Sarcastic yet not entirely flip at the same time. Ask an old Korean or Chinese what they think of Japan, see what they tell you. The Empire was very badly behaved in the first half of the 20th century.
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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry I did not respond right away, I was burning my clothing and showering in a Lysol solution. (flashbacks to Ace Ventura. "Einhorn is a MAN!!! Oh GOD!")
We agree on more than you know. I only speak up in disagreement when your statements really raise my hackles. In terms of religion, which is the lions share of our conversations, we are nearly diametrically opposed. In other points I am not sure until you take a stand. I know how to keep separate arguments separate.
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I tried to keep my answer short.
Iraq isn't germany, either.
The middle east does not follow the same rules, largely because of the continuing impact of colonialism.
Other differences include the attitudes of neighboring countries and our national interests in Iraq and the region. The global geopolitical climate is also entirely different.
But maybe it will work. However, western policies in the middle east tend to go wrong. The primary reason? Mirror-imaging. We tend to believe that other nations would act the way we would. In this case, it's the assumption that Iraq will act the way Japan and Germany did. I don't think that is very realistic. Maybe some form of a Marshall Plan would work, but I don't buy it. It might be nice in simplified theory, but real world application is another thing.
Just the fact that this hasn't fully been thought out for the past year and a half makes me not buy it. This is too complicated of a task for it to be just concocted in a few months. And the bush admin is hearing that criticism from everyone, across party lines. I don't think there is a sane person out there that thinks there is a adequate plan in place.
<strong>Sarcastic yet not entirely flip at the same time. Ask an old Korean or Chinese what they think of Japan, see what they tell you. The Empire was very badly behaved in the first half of the 20th century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn´t make them nazis.
The laziness of evil=Al Quada=Arafat=France=Japan=Hitlerism=Saddam=Stalin= Whoever you feel like putting into the equation today make you lose sight of what is unique of the situation and what unique measures that you have to take to counter the "evil"
I tend to think short sighted self-interest rather than mis-calculated response is at the heart of most middle-eastern fvck-ups, but that is also a danger.
<strong>It was quite clear in the original article, the one written by the person who actually interviewed the guy...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean, the reporter that was present at the Senate meeting, right? You're the one that wants to get the facts straight.
Moving on:
[quote]"the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.” <hr></blockquote>
It is quite clear.
Just to add: your country is not democratic if a foreign power is governing it with it's own national interests in mond. It goes against the very definition of democracy.
[quote]de·moc·ra·cy
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. <hr></blockquote>
from dictionary.com (so you don't get on my case)
I also have a distinct feeling that what will be in the US's best interest will be to concoct a weak pseudo-democracy just for show that is so poorly constructed (by virtue of simply being constructed) it will eventually lead to a bloody civil war.
Two comments that would seem to contradict giant's quote:
[quote]The Iraqi diaspora is a great resource but not
a substitute for what all Iraqis will need to do together to work towards democracy in their country.<hr></blockquote>and about the future of Iraq, there will be three phases: [quote](1)Stabilization, where an interim coalition
military administration will focus on security, stability and order; laying the groundwork for stage 2. (2)Transition, where authority is progressively given to Iraqi institutions as part of the development of a democratic Iraq. (3)Transformation, after Iraqis have drafted, debated and approved a new, democratic constitution and held free and fair elections, the only way for any future Iraqi government to be truly legitimate.<hr></blockquote>
[edit] another:
[quote]What I am certain about is that we seek an
Iraq that is democratic, unified, multi-ethnic, with no weapons of mass destruction, which has cut its links to all terrorists, and is at peace with its neighbors.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Grossman and Feith said the Americans aim to enter Iraq as liberators and depart after helping to create a stable, democratic government on a path toward economic security.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe giant would be willing to change the title of this thread? Naw. That would take away from the anti-American slant.
Also, what part of "the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"; is so difficult to understand?
Shown within context, it is the only statement that is concrete and assured, and it is the concluding sentece in the section entitled "the political future." This is a prepared statement and not some offhand comment.
