THe only thing me and scott have in common (besides being males, using macs, live in the west... forget it) is our excessive use of sarcasm and irony. Something that to my surprise go miles over peoples heads here.
Unless of course you were sarcastic yourself <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Frankly, sarcasm does not translate to text very well. Rolling eyes do not imply sarcasm.
Giant...care to respond to this alternate interpretation of the text you presented?
Just to play devil's advocate here...a Marshall Plan for Iraq is in our best interests. I'm not sure if this administration is going to learn from history and do what has proven to have worked and avoid what hasn't, however, that article can be interpreted both ways. Remember, we had a military presence in Japan as well after WW2 and still only allow them to have a small defensive army.
A Marshall Plan is in our best interests for Iraq.
<strong>Giant...care to respond to this alternate interpretation of the text you presented?
Just to play devil's advocate here...a Marshall Plan for Iraq is in our best interests. I'm not sure if this administration is going to learn from history and do what has proven to have worked and avoid what hasn't, however, that article can be interpreted both ways. Remember, we had a military presence in Japan as well after WW2 and still only allow them to have a small defensive army.
A Marshall Plan is in our best interests for Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a simple reply: Iraq isn't Japan.
Japan at that time was in a very diffenent situation than Iraq. I mean EVERYTHING was different culturally, politically, historically, geographically. Even the obvious attitudes gained by the the empire expansion and horrible defeat and atomic bombings, not to mention the entire history of the civilization.
Japan at that time was in a very diffenent situation than Iraq. I mean EVERYTHING was different culturally, politically, historically, geographically. Even the obvious attitudes gained by the the empire expansion and horrible defeat and atomic bombings, not to mention the entire history of the civilization.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It worked for Germany and Japan. The Marshall plan was specifically aimed at Germany but we helped build both countries. Who is to say that something like that won't work in Iraq? They are an oppressed people and if we take over and continue to oppress them, things will only get worse.
It doesn't matter, it could work. When dealing with the Arabs, you can count on three things.
1.) They HATE the Jews
2.) They HATE the west
3.) They HATE each other!
If the people in Iraq started living better because of American control, it could plant a democratic envy into the hearts of other arab states.
Who would of thought that the Asian Nazi's could have come as far as they have? Yes conditions are more precarious, everybody in the east hated the Japs, you weren't going to get Chinese or Korean objections to American domination of Japan, but we can make 3 work for us if we try.
Neatly rescued from total inanity there giant, well done.
For anyone interested in the history of Iraq that giant mentions there is a comedy show (12mins) produced by Channel 4 in the UK available for download here:
It starts off a bit poorly, and has a few topical jokes that won't make much sense to non-britains, but is much better when it gets historical, educational too.
It also gives you Yanks some good material for when those crazy, moon-loving euro-hippies start another US bashing thread.
Food is not the answer. Industry is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. The article was more about the immediate response while the war is occuring so that you do not have civilians starving. Like I said, it touches on the issue. Also look at the part where they speak about the billions that will be spent rebuilding the country.
I agree. The article was more about the immediate response while the war is occuring so that you do not have civilians starving. Like I said, it touches on the issue. Also look at the part where they speak about the billions that will be spent rebuilding the country.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are in agreement then. We cannot support dictatorships. We must promote industry. We must promote democracy.
So how does it feel to agree with me Noah? Do you feel dirrrrrrty?
So when you titled it "Sec of State Office says Democracy not in Plans for Iraq" you were aware that he didn't actually say it but a biased 3rd-part interpreted his words to be that way?
[quote]Grossman says that while the US will be 'listening to' Iraqi input, Iraqi governmental decisions will be made by a foreign ruler (the US) based on the 'national interest of the United States,' not Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
It was quite clear in the original article, the one written by the person who actually interviewed the guy, that he was talking about the "opposition" in Iraq. The Iraq revolutionaries. And if you take into account the United States' history with supporting revolutionary groups you'll see that his words are indeed wise.
But when you remove that context, the original context provided by the original article; yes you have something very inflammatory.
I find it funny you link to a biased 3rd party's interpretation of an article and not the article itself. Well I don't really find it funny, I find it telling.
Although he says nothing at all about democracy, your unlinked source says "Statements made during the briefing revealed that the Bush administration was not aiming for a post-Saddam government that would be a true democracy." And you allow it to seem attributed to the Reuters article with a misleading (borderline outright lie) topic heading.
In all that you posted I didn't see how democracy was out of the question for Iraq. If you could clarify that I would be glad.
Comments
<a href="http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_ch-res.html"; target="_blank">Chicago Passes Anti-War Resolution</a>
<strong>
THe only thing me and scott have in common (besides being males, using macs, live in the west... forget it) is our excessive use of sarcasm and irony. Something that to my surprise go miles over peoples heads here.
Unless of course you were sarcastic yourself <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Frankly, sarcasm does not translate to text very well. Rolling eyes do not imply sarcasm.
<strong>BTW, Scott, in case you didn't notice, Our city agrees with me:
<a href="http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_ch-res.html"; target="_blank">Chicago Passes Anti-War Resolution</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Seems like the members of the city council of Chicago are against "Us"
Just to play devil's advocate here...a Marshall Plan for Iraq is in our best interests. I'm not sure if this administration is going to learn from history and do what has proven to have worked and avoid what hasn't, however, that article can be interpreted both ways. Remember, we had a military presence in Japan as well after WW2 and still only allow them to have a small defensive army.
