babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » do we support a democratic Iraq?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: do we support a democratic Iraq?
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 06 December 2004 12:31 AM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
The question is what now? The peace movement generally urges America to leave Iraq.

This would not stop the current war. It would almost certainly lead to Iraq becoming another tyranny ruled by the sort of people who behead humanitarian workers.

Alternatively, if America stays, Iraq has a chance of becoming a fledgling democracy, ruled by a government of the Iraqis own choosing.

Clearly, the "peace movement" is on the wrong side.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 December 2004 12:44 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No Iraq does not have a chnace of becoming a democracy when it is under a military dictaroship. Further, there is no chance of any kind of civil law at being instituted while there is no security. Your argument depends on the ability of the US to be able to control the security situation.

Since the US invaded the security has deteriorated, not improved. There is no evidence that it will improve. You are engaging in the art of whishful thinking, not analysis.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 06 December 2004 12:50 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Blithering nonsense.

1) Democracy can't take root in Iraq now, not after foreign invaders have so terribly brutalized the people there. The same was true in Vietnam.

2) The US is not interested in fostering true democracy in developing/resource rich countries. Never has been, never will be. This was imperial conquest, pure and simple. It won't end until they are bankrupt and defeated, and after untold numbers of Iraqis are dead. The same was true in Vietnam.

3) The appointed government is very corrupt and brutal, just as the puppet regimes in Vietnam were. Setting ethnic groups against each other may work in the short run, but can't possibly hold the country together for very long.

This is a disaster of historic proportions, and will lead to poisoned generations of hate and revenge.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 06 December 2004 01:56 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The peace movement generally urges America to leave Iraq.
This would not stop the current war.

It certainly would stop the current war, which is the resistance vs. the occupiers. If one party leaves, then it is no longer a war. I think what you mean to say is that it would not stop the fighting, as a new war would spring up in its place. This is an oft-repeated statement, but lately I wonder how true it is. It's certainly possible, but how can anyone know? We only assume that ethnic divides are strong enough to lead to widespread violence, but there is much evidence that this is not the case, and of course there has never actually been a civil war in Iraq. On the other hand, power vacuums lead to violence pretty easily.

The best solution is if the US left immediately to be replaced by a UN coalition that did not involve the US at all, which quickly moved to establish Iraqi trust (something that would be impossible for the US now, even if their intentions were good) by doing all the things that the US has failed to do, being too concerned about establishing control and greasing palms. This would not stop the violence, but would eventually lead to a stable place, I think. But this is pie-in-the-sky, of course, as no country in their right mind is going to go anywhere near that mess. In the realm of solutions that could actually happen, I don't think there is anything at this point. The US will never relinquish control unless forced to, and the people of Iraq will never bow to their control. I don't see anything but pain and death in the future.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 December 2004 03:38 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just don't understand this idea that having the UN their would help. How is that?

1) What makes one believe that the UN is seen as a fair dealer in Iraq. There were sanctions, and this war is an extension of the first war, which was declared by the UN. Even if it is actually true that the US overstepped it authority by the original UN ceasefire agreeement, how many Iraqis are going to see it that way, based on technicalities.

2) What country is going to supply the 400,000 troops needed, by original US estimates, to pacify the country? Really any such army would have to at least be partially made up of white Europeans. Is that going to help?

3) In bringing in the UN, do you actually de-politicize the situation in Iraq, or do you actually politicize the UN? Will the result be that the UN becomes percieved as the agent of the US... it was already precieved prtty much that way because of sanctions, oil for food... etc. etc. Is possibly undermining the UN credibility in the eyes of the Muslim world forever worth it?

4) Installing the UN, only lets the US off the hook. What next? The US invades Syria, and then lets the situation our of hand, and then ends up getting the UN to fill in as occupier, while the US goes on to other exploits? I mean if the NATO countries under a UN mandate had not stepped into the vacuum in Afganistan would the Iraq invasion have even been feasible?

I don't thing bringing in the UN is something that can be treated as serious option unless the situation cools out substantially. As much as we might like the "idea" of the UN, as a more impartial entity it is not clear that other people, such as Iraqis, see it the same way we do.

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 06 December 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, I guess we should never have helped push the Nazis out of France then. We were just guaranteeing that people like those violent terrorists in the Resistance would take over. After all, they killed French people, not just Germans. Of course it was inevitable that they would continue after the Nazis were gone . . .
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 06 December 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
You seem to be giving a collective no - no we don't support democracy in Iraq.
Am I on the wrong web site?
Is this the forum for the Baathist Party of Canada?

Seems to me that Afghanistan just held fair and democratic elections. With the help of the U.S. Marines, it's fair to hope that the same will happen in Iraq.

Naturally, this isn't just my opinion.

Democratic Occupation?
by Salama Ni'mat
[in Al-Hayat]:

It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation...


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 06 December 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
You seem to be giving a collective no - no we don't support democracy in Iraq.
Am I on the wrong web site?

No, you apparently just can't read. There's a difference between lacking support for something and doubting that it will happen given current circumstances.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 06 December 2004 04:07 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation...

Yeah, and I suppose sex at gun point in the back alley is considered "free love"?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 06 December 2004 04:21 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
MyName,

Your entire argument presupposes American benevolence. Most of us here don't have time for such nonsense.

Given Naomi Klein's excellent reporting of the looting of Iraq, and the seamy machinations of the US delegation for debt forgivenenss for Iraq, given the attacks on hospitals, the high-level orders to torture prisoners, the unpunished shooting of civilians, the corruption in the "rebuilding" process, and on and on and on and on, and on and on and on and on, ...

I just don't have time for your nonsensical position.

Certainly an election in a country like Afghanistan, that (so far as I'm aware) has never had one before, is a noteworthy thing, but it is not a miracle. The Americans arranged for a national plebiscite for their candidate, for former US oil executive Karzai, versus one or two warlords. The Americans have held demonstration elections before, in Vietnam and El Salvador. We have to put these events into their proper context.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paladin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3119

posted 06 December 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for Paladin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:

It is outrageous, and amazing, that the first free and general elections in the history of the Arab nation are to take place in January: in Iraq, under the auspices of American occupation, and in Palestine, under the auspices of the Israeli occupation...


I'm always amazed at the utter credulity of people who talk this way. A seemingly limitless capacity to suspend disbelief.


From: Jugular knotch | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
FPTP
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4780

posted 06 December 2004 04:47 PM      Profile for FPTP        Edit/Delete Post
MyName, if you are still reading and really interested in debate. We question the following assertion:

The removal of the US occupying force as it exists "would almost certainly lead to Iraq becoming another tyranny ruled by the sort of people who behead humanitarian workers."

