posted
If there are any posting actively on the board these days, could you please explain something to me? The president has said the following:
- The occupation is ending but the troops will remain.
That's exactly what he said. Sure, I'm not providing the full context. Okay. But explain to me what that means.
To me it means this: - The occupation is not ending until we say it is. We're planning to have to prop up a puppet regime indefinately. And this is going to cost a lot of money.
I can't pretend to speak for the Iraqis, but I could sure sympathize with our future allies and friends if they thought it meant: - The take over of your country is nearly complete. Soon, we'll help to install a new government that will be answerable to us, based on our superior fire power. Eventually, you'll come to love it and need it.
This is getting me so cynical I can't believe it. I mean, does the Administration think everyone is stupid and incapable of critical thinking?
Or do they really think they are so right in this that in short order everyone is just going to say "oh, look, it worked out great! Thanks guys!"
So, my big question is really, what in the heck are we conserving with this Administration? Our good name? Our domestic tranquility? Our economy? The right to be Christian in America?
I mean seriously, I no longer feel like I have a handle on what it means to profess to be a Conservative in the US.
Oh, and can someone please explain what the heck the US Anti-Doping Agency is and what gives them the power to strip athletes of medals based on supposition? Who the heck are these people? And who decided we NEEDED a USADA right now anyway? I thought big government was for the Democrats. A whole new agency devoted to tracking down people who use drugs that haven't been declared illegal? I must be missing something, but it sounds like someone's private crusade (witch hunt).
Oh well...thanks for listening. Anyone willing to take a stab at an answer, I'd love to know!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, what I thought he was saying was "We promised to turn the government over to you, so we will even though there are still rebels all over the place shooting at you and us both. But a new warlord will be in charge in all of three weeks unless we leave our troops there, since you haven't got an army worth the name."
Oh, and I should make it plain...I've decided to vote for Kerry, so I'm not exactly a Bush supporter any more.
Seems like Kerry is making a lot of decisions "for" people totally out of his control. I mean -- does he know for a fact that NATO will agree to take over this mission? Many other nations have backed down some because of COST.
at that site, he also says
quote: An international High Commissioner should be authorized by the UN Security Council to organize the political transition to Iraqi sovereignty and the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction with the new Iraqi government
again, is he speaking on behalf of the UN? Does he know they will do this? Can he force a vote by them?
And then there's this:
quote: This would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, open the door to participation by non-NATO countries
Kerry is only saying 20,000 troops. We have many more than that over there. So Kerry, as well, is planning on continuing a "U.S. presence" in Iraq.
I think lots of Kerry's rhetoric looks good in print, but wonder how much of it he could really make happen. After all, he can't tell the other countries what to do, or what to agree to. So he is assuming a lot.
posted
>.< At least Kerry seems to have a clear plan, which is more than I can say for Bush. Bush seems to have no constructive exit plan other than the impossible task of transfering power to Iraq next month. So please... stop defending him... Bush is really not doing a very good job...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd be pretty happy if Kerry's "war plan" was simply "None, if I can help it."
The only way he can help it is if he doesn't get elected. If he gets elected, he must have *some* plan, even if it's just "Leave, and let Iraq go to hell". (Actually, that's what I'm afraid his plan would effectively end up being.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I just realized that my wording was confusing. By "none", I meant "No war, if I can help it.". But I see now that it could be interpreted as "No war plan, if I can help it." Sorry for the confusion.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it comes to the same thing. If Kerry is president, he's *got* a war. He has no choice. The question is, what will he do about it? Will he just pack up the troops and go home? Will he try to pass the buck to NATO and UN? Will he try to finish the job properly? He's got to do *something* about it.
posted
I would like to know what those who say that Bush is doing a bad job with this situation expect? I think that many of those who are blasting him are setting unrealistic goals. In fairness though, maybe he set those goals too high or has told us to expect them too quickly. Rebuilding a nation takes longer than one year. It takes longer than 2 years even. I don't think that this is something you can accurately predict, as there are too many variables. All you can do is remain committed to the task and say, "It will take as long as it takes, period."
