Yeah , sorry but i do honestly rate him. Thanks retrograde for you kind words on my nostalgia quip, made me laugh too.
Yes, well I can understand where you are coming from. I helped vote him in back in '96 ... or was it '97. I also find I have small reservations about attacking him because I know the only likely alternative to him is a Conservative government and there is no way I would want that. Blair is a long and difficult subject which would be better discussed over a long pint of beer
I had forgotten that it was you that had made that comment on nostalgia... yes, I won't forget that, it was great
The other day I got into it with some academics. I'm not saying whether I'm pro or anti war, what's done is done.
But I realized that so many people (including the pro war americans) want Americans out of Iraq ASAP. The US is saying they want to stay for 2 years.
To me this is the most utterly idiotic unrealistic timeline possible, especially for the middle east. 24 months? 24 years would work, but not months.
The ONLY way to seed democracy in Iraq would be to disarm it completely and then protect and police it for a number of years, gradually placing first police and then military back into their own control. They must be restricted to solely civic concerns and development for at least one full generation if we are to have any hope of a peaceful transition to democracy.
Just look at Afganistan, there are still international troops there, though much reduced, and already Afganistan is hanging on by a thread.
It seems to me now, that if people are pro peace, and stable democracy is the best bet at lasting peace, then occupation is the ONLY plausible solution. But it takes time and money i guess.
Yeah and people like Groverat were saying we'd be in and out in some of their arguments. This seemed silly to me then. Think West Germany. A permanent presence.
I don't see how anything but pain will follow an American withdrawl unless America can leave Iraq in a general state of security and welfare. To me, that takes a lot longer than 24 months.
No, I think it'll just take a strong arm, US friendly dictator like Saddam.
No, I think it'll just take a strong arm, US friendly dictator like Saddam.
Exactly. Either that and/or continued presence of foreign troops.
Otherwise, there will be a civil war. I think that we all know that.
I did not support this war - and still think that it was the wrong way at this time - but now that the US is in, they can't leave.
However, I think that it is going to be a tough situation, even if the US stays for a long time. Iraq is not a cohesive country, and there are significant external complications as well (reasons in part for which Bush Sr. did not want to continue the 1991 Gulf War into Iraq and reasons which still apply today).
Exactly. Either that and/or continued presence of foreign troops.
Yeah, I was just making the point that if the Bush administration really does pull out in two years, a dictator might be the only way to keep things under control.
I'm not actually convinced of this, but we'll see how things pan out. I think the US will stay longer, and I think the country could hobble along without resorting to civil war even without a dictator. It's going to be a tight balance though.
Your point assumes that there is a group of people saying Iraq can't have democracy because the Arab world is unable to accept secular democracy, which no one is.
Eh, lots of people are saying that.
Quote:
The reason it is not realistic is because the main power groups do not want it, and that includes the US pentagon policy makers which, in case you didn't notice, have ultimate authority in Iraq right now.
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
Quote:
I want to add that to say that 60% of Iraq was not represented because they were out protesting is really rediculous.
A lot of Shia leaders weren't at the first Big Tent because they protested the meeting. That's a fact.
Earlier in the day, tens of thousands of demonstrators led by Shia religious clerics had converged on the center of Nasiriyah to protest the meeting.
...
In another setback for the White House, Iraq's main Shia exiled opposition group -- the Tehran-headquartered Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI -- boycotted the meeting to protest what they described as preparations for an administration imposed by foreigners.
Does that mean we're going to ignore the Shia? No. It just means they weren't there at that meaning in full force.
If this is accurate, it's interesting and scary to see the lengths Turkey will go to have an influence in the region. This doesn't bode well for long term stability of Iraq.
where? who? I want to see it, which I have yet to. Show me someone that says that Iraqis won't be democratic because they are Arab or Muslim. Then show me that anyone takes them at all seriously.
Quote:
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
Saddam was an Iraqi. To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
The INC is made up of Iraqis.
Quote:
A lot of Shia leaders weren't at the first Big Tent because they protested the meeting. That's a fact.
Does that mean we're going to ignore the Shia? No. It just means they weren't there at that meaning in full force.
Not fact. The people that lead the protests were led by Abdul Aziz Hakim, who murdered the man set to be the conduit to the US in order to gain political control. He lives in IRAN, is radical and does not speak for Shias. Get a clue. Your belief that Hakim represents 60% of the Iraq population is not only completely ignorant, it demonstrates exactly my point: that the US is not adequately working towards the representation of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfet example of the splits in the US government:
Quote:
The Bushies could not even agree on who was supposed to lead the town meeting. As the president's point man in the reconstruction process for Afghanistan, Khalilzad argued that he had the necessary experience to head the American delegation. Pentagon civilians, worried by Khalilzad's fondness for Pachachi, insisted the American side be led by Jay Garner. In the end, both attended.