The US has supported beheading/extra-judicial excecutions for decades, why stop now?

Also, perhaps war and violence create a situation where only violent thugs survive?? If there were voices of moderation in Iraq - against the Islamic fundamentalists and for an independent Iraq - who would protect them?

"If America stays, Iraq has a chance of becoming a fledgling democracy, ruled by a government of the Iraqis own choosing."

True, but they would have to radically change course. This radical change of course could be facilitated with the end of the Bush regime.


From: Lima | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 06 December 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your argument depends on the ability of the US to be able to control the security situation.

That presupposes the United States has any interest at all in a democratic Iraq. They don't. Their interest is in Iraqi oil, period.

Only MyName and other mental midgets of his ilk, would see the logic in utterly destroying a nation and murdering a 100,000 of its people to build an example of Arab democracy when, if that is really what they wanted, could have achieved the same, without violence or cost, by withholding military, financial and other aid, trade and assistance from their decidedly undemocratic allies in the mid-east including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, etc ...

In fact it is telling the extent of the self-imposed blindness and utter stupidity of people like MyName that he would actually argue that the US wants a democractic Iraq but are A-OK with brutal Arab dictatorships in all those other Arab nations.

[ 06 December 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 December 2004 05:46 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frac Tal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6796

posted 06 December 2004 06:41 PM      Profile for Frac Tal        Edit/Delete Post
Didn't Saddam get 100 percent of the vote last time around?

There were 11,445,638 eligible voters - and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council.


From: I'll never sign it. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 06 December 2004 09:22 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What makes one believe that the UN is seen as a fair dealer in Iraq. There were sanctions, and this war is an extension of the first war, which was declared by the UN...

Which was entirely justified in my opinion.
Yes, the Americans let Saddam invade Kuwait and yes, the first Gulf war was all about oil. However, the United States and its allies did the right thing when they Kicked the Iraqi army off of Kuwaiti land, no matter how hypocritical their reasons may actually have been.

If the Americans withdraw, is there anyway of insuring that the people of Iraq have enough security to establish a democracy with out some help from the United Nations. You don't seem to like the UN, and in many ways it is a deeply flawed institution, but someone will have to give the Iraqis a little bit of a helping hand. Who else is there?
Robert Fisk says there has been a civil war in Iraq, that the breakup of the country really isn't a concern. In your opinion is this correct?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 06 December 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Didn't Saddam get 100 percent of the vote last time around?

Yes, and in exactly the same way this latest CIA opertaive will get a vast majority of the vote: by eliminating any real opposition.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 06 December 2004 10:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Democracy isn't exactly thriving in the other Arab US client states in the region. What will make Iraq any different from the current US-sponsored tyrannies?

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 06 December 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh amighty, why are there so many supposedly thinking adults who buy the fairytale that the US gives a shit about something called "democracy" in Iraq or anywhere? Do these people believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also? I just don't get it.

Rather than waste time replying to MyName's nonsense, I'll just refer him to my comments on this thread, in response to another true believer in the US-as-benevolent-angel-from-heaven scenario. I think my post on November 29th, 10:23 PM sums it up nicely.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 December 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, MyName. If you have an actual argument, why won't you share it with us? There have been a lot of arguments made here to the effect that the current situation in Iraq could never lead to democracy, so how about you deal with them instead of just repeating your conviction that Iraq is on the fast track to democracy. Where's the evidence for this?

Let's face it, there is none. Your entire argument, if you had the guts to make it, consists of "Bush said so!". You believe that they intend to create a democracy because they assure you that's what they're doing, and curiously, you seem to have no room in your brain for the notion that he might be lying. You need a reality check.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 December 2004 01:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rather than waste time replying to MyName's nonsense, I'll just refer him to my comments on this thread, in response to another true believer in the US-as-benevolent-angel-from-heaven scenario. I think my post on November 29th, 10:23 PM sums it up nicely.


Rather than waste time with Myname's naivete I thought this might be a good opporunity to confront the issues of a UN force in Iraq. In many ways it seems to me that much of the peace movement has backed itself into a corner on the issue of UN involvement, leading the way for NDP and the Liberals being forced to belatedly endorse the US invasion, by sending "peacekeepers," should the US be able to gerrymander a UN resolution calling for some kind of UN peace-keeping force.

I think people, particuallarly in the NDP should really be thinking about their position on this, as it is an increasing likelyhood. Jacob Two Two's post is a good starting point. I am not one to think that some things are autmatically good, simply because they have the UN stamp.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 December 2004 10:22 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree. It is too late for the UN to become engaged as an honest broker. The UN, should it intervene, will be viewed as a proxy for failed US ambitions.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 07 December 2004 10:32 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I agree. It is too late for the UN to become engaged as an honest broker. The UN, should it intervene, will be viewed as a proxy for failed US ambitions.

Ok so who else should intervene or go in. The Organization of Ameican States - No, NATO - it has both the US and UK as members, The Arab League - do they have the troops to do what is needed?

I agree that the UN is compromised but lets just say that the US left tomorrow someone is needed to go an and try to assist in cleaning up the mess. Whether this is civillian or military it has to be from a recognized international body.

So who goes in if it is not the UN? Who does not have blood on their hands that can do the job needed?

Me I would rather have the UN without US or UK troops.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 07 December 2004 11:16 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
It should be Arab troops, and before the US leaves, and the alternative security force goes in, it must be assured that the Arab troops are not the representatives of US client states (like Saudi Arabia or Egypt) attempting to supervise the US capture of Iraq's assets.

This seems to be one of the main sticking points, besides the murderousness and incompetence of the Americans, that the bush jr. administration is engaged in blatant thievery.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 07 December 2004 11:29 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
it must be assured that the Arab troops are not the representatives of US client states (like Saudi Arabia or Egypt) attempting to supervise the US capture of Iraq's assets.

Thwap that is a good idea but by Arab do you mean Muslem or can it also be Arab Christians?

What Arab troops can do the job and do not hold any grudge against Iraq?

I would assume that these countries could notdue to recent conflicts etc:
Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Quatar, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia

That leaves:
Algeria, Oman, Libya, Morraco, Sudan and Tunisia and maybe the Palestinian Authority.

Can they provide the numbers required?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 07 December 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
Gosh, I guess we should never have helped push the Nazis out of France then. We were just guaranteeing that people like those violent terrorists in the Resistance would take over. After all, they killed French people, not just Germans.

It's difficult to know which is more obscene, your comparison of Americans to Nazis or your comparison of the French resistance to the Iraqi terrorists.