Regardless, we are looking at a minimum of two years, give or take a few, of direct foreign rule of Iraq by force.
this is, by definition, colonialism:
[quote]co·lo·ni·al·ism
n.
A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.
<hr></blockquote>
dictionary.com
We have had long enough to realize that colonialism is a VERY BAD IDEA. Anyone with a middle school education knows that it does more harm than good, no matter what the intentions are. End of story.
<strong>Do you really think we can go in there and create a stable democratic government in two years? What makes you believe that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why throw the word "stable" in there? The quality of the potential democracy has not been in question up to this point. Could you be shifting the focus of your argument because it's been exposed as foolish?
It is not unrealistic at all to expect that Iraq could have a democratic government in place after 2 years. It's not unrealistic at all.
Will it be a shining beacon of wonderful, fair and truly representative government? Not likely.
Again, what motivates you to make the topic title "Sec of State Office says Democracy not in Plans for Iraq" when he didn't say anything of the sort?
[quote]Also, what part of "the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"; is so difficult to understand?<hr></blockquote>
I don't see how this precludes a democratic government.
You might want to try reading things and thinking for yourself instead of allowing biased websites to do your thinking for you.
It's way too early to start discussing colonialism. Well, if you want to be reasonable it's too early. But I guess if we're going to be making stuff up there's never a bad time.
Why throw the word "stable" in there? The quality of the potential democracy has not been in question up to this point. Could you be shifting the focus of your argument because it's been exposed as foolish?<hr></blockquote>
No. If it is truely democratic, then it is stable. If the people are accurately represented, then it will be stable. Without stability, it will not be truely democratic. As I stated a few posts ago, it is entirely likely that the US, if it makes it that far, will put a government in place that appears democratic in order to gain support. But what happens in 5 years? Look at what previous colonialism did to the middle east.
Afghanistan is a good example of the pseudo government. look how many fluff articles you have in the US press, then go to RAWA. The country is ruled by warlords who just claim cities as their own. There is no true central government at all. Just a few hair-thin alliances that are breaking down by the day and numerous battles. Crime has risen dramatically, and there has been a recent rash of women commiting suicide to escape continuing oppression.
[quote]
I don't see how this precludes a democratic government.
<hr></blockquote>
As I have said many times, one country colonizing another, making decisions [according to its own national interests] is by definition not a democratic method of rule. Democracy is when a country is ruled by the people, either directly or through elected representatives.
And, yes, it is colonialism. By defintion. Why are you in denial? There is no question about it. By defintion, buddy. The word colonialism is defined by what the State Dpt. is proposing. Period.
[quote]Main Entry: co·lo·nial·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lO-nE-&-"li-z&m, -ny&-"li-
Function: noun
Date: 1853
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
<hr></blockquote>
from merriam-webster
[quote]colonialism
noun [U]
Colonialism is the belief in and support for the system of one country controlling another. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]No. If it is truely democratic, then it is stable.<hr></blockquote>
That is a load of crap that makes no sense. Was the United States during times of strife not a democracy?
Foolish.
[quote]If the people are accurately represented, then it will be stable.<hr></blockquote>
A "true democracy" would leave out the non-majority, so you might rightly assume that it's going to be unstable because it a "true democracy" the minority has no voice.
[quote]As I stated a few posts ago, it is entirely likely that the US, if it makes it that far, will put a government in place that appears democratic in order to gain support. But what happens in 5 years? Look at what previous colonialism did to the middle east.<hr></blockquote>
You make a silly assumption (that Iraq will be a colony of the United States) and then ask questions based on your silly assumption being fact? Ridiculous.
[quote]Afghanistan is a good example of the pseudo government. look how many fluff articles you have in the US press, then go to RAWA. The country is ruled by warlords who just claim cities as their own. There is no true central government at all. Just a few hair-thin alliances that are breaking down by the day and numerous battles. Crime has risen dramatically, and there has been a recent rash of women commiting suicide to escape continuing oppression.<hr></blockquote>
And...?