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that when Bush said he had a plan for administering Iraq after the invasion, he didn't, I'm not particularly inclined to trust that he has a real plan now.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. For the most part, neither side is saying "My candidate will do *this*, which will fix the problem." Both sides are saying "Your candidate will screw things up." Which I'm sure is true. I don't think anybody could be president and not "screw up" in this situation. There are just no good answers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, Kerry is not "my" candidate. My candidate was Howard Dean, and he definitely had specific and reasonable plans for what to do with Iraq. However, since he's not in the race, and since all Kerry really represents to me is "not Bush", I'm way more interested in the ways that Bush will continue to screw things up than I am in the ways that Kerry would fix them.
posted
Having a semblance of a plan about what to do after we invaded Iraq would have been a good start on not screwing up. As we didn't, we screwed up badly. Surprise surprise, who would have thought not planning would lead to disorganization? Apparently not Bush's administration.
I want Bush out of power because the neocon's in his administration are screwing over the values of this country. Even if Kerry turns out to be a similarly mediocre/bad president, the fact that the Republicans will almost certainly still hold both houses of Congress (particularly the non-neocons should still hold the senate) should still result in a pretty decent government, unlike what we're getting now.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think Kerry's plan is pretty good. Sure he's making some assuptions based on actions of entities beyond his control, but he is proposing doing what should have been done from the very beginning: Seeking an international solution to an international problem. That said, it wouldn't be completely unjustified if the UN and NATO said, "You made the mess, you clean it up." If they do that, then we'll move on from there. But at least he will have made an effort to ease the "We're the only superpower left so we can do whateverthehell we want!" attitude that Bush & Co. have shown the world.
I don't doubt that we will have troops there for many more months, if not years, after June 30th. Many people were saying that even before we invaded Iraq. Bush should have known this before the war and made appropriate plans then.
If Kerry wins the election he does have a tough row to hoe. But it's a mess he will have inherited from Bush so I'm willing to cut him some slack.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interviewer: So, what sort of exit strategy do you have, in the event that your child does not learn to walk?
Parent: Um, I think my child can probably learn to walk. I'm just going to keep on it until it happens.
Interviewer: That's sort of vauge and evasive. Lots of us are very frustrated by how often we are seeing your child falling down. Are you trying to hurt it? What if it can't walk?
Parent: Look, it's a good, healthy baby. It will learn to walk. It will keep falling down until it gets its balance right. I'll be here to pick it up, but then its right back to letting it try to walk on its own.
Interviewer: But how long will that take? I need numbers! Your plan is too vaugue.
Parent: Look, I can't give you numbers because every child is different. Some babies walk in a few months, but some take longer. But it's pretty important that the baby learn to walk, so I'm not going to put a limit on that.
Other parent: I promise that if you give me that baby, that if it isn't walking in thirty days, I will give up, strap it into a stroller and leave it alone, lest by moving it, we allow it to fall and hurt itself.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So doc, the Iraqi's are babies and we are thier kind buy strict parents? And some wonder why they feel insulted.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
The use of the child/parent analogy is the traditional model of the old "Colonial/Imperialist" apologists - it's one reason that it's carefully avoided by Bush and his reps.
The analogy would not get a good reception in Iraq.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe he was just trying to demonstrate that analogies are useless?
I don't think there's any real question that American troops need to stay in Iraq until the situation cools down. And there certainly needs to be more of them. If America can't provide them than the other members of the coalition need to pick up the slack or it's time to approach the international community and ask for aid.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
-"Having a semblance of a plan about what to do after we invaded Iraq would have been a good start on not screwing up." fugu13
I don't think it was so much that we didn't have a plan but that the plan made...
-"...some assuptions based on actions of entities beyond his control," KarlEd
...and therefore it failed. We assumed that that instilling a government would be easier than it has proven becasue we assumed the Iraqi people would more eagerly embrace it IMO.
I find it interesting that you seem willing to cut Kerry some slack on the decisions of entities beyond his control, but not Bush.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Actually, President Bush's plan is fool proof. When we implement these five steps the Iraqi people will be free and safe.
THe problem is in how we do those five steps. Those are the details where we are having troubles.
