government you want rather than the government they actually want. If you really are saying that then you are giving the lie to President George W Bush's simple and unambiguous promise to the rest of the world and to the Iraqi people. Can we really not take President George W Bush's own words at face value? Bush I believe meant they could choose a government in the democratic sense of electing parties, not starting up some totalitarian or authoritarian system. You are taking the "Bush promised" statement out of context and being simplistic with it. I see that you do consider that we cannot take President George W Bush's own words at face value. Interesting. Once again we have someone deciding that they know what Bush was actually on Bush's mind better than Bush and that his simple promise to the world cannot be taken a face value. I call this the Uri Geller argument (you know where he claims to know what is on someones mind - see The Truth About Uri Geller by James Randi) and is very similar to religious people reintepreting the bible willy nilly for their own purposes. I have simply taken Bush's own simple promise to the world and to the Iraqi people within context and reported it verbatim. If this is not correct please back up your claim and show me where in his speech he states that the war is to be fought so that the Iraqis can only have the form of government you want.

You and Baker seem to be saying that the world cannot take the word of President George W Bush at face value when this debate all boils down to the simple matter of whether we can take the words of President George W Bush at face value or not. The world is waiting. Perhaps WOMD will be found as well - when sufficient time has elapsed - time that was not given to the UN inspectors.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DSM
Can a case not be made that, after 20 years of dictatorial rule by Saddam (what type of rule was before Saddam?), that the Iraqis may not be of "right mind" to choose what's best for them and might instead choose on the basis of passion rather than intelligent thought?
Possibly - if you believe that it is a good thing to paternally 'guide' an entire country into choosing what the USA requires rather than what the people might actually want.

When aguments like this arise my thoughts immediate spring to the British empire and how a group of paternalistic (and rich) people knew what was better for people all over the world. In the process of giving them the type of government deemed to be in their best interests (which was actualy in the best interests of the rich people in the UK) the British removed their natural resources (in some cases through pure theft or by reneging on treaties freely entered into) consequently initiating troubles in countries all over the world including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Iraq etc. I am afraid that the idea that the Iraqi people might not be of 'right mind' implies that the people don't know what they want despite years of striving for it. Would they be of right mind only if they did what Bush wants? If that is the case then that doesn't deem to me to be a valid definition of 'right mind'.

Bush's promise to the Iraqi people and to the world was very simple, clear and unambiguous. Either we can take his word at face value or we cannot.
A case in point is right next door in Iran. Removal of the Shah was seen as a good thing by the Iranian people and Khomeini capitalized on that. After Khomeini became "leader for life", many Iranians (as friends tell me) began to realize that perhaps Khomeini was not as good as he appeared, but it was too late to do anything about it. There was no strong leader to rally another revolution against Khomeini and the formerly friendly US had moved to siding with Iraq against Iran (thus the Iran-Iraq war).
History is seldom as simple as this or indeed as any precis we might offer. What is also clear is that the USA thwarted a democratic movement in Iran for the benefit of its oil companies. The USA has a sorry history of thwarting democracy around the world when it suited it and has shown a contempt for democracy when it wants. Don't get me wrong the powers in Europe have also wreaked havoc across the globe with their own attempts to build empires so we have much 'form' in this regard. Could it happen again in Iraq if the US doesn't "manage" the process (better)? As I believe that the invasion of Iraq was primarily for the benefit of the USA's own strategic interests and the commercial gain of its own companies then unless the USA (the coalition seems to have vanished again interestingly - remind me what the coalition was for?) allows the international community under the UN to facilitate the Iraqis in selecting their own form of government and leadership (see the completely unambiguous promise of President George W Bush quoted above) then the cycle of violence will carry on repeating itself.

Either it will be a government of the people, for the people and by the people (or some such simple phrase) or it is not. If it is instead to be a government of the USA's choice, for the USA's multinational corporations, by the people Bush wants then we will have a dangerous laughing stock.

[dsm]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Possibly - if you believe that it is a good thing to paternally 'guide' an entire country into choosing what the USA requires rather than what the people might actually want.


At the moment, I'm not suggesting that the US will be any better at determining what is right. I'm suggesting that they MAY be able to prevent Iraqis from rushing into something that they may regret later.


When aguments like this arise my thoughts immediate spring to the British empire and how a group of paternalistic (and rich) people knew what was better for people all over the world.


They should also spring to the US Constitution. Isn't the role of the Electoral College to prevent "the people" from doing something rash by providing a "paternalistic" moderating influence?


Bush's promise to the Iraqi people and to the world was very simple, clear and unambiguous. Either we can take his word at face value or we cannot.


Did he state a timeframe? (wiggle)


Either it will be a government of the people, for the people and by the people (or some such simple phrase) or it is not. If it is instead to be a government of the USA's choice, for the USA's multinational corporations, by the people Bush wants then we will have a dangerous laughing stock.


Is this a false dilemma? Is there a third option?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by DSM
At the moment, I'm not suggesting that the US will be any better at determining what is right. I'm suggesting that they MAY be able to prevent Iraqis from rushing into something that they may regret later.
I'm sure that you are of good will. Unfortunately the USA's track record of interfering in democracies around the world for its own strategic benefit and to the detriment of many of the people in those countries fills me with dread. In the case of Iraq the UK also has a bad track record and within the last ten years or so the USA has seen fit with the aid of such as Rumsfeld to provide Saddam Hussein with WOMD while he was known to be a mass murderer and terrorising his own people. That is why I believe the process will only have credibility if it is carried out under the auspices of the UN. The USA and the UK etc are already tainted by their own actions.They should also spring to the US Constitution. Isn't the role of the Electoral College to prevent "the people" from doing something rash by providing a "paternalistic" moderating influence? If you are saying that the Iraqi people will be able to choose without outside interference (as opposed to simple support) the method of government and people they want to govern them then that is OK by me.

As to how the US constitution has protected the people that is a very mixed picture. US politicians and parties are bought by corporate interests for whom they then do sterling service. Look at how the Enrons of this world were able to do what they wanted for many years. We also only have to look at the very suspect way in which contracts to work in Iraq were awarded to funders of the Republican Party. While not a constitutional issue how many millions of people in the USA do not have health insurance? How about sad spectacle of a presidential election where the Supreme court (with elements installed by the father of one of the contestants) actually voted aganst counting votes (in a democracy) to the betterment of the son of the man who appointed them to their posts.

I am afraid this has made the USA a laughing stock around the world and the thought that such a system is to be foisted on another country possibly against the wishes of the people and under the auspices of the president who benefited from the dodgy electoral process in the first place and whose party was bought by the companies he appointed to do post war work in Iraq is humourous at the very best. At least it makes the people I know laugh. The USA has without doubt carried out many good works around the world but largely with its own self interest in mind. Large parts of the world seems to believe that it is also the self interest of the USA and its companies that is being served in Iraq.