You've found an example of a nation that has nothing of value, no history of being an economic or educational power staying where it's been for years and years.
Iraq is very different than Afghanistan.
[quote]As I have said many times, one country colonizing another, making decisions [according to its own national interests] is by definition not a democratic method of rule. Democracy is when a country is ruled by the people, either directly or through elected representatives.<hr></blockquote>
Colonialism doesn't start with "we'll be there for 2 years" and actively trying to form international coalitions. Will Iraq be a U.N. colony? Because, in case you've been asleep, that's who this is all up to.
1. We know Iraq is not the same as Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan are not the same as one another either. Obviously, a cookie-cutter approach to reconstructing a representative government in Iraq would be stupid and would fail. We're arguing about how one would bring democracy to Iraq at this point, not whether one would bring democracy to Iraq.
2. Like I said - or rather meant - before, the statement that the US is trying to protect its own interests in this situation is self-evident. It's a truism, not a revelation or indictment either way. The question is again a matter of how one accomplishes this, especially in terms of short-term vs. long-term consequences such as short-term safety vs. long-term peace (and maybe even friendship?). I think the US would be interested in both, but the administration sometimes (OK, often) seems to prefer short-term fixes at the expense of long term solutions.
3. I would much rather have the US make an earnest effort, with the rest of the international community*, to rebuild a self-sustaining and representative government in Iraq than just kick Hussein out and walk away. Didn't work for Grenada, Haiti, Panama, etc. I has helped tremendously in Germany and Japan obviously. If that means an occupying force in the transition, assumably a UN or international coalition of some sort, so be it.
(Though it's interesting that with an adult generation in places like South Korea and France they have no concept of our collective history and sacrifice. Our past together seems to matter little in these cases. So maybe there's an argument about how futile an effort like this would be. One generation grows up in allegiance, the next has an inferiority complex.
* I'm sure some members of the international community wouldn't help the effort out of spite for the US and at the expense of the Iraqis. Like kids in the schoolyard, "they started it!" Right as they are, it's irrelevant after the fact.
4. This "colonial" rule in the initial stages of the rebuilding process is something I think anyone in the US would like to keep to a minimum. American "colonization" of the world has happened without the need or desire to actually occupy these lands -- welcome to the modern economy. Then of course we have the precedent of Afghanistan which I hope speaks for itself. Coloniztion of Iraq just assumes so much, and it's superfluous even in the most sinister scenario.
5. People have already pointed to quotes that mention a democratic government for Iraq from the same deposition. So accept that in the argument as well one way or the other. It could mean a puppet government to be set up in Iraq, or it could be something truly representative. Make the case.
A "true democracy" would leave out the non-majority, so you might rightly assume that it's going to be unstable because it a "true democracy" the minority has no voice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like someone hasn't even dipped his toe into the study of democratic systems of govenment. You realize that there are 3 primary manifestations, only one of which, the system the US uses, does not represent the minority. This is very high-profile topic in academia, to the point that it is taught in most intro level poli sci courses.
In other words, what you are calling a true democracy is simply an outdated and disproven utilitarian philosophy.
Many now agree that our system is outdated. They point out that the successes of the US create the illusion of having the best system while the reality is that it is one of the most unbalanced and inefficient. You should be able to find How Democratic Is the
American Constitution? by Robert Dahl (Yale University Press) anywhere, and it is fairly short. I've never heard of a library without it and it is considered the best modern intro to modern democratic systems in comparison to the US.
[quote]Nor can the US assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa.<hr></blockquote>
and page 14
[quote]The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
Everything is right in front of you. The motives are more than clear.
[quote]groverat: A 2-year U.S. colony controlled by the U.N.
That statement is incompatible with:
Grossman:
"the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"<hr></blockquote>
Not really, in a few ways:
1. we're part of the UN, and we have a lot of clout in the UN.