1) Hiring out our intelligence needs to contractors is not a solution. They are paid for intelligence results, and if in doing so they undermine our credibility, break the common laws of nations, injure and torture people, well they are free from prosecution because the US Military is the law and we hired them.
(I was greatly disappointed in his describtion of the Prison Scandal as the workings of half a dozen soldiers, with no mention of their officers, the contractors, or the intelligence people who set them up for these problem. I also fear the razing of the prison will be seen as a way of burying evidence.)
2) Problems like the possible destruction of a wedding party need to be clarified as something more than "chaotic looking".
3) A new initiative to actually win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi's would be great. If the US spent 1% of the money President Bush was using to win the American voters, and use it to win the Iraqi people, things would change. We could start by having him learn the correct way to say Iraq, Iraqi, and the names of the people he's talking with. They want respect. We need to give it to then, not talk down to them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm perfectly serious with my analogy. It has several points that make it useful. It's obviously not meant to be a direct analogy--of course the Iraqis aren't babies, completely incapale of any action at all--but in this case, this is something that's new to them. Freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, freedom of everything.
And for the particular people who will be governing, leading a country is going to be new to them.
Here's why I like it.
None of us would dream of giving up on teaching our child to walk. It wouldn't be an option. We wouldn't even consider it. We would help the child walk--consequently, most children walk.
If we took the same strategy with Iraq--stopped talking about how we can get out of there, and started talking about what it would take to make this work, we'd get a lot more accomplished.
Imagine if you will, the analogy was more perfect. Rather than a silly baby that can't talk, this baby has awareness. Maybe even hightened awareness, more than me and you. And even though we think it doesn't understand, it's overhearing our interview. It knows lots of people don't want it to learn to walk--so it's wondering whether it should bother hurting itself trying, or if it should just look for the softest direction to fall down in.
If you ask me, the condescending attitude is the opposite--the one that says they're somehow incapable of self-governence, that they aren't worth our time or effort or the lives of our soldiers, that there's no justification for our being there because the cost is too great and they can't handle it.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the anti-doping thing is a horrible attack upon our right as an industrialized nation to dominate third world competitors in the upcoming Olympics. I wonder if we should even go.
"Dude, are you being sarcastic?"
"I don't even know anymore."
Cry imperialism if you like, but most parents don't see their children as being morally less than themselves. They just need time and encouragement.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
You start this thread spouting your opinion on the matter, and then just disappear? What's with that? I was looking forward to a lively debate! you included!
posted
Kindly put "I think" and "IMHO" where appropriate in the following.
This issue, doc, is that the US is incapable of doing this on their own. For one I don't think they have the manpower. There need to be more troops there if there's going to be any hope of keeping the peace. It's not a long-term solution, obviously Iraq will need to be policed by Iraqis in the future. But for there to be any hope of a long-term solution there has to be some sort of security. I think you’d agree with me that the public fallout to committing a hundred thousand+ troops would be crippling. Still, the manpower has to come from somewhere, either from other coalition countries or back to the UN. I happen to think troops for the international community are a better option. The US doesn't have the credibility in the eyes of the international community to pull off setting up an Iraqi government. And let’s not beat around the bush, this is seen as America’s mess, not The Coalitions mess. Like it or not, the UN has to have some sort of a presence if the resulting government is going to be taken seriously by the rest of the world -- especially its neighboring countries. If it's perceived as a puppet regime (which is where it's heading) it's dead in the water.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, what if your child was having obvious difficulties learning to walk, and was becoming upset often, and lashing out, as a result? You'd go to your doctor, a child physical therapist, and similar experts. At _SOME_ point, you would look for help, rather than watch your crawling upset 4-year-old (not that I'm saying we should only be in Iraq for 4 years, I think timelines are rather worthless at this point, since we have no real plan to know if we are succeeding, aside from less deaths on both sides).
The original analogy only proves that the parent is [EDIT: possibly] stubborn, and that the person making an analogy has a distinct bias against interviewers
posted
I have a problem with the analogy. Here's mine. The parent is fully expecting to be at a dance recital on June 1st. Unfortunately, the child hasn't even learned to walk yet and everyone is wondering what the plan might be, if, by chance, the child still isn't walking by the night of the dance recital. Continuing to say over and over again, "The recital is going off, as scheduled, no matter what," isn't really answering anyones concerns.