Within the UK may people believe the reason Blair toddled along gormlessly after Bush and allowed our soldiers to be killed is so that he can benefit from large fees for giving speeches to an adoring North Ameican audiences when he is forced to leave the premiership or by getting a USA sponsored and well paid post. Unbelievably I speak as one who loudly supported Tony Blair over many years. Many feel over here that he certainly didn't do it for the UK public as many if not most didn't see any imminent threat from Hussein and Blair has spectacularly failed to produce any evidence to date that Hussein wa a imminent threat of any sort whatsoever. He has also been accused of effectively lying to the British people with the evidence he provided to try and demonstrate the 'threat' from WOMD. All this mendacity does of course is to make the public unwilling to accept anything he says in future. That is a major failure for democracy. Did he state a timeframe? (wiggle) Good try. No he didn't. Can I ask why so many people seem reluctant to accept Bush's word at face value? His promise was totally unambiguous. At least according to my dictionaries. Do the people of the USA find his words difficult to accept a face value or does that go for all USA politicians? Is this a false dilemma? Is there a third option? You sound like you know Tony Blair who is famous for suggesting a Third Way. As in not doing what Bush promised perhaps?

[dsm]

I think your view of the US may be clouding your judgement on what's best for the Iraqis. The fear is that the same thing may happen in Iraq -- that is, in their zeal to NOT do what the US wants, the Iraqis may set up a government that 5-10 years from now they'll wish they hadn't (as happened in Iran). Even the UN's credibility is tainted and, thus, there is going to be a lot of jockeying for position in post-war Iraq by all sides (like the Hezbollah).

Now that the US is there, should it just walk away and let the chips fall where they may?

[Baker]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Now either he was telling the truth or he wasn't. Are you calling him a liar? Can I also just remind you that it was not the USA that freed the people of Iraq. It was a so-called coalition of countries of which the USA was a part. Are you claiming that all the so-called coalition partners don't want the Iraqi peple to choose their own government or are the views of the so-called coalition partners to be ignored?

Bush made a very simple and unambiguous promise. You seem to be saying that he didn't actually mean what he promised. In other words tha he is a liar. I am happy to take him at his word in this specific matter after all he couldn't have made his promise any simpler. Just in case you have forgotten what that promise actually was here it is again. In President George W Bush's own words :-

I see just ignore my comments and repeat the same quote repeatedly.
You are the one that doesn’t seem to care what type of government they get.
Bush promised them a democracy if they wished to vote Al Qaeda in as their permanent government would that be fine with you?
If I looked at every speech from every world leader I’m sure I could make them all look like liars.

[JAR]

I chose the option of "freedom to do what we approve of."

Let me put it this way. In May, 1782, Colonel Lewis Nicola sent a document to George Washington on behalf of his officers. In it he suggested that the army set up a monarchy with Washington as king. If it hadn't been that Washington ordered Nicola to "banish these thoughts from your mind", then the U.S.A. would have been a monarchy.

I got this information from page 78 of the W-X-Y-Z section of the World Book Encyclopedia. Copyright 1963, U.S.A.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Can I just remind you what President George W Bush actually said in his own words.

Yeah and I'm reminding you that certain reasonable assumoptions provide the context for such words.




No mention of limits of any kind. In fact President George W Bush went to far as to say that 'anything' they choose will be better that the misery and torture the have known under Saddam Hussein.

He doesn't have to. That goes without saying. He cannot for example say "well you can't enslave people". Or "you can't vote to be a country that wants to build nukes and launch them at the US."

There are rational assumptions and limits that are presumed to go into this. Ignoring these assumptions is taking the statement out of context.

And lets say Bush did say it, and meant it.

So what?

Isn't it rational to change your mind when the situation merits?

Isn't it rational to simply ignore promises made in the moment when the greater good is at stake?

Yes, THEN Bush would be a liar, but I'd rather a liar then a man that let a nation go down, one he promised to save, and liberate, and reconstruct for the sake of one silly promise.

Remember the qualifying IF btw.


The word 'anything' by definition specifically does not suggest limits on the Iraqi's choice unless Bush is using a special dictionery.

No, it's reasonable to assume he meant anything within limits.

If I give my little brother five dollars and say "buy anything you want with it" and he buys a slave from asia, he obviously ignored the context. I don't HAVE to say "anything save slaves from asia." for that to be known.


Bush's own word 'anything' is therefore very important particularly when coupled with the words 'they choose'.

Paticularly when exaggerated and taken out of context.



Now that we have establised exactly what President George W Bush promised the world we can turn to some your other words. You mentioned the word 'reasonable'. Reasonable is a value judgement. You fail to state who is to make this value judgement.

No its not. Believing that the earth is round is not simply a matter of value but one of evidence.

What I meant by reasonable then is, the evidence causes us to assume. The evidence being context, background knowledge, knowledge of Bush's values and aims, etc.


Perhaps it should be left to the unreasonable people who aided the export of WOMD to Iraq while Saddam Hussein was terrorising his own people. Aren't they just terrorist helpers?

Red Herring and no.


Perhaps it sould be the members of the so-called coalition because after all it wasn't the USA that 'freed' Iraq but coalition forces.

The US has played the biggest part so it gets the biggest say.


Aren't their views important or is it only what Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld sayis reasonable? I hope that the rest of the world has a say in what those reasonable limits are.

A good soldier may be a terrible politician.

You do not allow your troops to determine policy simply cause they risked their lives.

They get a say just like everybody else. Nothing more.

But let us not forget the important crux of the matter here namely President George W Bush's own words. In Bush's own words the people who will have the say will be the people of Iraq if we can take him at his own words.

Or so you keep repeating. Nevermind context.


After all - he promised in completely unambiguous terms that .

All terms are vague and ambigious if we ignore context. Name one term that isn't.



Surely you are not giving the lie to President George W Bush's own promise and making one of the primary reasons for invading another country into a sham by claiming that they will only get the government you want rather than the government they actually want.

Ah now the either/or pops up again.

Either we give it to them without conditions, or we are evil liars who dictate their policy.

No I am saying that limits were presumed from the onset, and if not, they should have been. When we said "anything" it's rational to assume anything "within reason."

Obviously Bush did not mean totalitarianism and even IF he did, the goal was to free and aid Iraq. That was the goal, not some "promise".

Thus going along with such a silly promise, based on a questionable interpretation, would be the thing that made the war a sham.

I believe most people that supported the war did so under the pretense that Iraq would be reformed into a democracy, not under the pretense it would sink into a totalitarian or authroritarian regime.

This goal hence supersedes any so-called promise.




Can we really not take President George W Bush's own words at face value?

Sure I can, again within reason.

Just like when someone tells a person "When you leave your parents house you can do whatever you want."

They don't invite someone over and murder them at dinner.They don't sell crack. And they don't start making bombs.

That is, and say "well they said ANYTHING I WANT."

Because it the person obviously didn't mean that.



I see that you do consider that we cannot take President George W Bush's own words at face value

I hardly see how mutating a phrase beyond recognition, so that it means the absurd to be "taking at face value."
Once again we have someone deciding that they know what Bush was actually on Bush's mind better than Bush and that his simple promise to the world cannot be taken a face value.

Yeah I know. I presume he didn't mean totalitrian government, far fetched huh?


I call this the Uri Geller argument (you know where he claims to know what is on someones mind - see The Truth About Uri Geller by James Randi) and is very similar to religious people reintepreting the bible willy nilly for their own purposes.

Interesting. I call your argument ad hominid mixed with false analogy.