2. Like I said above, we have other means of pushing out weight around if we were inclined to do so. Whether for dubious purposes or not is another issue, and really is the issue to worry about. This whole topic is merely tangential.
3. Democracy is also in the interest of the US. You might not think so, but it is like I said, in our best interests in the long run.
4. If it's controlled by the UN, is it really a US "colony"? But that goes back to my last points about whether we're really talking about a colony or whether it's a transition of power.
1. we're part of the UN, and we have a lot of clout in the UN.
2. Like I said above, we have other means of pushing out weight around if we were inclined to do so. Whether for dubious purposes or not is another issue, and really is the issue to worry about. This whole topic is merely tangential.
3. Democracy is also in the interest of the US. You might not think so, but it is like I said, in our best interests in the long run.
4. If it's controlled by the UN, is it really a US "colony"? But that goes back to my last points about whether we're really talking about a colony or whether it's a transition of power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He meant it sarcastically, following it with an insult. Most of what you say is true, but it isn't what we are talking about.
In terms of your thrid point, however, the Bush admin does not see eye to eye with you. Democracy with conditions would be ideal for the current breed of US policy makers. For instance, a democracy that opposes US influence in the region would be horribly damaging to the US interests in the region. But democracy as we know it will likely not exist in Iraq for some time, and it is not the current goal. You only need to read the document provided above to see clearly what the goals and motivations are.
He meant it sarcastically, following it with an insult. Most of what you say is true, but it isn't what we are talking about.
In terms of your thrid point, however, the Bush admin does not see eye to eye with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, sorry, I skimmed the most recent responses. I missed the tone of that post then. I am afraid you might be right about that third point. I'm holding out hope, but I'm afraid of a more myopic agenda from the administration. (Sorry for sounding like a broken record about this whole taking-the-long-view thing.)
Comments
<strong>
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?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry I did not respond right away, I was burning my clothing and showering in a Lysol solution. (flashbacks to Ace Ventura. "Einhorn is a MAN!!! Oh GOD!")
We agree on more than you know. I only speak up in disagreement when your statements really raise my hackles. In terms of religion, which is the lions share of our conversations, we are nearly diametrically opposed. In other points I am not sure until you take a stand. I know how to keep separate arguments separate.
<strong>
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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry. I tried to keep my answer short.
Iraq isn't germany, either.
The middle east does not follow the same rules, largely because of the continuing impact of colonialism.
Other differences include the attitudes of neighboring countries and our national interests in Iraq and the region. The global geopolitical climate is also entirely different.
But maybe it will work. However, western policies in the middle east tend to go wrong. The primary reason? Mirror-imaging. We tend to believe that other nations would act the way we would. In this case, it's the assumption that Iraq will act the way Japan and Germany did. I don't think that is very realistic. Maybe some form of a Marshall Plan would work, but I don't buy it. It might be nice in simplified theory, but real world application is another thing.
Just the fact that this hasn't fully been thought out for the past year and a half makes me not buy it. This is too complicated of a task for it to be just concocted in a few months. And the bush admin is hearing that criticism from everyone, across party lines. I don't think there is a sane person out there that thinks there is a adequate plan in place.
<strong>Sarcastic yet not entirely flip at the same time. Ask an old Korean or Chinese what they think of Japan, see what they tell you. The Empire was very badly behaved in the first half of the 20th century.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doesn´t make them nazis.
The laziness of evil=Al Quada=Arafat=France=Japan=Hitlerism=Saddam=Stalin= Whoever you feel like putting into the equation today make you lose sight of what is unique of the situation and what unique measures that you have to take to counter the "evil"
<strong>It was quite clear in the original article, the one written by the person who actually interviewed the guy...</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean, the reporter that was present at the Senate meeting, right? You're the one that wants to get the facts straight.
Moving on:
[quote]"the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States.” <hr></blockquote>
It is quite clear.
Just to add: your country is not democratic if a foreign power is governing it with it's own national interests in mond. It goes against the very definition of democracy.