The pentagon is doing everything it can to get Chalabi in power, and the've talked about it for years. This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system. In fact, the only group working towards a truely democratic government is the State Department, and the neo-cons have done everything to undermine it, up to an including attacking powell himself here at home.
As far as your use of the term conspiracy theory, calling anything a conpiracy theory is a cop-out and shows you don't have enough rationale to back anything up, which isn't at all surpising.
Oh, and you should probably stop quoting Garner when discussing policy. Maybe you didn't notice, but not only is he not a policy maker, but he also is not even close to being ultimate authority on the Iraqi government. Think of him like a secretary for the pentagon that sends out memos. Quoting him only further demonstrates how backward your understanding of this is.
The pentagon is doing everything it can to get Chalabi in power, and the've talked about it for years. This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system.
giant, is Chalabi against democracy? Or are you just saying that forcing him into power is undemocratic? Just curious. I don't know much about him other than he's a hand picked guy with business ties.
My thinking is that even if we use him first (like Karzai) within a democratic system, once elections roll around he could be out as fast as we put him in. Sure he'll have an advantage, but personally I guess I'm not against having someone hand picked for two years and then elections. Of course, the hand picked guy should have some credibility and if he doesn't then there's a problem.
giant, is Chalabi against democracy? Or are you just saying that forcing him into power is undemocratic? Just curious. I don't know much about him other than he's a hand picked guy with business ties.
Forcing him into power is undemocratic. He has NO support in Iraq, so the country would be led by someone they not only didn't vote for, but also do not want.
He has also been convicted of fraud in jordan.
Quote:
My thinking is that even if we use him first (like Karzai) within a democratic system, once elections roll around he could be out as fast as we put him in. Sure he'll have an advantage, but personally I guess I'm not against having someone hand picked for two years and then elections. Of course, the hand picked guy should have some credibility and if he doesn't then there's a problem.
The state department's model is the only valid one. A series of meetings out of which emerges a group of leaders backed by support of all of the groups. Karzai was not someone that everyone in the country opposed. Furthermore, the entire neo-con plan is to give Chalabi legitimacy by simply acting like he is the right guy and opposing any plans advocated by anyone else. Over time, he sppears to be the legitimate ruler. But this is not what Iraqis want.
Most importantly to we here in the US, this is not what we have been told this war is about. If we are liberating the Iraqis to enable self-rule, then we should be enabling self-rule, not pushing our people on the country. This is similar to, though much worse than, what the US was doing in Latin America a couple decades ago: spending large amounts of money and effort to ensure that the preferred guy got power, even if the people didn't really want it. If you have 1000x the visibility of your opponent, then it is a cinch to take over. This is exactly what the CIA was doing back then that led to some of the most ruthless and un-democratic regimes of the 20th century. We already know that some of Chalabi's aims are not in line with those of most arabs, for instance, his advocacy of closeness with Israel (which is one of the main reasons the neo-cons like him).
If we are serious about enabling the Iraqis to have a democratic government, we need to do so from the beginning, as the state department has advocated. Note, too, that the state department is the most qualified department to handle this, not the pentagon.
Note, too, that the neo-cons are attempting to undermine the whitehouse's aims, as is demonstrated clearly in their opposition to anything Khalilzad (Bush's envoy) advocates.
My fear is that even if the White House hand picks someone for the first couple years before an election, someone unqualified or unwanted, they could implement policies and treaties within the first couple of years that might be difficult to overturn. We'll see.
Karzai is definitely more legitimate than Chalabi, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But if we can find the Karzai-like figure in Iraq, one most people think is OK for an interm government, then I don't mind an undemocratic process to put him in power long enough to hold the reigns (two years like Afghanistan?) until free elections. But a Chalabi-esque puppet would be bad.
where? who? I want to see it, which I have yet to. Show me someone that says that Iraqis won't be democratic because they are Arab or Muslim. Then show me that anyone takes them at all seriously.
Ah, I like the stipulation at the end. Move those goalposts.
Do you want someone on the board or someone off the board?
I would hardly expect the Iraqi people no matter their ethnic makeup to adopt to a secular democracy overnight.
Nothing about the iraqi people suggests they will be able to make a peaceful transition, or even a successful one, to responsible self government.
First page of this thread. Towards the top. I didn't even bother looking past those.
Quote:
Saddam was an Iraqi. To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
The INC is made up of Iraqis.