I have simply taken Bush's own simple promise to the world and to the Iraqi people within context and reported it verbatim. If this is not correct please back up your claim and show me where in his speech he states that the war is to be fought so that the Iraqis can only have the form of government you want.

Yes correct context meant: ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS AT ALL. Which means they could become a pro-genocide, fascist nation.

You and Baker seem to be saying that the world cannot take the word of President George W Bush at face value when this debate all boils down to the simple matter of whether we can take the words of President George W Bush at face value or not.

Well face value doesn't mean you assume something ridiculous.

It doesn't mean Bush meant they could re-elect a Saddam clone for example. Or vote to literally be a terrorist state. Nor is it reasonable to ask him to say every little thing he will not allow them to do on the onset. Bush meant they could elect their own rulers within reasonable, democratic limits.

That IS taking it at face value as it is reasonable to assume that is what Bush meant. And that's how most people who support the war interpreted it.

Your interpretation is not taking the statement at face value but to a ridiculous extreme.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DSM
I think your view of the US may be clouding your judgement on what's best for the Iraqis. The fear is that the same thing may happen in Iraq -- that is, in their zeal to NOT do what the US wants, the Iraqis may set up a government that 5-10 years from now they'll wish they hadn't (as happened in Iran). Even the UN's credibility is tainted and, thus, there is going to be a lot of jockeying for position in post-war Iraq by all sides (like the Hezbollah).

Now that the US is there, should it just walk away and let the chips fall where they may?


THe interesting thing is that I do not have a judgement as to what is best for the Iraqis other than I believe what President George W Bush promised the world - namely that they should choose their system of government and their leaders for themselves. Unless that happens then one of the main reasons for going to war will have been a sham. Many in the USA apparently do however have a specific view about what is best for the Iraqis and that is apparently to ignore their wishes if necessary in their zeal to impose a particular type of solution on them. That fills me with dread for good historical reasons.

You see I have never been prescriptive about what the Iraqi people should have other than that they should be allowed to choose their own style of government and their own leaders. If that turns out to be as ystem where the son of a past president gets help from judges appointed by his father and where his brother runs a state which was crucial in determing if he got to be president in a dodgy - don't count the votes - type of way then so be it. I would just sigh and hope that eventually they might do better in future. At least they chose it for themselves rather than having it forced upon them by some paternalistic invader. If they choose a system with a non-elected monarch and an unwritten constitution then so be it. I would just hope that they would choose to elect a leader and write their constitution down. All I want is to avoid the type of international turmoil foisted on many countries by the actions of many European counries and the USA in previous years because they decided that they knew what was best for the people in those countries(substitute knew what was best for the wealthy peple who ran the USA and the UK) rather better than the people themselves. Why keep repeating failures.

Now that the USA is there (and let us not keep forgetting the so-called coalition) I believe that because of the tainted nature of the USA's meddling in Iraq in the past and their support for the undemocratic terrorist Saddam Hussein the only way forwards is to let the UN supervise the transition to the new regime including awarding work to repair the destruction in an open and fair process. Yes the UN is tainted to various degrees also but unless there is true world involvement in post invasion Iraq with the Iraqi peple truly choosing their form of govenment and leaders then we will have a dangeous farce and a country that will actually be a danger to the world in the future and the USA will decide to invade it again...........

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Baker
I see just ignore my comments and repeat the same quote repeatedly.
Au contraire Baker. I have taken your very own words and dealt with them. The reason I have quoted President George W Bush's words back to you is very simple. That is what my point is all about. Either the world and the Iraqi people can take President George W Bush at his word or they cannot. You seem to be saying that we cannot and his simple and completely unambiguous promise appears to be a problem for you. I wonder why? Either we can trust him or we can't. It really is that simple.You are the one that doesn’t seem to care what type of government they get. In a democracy the people can choose the leadership they want even if I don't like it. It's a scary concept democracy isn't it? The people choosing something you don't like. I can put up with that. You however don't seem to be able to accept that democratic principle.Bush promised them a democracy if they wished to vote Al Qaeda in as their permanent government would that be fine with you? Can I just remind you exactly what President George W Bush did promise. I won't use my words, I will use his words. They make a very elegant and unambiguous promise to the world and most importantly to the Iraqi people. He promisedThe form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein. I think that says it all. I don't see anywhere in that promise that mentions a specific type of government. Perhaps I am not reading it correctly? Let me make myself completely clear again. I am happy to abide by Bush's promise. Are you? You seem to have a problem with his clear and simple promise.If I looked at every speech from every world leader I’m sure I could make them all look like liars. I'm sure you could. Unfortunately that is not my argument. Does your claim mean that your president should also be a liar? The problem is that we are looking at the words of President George W Bush who, with his coalition, invaded Iraq on what looks more and more like false premises. He made a simple promise to the people of the world and more importantly Iraq. The world is holding him and the coalition leaders to account for their promises and claims.
It really is that simple.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Yeah and I'm reminding you that certain reasonable assumoptions provide the context for such words.
So we can't take his words at face value then?He doesn't have to. That goes without saying. So it goes without saying that the Iraqi people might not be able to select what they might want then. Seems you don't believe President George W Bush's own words. Why did he also sayWe have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_032003.htm Is that also not to be trusted?

There are rational assumptions and limits that are presumed to go into this. Ignoring these assumptions is taking the statement out of context. And where are these assumptions stated. In the air? In your imagination? President George W Bush gave a simple promise to the world. If I am taking it out of context why did he also promise Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.
President Discusses the Future of Iraq, 2/26/03
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm
Is that also taken out of context? And lets say Bush did say it, and meant it. Are you claiming that he didn't. Are you saying that we cannot trust the words of President George W Bush? When did he change his mind?Isn't it rational to simply ignore promises made in the moment when the greater good is at stake?Like father like son then - making promises and reneging on them. I seem to remember someone saying 'No new taxes' during a presidential election. I wonder what happened to him? How can you trust someone who keeps changing his promises if that is what he has done? And the greater good for whom exactly - Halliburton? No, it's reasonable to assume he meant anything within limits. Then why didn't he say so in any of the quotes I've posted. If I give my little brother five dollars and say "buy anything you want with it" and he buys a slave from asia, he obviously ignored the context. I don't HAVE to say "anything save slaves from asia." for that to be known. Are you saying that the Iraqi people and the world believing President George W Bush is the same as buying slaves? QUOTE]Paticularly when exaggerated and taken out of context. [/QUOTE] Please show where I have exaggerated any of the promises President George W Bush made. I have posted them verbatim . Are you saying that he exagerated when he made his simple promises to the world numerous times? Interesting.No its not. Believing that the earth is round is not simply a matter of value but one of evidence. Sorry. Absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Either reasonable is a value judgement or it is not and if it is who is to make it. You or the Iraqi people? I get the impression you have no intention of allowing the Iraqi people to decide for themselves unlike your President George W Bush.What I meant by reasonable then is, the evidence causes us to assume. The evidence being context, background knowledge, knowledge of Bush's values and aims, etc. Are you saying that we can believe absolutely everything that Bush says without interpretation?Red Herring and no. Donald Rumsfeld aided the supply of WOMD to an acknowledged dictator and gave that same dictator a wam handshake while the world knew Hussein was terrorising his own people. Why should the world trust anything Rumsfeld says about international terrorism ever again when he dealt with a major terrorist and known mass murderer?
The US has played the biggest part so it gets the biggest say So it seems that the so-called coalition was exactly that, a so-called coalition. Or so you keep repeating. Nevermind context. I repeat the simple words of President George W Bush. Let me give you some context then. President George W Bush also promised
Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)
President Discusses the Future of Iraq, 2/26/03
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm


Not done yet he also said
The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference March 6, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_030703.htm

Still not done he also said
We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_032003.htm
How much context do you need?
All terms are vague and ambigious if we ignore context. Name one term that isn't. Please note the repeated promise without qualification. As I have demonstrated repeated unqualified promises supply all the context the rest of the world needs. Either we can believe Bush's simple, repeated and unqualified promises or we cannot. It really is that simple.Either we give it to them without conditions, or we are evil liars who dictate their policy. No. Either we can take the simple promises of President George W Bush at face value or we cannot. Is there some third way? Obviously Bush did not mean totalitarianism and even IF he did, the goal was to free and aid Iraq. That was the goal, not some "promise". Was that free Iraq as in free them to choose what you want? Are you saying that we cannot trust his simple and repeated promises on this matter. I also note that Bush has also failed to substantiate his other claims about WOMD to date yet he stymied the UN inspectors from doing ther job in his rush to war and give companies who funded his party contracts in a farce of a 'bidding' process. Thus going along with such a silly promise... Oi vey you are now saying that Bush's promises are silly? Sure I can, again within reason So we can't take his promises at face value then. We have to add what you consider to be reasonable. Why should your views of what is reasonable be any better than the Iraqi peoples view of what is reasonable. Don't you trust the Iraqi people to be 'reasonable'? Seems not when you have such a low opinion of what they might do. Either we can take his words at face value or we can't. It really is that simple.I hardly see how mutating a phrase beyond recognition, so that it means the absurd to be "taking at face value." Given that I have not changed a single word in his repeated promises it seems that you really have a problem with President George W Bush's simple promises to the Iraqi peple and the rest of the world. Yeah I know. I presume he didn't mean totalitrian government, far fetched huh? You are telling us that we cannot take his words at face value. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what was on his mind?Interesting. I call your argument ad hominid mixed with false analogy. I have accurately reported what President George W Bush promised. You are the one claiming that he apparently meant something else than what he repeatedly stated. It appears that you find his simple statements somehow incomplete. Yes correct context meant: ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS AT ALL. Which means they could become a pro-genocide, fascist nation. Are you saying once again that they are not allowed to choose their own form of government and that they have to choose what you want. That is not what President George W Bush promised numerous times. Either we can believe him or we cannot it. It really is that simple.Well face value doesn't mean you assume something ridiculous. I have posted President George W Bush's comments verbatim. If you want to think they are ridiculous that is up to you.Bush meant they could elect their own rulers within reasonable, democratic limits. Whose reasonable limits? Yours? Or theirs? I somehow get the impression that your do not trust the Iraqi people to choose to do what you want and as such you wouldn't let them choose their own form of government and rulers as President George W Bush promised.That IS taking it at face value as it is reasonable to assume that is what Bush meant. And that's how most people who support the war interpreted it. So we have to interpret his words rather than being able to take them at face value?Your interpretation is not taking the statement at face value but to a ridiculous extreme. I have posted President George W Bush's repeated promises verbatim. If you consider it to be ridiculously extreme to take them at face value then so be it.

Either they can choose their own government and rulers as promised by President George W Bush or they cannot. Is it democray to force the Iraqi people to do what you want?

[Dancing David]

So the president's word menas less than anybody elses. When the president said , freedom, he did not mean freedom.

thats very funny and ironic.

[dsm]

Boy, you're really reaching here to make a point! And I haven't really been disagreeing with you...

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

The interesting thing is that I do not have a judgement as to what is best for the Iraqis other than I believe what President George W Bush promised the world - namely that they should choose their system of government and their leaders for themselves.


Timeframe? ;)

If the US (possibly with UN help) installs a democratic government with constitutional guarantees (along the lines of the US constitution) and the Iraqis later choose to go a different route (say, theocratic), have the following been accomplished?


A government that allows the Iraqis to choose has been created.
Checks and balances are there to make sure that that choice is well thought out and not a simple, emotional response.
Ultimately, the ability to tear down the democracy and go with a monarchy or a theocracy is possible through constitutional amendment and the like.


Is this bad?


If that turns out to be a system where the son of a past president gets help from judges appointed by his father and where his brother runs a state which was crucial in determing if he got to be president in a dodgy - don't count the votes - type of way then so be it.


Careful. This is where you're really pushing the analogy.

The difference between putting W into the presidency and (say) making him "leader for life" is that:


While many questioned his ability, it was obvious that nearly half the electorate thought he would be a reasonable president.
Worse comes to worse, we always knew that we could throw him out in 4 years (as opposed to a "leader for life").


That makes a difference.


Why keep repeating failures.


There have been many failures all around. For instance, the election of the Ayatollah Khomeini to "leader for life" would likely be viewed by a majority of Iranians as failure, but they can do little about it now as he (and his successors) is the "leader for life". That was something that went against the wishes of the US (they would've preferred the Shah stay), but they bowed to the will of the people (they had little choice).


Now that the USA is there (and let us not keep forgetting the so-called coalition) I believe that because of the tainted nature of the USA's meddling in Iraq in the past and their support for the undemocratic terrorist Saddam Hussein the only way forwards is to let the UN supervise the transition to the new regime including awarding work to repair the destruction in an open and fair process. Yes the UN is tainted to various degrees also but unless there is true world involvement in post invasion Iraq with the Iraqi peple truly choosing their form of govenment and leaders then we will have a dangeous farce and a country that will actually be a danger to the world in the future and the USA will decide to invade it again...........


This is where I mostly agree with you. No matter which way you go at this point, though, some (major) group is not going to like the results. Removing the US from the process is probably not possible as the UN is viewed as a puppet of the US by many and likely the US would still be doing much of the groundwork. Even if the UN could remove the US from the process, then the question of fairness to US companies would come up in the issue of repair work. And the US reputation, damaged as it is, might be further damaged in ways that affect world stability.

It's not a good time in the world...

:(

[DialecticMaterialist]

So we can't take his words at face value then?

So now you take my words out of context too?

This has been refuted.

Ignoring my refutation does not change this fact.

Taking a statement out of context or to ridiculous extremes does not mean you took it at face value.



So it goes without saying that the Iraqi people might not be able to select what they might want then.

If they want a theocracy, then yes.


Seems you don't believe President George W Bush's own words. Why did he also say
We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_032003.htm Is that also not to be trusted?

How is allowing a theocracy to establish restoring control to the people?

Again you ignore context too, he likely means restoring control similiar to what we have in a western democracy.




And where are these assumptions stated.

They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions. :rolleyes:


In the air? In your imagination?

In our ability to recieve and interpretation.


President George W Bush gave a simple promise to the world. If I am taking it out of context why did he also promise

Again I've already answered this.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it was refuted.




Is that also taken out of context?

Obviously Bush is assuming they will not institute a regime as brutal or more brutal then Saddam's.