[quote]de·moc·ra·cy
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. <hr></blockquote>
from dictionary.com (so you don't get on my case)
I also have a distinct feeling that what will be in the US's best interest will be to concoct a weak pseudo-democracy just for show that is so poorly constructed (by virtue of simply being constructed) it will eventually lead to a bloody civil war.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Two comments that would seem to contradict giant's quote:
[quote]The Iraqi diaspora is a great resource but not
a substitute for what all Iraqis will need to do together to work towards democracy in their country.<hr></blockquote>and about the future of Iraq, there will be three phases: [quote](1)Stabilization, where an interim coalition
military administration will focus on security, stability and order; laying the groundwork for stage 2. (2)Transition, where authority is progressively given to Iraqi institutions as part of the development of a democratic Iraq. (3)Transformation, after Iraqis have drafted, debated and approved a new, democratic constitution and held free and fair elections, the only way for any future Iraqi government to be truly legitimate.<hr></blockquote>
[edit] another:
[quote]What I am certain about is that we seek an
Iraq that is democratic, unified, multi-ethnic, with no weapons of mass destruction, which has cut its links to all terrorists, and is at peace with its neighbors.<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
[quote]Grossman and Feith said the Americans aim to enter Iraq as liberators and depart after helping to create a stable, democratic government on a path toward economic security.<hr></blockquote>
Maybe giant would be willing to change the title of this thread? Naw. That would take away from the anti-American slant.
They said occupation would last two years, not forever.
Democracy is not out of the question here.
Scott:
Of course he won't change the title. What would the fun be in that?
But it's not realistic.
Also, what part of "the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"; is so difficult to understand?
Shown within context, it is the only statement that is concrete and assured, and it is the concluding sentece in the section entitled "the political future." This is a prepared statement and not some offhand comment.
Regardless, we are looking at a minimum of two years, give or take a few, of direct foreign rule of Iraq by force.
this is, by definition, colonialism:
[quote]co·lo·ni·al·ism
n.
A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.
<hr></blockquote>
dictionary.com
We have had long enough to realize that colonialism is a VERY BAD IDEA. Anyone with a middle school education knows that it does more harm than good, no matter what the intentions are. End of story.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>Do you really think we can go in there and create a stable democratic government in two years? What makes you believe that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why throw the word "stable" in there? The quality of the potential democracy has not been in question up to this point. Could you be shifting the focus of your argument because it's been exposed as foolish?
It is not unrealistic at all to expect that Iraq could have a democratic government in place after 2 years. It's not unrealistic at all.
Will it be a shining beacon of wonderful, fair and truly representative government? Not likely.
Again, what motivates you to make the topic title "Sec of State Office says Democracy not in Plans for Iraq" when he didn't say anything of the sort?
[quote]Also, what part of "the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"; is so difficult to understand?<hr></blockquote>
I don't see how this precludes a democratic government.
You might want to try reading things and thinking for yourself instead of allowing biased websites to do your thinking for you.
It's way too early to start discussing colonialism. Well, if you want to be reasonable it's too early. But I guess if we're going to be making stuff up there's never a bad time.
Why throw the word "stable" in there? The quality of the potential democracy has not been in question up to this point. Could you be shifting the focus of your argument because it's been exposed as foolish?<hr></blockquote>
No. If it is truely democratic, then it is stable. If the people are accurately represented, then it will be stable. Without stability, it will not be truely democratic. As I stated a few posts ago, it is entirely likely that the US, if it makes it that far, will put a government in place that appears democratic in order to gain support. But what happens in 5 years? Look at what previous colonialism did to the middle east.
Afghanistan is a good example of the pseudo government. look how many fluff articles you have in the US press, then go to RAWA. The country is ruled by warlords who just claim cities as their own. There is no true central government at all. Just a few hair-thin alliances that are breaking down by the day and numerous battles. Crime has risen dramatically, and there has been a recent rash of women commiting suicide to escape continuing oppression.
[quote]
I don't see how this precludes a democratic government.