Because then it really does look like, "come hell or high water, we are going to pretend there is a semblence of an Iraqi government and, yeah, sure, we all know it's just really an American puppet regime and we can all see the strings under those stage lights, but no one else will notice" kind of thing.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's my problem with the analogy; everyone is talking as though american-style democratic government is somehow the end-all, be-all of human existence, as though those silly iraqi's are just too opressed to realize that they too can be just like us. Our system of government is one of many possible ways of organizing a society, it is not something which is required for a society to function.
the condescention in the analogy comes not from assuming that the iraqis are incapable of learning something, but from assuming that our way of living is the only acceptable one, and that all other ways are subordinate steps along a progression towards being like us.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one constant in the polls in Iraq has been that they want democracy. I've been trying to find this quote for over a month now. I believe it was Aung San Suu Kyi who said something to the effect that the perception in the west that not everyone is ready for democracy or that not everyone wants freedom was one of the biggest obstacles to reform in oppressed countries.
quote:the condescention in the analogy comes not from assuming that the iraqis are incapable of learning something, but from assuming that our way of living is the only acceptable one
If you consider the set of our government and all governments of Muslim mations in the Middle East, then yes, our form of government is the only acceptable one, with the possible exception of Turkey, which has tried very hard to blend its own culture fairly and effectively with the positive lessons it could learn from the West.
I personally do not consider dictatorships, warlords, oppressive theocracies, and the rule of the fabulously wealthy over the huddled masses to be "acceptable" no matter what your culture might be. People do accept these governments, but only because they are forced to, or because they do not believe that other options are truly available.
A democracy is not by nature "American" and we would not be forcing our culture on someone else if we helped them to build a democratic government. If anything, we would be freeing them to rule themselves however they see fit, rather than forcing them to accept whatever warlord decided to take charge.
By the way, I'm curious, what would a new Iraqi government have to do in order to NOT be considered a puppet government? Would they have to rebel against the American occupation to be considered legitimate? Kill a few of us? What?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally do not consider dictatorships, warlords, oppressive theocracies, and the rule of the fabulously wealthy over the huddled masses to be "acceptable" no matter what your culture might be
its interesting that you would include the rule of the fabulously wealthy over the huddled masses, considering the history of this democracy of ours which you consider to be so superior. do you feel that because the american elite maintain their position through cultural manipulation rather than brute force they are somehow less privlidged or powerful? do you think that because we are raised to blieve in upward mobility that our lives are somehow less opressive?
do you really think that our country is so perfect that we need to invade other countries in order to make them follow suit?
and in response to the argument that most people want to be like us but are so opressed by dictators and tyrants that they cannot form the government they desire; if they don't want democracy enough to die for it, do they really want it, and if it is such a wonderful thing, do they really deserve it? Hundreds of countries all over the world have fought bloody wars to gain the freedom they now cherish, and no doubt those very conflicts taught them the value of that freedom. do the iraqi's want democracy? yes. are they willing to fight to keep it? i don't know.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Your argument seems to be, if you aren't willing to die for freedom, you don't truly want it.
Yet what good does dieing do if you have no guns, no weapons, no way of defeating the massed stregth of those who do have the guns.
Its nice to look back and say, We Americans, We wanted freedom. We fought for freedom, so we deserve it. But the truth is that without the aid of a busybody foriegn power--France--we would not have had the freedom we cherish.
I have been to other countries, where the wealthy live in mansions and the majority live in shacks. They play budy politics and use money to buy the guns to keep their people down. To compare that to the US is ridiculous.
Sure, old money and the Bill Gates have it better than the children of share croppers. However, that difference is not forced on them at gunpoint. While bribes and abuse of power exist in the US, they do not exist to the same extent, and are seen as wrong. Elsewhere they are seen as normaly, and are often encouraged.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Time and time again, I try to write a post, but quit because I cannot forumlate it. Then along comes Dog and says *exactly* what I wanted to say, but makes it intelligible. Thanks for helping out, Dog!