Are you claiming that he didn't.

I said "IF" and even emphasized it later. Are you incapable of paying attention?




Are you saying that we cannot trust the words of President George W Bush?

Many people I know make promises, and then break them as new realizations or new situations arise, that mean I stop trusting them altogether?

If so, then I literally cannot trust anybody.

Just because someone is fallible or changes his mind, doesn't mean you stop trusting him or her altogether. If you mean "does that mean we can't ever expect Bush to change his mind or make an infallible statement" by "trust" then I'll anser: yes.

We shouldn't put blind trust in our president.

The fact is I'd rather have a president that was flexible then one that stubbornly adhered to promises, even at the cost of great suffering.

In this way my view of trust is situational and flexible, whereas yours is simplistic and absolute.


When did he change his mind?

Maybe when the matter of theocracy rose up. I really don't know though. Why does this matter?


Like father like son then - making promises and reneging on them.
I seem to remember someone saying 'No new taxes' during a presidential election. I wonder what happened to him?

False analogy. This statement 1) Does not have the rationale behind it. 2) This is a domestic policy. Sticking to his word here would have likely not created a totalitarian/authoritarian state.


How can you trust someone who keeps changing his promises if that is what he has done?

He *may* have changed one for damn good reason. You have to look at the situation my friend, not absolute moral rules.


And the greater good for whom exactly - Halliburton?

Proximately: the Iraqi people. More ultimately: the US and mankind in general.



Then why didn't he say so in any of the quotes I've posted.

Again: I said assume he implied limits.

Meaning, as you obviously don't seem to get it: he doesn't say it explicitly.

I mean why didn't the founding fathers say "Freedom of speech save when someone yells fire in a theater?"

Gee I guess we can't trust them or the constitution either now. They said they'd allow for freedom and the pursuit of happiness, but they didn't say explicitly "save in cases involving criminals or sociopaths."





Are you saying that the Iraqi people and the world believing President George W Bush is the same as buying slaves?

Nope. Establishing a theocracy would actually be worse.


Please show where I have exaggerated any of the promises President George W Bush made. I have posted them verbatim .

Verbatim still requires interpretation.

You put too much stress on the word anything, interpreting it as meaning: absolutely no limits whatsoever. When a more rational interpretation would be: anything within the limitations of democratic sanity.



Are you saying that he exagerated when he made his simple promises to the world numerous times? Interesting.

No, I mean you are exagerating the scope of his promise.



Absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Either reasonable is a value judgement or it is not and if it is who is to make it.

It's not and your question is not applicable. This is because your very question presumes it is a matter of preference on the onset. A better one is"how do we determine it?"

Well ask yourself, do you think Bush had totalitarianism or theocracy in mind when he made the promise?

Is that compatible with the goal to free, liberate and reconstruct Iraq?

Is that compatible with the goal of making the world a better place for US interests?

If asked after the meeting "Bush by anything, did you mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, including electing a mad man autocracy who's stated goal was "the destruction of the US"?"

Would Bush say "Yes."?


You or the Iraqi people? I get the impression you have no intention of allowing the Iraqi people to decide for themselves unlike your President George W Bush.


Nope, I don't if it means theocracy. And neither does president Bush.

Are you saying that we can believe absolutely everything that Bush says without interpretation?

Quite the opposite.

Donald Rumsfeld aided the supply of WOMD to an acknowledged dictator and gave that same dictator a wam handshake while the world knew Hussein was terrorising his own people. Why should the world trust anything Rumsfeld says about international terrorism ever again when he dealt with a major terrorist and known mass murderer?

Saddam was helped by the US in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and fear of Iran conquering the region. In this Rumsfeld made a mistake, now if your an absolutist you lynch him for this.

"Wrong is wrong."

But if you are not an absolutist you do not necssarily. Ever occur to you Rumsfeld now realizes his mistake? That a leader can make a mistake without losing all trust?

Of course there are limits to this.

Just as there are all moral norms and rules.

Also you've failed to establish how this is relevant to Bush's "promise".

Still a red herring.



So it seems that the so-called coalition was exactly that, a so-called coalition.

Biggest say-not all the say.

I repeat the simple words of President George W Bush. Let me give you some context then.


And ignore context.

Not done yet he also said
The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.
President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference March 6, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_030703.htm

Yes basically the same thing your quoted earlier. Explained above.

Still not done he also said
We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_032003.htm
How much context do you need?

Also you already quoted that before in this post and I have responded. Your argument now is getting redundant.


Please note the repeated promise without qualification.

Is it really reasonable to expect anyone to make a promise without qualification? Can you do so?


As I have demonstrated repeated unqualified promises supply all the context the rest of the world needs. Either we can believe Bush's simple, repeated and unqualified promises or we cannot. It really is that simple.

The absolutist either/or's. With the irony here being I bet your not even a declared absolutist.

You're just absolutist in method and expectations when conveniant.



Either we can take the simple promises of President George W Bush at face value or we cannot. Is there some third way?

Or we recognize its better if *some*(meaning: NOT ALL...hope I don't have to repeat this) are broken.

Also I have also stated: removing a statement from underlying assumptions is not taking it at face value.



Was that free Iraq as in free them to choose what you want?

Again the false dillemas(that's about 3 of them so far).

And btw nope, they can choose what they want within democratic/reasonable limits.


Are you saying that we cannot trust his simple and repeated promises on this matter.

More question begging.


I also note that Bush has also failed to substantiate his other claims about WOMD to date yet he stymied the UN inspectors from doing ther job in his rush to war and give companies who funded his party contracts in a farce of a 'bidding' process.

The UN was not given the time for other reasons and you know it. (Or should know it, as with you I can't be too sure.)



Oi vey you are now saying that Bush's promises are silly?

Yes:rolleeyes:, if I say one promise may be silly.....that means I believe ALL Bush's promises ARE silly.

And if you mean "Do you think if Bush promised ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS, that was a silly promise?" Then yes, that (meaning that one promise not all promises) was a silly promise.



So we can't take his promises at face value then.


Why must I beat this poor dead horse that you keep trying to ressurect?

We have to add what you consider to be reasonable.

Yes I know, I don't think Bush meant "theocratic autocracy" how far fetched.



Why should your views of what is reasonable be any better than the Iraqi peoples view of what is reasonable.

Expecting the US to let them establish a theocracy is not reasonable.


Don't you trust the Iraqi people to be 'reasonable'? Seems not when you have such a low opinion of what they might do.

If they are reasonable then they shouldn't care if we place certain reasonable limits in them: they should welcome them.


Either we can take his words at face value or we can't. It really is that simple.


Not when you have such an extreme view of what taking a word at face value is.

Given that I have not changed a single word in his repeated promises it seems that you really have a problem with President George W Bush's simple promises to the Iraqi peple and the rest of the world.

This is ridiculous. You don't have to literally mutate and edit his speech to mutate his words, you merely have to promote a ridiculous interpretation.



Yeah I know. I presume he didn't mean totalitrian government, far fetched huh? You are telling us that we cannot take his words at face value. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what was on his mind?

Again I've gone over your silly face value statement. Yes you can repeat yourself, but doing so doesn't make it true.