The French Resistance did kill collaborators. However, they didn't classify French policeman as collaborators, much less humanitarian workers as both you and the Iraqi terrorists do.

Of course, the terrorists cannot drive out the Americans by force of arms. They hope however that with the assistance of self-styled progressives in the West to use propaganda to pressure the U.S. to withdraw.

In this way so-called progressives ally themselves with the Iraqi terrorists, and spend their time justifying murder and working against democracy in Iraq.

Here’s a recent interview with Fakhri Al-Quaissy, who directs the advisory Council of the fatwas and of Islamic Orientation, the political arm of the Islamist terrorists. I think it’s obvious from this interview that “terrorist” is the correct word.

Otages. Cheikh Fakhri al-Quaissy, imam proche de la guérilla islamiste:
«La résistance va tuer tout le monde»

Par Jean-Pierre PERRIN

jeudi 18 novembre 2004 (Liberation - 06:00)

Bagdad envoyé special

From Liberation http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=254945

English translation from Middle East Transparent (also available in Arabic):


Do you find legitimate the execution of Margaret Hassan?
Yes, it is the reaction to the business of the mosque of Fallouja. You saw what occurred: the Americans killed a wounded person who had come to take refuge in this mosque. As the Americans carry out a war of extermination against us, the resistance also will kill everyone, women, old men and infants. The Americans left us no another choice but violence.

But wasn't Margaret Hassan killed before "the business of the mosque"?
The Americans attacked Fallouja on a Monday. On Tuesday, they entered the first mosque. It was a message to the people of Fallouja, meaning: we will kill everyone. However, the women and the children of Fallouja had come to take refuge there, believing the mosque was going to protect them. The Resistance also will fight against the forces of the coalition and all those which work for them. It even will attack the Vatican and will massacre everyone there.

But the pope was hostile to the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces?
It is not true. It was camouflage. If he had been against the war, then why didn't he condemn the attack on mosques? On our side, we had condemned the actions [attacks] against churches. We will not do it any more.

To return to Margaret Hassan: she had been against the American invasion?
I am not in the group [ which carried out the execution ] to be able to appreciate. I did not deliver my opinion.

Does your organization represent all groups of moudjahidin in Fallouja?
We represent all Iraqi resistance, politically. We know very well what it wants. Resistance is established on two bases: to establish a mechanism for the withdrawal of American troops and to preserve the unity of Iraq.
…
Is your participation in the poll of January definitively excluded?
I said it two months ago. Today, one does not even discuss this question any more . We [the principal sunnite parties] are united in our decision not to take part in this election. If a party reconsiders its decision, the resistance will release its rockets against it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 07 December 2004 12:16 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
While the Iraqi "resistance" (to use the Newspeak term) intends to "release its rockets" on anyone who participates in an election, no one in the real world seriously doubts the U.S. is attempting to bring democracy into being in Iraq.

That's why the rest of the world is gearing up to help.

Democracy won't by itself defeat the forces of repression, just as it hasn't in Afghanistan. Nor will it silence their allies.

But it's a start.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2004 12:19 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
Here’s a recent interview with Fakhri Al-Quaissy, who directs the advisory Council of the fatwas and of Islamic Orientation, the political arm of the Islamist terrorists. I think it’s obvious from this interview that “terrorist” is the correct word.

It's by no means obvious that "terrorist" is the correct word to describe all those who are resisting the occupation, just as it's by no means obvious that Al-Quaissy represents them all.

I realize such simplifications make your binary view of the situation easier to hang on to, but that's why your binary view is incorrect.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 December 2004 12:45 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy

Now what kind of raving, looney peaceniks would come out with a statement like that?

The Pentagon's Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communications (pdf format).


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 December 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ok so who else should intervene or go in.

It is a good question. But let's first of all acknowledge that the UN came under attack in Iraq by being seen as proviidng a veil of legitimacy to the illegal occupation.

If they were to move in on the tails of a US withdrawl, they would again be seen as providing a proxy US presence.

So, what is the answer? There isn't one.

Iraq is broken and is now a failed state. The United States through their stupidy and arrogance has created a future of violence and instability for the entire region.

Iran will end up controlling the Shiite south. The Kurds will likely end up in civil war with the Sunni's and Turkey at some point might intervene, and the Sunni triangle will become an area of lawlessness and terror ruled by warlords and crime lords and preying upon the entire region.

It will be two or three generations before peace returns if the entire region does not collapse into viloence first.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 07 December 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
Kristof in the NYT

has another lame argument for American troops to stay in Iraq and oversee the looting of Iraqi oil. Yet another person blind (willfully or no) to the fact that this exploitation, arrogance, and the deliberate murder of innocent people might be unpopular with the Iraqi people.

quote:
While the Iraqi "resistance" (to use the Newspeak term) intends to "release its rockets" on anyone who participates in an election, no one in the real world seriously doubts the U.S. is attempting to bring democracy into being in Iraq.
That's why the rest of the world is gearing up to help.

Democracy won't by itself defeat the forces of repression, just as it hasn't in Afghanistan. Nor will it silence their allies.

But it's a start.


Once again, you confuse the issue and misrepresent ours. On the whole, we do not condone or approve of every group in the Iraqi resistance, nor do we approve of some of their methods (assuming that they are being carried out by the Iraqis and not the Americans).

No one in the real world, or the "reality-based" world believes that bush jr. and cheney give a shit about democracy, in Iraq or anywhere else.

Confront our facts about theft, murder, incompetence, reconcile it with your claims of American necessity and benevolence, and come back when you have an argument.

depleted uranium
shooting civilians
torture and rape in Abu Ghraib ordered at the highest levels
attacking hospitals
cronyism and incompetence in the reconstruction leading to: filthy, flooded hospitals and schools
rampant crime and unrest
20 billion in Iraqi oil money gone missing according to Christian Aid
hand-picked puppet government suspending civil rights
lies about WMDs
lies about past support for Saddam

etc., and et-fucking-cetera

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
John_D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5620

posted 07 December 2004 09:21 PM      Profile for John_D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Never mind, self-censorship is the best censorship.

Besides, no need to feed the trolls

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: John_D ]


From: Workin' 9 to 2 in the 902. | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 07 December 2004 09:47 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

It is a good question. But let's first of all acknowledge that the UN came under attack in Iraq by being seen as proviidng a veil of legitimacy to the illegal occupation.

If they were to move in on the tails of a US withdrawl, they would again be seen as providing a proxy US presence.

So, what is the answer? There isn't one.

Iraq is broken and is now a failed state. The United States through their stupidy and arrogance has created a future of violence and instability for the entire region.