When did I say they would have an immediate democracy?
Why is there not a possibility for a move towards democracy?
You're trying to call the game in the first quarter. Foolish.
Quote:
The people that lead the protests were led by Abdul Aziz Hakim, who murdered the man set to be the conduit to the US in order to gain political control. He lives in IRAN, is radical and does not speak for Shias. Get a clue. Your belief that Hakim represents 60% of the Iraq population is not only completely ignorant, it demonstrates exactly my point: that the US is not adequately working towards the representation of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
Do you understand the meaning of words like "some"? I guess not. Perhaps you should take refresher reading courses.
Or what is so goddam difficult about this sentence?
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
Quote:
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfet example of the splits in the US government.
Who gives a shit? This has had no bearing on actual reality on the ground in Iraq.
Quote:
This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system. In fact, the only group working towards a truely democratic government is the State Department, and the neo-cons have done everything to undermine it, up to an including attacking powell himself here at home.
So the Pentagon doesn't want democracy so the US doesn't want democracy. You're acting like the state department is some foreign entity.
Quote:
Oh, and you should probably stop quoting Garner when discussing policy. Maybe you didn't notice, but not only is he not a policy maker, but he also is not even close to being ultimate authority on the Iraqi government. Think of him like a secretary for the pentagon that sends out memos.
Garner organized the meeting you say pissed off the Pentagon but he is just a stooge for the Pentagon.
You're tying yourself up in knots.
Does he piss the Pentagon off or is he a lackey? Or is he a double-agent super duper conspiracy tin-foil guy!?
I am not with you on the interim government idea. The government that is put in place is going to stay in place. Sure, maybe the top few folks might change, but the underlying structure is not going to change once its in place. That's why working for a real democratic government at the beginning is so important. The idea of interim government ignores the reality of what a government is.
Of course, if it's being put forward that it could work because of afghanistan, all I need to point out is that it's obviously not worked yet, and doesn't appear to be making a lot of progress. Most of the country is under the control of warlords, whose alignment with Karzai varies and can change. Note that afghanistan is also about as far from democratic as one can get. Hopefully in the future that will change.
Do you want someone on the board or someone off the board?
It's already been pointed out that you can't take matsu's comments here seriously, and I do not think he speaks for anything more than a small, small minority of folks, if such a minority exists.
I meant from off the boards.
----
for the following, you are trying to brush your argument under the rug.
Quote:
When did I say they would have an immediate democracy?
Why is there not a possibility for a move towards democracy?
your statement equated iraqi rule with democracy, saying that rule by Iraqi nationals opposes the statement that an undemocratic system is being pushed by the US:
original interaction:
groverat:
Quote:
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
to which I responded:
Quote:
To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
You aren't fooling anyone.
--------
Quote:
Do you understand the meaning of words like "some"? I guess not. Perhaps you should take refresher reading courses.
Or what is so goddam difficult about this sentence?
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
When you are talking about a few million people, saying that 'many of them were protesting' is just plain wrong.
-----
giant:
Quote:
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfect example of the splits in the US government.
Groverat:
Quote:
Who gives a shit? This has had no bearing on actual reality on the ground in Iraq.
Huh? The way the US constructs the new Iraqi government has everything to do with how the new Iraqi government is constructed. Are you feeling OK?
-----
Quote:
So the Pentagon doesn't want democracy so the US doesn't want democracy. You're acting like the state department is some foreign entity.
No, I'm pointing out that the people that advocated this war (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld) sold it in the package of democratizing Iraq and are now undermining that effort.
The state department (headed by powell and the department that was the main internal opposition to the war, with multiple people resigning over it) is now the group that is making the only real move toward democracy.
In short, the hawks are working to undermine implentation of their promise.
since we now see that the neo-con goal was not to democratize Iraq, what was it?
-------
Quote:
Garner organized the meeting you say pissed off the Pentagon but he is just a stooge for the Pentagon.
You're tying yourself up in knots.
No, you are seeing the neo-cons trying to take credit for something the state department proposed:
Quote:
Under the Pentagon's procedure, exile leaders would play a significant role in choosing the Iraqis on the inside; while, under the State Department proposal, leaders would emerge from a series of these local meetings, conferring on them legitimacy through what appears to be a democratic process...The Bushies could not even agree on who was supposed to lead the town meeting. As the president's point man in the reconstruction process for Afghanistan, Khalilzad argued that he had the necessary experience to head the American delegation. Pentagon civilians, worried by Khalilzad's fondness for Pachachi, insisted the American side be led by Jay Garner. In the end, both attended.
Any interim authority at this point. is a movement towards a democracy of some kind.