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The Republicans rolled out a plan for invasion with an emphasis on reducing civilian casualties as much as possible, as little damage to infrastructure as possible and a complete overthrow of the Baathist regime of Sadaam Hussein. They brought in enough support from other countries to call it multinational and then performed that plan pretty much right on the money.
They knew that part would be easy and knew the reclaimation and rebuilding of Iraq was going to be difficult. That's when the Administration started selling the soft soap, so to say. Everything from the time tables and troop deployments to the ill-advised carrier landing stunt, was to sell the American public on the idea of "The worst is over, nothing left but the mopping and straightening up" as if Iraq was nothing more than the detritus of last night's frat party.
They refused to publicly acknowledge that Iraq had been held together as a country by Sadaam's use of terror among his own folks. Shiites hated Sunnis, Sunnis hated Kurds, Kurds aren't so hot on Bedouins, etc... but they all feared Sadaam more than they hated each other. Get rid of Sadaam and guess how well these folks would get along? Sure there was a chance of mutual cooperation, but it hasn't been panning out very quickly or very well. The Iraqi Provisional Government has been very shaky and it doesn't seem to be stabilizing -- practically or in the eyes of the people there.
Something tells me the Administration has known this all along and their exit strategy is more truthfully tagged out at about five years. They will take a hands off approach to the Iraqi government and retain our troops and others there in case the government starts to knuckle under.
In the end, they will have re-established the oil trade (allowing Iraq's reserves to balance the growth in China's oil consumption), probably gotten a fledgling democracy off the grounds, and probably negotiated for a permanent airbase in Iraq. That airbase is centrally located in the Middle East and will allow us to pull out of Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base before that nation collapses into Civil War.
If the Administration follows its current course, that air base would be strategically important when Saudi Arabia collapses. It keeps our interests guarded and takes us out of the direct fighting. It would also allow us to swoop in and put the boots to one of the more radical Muslim groups that could make a push for power in Saudi Arabia. It could be used to knock that group and others down until a moderate regime surfaces there.
It's a mess, but I think the truth of the matter is that this has been a planned mess. It looks like a bit of a poor planning job, but what it is is really just a chess player setting up moves for later in the game.
And we've been happy to look at the hand that looks empty while not paying attention to the one that has been doing all of the work.
Of course, that's just my opinion. And I won't be voting for Bush, just like I didn't the last time. This time its because I feel that we haven't just been lied to, but sold a false bill of goods. And man, didn't we all buy a big bag of it and eat a handful or two ourselves before we found out what we had?
Kerry? He's going to draw back 20,000 troops. Umm, yeah, bold move there. He wants the same thing in the long run for Iraq that Bush does.
To paraphrase the great Pete Townsend, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer Bob's question, I am a conservative who voted for Bush in the last election, but will not do so ever again. I feel as if my party has been hijacked by the neocons and that true conservative values have been supplanted by neo-liberal institutionalist values. From his war policies to his economic policies Bush is *not* a conervative and I think his plan for Iraq is ridiculous. We need more UN involvement immediately without making them come to us on our terms: that might never happen! President Bush needs to learn that sometimes it is in a nation's best interest to compromise.
quote:I personally do not consider dictatorships, warlords, oppressive theocracies, and the rule of the fabulously wealthy over the huddled masses to be "acceptable" no matter what your culture might be.
I suspect this is why the Iraqis don't find being ruled by America acceptable either, as there is nothing democratic about "you can't walk yet, so we'll rule over you like your parent until we believe you can."
quote:By the way, I'm curious, what would a new Iraqi government have to do in order to NOT be considered a puppet government? Would they have to rebel against the American occupation to be considered legitimate? Kill a few of us? What?
When the Iraqi people can govern themselves as they wish, and not only so far as America allows them to go on their leash. Or, in other words, when THEY are the ones deciding what is "acceptable" for Iraq and what is not, rather than America.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, which Iraqis do you think should get to make that decision? At the moment, they have neither the precedent nor the infrastructure set up for nationwide elections. "Letting the Iraqis decide" without any involvement on our part means "letting the scariest and most powerful Iraqis decide".