Iran will end up controlling the Shiite south. The Kurds will likely end up in civil war with the Sunni's and Turkey at some point might intervene, and the Sunni triangle will become an area of lawlessness and terror ruled by warlords and crime lords and preying upon the entire region.

It will be two or three generations before peace returns if the entire region does not collapse into viloence first.


Add to that the fact that The House will collapse sometime in the next decade, clearing the way for the Osama bin Laden fan club to take over the Arabian Peninsula and you've got a recepie for all kinds of globalized unpleasantness.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 07 December 2004 10:04 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not to mention Pakistan and its nukes, which might end up in the hands of bin-Ladenists. An oh-so-comforting prospect.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 07 December 2004 11:09 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by John_D:
Never mind, self-censorship is the best censorship.

Besides, no need to feed the trolls

[ 07 December 2004: Message edited by: John_D ]


i honestly didn't think MyName was a troll.


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 07 December 2004 11:14 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My apologies for not responding throughout the thread.

How can democratic discussion happen under martial law?

quote:
This would not stop the current war. It would almost certainly lead to Iraq becoming another tyranny ruled by the sort of people who behead humanitarian workers.

Alternatively, if America stays, Iraq has a chance of becoming a fledgling democracy, ruled by a government of the Iraqis own choosing.


What does this mean? Not much. And a whole lot.

More and more I understand American democracy as an EXTREMELY limited form of formal electoral democracy with very little substance. Wha the US is trying to export is about the cruddiest insubstantive democracy there is.

Iraqi democrats are opposing the Bush called elections. While some of these parties may be doing this for nationalist reasons, what is really wrong with that? If they are against their base's wishes, shouldn't ehy respect their base more than George II?

Beyond the particular crimes of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, is the horrible crime of reducing democracy to a limited highly formalist nonsubstantive vote to be ruled by somebody or some party one doesn't want.

This defames the ideal of democracy, in which the majority of people rule and in which minority and opposition voices are respected.

This kind of sham democracy merely encourages the worst forms of cynicism, and, in its own terms, at best, lesser evilism.

Which produces and encourages cynicism and abstentionism.


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 December 2004 11:35 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While the Iraqi "resistance" (to use the Newspeak term)...

How ironic that this particular individual would invoke a word that defines a mode of expression created by government propagandists to limit the range of one's thought, and which allows a speaker to speak without actually being force to think about what he is talking about.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 08 December 2004 08:01 AM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

Thwap that is a good idea but by Arab do you mean Muslem or can it also be Arab Christians?

What Arab troops can do the job and do not hold any grudge against Iraq?

I would assume that these countries could notdue to recent conflicts etc:
Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Quatar, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia

That leaves:
Algeria, Oman, Libya, Morraco, Sudan and Tunisia and maybe the Palestinian Authority.

Can they provide the numbers required?


Well, Egypt could go, as long as it doesn't try to impose a US policy of control. That would be difficult due to Egypt's dependence on US aid.

The Baath parties of Syria and Iraq hated each other, but that is ancient history now.

I think Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Morrocco are possible candidates.

But first, the likely response of the various resistance groups to this deployment should be ascertained. And the nature of their mission, and the system they intend to protect should be made crystal clear, and, obviously, this mission plan should be developed with the assistance of the Iraqi people.

The bush jr. regime has really fucked themselves. All the above is based on the premise that the White House will renounce its desire to build permanent bases to maintain permanent control of Iraqi oil. Ain't gonna happen with crooks like Cheney, senile madmen like Rumsfeld, ignorant morons like bush jr.

part 2: MyName, ... didn't think he was a troll, just a pseudo-sophisticated right-winger. but you're right folks: "newspeak" is Orwellian, to describe official propaganda terms. I note MyName's use of the term "fledgling democracies." Chomsky pointed out this term was used to explain every violation of human rights in Central America torture states, whereas Nicaragua was a stalinist gulag and every misstep taken by this country at war for its life was seized as evidence of the true nature of the "dictatorship." ["Whew!" good thing the Sandanista dictators lost that election and stepped down, innit? .... wait, lost an 'election'? ... peacefully surrendered power? ... 'dictators'? ...?]

Finally, Kristof's article is particularly obscene when you note that one of his reasons for perpetuating US domination of Iraqi oil, I mean, US efforts to bring democracy to Iraq, are to save the lives of the "hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children" who need peace and reconstruction.

This, after the US supported Saddam Hussein. This after the bombings and sanctions that killed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND Iraqi children (a price thought to be "worth it" by US Secretary of State Madeline Albright) and after 100,000 killed lately according to "The Lancet," and when radiation from depleted uranium shells will kill tens of thousands more for years to come, this piece of shit Kristof says that we should stay the course, 'for the kids.'

I'll put Kristof on my list of folks to be "Shot and Pissed On."

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]

[ 08 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 09 December 2004 10:42 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by thwap:

i honestly didn't think MyName was a troll.


Thank you, Thwap. I didn't think I was either.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 09 December 2004 10:53 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by thwap:
[QB]We do not condone or approve of every group in the Iraqi resistance.[QB]

I certainly wasn't misrepresenting Rufus, and I wouldn't want to misrepresent you.

Which groups in the Iraqi resistance do you approve of?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 December 2004 11:00 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If "spreading freedom and democracy in the middle -east" is so all-consumingly important to the US, why did they re-install the Emir of Kuwait?

Doesn't it strike you as a bit - I dunno, odd - that the invasion that's supposedly about bringing democracy to Iraq was launched from one of the least democratic countries in the world?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 09 December 2004 11:07 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
I'm fascinated by this discussion of which international peace keepers might be acceptable to the Iraqi terrrorists.

Certainly, I think it would be great to have peace keepers in Iraq acceptable to all factions, but I can't imagine who might fit this bill.

The terrorists, don't want peace keepers. (They prefer beheading or blowing them up.) And they don't want elections. They want power. And they're certainly not going to get it at the ballot box.

The Kurds want the Americans - as do many other Iraqis - but the Kurds in particular because (a) they think George Bush is wonderful and (b) they don't believe anyone else will guarantee their rights.

The Shiites and in particular al Sistani, their most important leader, is unlikely to welcome peace keepers from any Arab states who the Sunni terrrorists might be friendly with (and vice versa of course).

By the way, al Sistani obvioulsy believes the "fairy tale" or the elections and is preparing to win them.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 09 December 2004 11:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not necessary for me, or anyone to 'approve' of anything. See, it is not my country, they are not my people, they must make their own choices. It is absurd that you think that we have a right to tell them what to do.

The invasion to create democracy conundrum. We demand that you make choices, as democrats, we give you no choice!

Name an instance where a country without a tradition of 'democracy' had democracy succesfully imposed upon it?