Hence the word: interim.
interim - an intervening time : INTERVAL
To make lemonade I need lemons and water and ice and sugar. To see those ingredients on the counter and scream "YOU ARE NOT MAKING LEMONADE!" is stupid.
Quote:
When you are talking about a few million people, saying that 'many of them were protesting' is just plain wrong.
I'd also say that "many" Americans were protesting the war. I guess that's wrong, too, eh?
Quote:
since we now see that the neo-con goal was not to democratize Iraq, what was it?
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
Again, do you expect free democratic elections right now? Do you think the administration of the basic functions of the nation should be postponed until the nation is prepared and secure enough for a fair and free democratic election?
Be realistic. You have no idea where a 100% Pentagon plan would be 3 years from now.
You have no reason at all to say that "representative democracy is not going to happen."
All bluster, conjecture and foolish deductive logic.
No, I think the structure HAS to be democratic, even if the players are setups. I agree with you there. And the comparison to Afghanistan is not to say Iraq should have a government like that but just that we could set up a structure and fill the players in their positions, then hold their hands until the first election.
I think we're basically in agreement. I'm just saying that if the first president isn't elected, and the people more or less can take him, I'm not going to worry. That's assuming the structure is in place, and an election is forthcoming.
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
If he's really as unwanted as it seems, I'd say hand picking Chalabi would be leaning undemocratic. If we know he's unwanted or rejected by most and we still choose him, that's the wrong step to take.
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
First of all, because it just puts another dictatorship in the place of the old one. If we are out to democratize Iraq, the last thing we should do is put a dictator in power, or further undermine the democratic ideal by putting in someone that the Iraqis are particularly opposed to.
Secondly, the entire government needs to be as close to a democracy as possible. As I pointed out before, the underlying structure made up of thousands of people is not going to change once it is put in place. If it is a dictatorship, the government will have to be organized to accomidate it. It takes revolutions to completely reconstruct governments from the ground up. We have the opportunity to do it now, and that opportunity will not come again for a long time without another revolution/war.
We are working towards creating a new government in Iraq. This does not just mean new people, this means taking out the dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy. The underlying structure of the government needs to reflect the fact that a democracy in Iraq needs to represent the people from the top to the bottom. This might even mean a new non-western democracy, maybe even with parts that are similar to the positive aspects of the reforming Iranian Islamic democracy. If we want Iraq to be a model for change throughout the Middle East, it needs to be a democracy that reflects the people.
I find it particularly ironic that the US, with one of the least representative democratic systems of the developed democracies is advocating (at least in rhetoric) the construction of a representative one in another part of the world, and one that is completely different culturally, economically, historically and sociologically.
Quote:
Again, do you expect free democratic elections right now?
No. I like the state department proposal and would like to see it happen.
First of all, because it just puts another dictatorship in the place of the old one. If we are out to democratize Iraq, the last thing we should do is put a dictator in power, or further undermine the democratic ideal by putting in someone that the Iraqis are particularly opposed to.
Why would Chalabi be a dictator?
Has ANYONE ANYWHERE talked about installing Chalabi as the unopposable leader of Iraq for as long as he's alive?
Quote:
As I pointed out before, the underlying structure made up of thousands of people is not going to change once it is put in place.
So what you're saying here is that the Pentagon wants to install Chalabi as dictator and his henchmen as lower government officials that couldn't simply be replaced by new, freely elected representatives?
How?
Who has said anything like this?
Where do you get this idea?
Do you have any backing at all that the Pentagon is wanting a dictatorship?
Chalabi is a convicted criminal who defrauded and stole over $200 million. The man is demonstrably corrupt. He should not be permitted to run a shoeshine stand, let alone a country. In fact, he should be extradited to Jordan so that he can serve the prison sentence that his powerful friends have so far enabled him to avoid.
w/r/t Garner?
Quote:
Does he piss the Pentagon off or is he a lackey?
He pisses them off. The neo-cons ? who currently run the pentagon ? want Chalabli to be involved in the next Iraqi administration (doesn?t have to be at the forefont). The state dept. and military brass (and even the CIA, who Chalabli reportedly hates) have their own ideas about how things should be done. When it comes to upholding the values that the US is supposed to stand for (even if it means allowing the Iraqis to install a government that is not necessarily US-friendly) I trust the US military a hell of a lot more than I do the chickenhawk neo-cons.
groverat: don't you see any hypocrisy in liberating a country and then foisting your choice of leader on them - no matter for how long?
Comments
Originally posted by Alex London
Yeah , sorry but i do honestly rate him. Thanks retrograde for you kind words on my nostalgia quip, made me laugh too.