<hr></blockquote>
As I have said many times, one country colonizing another, making decisions [according to its own national interests] is by definition not a democratic method of rule. Democracy is when a country is ruled by the people, either directly or through elected representatives.
And, yes, it is colonialism. By defintion. Why are you in denial? There is no question about it. By defintion, buddy. The word colonialism is defined by what the State Dpt. is proposing. Period.
[quote]Main Entry: co·lo·nial·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lO-nE-&-"li-z&m, -ny&-"li-
Function: noun
Date: 1853
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
<hr></blockquote>
from merriam-webster
[quote]colonialism
noun [U]
Colonialism is the belief in and support for the system of one country controlling another. <hr></blockquote>
cambridge dictionaries online
it is colonialism by defintion.
[ 02-12-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
That is a load of crap that makes no sense. Was the United States during times of strife not a democracy?
Foolish.
[quote]If the people are accurately represented, then it will be stable.<hr></blockquote>
A "true democracy" would leave out the non-majority, so you might rightly assume that it's going to be unstable because it a "true democracy" the minority has no voice.
[quote]As I stated a few posts ago, it is entirely likely that the US, if it makes it that far, will put a government in place that appears democratic in order to gain support. But what happens in 5 years? Look at what previous colonialism did to the middle east.<hr></blockquote>
You make a silly assumption (that Iraq will be a colony of the United States) and then ask questions based on your silly assumption being fact? Ridiculous.
[quote]Afghanistan is a good example of the pseudo government. look how many fluff articles you have in the US press, then go to RAWA. The country is ruled by warlords who just claim cities as their own. There is no true central government at all. Just a few hair-thin alliances that are breaking down by the day and numerous battles. Crime has risen dramatically, and there has been a recent rash of women commiting suicide to escape continuing oppression.<hr></blockquote>
And...?
You've found an example of a nation that has nothing of value, no history of being an economic or educational power staying where it's been for years and years.
Iraq is very different than Afghanistan.
[quote]As I have said many times, one country colonizing another, making decisions [according to its own national interests] is by definition not a democratic method of rule. Democracy is when a country is ruled by the people, either directly or through elected representatives.<hr></blockquote>
Colonialism doesn't start with "we'll be there for 2 years" and actively trying to form international coalitions. Will Iraq be a U.N. colony? Because, in case you've been asleep, that's who this is all up to.
A 2-year U.S. colony controlled by the U.N.
Boy you're really thinkin'!
1. We know Iraq is not the same as Germany and Japan. Germany and Japan are not the same as one another either. Obviously, a cookie-cutter approach to reconstructing a representative government in Iraq would be stupid and would fail. We're arguing about how one would bring democracy to Iraq at this point, not whether one would bring democracy to Iraq.
2. Like I said - or rather meant - before, the statement that the US is trying to protect its own interests in this situation is self-evident. It's a truism, not a revelation or indictment either way. The question is again a matter of how one accomplishes this, especially in terms of short-term vs. long-term consequences such as short-term safety vs. long-term peace (and maybe even friendship?). I think the US would be interested in both, but the administration sometimes (OK, often) seems to prefer short-term fixes at the expense of long term solutions.
3. I would much rather have the US make an earnest effort, with the rest of the international community*, to rebuild a self-sustaining and representative government in Iraq than just kick Hussein out and walk away. Didn't work for Grenada, Haiti, Panama, etc. I has helped tremendously in Germany and Japan obviously. If that means an occupying force in the transition, assumably a UN or international coalition of some sort, so be it.
(Though it's interesting that with an adult generation in places like South Korea and France they have no concept of our collective history and sacrifice. Our past together seems to matter little in these cases. So maybe there's an argument about how futile an effort like this would be. One generation grows up in allegiance, the next has an inferiority complex.
* I'm sure some members of the international community wouldn't help the effort out of spite for the US and at the expense of the Iraqis. Like kids in the schoolyard, "they started it!" Right as they are, it's irrelevant after the fact.