A Marshall Plan is in our best interests for Iraq.
<strong>BTW, Scott, in case you didn't notice, Our city agrees with me:
<a href="http://www.iacenter.org/iraq_ch-res.html"; target="_blank">Chicago Passes Anti-War Resolution</a></strong><hr></blockquote>
As if those pack of leftist speaks for me. I didn't vote for any of them. Too bad they don't spend more time running the city.
<strong>Giant...care to respond to this alternate interpretation of the text you presented?
Just to play devil's advocate here...a Marshall Plan for Iraq is in our best interests. I'm not sure if this administration is going to learn from history and do what has proven to have worked and avoid what hasn't, however, that article can be interpreted both ways. Remember, we had a military presence in Japan as well after WW2 and still only allow them to have a small defensive army.
A Marshall Plan is in our best interests for Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a simple reply: Iraq isn't Japan.
Japan at that time was in a very diffenent situation than Iraq. I mean EVERYTHING was different culturally, politically, historically, geographically. Even the obvious attitudes gained by the the empire expansion and horrible defeat and atomic bombings, not to mention the entire history of the civilization.
<strong>
There is a simple reply: Iraq isn't Japan.
Japan at that time was in a very diffenent situation than Iraq. I mean EVERYTHING was different culturally, politically, historically, geographically. Even the obvious attitudes gained by the the empire expansion and horrible defeat and atomic bombings, not to mention the entire history of the civilization.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It worked for Germany and Japan. The Marshall plan was specifically aimed at Germany but we helped build both countries. Who is to say that something like that won't work in Iraq? They are an oppressed people and if we take over and continue to oppress them, things will only get worse.
1.) They HATE the Jews
2.) They HATE the west
3.) They HATE each other!
If the people in Iraq started living better because of American control, it could plant a democratic envy into the hearts of other arab states.
Who would of thought that the Asian Nazi's could have come as far as they have? Yes conditions are more precarious, everybody in the east hated the Japs, you weren't going to get Chinese or Korean objections to American domination of Japan, but we can make 3 work for us if we try.
<strong>Asian Nazi's</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/871647.asp?0na=x2324271-"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/871647.asp?0na=x2324271-</a>;
Somewhat interesting.
For anyone interested in the history of Iraq that giant mentions there is a comedy show (12mins) produced by Channel 4 in the UK available for download here:
<a href="http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1044740565&count=1"; target="_blank">http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1044740565&count=1</a>;
It starts off a bit poorly, and has a few topical jokes that won't make much sense to non-britains, but is much better when it gets historical, educational too.
It also gives you Yanks some good material for when those crazy, moon-loving euro-hippies start another US bashing thread.
<strong>
History doesn't seem to be the forté of many AI members.
<strong>Another article that touches on this issue.
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/871647.asp?0na=x2324271-"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/871647.asp?0na=x2324271-</a>;
Somewhat interesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Food is not the answer. Industry is.
<strong>
Perhaps he was being sarcastic? heh.
<strong>
Food is not the answer. Industry is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. The article was more about the immediate response while the war is occuring so that you do not have civilians starving. Like I said, it touches on the issue. Also look at the part where they speak about the billions that will be spent rebuilding the country.
<strong>
I agree. The article was more about the immediate response while the war is occuring so that you do not have civilians starving. Like I said, it touches on the issue. Also look at the part where they speak about the billions that will be spent rebuilding the country.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We are in agreement then. We cannot support dictatorships. We must promote industry. We must promote democracy.
So how does it feel to agree with me Noah? Do you feel dirrrrrrty?
Barrels Of Oil x Price Per Barrel - Cost Of Food/Rebuilding = ?
Yeah, yeah. So it's missing one aspect. But, really, my next statement doesn't seem to be the goal of this action.
At what price do we set human dignity/freedom to add into the equation?
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: audiopollution ]</p>
So when you titled it "Sec of State Office says Democracy not in Plans for Iraq" you were aware that he didn't actually say it but a biased 3rd-part interpreted his words to be that way?
[quote]Grossman says that while the US will be 'listening to' Iraqi input, Iraqi governmental decisions will be made by a foreign ruler (the US) based on the 'national interest of the United States,' not Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
It was quite clear in the original article, the one written by the person who actually interviewed the guy, that he was talking about the "opposition" in Iraq. The Iraq revolutionaries. And if you take into account the United States' history with supporting revolutionary groups you'll see that his words are indeed wise.
But when you remove that context, the original context provided by the original article; yes you have something very inflammatory.
I find it funny you link to a biased 3rd party's interpretation of an article and not the article itself. Well I don't really find it funny, I find it telling.
Although he says nothing at all about democracy, your unlinked source says "Statements made during the briefing revealed that the Bush administration was not aiming for a post-Saddam government that would be a true democracy." And you allow it to seem attributed to the Reuters article with a misleading (borderline outright lie) topic heading.
In all that you posted I didn't see how democracy was out of the question for Iraq. If you could clarify that I would be glad.