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What it means is that we will no longer be in control of the goings on, we will simply be a prescence to keep order, and support the new administration to get its country into a cohesive functioning nation.
posted
BannaOj, Here's where I believe it comes from. Recently National Geographic did a looong piece on life in Saudi Arabia. In it, what showed time and time again was this: a small portion of the populace is in control and active and a huge portion of their population is living on the dole with no real prospects at the future. Huge portions of Saudi men receive advanced degrees, mainly in Islamic studies. Within that realm are the Saudi Islamic schools that have been preaching louder and louder what bin Laden and others have been proclaiming.
Please remember that the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis... as well as the leadership of Al Qaeda. Their voice and others like it are very strong in Saudi Arabian life beyond the public view we get of a wealthy nation.
It's not a disparity of wealth but a disparity of control, or at least vested interest in the government.
Follow this with regular reports of violent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, or shoot-outs with terrorist cells (check CNN and other news websites for their morgued stories on this) and you'll see something is going on.
The Sauds are pretty much at the end of their tether and when the current head of the family passes away, many have suspected their will be some sort of power struggle. The chosen successor is one of the younger heirs, not the older ones. Someone in the Saud family may just take their case of hereditary title to the more radical mosques and pick up a big, big following from the fellows hanging about with nothing better to do.
Add that in with the fact that most of the physical labor in the country is done by foreign nationals working at pennies on the dollar.
Let's just chalk it up to speculation, but there's a kid with a bookful of matches standing there in a room full of fuses. Someday, it's going to blow.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What it means is that we will no longer be in control of the goings on...."
Except that this isn't the case. I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the terms we've already laid out for the change.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The area now known as Iraq was civilized before America was a vague outline on a map.
To presume to explain to the people who live there the concept of proper governance is absurd. They've got a rich history of both good and bad government.
And you can also rest assured that enough of the people there have "western style" educations to know what a democracy is.
These are not poor benighted savages. They aren't children. They are human beings whose country is currently occupied by the two strongest military organizations on Earth, plus a few of their friends <cough>toadies<cough>.
Their other experience with Western democracies in recent years has included: - The US and allies supplying arms to the guy who eventually established a brutal dictatorship, in part by using those weapons against his own people. - The French and Russians (among others) working behind the scenes to undermine the UN attempts to alleviate the suffering of the people under that brutal regime. - A disastrous war against Iran encouraged by the Western alliance. - An even worse disaster in Kuwait which, many are convinced, was also encouraged by the West, especially the US. - And now an occupation by people who clearly don't understand a blessed thing about their culture and heritage, and don't even care to learn.
So, sure, I'm in agreement that whoever is elected in November will have to maintain a major military presence in Iraq just to keep the place from descending into chaos as warlords battle to fill the void we made. But the point is not that we need more time there. There point is that we have a president who claims things like "the war is over" and "the occupation will end June 30th" when those statements are false.
I've said it before, and I'll probably have to say it again. I prefer a president whose lies don't get people killed. This man is not trustworthy. He may be doing as good a job as possible in Iraq, though I seriously doubt that. But I'll at least grant that maybe nobody, having initiated this war could've done better. It was a disaster waiting for whoever took this step. That might even be why several presidents in a row stepped back from this brink.
But, and here's the rub, I can imagine any number of men of honor and integrity who would've done the job without withholding information and certainly without the obvious and immediately discreditable lies that seem to pour from this man's lips at every opportunity.