BTW I can tell you, or at least make a very probable guess on some things that were *not* on Bush's mind: Theocracy or any other form of totalitarianism.

What probably *was* on his mind, was democratically elected offcials within a constitutional framework.



Interesting. I call your argument ad hominid mixed with false analogy. I have accurately reported what President George W Bush promised.

QUestion begging.


You are the one claiming that he apparently meant something else than what he repeatedly stated. It appears that you find his simple statements somehow incomplete.

Every statement has underlying assumptions and must be interpreted.

You apparently refuse to accep this and keep arguing in circles. i.e. it was the correct, face value interpretation because it was.

Are you saying once again that they are not allowed to choose their own form of government and that they have to choose what you want. That is not what President George W Bush promised numerous times. Either we can believe him or we cannot it. It really is that simple.

For a simple mind it may be that simple.

For those that recognize context and complexities in this issue though it is not.

(Notice also how your claim goes from something paticular to something general with absolutely no justifcation for the transition.)



I have posted President George W Bush's comments verbatim. If you want to think they are ridiculous that is up to you.

Verbatim statements does not make your interpretation of such statements correct.

Whose reasonable limits? Yours? Or theirs? I somehow get the impression that your do not trust the Iraqi people to choose to do what you want and as such you wouldn't let them choose their own form of government and rulers as President George W Bush promised.

Bush's, mine, mankinds, the UN's and America's. In this sense a government totally undemocratic or authoritarian, like theocracy, is not reasonable to expect.



So we have to interpret his words rather than being able to take them at face value?

Face value requires interpretation.

I have posted President George W Bush's repeated promises verbatim. If you consider it to be ridiculously extreme to take them at face value then so be it.

Posting verbatim, again, does not make your interpretation the face value one.

Either they can choose their own government and rulers as promised by President George W Bush or they cannot. Is it democray to force the Iraqi people to do what you want?

Again more false dillemas demonstrating your simplistic reasoning.

By that reasoning either the US is a democracy or it isn't. I guess we have a bill of rights that cannot be voted out, and a Supreme Court not elected, so we are not a democracy.

Nor is any other nation on earth. They have have a constitution Or a monarch figurehead.


So democracy is merely an illusion by your standards.

There are obviously more options then you hold out there anyways. Included democracy of limited majority rule.

And in case you didn't know, democracy is more then a matter of majority rule. It is about a government of the people, who serves the people.

When the majority is thus wrong, and votes in a way that undermimes its own freedoms, and mankin'd deepest values: then the majority must be superseded by the constitution and those who enforce it.

In this case, the constitution is yet to be written, but basically known, and the enforcers are the coalition forces.

It's as simple as that. ;)

[Dancing David]

So you are saying that when the president promised the Iraqi people freedom, that there word freedom was subjuect to interpretation?

When the president stood up and made those speechs he knew exactly what he said. He knew at that point that he would want to set limits on Iraqi freedom , while he stood there and went on about how the war was for 'the freedom of the Iraqi people'.

And now everybody wants to spin straw into gold.

The truth is that when GWB said freedom for the Iraqi people he didn't mean 'freedom' as we define the word in conventional speech. The fact that people have to spend page after page redifining freedom and why the president meant a certain kind of freedom just proves the point.

that was the point of this post.

GWB was just engaging in political hyperbole to stir up support for his cause, he knew what he was doing too.

As I said before I would have given him points for honesty if he had said "I am going to kick Saddam's ass, when I am done kicking then I am going to set up a government that I want.". then he would get points for honesty.

Instead he gets points for irony.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So now you take my words out of context too?
I note that quoting your words is taking them out of context in your opinion. You claimed Yeah and I'm reminding you that certain reasonable assumoptions provide the context for such words. You need something else called 'reasonable assumptions', as yet undefined, before you can understand the meaning of the words Bush used. Rather than refuting my words you are simply confirming them. If they want a theocracy, then yes. In other words there are some things the Iraqi peple cannot choose. Is ther a simple list of what these are?How is allowing a theocracy to establish restoring control to the people?