Yes, well I can understand where you are coming from. I helped vote him in back in '96 ... or was it '97. I also find I have small reservations about attacking him because I know the only likely alternative to him is a Conservative government and there is no way I would want that. Blair is a long and difficult subject which would be better discussed over a long pint of beer
I had forgotten that it was you that had made that comment on nostalgia... yes, I won't forget that, it was great
Originally posted by Matsu
The other day I got into it with some academics. I'm not saying whether I'm pro or anti war, what's done is done.
But I realized that so many people (including the pro war americans) want Americans out of Iraq ASAP. The US is saying they want to stay for 2 years.
To me this is the most utterly idiotic unrealistic timeline possible, especially for the middle east. 24 months? 24 years would work, but not months.
The ONLY way to seed democracy in Iraq would be to disarm it completely and then protect and police it for a number of years, gradually placing first police and then military back into their own control. They must be restricted to solely civic concerns and development for at least one full generation if we are to have any hope of a peaceful transition to democracy.
Just look at Afganistan, there are still international troops there, though much reduced, and already Afganistan is hanging on by a thread.
It seems to me now, that if people are pro peace, and stable democracy is the best bet at lasting peace, then occupation is the ONLY plausible solution. But it takes time and money i guess.
Yeah and people like Groverat were saying we'd be in and out in some of their arguments. This seemed silly to me then. Think West Germany. A permanent presence.
Originally posted by Matsu
I don't see how anything but pain will follow an American withdrawl unless America can leave Iraq in a general state of security and welfare. To me, that takes a lot longer than 24 months.
No, I think it'll just take a strong arm, US friendly dictator like Saddam.
Originally posted by bunge
No, I think it'll just take a strong arm, US friendly dictator like Saddam.
Exactly. Either that and/or continued presence of foreign troops.
Otherwise, there will be a civil war. I think that we all know that.
I did not support this war - and still think that it was the wrong way at this time - but now that the US is in, they can't leave.
However, I think that it is going to be a tough situation, even if the US stays for a long time. Iraq is not a cohesive country, and there are significant external complications as well (reasons in part for which Bush Sr. did not want to continue the 1991 Gulf War into Iraq and reasons which still apply today).
Originally posted by Chinney
Exactly. Either that and/or continued presence of foreign troops.
Yeah, I was just making the point that if the Bush administration really does pull out in two years, a dictator might be the only way to keep things under control.
I'm not actually convinced of this, but we'll see how things pan out. I think the US will stay longer, and I think the country could hobble along without resorting to civil war even without a dictator. It's going to be a tight balance though.
Your point assumes that there is a group of people saying Iraq can't have democracy because the Arab world is unable to accept secular democracy, which no one is.
Eh, lots of people are saying that.
The reason it is not realistic is because the main power groups do not want it, and that includes the US pentagon policy makers which, in case you didn't notice, have ultimate authority in Iraq right now.
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
I want to add that to say that 60% of Iraq was not represented because they were out protesting is really rediculous.
A lot of Shia leaders weren't at the first Big Tent because they protested the meeting. That's a fact.
Earlier in the day, tens of thousands of demonstrators led by Shia religious clerics had converged on the center of Nasiriyah to protest the meeting.
...
In another setback for the White House, Iraq's main Shia exiled opposition group -- the Tehran-headquartered Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI -- boycotted the meeting to protest what they described as preparations for an administration imposed by foreigners.
Does that mean we're going to ignore the Shia? No. It just means they weren't there at that meaning in full force.
Originally posted by groverat
Eh, lots of people are saying that.
where? who? I want to see it, which I have yet to. Show me someone that says that Iraqis won't be democratic because they are Arab or Muslim. Then show me that anyone takes them at all seriously.
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
Saddam was an Iraqi. To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
The INC is made up of Iraqis.
A lot of Shia leaders weren't at the first Big Tent because they protested the meeting. That's a fact.
Does that mean we're going to ignore the Shia? No. It just means they weren't there at that meaning in full force.
Not fact. The people that lead the protests were led by Abdul Aziz Hakim, who murdered the man set to be the conduit to the US in order to gain political control. He lives in IRAN, is radical and does not speak for Shias. Get a clue. Your belief that Hakim represents 60% of the Iraq population is not only completely ignorant, it demonstrates exactly my point: that the US is not adequately working towards the representation of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfet example of the splits in the US government:
The Bushies could not even agree on who was supposed to lead the town meeting. As the president's point man in the reconstruction process for Afghanistan, Khalilzad argued that he had the necessary experience to head the American delegation. Pentagon civilians, worried by Khalilzad's fondness for Pachachi, insisted the American side be led by Jay Garner. In the end, both attended.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=Yk%2...2UJvYGLB%3D%3D
The pentagon is doing everything it can to get Chalabi in power, and the've talked about it for years. This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system. In fact, the only group working towards a truely democratic government is the State Department, and the neo-cons have done everything to undermine it, up to an including attacking powell himself here at home.