He has, in my mind, crossed far over the line into the realm of treason against humanity, not just the US. And I for one look forward to the day that he is not only gone from the White House, but the far more important day when his records and papers are declassified and made available to the world to study.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among US presidents, GWB is now second only to Richard Nixon on my list of obvious sociopaths.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the truth is that without the aid of a busybody foriegn power--France--we would not have had the freedom we cherish
this assumes that by expelling the british we earned our freedom, which is hardly the case. by expelling the british we allowed a handful of aristocratic landowners (all of whom happened to be rich) to take over the government. At that time the following people were not represented by our government: women, minorities, white men who either did not own land or did not own enough land. that left a rather reduced portion of the population as part of the electorate. and as for our rights and freedoms, the constitution had to be amended because they were mistakenly left out. What freedoms we have in this country have been earned through centuries of reform, struggle, and in many cases revolt. The fact that our government is able to withstand the drastic changes it has is in my opinion the only true selling point for it.
quote: I have been to other countries, where the wealthy live in mansions and the majority live in shacks. They play budy politics and use money to buy the guns to keep their people down. To compare that to the US is ridiculous.
countries like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia you mean? Our new best friends out of strategic convenience? Or since we're talking about "democracy" maybe you're referring to places such as India or Russia. I have no problem with such strategic alliances really, except when we then say we're going to bring democracy to the middle east. seems like a good way to start would be to stop propping up totalitarian regimes and giving the rest ammunition for keeping their populations angry at us and diverted from problems at home (Israel). I mention India and Russia simply to show that democracy does not equal equality and fairness; if socialism can be distorted into totalitarianism don't you think democracy could too?
quote: Sure, old money and the Bill Gates have it better than the children of share croppers. However, that difference is not forced on them at gunpoint. While bribes and abuse of power exist in the US, they do not exist to the same extent, and are seen as wrong
I suspect if a child of a sharecropper decided to reaproppriate some of Bill Gate's wealth that difference would indeed be forced on him at gunpoint. But that's not really the point, and ignores what i said to begin with. Just because we're not explicitly forced to behave in certain ways does not mean that we are not just as coerced. In many ways totalitarian regimes are easier to resist than cultural regimes. Our culture is controlled not through force but through beliefs. The reason Bill Gates is allowed the money he has is that we are taught that we should be paid what we're worth to society, and Gates is obviously worth more than you or I, and so he deserves what he has. I'm not really arguing that specific point, just pointint it out as part of a system of social control through beliefs. As for governmental bribes, it's like the Halliburton contracts: if the system is set up in such a way that it benefits the people who would be doing the bribing in the first place, what's the need for bribes and law-breaking? Besides, i would argue that campaign donations are paramount to bribes as campaign advertisements clearly influence public opinion.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:kerinin said:At that time the following people were not represented by our government: women, minorities, white men who either did not own land or did not own enough land. that left a rather reduced portion of the population as part of the electorate. and as for our rights and freedoms, the constitution had to be amended because they were mistakenly left out. What freedoms we have in this country have been earned through centuries of reform, struggle, and in many cases revolt. The fact that our government is able to withstand the drastic changes it has is in my opinion the only true selling point for it.
I might be wrong, but I thought that the Bill of Rights was pretty much a planned addition to the Constitution as they wrote it.
If I remember correctly, the founding fathers believed that the one of the Constitution's primary purposes was to protect the minorities. Just because the people who wrote it were richer than average and could presumably have cut out rights from a lot of people, doesn't mean that they did. They wrote a document that created a strong central government, and somehow got the fledgling states to agree to it, while all the states knew that by agreeing to the Constitution (abandoning the older Confederation government), the states would lose power. To do that, they had to compromise, excluding blacks originally, for example (3/5ths compromise).
The Constitution has changed somewhat to guarantee rights to groups originally left out, but it didn't start out badly. And I don't think groups were left out by mistake. Just getting approval for the new central government was crazily difficult, and it involved a lot of compromise.
I think that for an Iraqi government to work, they somehow need to agree on a constitution that preserves the will of the majority (i.e. democratic), but protects the interests of the minority. Given that the factions within Iraqi society are practically at each other's throats already, this may prove even more difficult than establishing the United States Constitution.
As you may remember, transitions in Europe to constitutional governments from pure monarchies often took a revolution, and didn't turn out peachy right away. I hope Iraq works out eventually, but I think we made a mistake stirring things up without better international approval, and I'd like to see us work with other nations to help the Iraqi people come together and establish a government based on a document that the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, etc. can all agree on.
I also think it is a good idea to show the world that we're committed to seeking better international support, that we made a mistake in acting unilaterally. I think the best way to show that may be by replacing our president.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