Again you ignore context too, he likely means restoring control similiar to what we have in a western democracy. If the people want to choose a theocracy then that is their choice surely. You might not like it and I might not like it but it would be their choice. Saddam Hussein would not allow them to choose what they wanted. If the USA will not allow them to choose what they want I believe that will unfortunately result in trouble in future. They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions. So you believe that assumptions are not written down? Luckily Congress and USA company law do not agree with you. When a budgetry analysis is prepared a list of the assumptions used in producing it is always presented otherwise the budget would be unintelligible. Even in a highly regulated arena such as company annual reports the inherent assumptions cannot be taken for granted or deduced by interpretation or belief. They all have to be explicitly stated and are absolutely fundamental to the correct interpretation of the budget and reports and the avoidance of doubt. If you however want to create doubt and confusion you do not list the assumptions. That is the arena of the politician and why many people distrust them.
In our ability to recieve and interpretation. Perhaps by telekinesis or mind reading?Again I've already answered this.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it was refuted. Yes. I understand now that according to you we cannot take Bush's words at face value because there is something else required. Namely unwritten assumptions whci I have demonstrated are fundamental before a true picture can emerge. It is claer that you consider the Iraqi peple are not free to choose the form of government they might want. It has to agree with what you want. Obviously Bush is assuming they will not institute a regime as brutal or more brutal then Saddam's. Are they able to choose what they want?I said "IF" and even emphasized it later. Are you incapable of paying attention? I am quite capable of paying attention - that is why I asked the question - in order to clarify your position. If you don't want to clarify your position then you don't have to.In this way my view of trust is situational and flexible, whereas yours is simplistic and absolute. I happen to believe that when a President goes to war he should be as clear and honest as he can about the true reasons for going to war and we should not have to guess what the assumptions are for simple understanding of his intentions. If the Iraqi people will not be free to choose certain types of government then he should have made that case clearly and unambiguously. If he was going to award contracts to companies who fund the Republican Party in a frankly dodgy process then we might have been told so that the rest of the world could have fairly judged exactly what the invasion was to be used for beforehand. Maybe when the matter of theocracy rose up. I really don't know though. Why does this matter? Because of the matter of trust.False analogy. This statement 1) Does not have the rationale behind it. 2) This is a domestic policy. Sticking to his word here would have likely not created a totalitarian/authoritarian state. I think the point is an important and relevant one as it strikes at the very heart of the relationship between politicians and the public, whether the matter is for domestic consumption only or on an international matter. This includes conveying the true reasons for starting a war and of all the assumptions behind it. Not making people guess what is behind the words or to allow weasel words to obscure the true position at a later date. For clarity. The world audience has to decide if we can take a politician's word or if there are whole host of assumptions to be taken into account that are not written down and that we therefore have to find somewhere. He *may* have changed one for damn good reason. You have to look at the situation my friend, not absolute moral rules. The annual reports of small American companies require the assumptions to be written down. It apears the muti billion pound wars don't.Proximately: the Iraqi people. More ultimately: the US and mankind in general. I think you may have touched upon an important matter. It seems that many in the USA believe that what is good for the USA is good for the rest of the world by definition. Many in the rest of the world take a different view for good historical reasons such as USA arranging for the supply of WOMD to a murderous dictator who was known to be terrorising his people when the weapons were supplied. The people in South America who were killed by murderous dictators supported by the USA might also take a different view. And possibly the child labourers in the Far East etc. Nope. Establishing a theocracy would actually be worse. You are clearly very frightened of a theocracy. Can you tell us why? What about democracies which supply weapons to murderous dictators who terrorise their own people. Verbatim still requires interpretation. So I see. I did not misquote a single word then. Unlike you I just don't have a list of all the imbedded assumptions to take into account. You put too much stress on the word anything, interpreting it as meaning: absolutely no limits whatsoever. When a more rational interpretation would be: anything within the limitations of democratic sanity. Surely the correct intepretation is - anything the USA wants. That is my point. If the Iraqis choose something the USA does not want their view will be discarded. The war was therefore fought not to give them freedom of choice but freedom to choose what the USA wants.Saddam was helped by the US in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and fear of Iran conquering the region. In this Rumsfeld made a mistake, now if your an absolutist you lynch him for this. No. Wrong again. I have no intention of lynching anybody. Merely making sure what the man has done before is properly taken into account before we engage in wars on the basis of his concern for a people he helped Saddam Hussein terrorise. He was concerned merely with American strategic self interest. In my opinion the position remains the same and that the Twin Towers atrocity was an excuse to attack an oil rich country of strategic interest to the USA. By his actions Rumsfeld had already shown that the people of Iraq were of little interest to him.
My fear is that if the USA and the UK etc disregard international norms won't other countries such as China, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan etc feel free to do the same? No, I mean you are exagerating the scope of his promise. I posted his words verbaim. You say certain assumptions need to be taken into account which are not written down. I hope the Iraqi peple know where to find these assumptions so they do the decent thing and choose a form of government the USA likes.It's not and your question is not applicable. I am afraid that I simply cannot agree that what constitutes reasonable assumptions is not a value judgement. Is a fundamentalist Christian preachers defintion of reasonable going to be the same as a liberal who favours abortion. I think not yet the will both consider themselves reasonable. This is because your very question presumes it is a matter of preference on the onset. A better one is"how do we determine it?" If you believe that there are limits on what Bush promised then why not simply list all those things that are outside the pale. In other words why not tell the world what you believe those limits to be like even small USA companies have to do by law. It might be a surprise to the Iraqis what they can and cannot do. Reasonable is a value judgement. If it wasn't why do the lawyers spend so much time debating its meaning in the courts of the USA. And that is within a single country. If you try and impose what your idea of reasonable is on another country with completely different history and traditions then you run the risk of inflaming the situation and by the way what is good for the USA is not by definition what is good for the rest of the world. Look at the efforts to stop possible atrocities committed by American soldiers being properly tried internationally or the impact America is having on non-renewable energy resources etc. Nope, I don't if it means theocracy. And neither does president Bush. I am glad we got that straight. The war was fought for USA interests and not for the Iraqis if they choose to do something the USA doesn't like. I just hope they don't want to choose something the colonial power doesn't like. Quite the opposite. Good. I will remember not to take any of his words at face value in future. That is unless I have my unwritten book of assumptions with me.But if you are not an absolutist you do not necssarily. Ever occur to you Rumsfeld now realizes his mistake?I am not sure what you are saying here but no I do not get any sense at all that Rumsfeld accepts that he made a mistake. In fact on a recent interview on British TV he was widely laughed at for apparently having difficulty acknowledging his part in the supply of anthrax to Iraq. I do not believe that he has any interest in the welfare the Iraqi people at all but will take that back if you can show me anywhere he apologised for his actions. Also you've failed to establish how this is relevant to Bush's "promise". Either we can trust Bush and his administration or we cannot. The veracity and actions of Rumsfeld is very pertinent in this matter. Biggest say-not all the say. I call it a so-caled coalition because their views have been ignored on certain issues.For example the British wanted the Iraqi people who ran Um Qsar perfectly well before the war (in an area the British fought for and controlled) to be allowed to run the port. Their views were ignored and an American company given a contract to do that work. And ignore context. You fail to provide all the unwritten assumptions that guide your thesis yet rebuke me for a lack of context. Interesting. Yes basically the same thing your quoted earlier. Explained above. Do you have a complete list of assumptions or do these only become clear in a gradual process - perhaps evolving with time as the situation requires?Is it really reasonable to expect anyone to make a promise without qualification? Can you do so? Probaly not but I have not started a war for reasons that hev not yet been verified. Before going to war I do believe it is important not to mislead by ommission. You have made it clearr that in your opinion the words of Bush cannot be taken at face value because there are a list of unwritten and unspecified assumptions that have to be taken into account. If Bust tried to publish a budget report without specifying the assumptions used in draughting the report then Congress would throw it out. Is the world not entitled to ask what the assumptions are that have to be taken into account here? From your responses I get the feeling either that they are not or that somehow, like you, they should already know. The absolutist either/or's. With the irony here being I bet your not even a declared absolutist.

You're just absolutist in method and expectations when conveniant.
. Perhaps you can help me. What is the other way here? Or we recognize its better if *some*(meaning: NOT ALL...hope I don't have to repeat this) are broken.

Also I have also stated: removing a statement from underlying assumptions is not taking it at face value.
.So the third way is where he breaks some of his promises. Wow. What a great get out. I recommend that to all politicians. Again the false dillemas(that's about 3 of them so far).

And btw nope, they can choose what they want within democratic/reasonable limits.
THe whole crux of this is very simple. What you are saying is that the Iraqi peple will not be allowed to choose what they want if it in some way disagrees with what the USA wants and that this is to be guided by a list of reasonable assumptions. I have got that message loud and clear however there is not a full and clear list of the assumptions available on which Bush's promises are based. Yes:rolleeyes:, if I say one promise may be silly.....that means I believe ALL Bush's promises ARE silly. Note question mark at end of question.Expecting the US to let them establish a theocracy is not reasonable It is clear that the Iraqi people will not be allowed to choose the form of governmnet they want if it disagrees with what you want. I hiope they have a list of the reasonable assumptions. If they are reasonable then they shouldn't care if we place certain reasonable limits in them: they should welcome them. Is it only reasonable if you alone think it is reasonable? Don't the Iraqi peple get a say in what is reasonable from their perspective. I note that we are getting to the core words now. Limits placed on them by the USA. rather than the coalition. A bit like the taxes the British tried to place on North Americans perhaps. The British thought they were reasonable, some North Americans didn't. Remind me what the North Americans did when they disagreed with the British about how reasonable the taxes were.Again I've gone over your silly face value statement. Yes you can repeat yourself, but doing so doesn't make it true. Once again you have failed to list all the unwritten assumptions behind your talk of reasonableness. I note that reasonableness does not apply to the Iraqi people. It appears to be a purely USA concept. The UN was not given the time for other reasons and you know it. (Or should know it, as with you I can't be too sure.) I am not clear what you are sayng here. What are your reasons why the UN inspectors were stymied from doing their job? There may be a list of unprinted assumptions I should be taking into account here as well. The issue is also one of veracity.This is ridiculous. You don't have to literally mutate and edit his speech to mutate his words, you merely have to promote a ridiculous interpretation. I understand that we can only take Bush's words at face value if we have a list of unspecified assumptions. You stated 'They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions.' I note the funny face after that particular bit of wisdom (and the response of Congress if that stunt were to pulled on them with the budget) and that they are available 'In our ability to recieve and interpretation.' whatever that means. Interpretation again. Whose? Yours or the Iraqi peoples? No don't tell me. Let me guess. It's not the Iraqi people's interpretation. What probably *was* on his mind, was democratically elected offcials within a constitutional framework. I hope that is also what is on the Iraqi peoples' minds then otherwise they won't apparently be getting what they do want.For a simple mind it may be that simple.