The evolution towrards deomocracy in every case is an internal movement based on the will of the people themselves. The process takes hundreds of years. It only functioins in stable polictical and economic conditions. War is never the enforcement of law, but the absence of law -- that is the nature of war.

There was more chance for the evolution towards democracy under Saddam because at least there was a stable society, from which pluralist ideas could take root.

[ 09 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 09 December 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The terrorists, don't want peace keepers.

And there is their common ground with their occupiers.

Give it up dude. There were these sad types way back when who kept showing up here and offering triumphant predictions on when the Iraqi WMDs would show up. Eventually they jsut stopped coming.

Your predictions of Iraqi democracy resulting from the upcoming "election" make their claims seem downright plausible. Al- Sistani? Are you serious? This is your shining hope for a meaningful democratic election?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 December 2004 02:04 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Poor Myname. He keeps talkiing but he still hasn't learned how to debate. Say it with me now: repeating a point over and over is not the same as proving the point. Good boy.

quote:
no one in the real world seriously doubts the U.S. is attempting to bring democracy into being in Iraq.

The depth of your delusion is astounding. Is the "real world" nothing but the US, or do you just pay no attention to the news? Polls showed clearly the entire planet was nearly unanimous in its condemnation of the invasion of Iraq. The largest mass protest in world history, and you figure they all believed that the US was bringing democracy to Iraq? This real world you speak of exists only in your head. The vast majority of the planet are quite strong in their conviction that the US embarked on an imperialist quest for resources. Even if we agreed they are wrong in their conviction, the fact would still remain that this is by far the prevailing global attitude. Your comment has no leg to stand on, but that's not surprising as you didn't attempt to back it up.

You still havn't given any actual reasons why you believe the Bush administration is sincere in their avowed interest in a free Iraq. I can only assume that you don't have any, and yet you are so unshakably certain that they are telling the truth. That makes you either a lunatic, or a psychic. Maybe you could use your supernatural powers to answer me this, Myname. Is George Bush capable of lying?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 10 December 2004 01:38 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
In a piece in the Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=50432&d=25&m=8&y=2004
Middle East analyst Amir Taheri discusses the democratic developments in Iraq. The following are excerpts from the article.

I draw your attention in particular to the last paragraph I’ve quoted here. Taheri notes that progress toward democracy in Iraq has been largely ignored in the media. He means the Arab media. It’s equally true of our media. Media doesn’t report information, it reports news. Violence is news. Iraq’s progress toward democracy is information.

Taheri writes: “At every step we had countless doomsayers who predicted that this or that step would not be taken because of 'security problems.'

The terrorists are trying to make Iraq ungovernable. Fact is, though, they’re losing. Here’s the excerpt:

“Post-liberation Iraq, defying great odds, has succeeded in carrying out its political reform agenda on schedule. A governing council was set up at the time promised. It, in turn, created a provisional government right on schedule. Next, municipal elections were held in almost all parts of the country. Then followed the drafting of a new democratic and pluralist constitution. Then came the formal end of the occupation and the appointing of a new interim government.

“…[In August], the political reconstruction program reached a new high point with the convening of the National Congress.
“Bringing together some 1,300 men and women representing all ethnic, religious, linguistic, and political groups, the congress was the first genuinely pluralistic assembly of Iraqis at that level.

"The congress performed its duty by creating a 100-member Parliament with wide powers of oversight and control over the interim government. A close examination of the composition of this new interim Parliament shows that it is the most representative political body ever to take charge of Iraq's destiny.

"The formation of the interim Parliament, which will be at the heart of the nation's politics during the next 15 months or so, is a major step toward creating the institutions of democracy.
"The Parliament's tasks include the holding of elections for a constituent assembly, the supervision of a referendum on that constitution, and general elections to pick a new government; all that before the end of next year.

"The events mentioned above, and largely ignored by the media, indicate a remarkably rapid progress toward democratization in Iraq. And, yet, at every step we had countless doomsayers who predicted that this or that step would not be taken because of 'security problems.'"


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 10 December 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
There was more chance for the evolution towards democracy under Saddam because at least there was a stable society, from which pluralist ideas could take root.

Oh, yes, Saddam was a big fan of pluralism.
Aproximately 300,000 corpses can testify to that and 3 or 4 million refugees, too.

Cueball, do you even read what you write?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 10 December 2004 02:05 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
In a piece in the Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=50432&d=25&m=8&y=2004
Middle East analyst Amir Taheri discusses the democratic developments in Iraq. The following are excerpts from the article.

Would that be the same Amir Taheri who works for Benador Associates, public relations agency to the stars neocons?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 10 December 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
You still havn't given any actual reasons why you believe the Bush administration is sincere in their avowed interest in a free Iraq.

I'm amazed so few babblers have noticed the election of a democratic ruler in Afghanistan.

I'm amazed so few babblers have noticed Iraq is moving toward democracy.

Has it ever occurred to you to open your eyes?

Why is it happening is another question. Certainly the U.S. could have installed another strong man in Afghanistan and Iraq - with much less bother.

First, I co think Bush sincerely believes democracy is a good thing, as do most Americans and most people throughout the world.

However, for all states, realpolitik trumps good intentions, and I don't think that's changed.

America's understanding of its strategic interests hasn’t changed either. America wants a stable Middle East.

What's changed is that the Bush administration and American foreign policy types in general have concluded that democracy provides more stability than despots.

This is fortunate for Iraq. Obviously, though, the U.S. will not go around overthrowing the despots currently ruling the other Arab nations.

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: MyName ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 10 December 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Linda McQuaig's Harper's article Baghdad Year Zero is really the best refernce for skewering My Name's delusions about Iraq's sham democracy,
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 10 December 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pogge:

Would that be the same Amir Taheri who works for Benador Associates

Sorry, pogge, you're confused. Teheri is represented by Benador, not employed by them. If you want to book him as a speaker, you go through Benador. The reasons he’s in demand as a speaker should be obvious from his qualifications:


Amir Taheri was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London and Paris.

From 1984 to 1987 he was editor-in-chief of Jeune Afrique, the French weekly specialising in Africa.
Between 1980 and 1984 he was Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times. He also wrote for the daily Times and contributed to The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and the Daily Mail among other leading British publications.

Between 1972 and 1979 he was executive editor-in-chief of Kayhan, Iran's main daily newspaper.
He has been a columnist for the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat and its sister daily Arab News since 1987.

Taheri has been a contributor to the International Herald Tribune since 1980. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and The Washington Post.