As far as your use of the term conspiracy theory, calling anything a conpiracy theory is a cop-out and shows you don't have enough rationale to back anything up, which isn't at all surpising.
Oh, and you should probably stop quoting Garner when discussing policy. Maybe you didn't notice, but not only is he not a policy maker, but he also is not even close to being ultimate authority on the Iraqi government. Think of him like a secretary for the pentagon that sends out memos. Quoting him only further demonstrates how backward your understanding of this is.
Originally posted by giant
The pentagon is doing everything it can to get Chalabi in power, and the've talked about it for years. This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system.
giant, is Chalabi against democracy? Or are you just saying that forcing him into power is undemocratic? Just curious. I don't know much about him other than he's a hand picked guy with business ties.
My thinking is that even if we use him first (like Karzai) within a democratic system, once elections roll around he could be out as fast as we put him in. Sure he'll have an advantage, but personally I guess I'm not against having someone hand picked for two years and then elections. Of course, the hand picked guy should have some credibility and if he doesn't then there's a problem.
Originally posted by bunge
giant, is Chalabi against democracy? Or are you just saying that forcing him into power is undemocratic? Just curious. I don't know much about him other than he's a hand picked guy with business ties.
Forcing him into power is undemocratic. He has NO support in Iraq, so the country would be led by someone they not only didn't vote for, but also do not want.
He has also been convicted of fraud in jordan.
My thinking is that even if we use him first (like Karzai) within a democratic system, once elections roll around he could be out as fast as we put him in. Sure he'll have an advantage, but personally I guess I'm not against having someone hand picked for two years and then elections. Of course, the hand picked guy should have some credibility and if he doesn't then there's a problem.
The state department's model is the only valid one. A series of meetings out of which emerges a group of leaders backed by support of all of the groups. Karzai was not someone that everyone in the country opposed. Furthermore, the entire neo-con plan is to give Chalabi legitimacy by simply acting like he is the right guy and opposing any plans advocated by anyone else. Over time, he sppears to be the legitimate ruler. But this is not what Iraqis want.
Most importantly to we here in the US, this is not what we have been told this war is about. If we are liberating the Iraqis to enable self-rule, then we should be enabling self-rule, not pushing our people on the country. This is similar to, though much worse than, what the US was doing in Latin America a couple decades ago: spending large amounts of money and effort to ensure that the preferred guy got power, even if the people didn't really want it. If you have 1000x the visibility of your opponent, then it is a cinch to take over. This is exactly what the CIA was doing back then that led to some of the most ruthless and un-democratic regimes of the 20th century. We already know that some of Chalabi's aims are not in line with those of most arabs, for instance, his advocacy of closeness with Israel (which is one of the main reasons the neo-cons like him).
If we are serious about enabling the Iraqis to have a democratic government, we need to do so from the beginning, as the state department has advocated. Note, too, that the state department is the most qualified department to handle this, not the pentagon.
Note, too, that the neo-cons are attempting to undermine the whitehouse's aims, as is demonstrated clearly in their opposition to anything Khalilzad (Bush's envoy) advocates.
Karzai is definitely more legitimate than Chalabi, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But if we can find the Karzai-like figure in Iraq, one most people think is OK for an interm government, then I don't mind an undemocratic process to put him in power long enough to hold the reigns (two years like Afghanistan?) until free elections. But a Chalabi-esque puppet would be bad.
where? who? I want to see it, which I have yet to. Show me someone that says that Iraqis won't be democratic because they are Arab or Muslim. Then show me that anyone takes them at all seriously.
Ah, I like the stipulation at the end. Move those goalposts.
Do you want someone on the board or someone off the board?
I would hardly expect the Iraqi people no matter their ethnic makeup to adopt to a secular democracy overnight.
Nothing about the iraqi people suggests they will be able to make a peaceful transition, or even a successful one, to responsible self government.
First page of this thread. Towards the top. I didn't even bother looking past those.
Saddam was an Iraqi. To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
The INC is made up of Iraqis.
When did I say they would have an immediate democracy?
Why is there not a possibility for a move towards democracy?
You're trying to call the game in the first quarter. Foolish.