For those that recognize context and complexities in this issue though it is not.

(Notice also how your claim goes from something paticular to something general with absolutely no justifcation for the transition.)
I accept that it is your argument is that we cannot take Bush's words at face value without an unwritten list of assumptions. Notice how you claim there is an unwritten list of assumptions that are 'reasonable' but do not provide it as though it is immutable and obvious. I do hope the Iraqi people know what these reasonable assumptions are and make the correct 'interpretation'. I hope that when the next USA budget is presented a list of assumptions is attached (as I know they will be). QUestion begging. ?[QUOTE]Again Your thesis is paradise for politicians. Apparently it matters not what Bush's actual words are because that can only be established by 'our ability to receive and interpretation' certain assumptions.

My point has been to demonstrate the truth of the situation for the Iraq people which is that if they make the error of choosing something the USA does not like the USA (rather than the coalition) will not allow them to have it. Your argument has been that there are 'reasonable assumptions' regarding what Bush will allow them. I have sought to clarify exactly what these are but still do not have a clear picture of what they are. It is however clear that what the Iraqi people might choose has to fit in with what you consider to be reasonable assumptions rather than the other way round. Unfortunately that fills me with dread for good historical reasons. If the USA rather than the coaltion does what it considers in its own self interest in making the Iraq people choose something they might not want then we may end up in a similar position to that which pertained when the North Americans deemed what the British were doing was not reasonable. Reasonble is a value judgement. Assumptions need to be listed and the world and the Iraqis need to be told what Bush means when he promises something.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DSMTimeframe?

If the US (possibly with UN help) installs a democratic government with constitutional guarantees (along the lines of the US constitution) and the Iraqis later choose to go a different route (say, theocratic), have the following been accomplished?




A government that allows the Iraqis to choose has been created.

Checks and balances are there to make sure that that choice is well thought out and not a simple, emotional response.

Ultimately, the ability to tear down the democracy and go with a monarchy or a theocracy is possible through constitutional amendment and the like.



Is this bad?
Good question. It depends on how those governments behave and if their legitimacy is accepted by the world.

I believe that it is the UN which should have the mandate to act as a faciltator in achieving what the Iraqi people want in deciding the form and leadership of post Hussein Iraq and believe that it is only through the forum of the UN that the resulting state will receive full international acknowledgement and recognition. To do otherwise I think brings potential dangers because many ordinary people around the world are very concerned and cynical about the motives of the USA. The motives of Tony Blair are however possibly more transparent - namely self-interest of a personal kind.

I recognise that defining new electoral frameworks is a difficult process to bring to fruition even between men of good intent. Coming from Northern Ireland how could I understand otherwise? It is because I have seen the struggles in Northern Ireland and the attempts to achieve a peace recognised by all sides that I believe that unless the end result (of whatever hue they wish) is selected by the Iraqis themselves then greater turmoil will inevitably result. I am not naive enough to believe that any particular route will be trouble free but I do believe that what the USA wants does not automatically equate with what is good for the Iraqi people or the greater good of the world for historical reasons relating to the country next door etc.

What I have tried to do is to bring the implicit assumptions brought to the table by the USA out into the open because I feel that the USA's own agenda is not yet completely transparent although perhaps we are seeing things materialise through the contract awards and the protection of the Oil Ministry building etc.

If the Iraqis should select a terrorist government then they should have to deal with the consequences properly defined and carried out through the UN. I am not anti-war as such therefore. Merely anti ridiculous and trumped up excuses for going to war and anti styming of agreed UN inspections in the process. The key factor from my perspective is to avoid the USA being seen to or actually imposing their desired solution on Iraq for their own strategic self interest. Avoiding that means the UN shouldbe in charge of the process with US input as part of the UN.Careful. This is where you're really pushing the analogy Thanks for the advice but I really don't think that the US constitution is necessarily the best model for the Iraqi people. I am also not sure that any system is entirely free from abuses such as the awarding of contracts to companies that fund the Republican party. The USA has a lot to commend it and amongst other things your attempts at free speech are much better than ours. I believe that your system does not adequately protect the poor and needy and that is what Iraq has in abundance.The difference between putting W into the presidency and (say) making him "leader for life" is that:




While many questioned his ability, it was obvious that nearly half the electorate thought he would be a reasonable president.

Worse comes to worse, we always knew that we could throw him out in 4 years (as opposed to a "leader for life").



That makes a difference.

Yes you can vote him out. That does make a difference. Unfortunately it also makes a difference how much money the parties have to spend on electioneering and the companies that buy electioneering for the Republican party are now seeing their rewards through massive money spinning contracts in Iraq that may get siphoned back to the Republican party in time for the next election. That demeans democracy. I also trust that all the votes are counted and what happened in Florida doesn't happen again.There have been many failures all around. For instance, the election of the Ayatollah Khomeini to "leader for life" would likely be viewed by a majority of Iranians as failure, but they can do little about it now as he (and his successors) is the "leader for life". That was something that went against the wishes of the US (they would've preferred the Shah stay), but they bowed to the will of the people (they had little choice). There have indeed been many failures by the UK amongst others. The USA contributed directly to the rise to power of the Ayatollah in Iran because the USA destabilised a democratic movement in Iran for the benefit of their oil companies andsupported the despotic Shah against the wishes of the people. In short the USA tried to stymie democracy in Iran for its own strategic interests. People there have not totally forgotten what happened although Rumsfeld appears to have done just that. If you try to impose your preferred solution on Iraq or don't allow the Iraqis to really choose what they want then it is possible if not probable that the situation in Iran is likely to arise in Iraq to all our regret.This is where I mostly agree with you. No matter which way you go at this point, though, some (major) group is not going to like the results. Removing the US from the process is probably not possible as the UN is viewed as a puppet of the US by many and likely the US would still be doing much of the groundwork. Even if the UN could remove the US from the process, then the question of fairness to US companies would come up in the issue of repair work. And the US reputation, damaged as it is, might be further damaged in ways that affect world stability. I am glad that we can approximate to agreement in this area. The words bag and worms do indeed spring to mind here. You are correct inthat it is unlikely that everyone will be equally happy with any solution but the internaional authority the UN would perhaps bring to the table might carry more weight with aggreived parties and act as a stabilising influence when disputes inevitably arise. I accept that the UN is often seen as the USA's lackey but am not sure how the USA acting itself could be better seen in that regard. It is clear that the UN has little support in the Bush administration and possibly throughout the USA at the moment. I hope that might change but am not holding my breath. With regard to the post wa contracts I understand that the issue of fairness has already come up on Capitol Hill due to the way the contracts were initially awarded. Perhaps the UN would be fairer?