Between 1989 and 1995 Taheri was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. He has also written for other publications including Der Spiegel, Die Zeit and Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung in Germany, La Repubblica in Italy, L'Express, Politique Internationale and Le Nouvel Observateur in France, and El Mundo in Spain.
Currently he is a contributor to the German weekly Focus.

Taheri has published nine books some of which have been translated into 20 languages.
In 1988 Publishers' Weekly in New York chose his study of Islamist terrorism, "Holy Terror", as one of The Best Books of The Year. Another of his books "The Cauldron: The Middle East Behind The Headlines" has been used as a textbook in various colleges in Britain and Canada.

Taheri was member of the Board of Trustees of the Institute for International Political and Economic Studies (IIPES) from 1975 to 1980 and member of the Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI) from 1984 to 1992.

He is winner of several journalistic prizes.
Taheri is a commentator for CNN and is frequently interviewed by other media including the BBC and the RFI. He has written several TV documentaries dealing with various issues of the Muslim world.
He has interviewed many world leaders including Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton, King Faisal, Mikhail Gorbachev, President Sadat, Chou En-lai, Indira Gandhi, Chancellor Helmut Kohl etc.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 10 December 2004 02:46 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Teheri is represented by Benador, not employed by them

Oh, well then. That distinction makes all the difference. By the way, MyName, you should really attribute the source of such a long cut-and-paste. Those of us here in "la la land" might think you wrote those words yourself.

Hey, maybe you did. Do you work for Benador?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 10 December 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
His description sounds lovely, lots of paper achievements--formally defined this, constitution that. Unfortunately, the shutting down of newspapers and similar censorship, declarations of martial law, semi-random imprisonment with no legal recourse, slaughter, and torture (both at Abu-Ghraib and elsewhere) go on. They are essentially disappearing people at will, for nothing or for political leanings much of the time, and many of those people die in custody. There is nothing resembling rule of law, much less democracy. It's like Guatemalan military rule at its worst, except with more resistance.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 10 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
Sorry, pogge, you're confused. Teheri is represented by Benador, not employed by them.

Even better. "Public relations agency to the neocons" would apply even more.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 10 December 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
I'm amazed so few babblers have noticed the election of a democratic ruler in Afghanistan.

I near about spewed my tea all over the monitor when I saw this.

You really need to stop huffing the crack pipe there, buddy, because Hamid Karzai is pretty well just the mayor of Kabul.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 December 2004 07:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You really think Myname is 'pipe'in er?'
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 December 2004 07:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:

Oh, yes, Saddam was a big fan of pluralism.
Aproximately 300,000 corpses can testify to that and 3 or 4 million refugees, too.

Cueball, do you even read what you write?


I absolutely meant evey word that I said. You insist on looking at history through the lens of the daily broadcast news. For instance English democracy was built on the corpses that Queen Elizabeth left behind. She was no democrat. However, she did establish England as a state organized through the rule of law. She created the stable society which gave birth to Cromwell.

What the United States has done in Iraq is synonymous with what would have happened to England had Phillp's fleets been able to land and march on London.

When I am talking about Saddam being more condusive to the evolution of democracy, I am taking the long view in terms of building stable institutions and a national identity. The Ba'ath party managed to formulate a country where there was no country, free from the rule of the Turks, the British, the French or the Hashemites.

This is not to say that either Saddam or Elizabeth were nice. Thier niceness isn't even relevant.

The american invasion has set the movement towards an egalitarain society back a hundred years. All of this stuff must be done again: the building of a nation. You guys seem to think you can just think up an idea and then three months later it is all going to come about.

The US invasion is not encouraging the seeding of the values you pupport to uphold, but actually alienating Iraqis from them, as the real world of the democracy you cherrish, seems to them a world of endless slaughter, in real time, today.

The mass graves line is getting rather stale now, don't you think, since according to Lancet, the US has killed as many as 100,000 people in less than a year. At this rate, over ten they will have killed a million, three times the figure you quote for Saddam in his entire 20 year career. Who exactly do you think were in those graves?

But ignore that question and take a stab at my original question, when in history was 'democracy' imposed succefully on a country, which did not have an established democratic tradition?

[ 10 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 10 December 2004 08:43 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The US invasion is not encouraging the seeding of the values you pupport to uphold, but actually alienating Iraqis from them, as the real world of the democracy you cherrish, seems to them a world of endless slaughter, in real time, today.

The key word in that sentence being "purport." If he really held such values he would stop spewing empty propaganda and actually open his eyes to the truth. Sorry, but he is an idiot and not worth your time nor intellect, cueball.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 10 December 2004 09:40 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I am talking about Saddam being more condusive to the evolution of democracy, I am taking the long view in terms of building stable institutions and a national identity. The Ba'ath party managed to formulate a country where there was no country, free from the rule of the Turks, the British, the French or the Hashemites.


I thought the British created Iraq in 1920.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 10 December 2004 10:41 PM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Here’s part of an editorial by Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassah. His editorial is addressed primarily to his fellow Arab journalist, but his observation that it’s time to see what’s actually happening on this planet applies equally to babblers:

”We [in the Arab press] thought, President Bush won't win re-election because - in our opinion - he has led America to another Vietnam-like situation in Iraq. With such an ignorant way of thinking we proved to the whole world we are not from this planet.

"We claimed President Bush will never be able to defeat Iraq and said the resistance will kick the U.S. forces out of that country. We described
terrorism, which is killing innocent people in Iraq, as 'jihad' and expected it to win in the end because it is supported by God.

"All of our thoughts have been answered by the second term of President Bush. The mission in Iraq will continue as in Afghanistan. The American administration has stressed it won't pull out of Iraq, unlike in Somalia and
Lebanon, until it achieves its objectives and completes its mission in that country.

“Changing the world, strengthening relations with other countries and bringing democracy and freedom to as many countries as possible is the
strategic objective of the current American administration because from the perspective of its internal security, especially the 9/11 attacks in Washington and New York, this is more important for the United States.

"Things were easy for the Americans until bin Laden arrived on the scene and threatened it from inside their homeland. But now everything has changed. The culture and way of thinking of Arabs, and what is happening in the Middle East have become a source of danger for the United States. If we fail to understand the changed situation of the U.S. administration, what is
happening in Iraq will extend in one way or another to other countries in the region until the desired change is imposed.

“The second priority for President Bush is maintaining peace in Iraq and holding a free and fair general elections in Iraq.

"Bush considers the January elections very important. If one hopes the US will withdraw from Iraq in the same way as it did from Lebanon and Somalia, we must say it won't happen.

“The only thing left for Arab regimes, which are out of tune with the rest of the world, is to understand that standing against the United States is no longer the right way to show their patriotism, especially since they are the real enemies of their people and countries. They must understand the American Administration supports their people, for their freedom and human rights.”