The people that lead the protests were led by Abdul Aziz Hakim, who murdered the man set to be the conduit to the US in order to gain political control. He lives in IRAN, is radical and does not speak for Shias. Get a clue. Your belief that Hakim represents 60% of the Iraq population is not only completely ignorant, it demonstrates exactly my point: that the US is not adequately working towards the representation of the majority of Iraqi citizens.
Do you understand the meaning of words like "some"? I guess not. Perhaps you should take refresher reading courses.
Or what is so goddam difficult about this sentence?
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfet example of the splits in the US government.
Who gives a shit? This has had no bearing on actual reality on the ground in Iraq.
This on its own shows that they don't advocate a democratic system. In fact, the only group working towards a truely democratic government is the State Department, and the neo-cons have done everything to undermine it, up to an including attacking powell himself here at home.
So the Pentagon doesn't want democracy so the US doesn't want democracy. You're acting like the state department is some foreign entity.
Oh, and you should probably stop quoting Garner when discussing policy. Maybe you didn't notice, but not only is he not a policy maker, but he also is not even close to being ultimate authority on the Iraqi government. Think of him like a secretary for the pentagon that sends out memos.
Garner organized the meeting you say pissed off the Pentagon but he is just a stooge for the Pentagon.
You're tying yourself up in knots.
Does he piss the Pentagon off or is he a lackey? Or is he a double-agent super duper conspiracy tin-foil guy!?
Of course, if it's being put forward that it could work because of afghanistan, all I need to point out is that it's obviously not worked yet, and doesn't appear to be making a lot of progress. Most of the country is under the control of warlords, whose alignment with Karzai varies and can change. Note that afghanistan is also about as far from democratic as one can get. Hopefully in the future that will change.
Originally posted by groverat
Do you want someone on the board or someone off the board?
It's already been pointed out that you can't take matsu's comments here seriously, and I do not think he speaks for anything more than a small, small minority of folks, if such a minority exists.
I meant from off the boards.
----
for the following, you are trying to brush your argument under the rug.
When did I say they would have an immediate democracy?
Why is there not a possibility for a move towards democracy?
your statement equated iraqi rule with democracy, saying that rule by Iraqi nationals opposes the statement that an undemocratic system is being pushed by the US:
original interaction:
groverat:
And is there any real indication that they are moving to an undemocratic system? Anything tangible?
I understand your conspiracy theory, I just want a little evidence to counter the developments on the ground in Iraq that show that Iraqis will be starting up the government, with Garner saying they need to go back to work in the ministries.
to which I responded:
To say that the country is lead by Iraqis=democratic is moronic.
You aren't fooling anyone.
--------
Do you understand the meaning of words like "some"? I guess not. Perhaps you should take refresher reading courses.
Or what is so goddam difficult about this sentence?
They weren't proportionately represented at the first "big tent" meeting because many of them were protesting.
When you are talking about a few million people, saying that 'many of them were protesting' is just plain wrong.
-----
giant:
Maybe you didn't notice, but the 'big tent' meeting you speak of was considered a win by the state department and pissed the pentagon off. It was a perfect example of the splits in the US government.
Groverat:
Who gives a shit? This has had no bearing on actual reality on the ground in Iraq.
Huh? The way the US constructs the new Iraqi government has everything to do with how the new Iraqi government is constructed. Are you feeling OK?
-----
So the Pentagon doesn't want democracy so the US doesn't want democracy. You're acting like the state department is some foreign entity.
No, I'm pointing out that the people that advocated this war (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld) sold it in the package of democratizing Iraq and are now undermining that effort.
The state department (headed by powell and the department that was the main internal opposition to the war, with multiple people resigning over it) is now the group that is making the only real move toward democracy.
In short, the hawks are working to undermine implentation of their promise.
since we now see that the neo-con goal was not to democratize Iraq, what was it?
-------
Garner organized the meeting you say pissed off the Pentagon but he is just a stooge for the Pentagon.
You're tying yourself up in knots.
No, you are seeing the neo-cons trying to take credit for something the state department proposed:
Under the Pentagon's procedure, exile leaders would play a significant role in choosing the Iraqis on the inside; while, under the State Department proposal, leaders would emerge from a series of these local meetings, conferring on them legitimacy through what appears to be a democratic process...The Bushies could not even agree on who was supposed to lead the town meeting. As the president's point man in the reconstruction process for Afghanistan, Khalilzad argued that he had the necessary experience to head the American delegation. Pentagon civilians, worried by Khalilzad's fondness for Pachachi, insisted the American side be led by Jay Garner. In the end, both attended.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...5&s=lake050503
Garner was due to arrive in Nasiriyah today from Kuwait to attend the opposition meeting, which is chaired by Bush's special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad.