4. This "colonial" rule in the initial stages of the rebuilding process is something I think anyone in the US would like to keep to a minimum. American "colonization" of the world has happened without the need or desire to actually occupy these lands -- welcome to the modern economy. Then of course we have the precedent of Afghanistan which I hope speaks for itself. Coloniztion of Iraq just assumes so much, and it's superfluous even in the most sinister scenario.
5. People have already pointed to quotes that mention a democratic government for Iraq from the same deposition. So accept that in the argument as well one way or the other. It could mean a puppet government to be set up in Iraq, or it could be something truly representative. Make the case.
<strong>
A "true democracy" would leave out the non-majority, so you might rightly assume that it's going to be unstable because it a "true democracy" the minority has no voice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like someone hasn't even dipped his toe into the study of democratic systems of govenment. You realize that there are 3 primary manifestations, only one of which, the system the US uses, does not represent the minority. This is very high-profile topic in academia, to the point that it is taught in most intro level poli sci courses.
In other words, what you are calling a true democracy is simply an outdated and disproven utilitarian philosophy.
Many now agree that our system is outdated. They point out that the successes of the US create the illusion of having the best system while the reality is that it is one of the most unbalanced and inefficient. You should be able to find How Democratic Is the
American Constitution? by Robert Dahl (Yale University Press) anywhere, and it is fairly short. I've never heard of a library without it and it is considered the best modern intro to modern democratic systems in comparison to the US.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
That statement is incompatible with:
Grossman:
[quote]"the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"<hr></blockquote>
As well as the <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses, the blueprint of the Admin,</a> page 11:
[quote]Nor can the US assume a UN-like stance of neutrality; the preponderance of American power is so great and its global interests so wide that it cannot pretend to be indifferent to the political outcome in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf or even when it deploys forces in Africa.<hr></blockquote>
and page 14
[quote]The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.<hr></blockquote>
Everything is right in front of you. The motives are more than clear.
That statement is incompatible with:
Grossman:
"the United States government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States"<hr></blockquote>
Not really, in a few ways:
1. we're part of the UN, and we have a lot of clout in the UN.
2. Like I said above, we have other means of pushing out weight around if we were inclined to do so. Whether for dubious purposes or not is another issue, and really is the issue to worry about. This whole topic is merely tangential.
3. Democracy is also in the interest of the US. You might not think so, but it is like I said, in our best interests in the long run.
4. If it's controlled by the UN, is it really a US "colony"? But that goes back to my last points about whether we're really talking about a colony or whether it's a transition of power.
<strong>
Not really, in a few ways:
1. we're part of the UN, and we have a lot of clout in the UN.
2. Like I said above, we have other means of pushing out weight around if we were inclined to do so. Whether for dubious purposes or not is another issue, and really is the issue to worry about. This whole topic is merely tangential.
3. Democracy is also in the interest of the US. You might not think so, but it is like I said, in our best interests in the long run.
4. If it's controlled by the UN, is it really a US "colony"? But that goes back to my last points about whether we're really talking about a colony or whether it's a transition of power.</strong><hr></blockquote>
He meant it sarcastically, following it with an insult. Most of what you say is true, but it isn't what we are talking about.
In terms of your thrid point, however, the Bush admin does not see eye to eye with you. Democracy with conditions would be ideal for the current breed of US policy makers. For instance, a democracy that opposes US influence in the region would be horribly damaging to the US interests in the region. But democracy as we know it will likely not exist in Iraq for some time, and it is not the current goal. You only need to read the document provided above to see clearly what the goals and motivations are.
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
He meant it sarcastically, following it with an insult. Most of what you say is true, but it isn't what we are talking about.
In terms of your thrid point, however, the Bush admin does not see eye to eye with you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, sorry, I skimmed the most recent responses. I missed the tone of that post then. I am afraid you might be right about that third point. I'm holding out hope, but I'm afraid of a more myopic agenda from the administration. (Sorry for sounding like a broken record about this whole taking-the-long-view thing.)