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 December 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by black_dog:
Linda McQuaig's Harper's article Baghdad Year Zero is really the best refernce for skewering My Name's delusions about Iraq's sham democracy,

Naomi Klein. But yes, in light of the what's discussed in the article, Myname's position is a farce.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 11 December 2004 12:27 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
MyName's notion of "argument" seems to be to find some dolt with an Arabic name who repeats the same Bushlicking platitudes as he does. "See? An Arab spouts the same nonsense I do! Ergo, I must be right!"

Spare us, please.

Since you didn't bother with a link to that last article, I was forced to do some Googling in order to discover that "Al-Siyassah" is pretty much the Kuwaiti equivalent of Fox News -- an unabashedly pro-government newspaper that loyally spouts the party line, like virtually all media in the Arab world (with the partial exception of al-Jazeera). And the government of Kuwait, naturally, is one of the most unabashedly, grovellingly pro-American governments in the region, out of gratitude for having their gruesome little dictatorship so kindly restored to power by Daddy Bush.

What's next? Will you refer to old Pravda articles to prove that Soviet citizens were gung-ho for Communism?

Of course, neither MyName nor Mr. al-Jarallah feel any need to provide any evidence whatsoever of the American intent to introduce democracy, puppies, flowers, and warm-fuzzies to the people of Iraq. It's just assumed, on pure, blind, unthinking faith. The religious-cultist's approach to geopolitics. God help us.

Your chosen Arab stooge is dead wrong, demonstrably wrong, on at least one point, though. His claim that it was 9/11 that motivated the US conquest of Iraq flies in the face of a mountain of evidence that it was planned long before: public statements by the PNAC going back to the 90s; testimony by insiders that the Shrubniks were discussing the invasion of Iraq days after taking office in early 2001; documents from a secret meeting beteen Cheney and the Big Oil tycoons planning how Iraq's oil would be divided up.

Then there's the shameless imposition of hard-right Republican economic policies on the prostrate people of Iraq, before elections have even come close to taking place, if they ever do at all.
Apparently, in the US/MyName version of "democracy", all the important decisions are made and implemented by US imperial occupiers -- and then afterwards Iraqis get to vote on it. Hallelujah.

But, of course, all that's complicated, and complexity is annoying. Better to just have blind faith in the magnificent benevolence of the Great Fratboy, God's Chosen Implement in earthly affairs.

What an enviably simple world you live in. Too bad the rest of us don't.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 December 2004 03:27 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My question is, about this article, why is it translated without 'articles,' "the" seem to be absent. Why? I mean do the translators feel that the impression the article makes will be imporved because it sounds like pidgeon English. I mean what is up with that?

Does that make is sound more authetentically indiginous or something? Any dolt with a grade 10 education sould make this translate into English without making him sound like Daniel Defoe's Friday.

Please! Fuck! What the fuck is this?

Of course what is missing is that when the author says things like:

quote:
We claimed President Bush will never be able to defeat Iraq and said the resistance will kick the U.S. forces out of that country. We described terrorism, which is killing innocent people in Iraq, as 'jihad' and expected it to win in the end because it is supported by God.

His primary claim is not that it is wrong ethically to oppose the US invasion, but mostly that it is not possible to win.

It is the realist approach of Dr. Destouches, AKA Ferdinand Celine, who argued that the Nazi invasion was unstopable and that the French should just face up to the facts that Hitler had won, and that they should adjust.

[ 11 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
MyName
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6174

posted 11 December 2004 07:48 AM      Profile for MyName        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball praises Sadddam Hussein for establishing a “stable society.” Hardly. I don’t even think he made the trains run on time.

But I think this is my cue to get back to the real world.

Babblers are unanimous: The Americans may have fooled a lot of stupid Iraqis who are gearing up for the elections, but babblers know better - it’s all a sham.

So forget democracy. America should leave Iraq. Turn the country over to people who like to behead humanitarian workers.

But I’ll shut up and let someone speak who’s not only better informed than Cueball (not difficult), but better informed than me. Here’s Amir Teheri, writing in The Arab News on Saddam’s legacy and the current situation in Iraq:


"The truth is that Iraq did not enjoy security under Saddam Hussein either. This is because while there can be no freedom without security, there is also no security without freedom.

"Were the Juburi tribes secure under Saddam when he sent his special units to massacre them as an act of political revenge? How much security did the Shammar tribes enjoy when Saddam seized two-thirds of their land to distribute among his henchmen? And was it to give them security that Saddam transferred thousands of families from Mosul and Kirkuk in the north to central and southern Iraq?

“And these were all Sunni Muslims who were supposed to provide the principal base of his regime. As for the Shi'ites and the Kurds, the security they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein is symbolized by the mass graves that dot the Iraqi countryside, and the corpses strewn in the streets of Halabja after a chemical attack. And was it because they did not like security that almost four million Iraqis fled into exile during the Baathist rule?"

"The faceless gangsters who seize hostages, cut throats, and kill women and children in streets are products of the culture of violence that successive despotic regimes generated in Iraq. The sole medium of expression they know is violence. They are convinced that he who is ready to kill the most has the best chance of winning power.

"Thus what Iraq is experiencing now is a much bigger struggle, a cultural war, whose outcome will determine not only the future of that suffering nation but also the political prospects of almost all Arab countries."

"On one side in this cultural war one finds the remnants of Saddamism. … On the other side one finds all those Iraqis who have understood that the politics of mass murder and terror is not the best that their nation could hope for.

"To be sure, the two camps are not entirely black or white. On the side of fascism, one finds some sincere but misguided Iraqis.

"The democratic camp in Iraq does not consist of choirboys either. Here one finds quite a few opportunists, job seekers, wheeler-dealers, and outright crooks. Nor is the democratic process, as it has developed so far, beyond criticism."

"On balance, however, it is in Iraq's best interest, indeed in the best interest of the region and the world as a whole, that the democratic camp wins this cultural war.

"The real story line in Iraq is stark, if not simple: A newly liberated nation is divided between those who wish to revive the despotic past, in one form or another, and those who have visions of a democratic future.”


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 December 2004 07:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Babblers are unanimous:

This is never true on babble. It is a lie and a blatant troll. Cut it out.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 December 2004 10:50 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But I'll shut up and let someone speak who's not only better informed than Cueball (not difficult), but better informed than me. Here's Amir Teheri, writing in The Arab News on Saddam's legacy and the current situation in Iraq:

Please do note all of the sources cited by this idiot are from states in which the Unitd States exerts incredible and undue influence, but are without any sort of democratic tradition, oppress women -- just like the Taliban -- and torture, jail, kill pro-democracy activists.