From your link
Why do you argue about something you obviously know very little about?
You aren't fooling anyone.
Moving to.
Moving to.
Any interim authority at this point. is a movement towards a democracy of some kind.
Hence the word: interim.
interim - an intervening time : INTERVAL
To make lemonade I need lemons and water and ice and sugar. To see those ingredients on the counter and scream "YOU ARE NOT MAKING LEMONADE!" is stupid.
When you are talking about a few million people, saying that 'many of them were protesting' is just plain wrong.
I'd also say that "many" Americans were protesting the war. I guess that's wrong, too, eh?
since we now see that the neo-con goal was not to democratize Iraq, what was it?
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
Again, do you expect free democratic elections right now? Do you think the administration of the basic functions of the nation should be postponed until the nation is prepared and secure enough for a fair and free democratic election?
Be realistic. You have no idea where a 100% Pentagon plan would be 3 years from now.
You have no reason at all to say that "representative democracy is not going to happen."
All bluster, conjecture and foolish deductive logic.
Originally posted by giant
I am not with you on the interim government idea.
No, I think the structure HAS to be democratic, even if the players are setups. I agree with you there. And the comparison to Afghanistan is not to say Iraq should have a government like that but just that we could set up a structure and fill the players in their positions, then hold their hands until the first election.
I think we're basically in agreement. I'm just saying that if the first president isn't elected, and the people more or less can take him, I'm not going to worry. That's assuming the structure is in place, and an election is forthcoming.
Originally posted by groverat
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
If he's really as unwanted as it seems, I'd say hand picking Chalabi would be leaning undemocratic. If we know he's unwanted or rejected by most and we still choose him, that's the wrong step to take.
Originally posted by groverat
Even if they Pentagon gets its way and sets Chalabi up as the authority right now why does that dismiss the concept of "democratizing" Iraq?
First of all, because it just puts another dictatorship in the place of the old one. If we are out to democratize Iraq, the last thing we should do is put a dictator in power, or further undermine the democratic ideal by putting in someone that the Iraqis are particularly opposed to.
Secondly, the entire government needs to be as close to a democracy as possible. As I pointed out before, the underlying structure made up of thousands of people is not going to change once it is put in place. If it is a dictatorship, the government will have to be organized to accomidate it. It takes revolutions to completely reconstruct governments from the ground up. We have the opportunity to do it now, and that opportunity will not come again for a long time without another revolution/war.
We are working towards creating a new government in Iraq. This does not just mean new people, this means taking out the dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy. The underlying structure of the government needs to reflect the fact that a democracy in Iraq needs to represent the people from the top to the bottom. This might even mean a new non-western democracy, maybe even with parts that are similar to the positive aspects of the reforming Iranian Islamic democracy. If we want Iraq to be a model for change throughout the Middle East, it needs to be a democracy that reflects the people.
I find it particularly ironic that the US, with one of the least representative democratic systems of the developed democracies is advocating (at least in rhetoric) the construction of a representative one in another part of the world, and one that is completely different culturally, economically, historically and sociologically.
Again, do you expect free democratic elections right now?
No. I like the state department proposal and would like to see it happen.
First of all, because it just puts another dictatorship in the place of the old one. If we are out to democratize Iraq, the last thing we should do is put a dictator in power, or further undermine the democratic ideal by putting in someone that the Iraqis are particularly opposed to.
Why would Chalabi be a dictator?
Has ANYONE ANYWHERE talked about installing Chalabi as the unopposable leader of Iraq for as long as he's alive?
As I pointed out before, the underlying structure made up of thousands of people is not going to change once it is put in place.
So what you're saying here is that the Pentagon wants to install Chalabi as dictator and his henchmen as lower government officials that couldn't simply be replaced by new, freely elected representatives?
How?
Who has said anything like this?
Where do you get this idea?
Do you have any backing at all that the Pentagon is wanting a dictatorship?
w/r/t Garner?
Does he piss the Pentagon off or is he a lackey?
He pisses them off. The neo-cons ? who currently run the pentagon ? want Chalabli to be involved in the next Iraqi administration (doesn?t have to be at the forefont). The state dept. and military brass (and even the CIA, who Chalabli reportedly hates) have their own ideas about how things should be done. When it comes to upholding the values that the US is supposed to stand for (even if it means allowing the Iraqis to install a government that is not necessarily US-friendly) I trust the US military a hell of a lot more than I do the chickenhawk neo-cons.
groverat: don't you see any hypocrisy in liberating a country and then foisting your choice of leader on them - no matter for how long?