People like myname are dupes and stooges and too stupid to be worthy of our time.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 11 December 2004 12:01 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
Turn the country over to people who like to behead humanitarian workers.

Did someone here order a straw man?


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 December 2004 12:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MyName:
Cueball praises Sadddam Hussein for establishing a “stable society.” Hardly. I don’t even think he made the trains run on time.

But I think this is my cue to get back to the real world.


This is not precisely true, I said the Ba'ath party, which does not exclude the odious Hussein. Peoples have been known to do tremendous things despite of thier leadership, but hell, why bother with exact distinictions, such as that Margaret Hussan lived a long life under Hussein without threat, when we wish to justify the irresponsible actions of those who are indirectly responsible for unleashing lawlessness (war) upon the Iraq people.

And you are right he probably did not 'make the trains run on time,' but there were trains -- now there are not.

So now you have four questions before you:

1) Did you know Hassan opposed not only your invasion but also sanctions?

2) Which agency destroyed the institutions that maintianed the civil order in Iraq and allowed for the complete deterioration of public order by summarily elimating the countries leadership and its civil bureaucracy, including the police force and army, and consequently allowed Islamic-facist elements to run amok and kill people like Maragret Hassan?

3) Who are in the mass graves?

4) When in the entire history of humankind has a country, which did not have a pre-existing democratic tradition, or a people, ever had 'democracy' imposed upon it by foreign invasion and occupation?

[ 11 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 December 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...and consequently allowed Islamic-facist elements to run amok and kill people like Maragret Hassan?

Who killed Mrs. Hassan? Has anyone claimed responsibility?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 11 December 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Got me there, it could have been anyone, but for the sake of arguement lets give Myname his due. It is essentially irrelevant since war can never be the agency of law as it is, by definition, the absence of law.

[ 11 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 12 December 2004 08:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought it would be nice to look at how american benevolence plays out in the streets of Iraq:

quote:
A student of Shakespeare and Wordsworth at al-Anbar University, he seemed an unlikely insurgent suspect. Thirty minutes later he was released, along with every other detainee the squad had captured that morning, with a slap on the backside and shout of “Run. Get going!”


They paddled his bottom!!!! Nice!

quote:
Household goods were sent clattering to the floor, mattresses and bedding upturned, the contents of cupboards and drawers spilt on to a growing pile of personal effects and domestic items. Across the wakening town dogs barked and engines rumbled as US units converged on similar targets.

“Er . . . we’re in the wrong house,” Sergeant Hendrix announced quietly as the troops began questioning the blindfolded Iraqis. “Our target is 100 metres south.”


Nice! Who replaces the crockery that grandma gave the family?

Then this moment of reality disconnect:

quote:
“Hey, Doc! What the f*** ya doing, man?” exclaimed Sergenat Santiago as the rest of the squad joined in a chorus of dissent. “You can’t goddamn smoke here! You might give the kid asthma or some s***! Don’t go givin’ no one else your cancer! Smokin’ in front of a kid — Jesus!”

Nice! Somehow this concern for second hand tobacco smoke in the middle of a house raid, seems to be a nice metaphor for Mynames prattling about Democracy in the middle of a war. The morals of the bubblewrapped American Middle Class, not at war with Isalmic fundamentalism (a worthy task to be sure,) but at war with the fabric of reality itself.

Quotes from a times article: here.

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 12 December 2004 11:00 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While the Iraqi "resistance" (to use the Newspeak term) intends to "release its rockets" on anyone who participates in an election, no one in the real world seriously doubts the U.S. is attempting to bring democracy into being in Iraq

Damn, I always thought I lived in the real world. Time to take some more fantasy pills and get back to my fake world.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062

posted 12 December 2004 06:28 PM      Profile for thwap        Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Originally posted by thwap:

i honestly didn't think MyName was a troll.

MyName:

Thank you, Thwap. I didn't think I was either.


You didn't quote my entire statement. I also said that I thought you were a pseudo-sophisticated right-winger who actually believes the US is after democracy. In this you are naive.

quote:
Originally posted by thwap:
We do not condone or approve of every group in the Iraqi resistance.
I certainly wasn't misrepresenting Rufus, and I wouldn't want to misrepresent you.

Which groups in the Iraqi resistance do you approve of?


Well, I'm no student of the Iraqi resistance, but I guess I'd be understanding of any group who has suffered grievously under the hands of the Americans. Anyone who has lost family, home, loved ones, their future, anyone who has had their loved one falsely arrested and tortured, anyone who suffered under Saddam when he was the ally of the US, who suffered under the sanctions that were imposed by the US and UK under the UN, anyone killed in the invasion. I'd understand them and I wouldn't condemn them and praise the Americans. This is pretty basic stuff actually.

quote:

I'm amazed so few babblers have noticed the election of a democratic ruler in Afghanistan.

I'm amazed so few babblers have noticed Iraq is moving toward democracy.

Has it ever occurred to you to open your eyes?

Why is it happening is another question. Certainly the U.S. could have installed another strong man in Afghanistan and Iraq - with much less bother.

First, I co think Bush sincerely believes democracy is a good thing, as do most Americans and most people throughout the world.


... and yadda, yadda, yadda, followed by "PUKE!"

I actually posted something long ago about the elections in Afghanistan. If you're interested in debating people, you ought to do some listening. I and others also posted observations about US demonstratioin elections elsewhere.
The sad thing is, through their policies, (and through the hypocrisies of ourselves in Canada and the old imperialists elsewhere) all we're good at is debasing the concept of democracies and elections and Western Civilization, and that's a tragic thing.

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]

[ 12 December 2004: Message edited by: thwap ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 12 December 2004 10:20 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Cueball's link above:

quote:
The scene in the second house they raided, apparently the “real” target, was as awful as the first. With no interpreter, and lacking even an Arabic leaflet to explain their mission, the American troops burst in to find a startled Iraqi family sitting on the floor ready for breakfast.

This is the part that always astonishes me, and shows up the utter incompetence of this conquest, on top of its immorality and illegality. Could they not have at least have taught their troops a few basic phrases in Arabic so they can make at least some semblance of communication with the people whose homes they're invading? I wonder how many Iraqis have been blown away because they didn't have a clue what these trigger-happy 20-year-olds wanted them to do?

And how would Americans react if their homes were routinely invaded and trashed by foreign soldiers who didn't even speak English, but jabbered away and swore at them in Arabic?

Hearts and minds, indeed...


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 12 December 2004 10:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In World War II, by contrast, US soldiers often learned German and Japanese so as to be able to communicate in basic terms to those they were about to end up governing.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca