He would not only be the unelected ruler of Iraq, he would also be a ruler that Iraqis specifically do not want. Furthermore, military strength will be what puts him in power, not popular or even large minority support. He would be making dsecisions for Iraq even though the people are opposed to him.
Quote:
groverat:
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?
It's more complicated than that. Look at latin america. Money and power go a long way, especially if you are already in power. Not only that, the neo-cons want him to stay in power, so once he's there he has at least their full resources.
As I pointed out a long time ago in this thread, he could even be given the appearance of legitimacy by the US. I already gave the example of the INC being represented as the authority that not only officials should surrender to, but also the main folks on Saddam's trail. As Josh Marshall points out:
Quote:
So what to do about the fact that he's got no constituency in the country and the fact that the Iraqis seem hostile to the idea of being governed by emigres? Well, the thinking goes something like this ... America's got a lot of stuff. Stuff? Well, money, water purifiers, electrical generators, medicine, you name it, all sorts of stuff.
But who becomes the conduit for that stuff? If that conduit happened to be someone like Ahmed Chalabi that would be a very good way of building up a constituency on the ground in the country.
As far as the government under him, the structure is just as, if not much more, important as the people. I already said that, so don't ask questions I've already answered. It shows you are not reading what I am writing and just responding blindly.
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?
If there is a plan to move to democracy I don't see the problem with installing an interim leader, no.
Installing a dictator is bad, absolutely.
Another thing I don't believe in, acting like something is happening when it is not.
--
giant:
Quote:
He would not only be the unelected ruler of Iraq, he would also be a ruler that Iraqis specifically do not want. Furthermore, military strength will be what puts him in power, not popular or even large minority support. He would be making dsecisions for Iraq even though the people are opposed to him.
- You don't know that he will be put into power.
- You don't know what his role would be if he were.
- You don't know how much power he would have to make decisions.
- You don't know how long he would remain in place.
- You don't know that his appointment would negate future developments towards democracy.
You have little idea what he would be, but you want to say he would be a dictator.
Maybe my tin-foil hat isn't blocking as many propaganda gamma rays as it used to, but it seems to me you're making the Rocky Mountains out of a mole hill.
Quote:
It's more complicated than that. Look at latin america. Money and power go a long way, especially if you are already in power. Not only that, the neo-cons want him to stay in power, so once he's there he has at least their full resources.
I look at what Reagan did in Latin America and see that it is almost completely different in every measureable way from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Almost exactly the opposite.
Tell me, did we play this game with Pinochet? Was the presidential administration holding very open and heavily publicized government formation meetings?
I don't know if you're still arguing against me, because bringing up South America might be the worst thing possible for your argument.
And to me the state department plan sounds brilliant. If I am understanding it correctly as building the government from the local levels up. Each city starts with its municipal responsibilities and as security becomes stronger and life moves back to normalcy and (most importantly) economic avenues open up you move upwards in the government and end up with a federalized democracy.
And to me the state department plan sounds brilliant. If I am understanding it correctly as building the government from the local levels up. Each city starts with its municipal responsibilities and as security becomes stronger and life moves back to normalcy and (most importantly) economic avenues open up you move upwards in the government and end up with a federalized democracy.
BOOYA!
at least we agree on something. I think you even put it well: bottom up, not top down.
And it's also a compelling reason to keep the UN the hell away. As little foreign influence as possible, please.
Phillip Carrol, former Shell executive, is to be put in charge of the Oil Ministry. It's not about 'foreign influence' (although it's interesting that you don't feel that the US is a 'foreign influence') it's about accountability and impartiality. For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
Well groverat doesn't see the UN as an 'open' process. I agree it might not be perfect, but it's far more transparent than one country like the US 'going it alone.' That's just dangerous.
If 'Iraq' were to have true democracy, including the right to democratic self-determination, it would almost certainly be split into three states: a Kurdish state in the north, a Shia state in the south (probably Islamic), and an Euphrata-Tigrisatan in the centre. Further, the centre state would almost certainly be at odds with the others for control of resources.
The US (and others, notably Turkey) cannot and will not allow this to happen. Therefore, Iraq will not have real democracy. Instead, it will have any uneasy peace (if it is lucky), governed by a pro-American strongman and guarenteed, most likely, by foreign troops.
Whoever said the U.S.A. was a democracy? (edit: I mean in regards to anti-war people being anti-democratic)
Hahahaha
try meritocracy
Please feel free to persist in this illusion.
He might have intellectual capacity higher then plankton, but I would suggest that someone who ...
... was unable to name the president of Pakistan prior to election and
... almost certainly learned all he needs to know about the Middle East off TV (and in the last couple of years CIA briefings)
... is not the best guy you could have found to run the country.
There are no doubt plenty of people waaay better to do it who never had a hope by virtue of being (say) black or never having an education through no fault of their own or not being born with the surname "Bush."
Well groverat doesn't see the UN as an 'open' process. I agree it might not be perfect, but it's far more transparent than one country like the US 'going it alone.' That's just dangerous.
It's hard to take groverat seriously anymore. He was just sure we'ed be in and out in short order. At least it worked for his argument at the time.
It's not about 'foreign influence' (although it's interesting that you don't feel that the US is a 'foreign influence') it's about accountability and impartiality.
The US is a foreign influence, but it's only 1. As oppossed to it going through Kofi Annan, which brings in 15 foreign influences.
Quote:
For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
What is what the UN does best?
Can you give me an example of the UN doing this successfully? (Please please please please!)
You've got East Timor, which is still up in the air.
How are things in Kosovo? How much did they help in Angola? After all, this is their stated purpose for existing, right?
How the hell can you call the UN a success in Iraq when UN sanctions have been starving them for a decade? When over 60% of them are living off of handouts and their economy was geared around building palaces for Hussein and his cronies stockpiling cash?
Does the nearly $1 billion in cash US forces have found not convince anyone that the UN's management of Iraq has been an astounding and horrible failure?
It's pathetic that so many people will act like they know what they're talking about just to bash the administration. Just bash the administration, don't talk crap about things you don't know about.
Why must people always use this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic? You dislike the Bush administration and want to bash it, fine. But don't be so stupid as to act like the UN is any better, it defies logic and fact.
Where does the US think Iraqi oil money should be? Iraqi banks.
I harbor no illusions that the US has some selfish economic goals, but the US's selfish economic goals will leave the Iraqi people in a much better position than the UN's selfish economic goals, which has been starving the Iraqi people for a decade.
For those of you who think the UN has an "open" process with regard to Iraq, ESPECIALLY the oil-for-food program, please find for me the details, ANY details about the contracts that went through. (*hint* - you can't because it's a secret process)
jimmac:
Quote:
It's hard to take groverat seriously anymore. He was just sure we'ed be in and out in short order. At least it worked for his argument at the time.
If you could explain what you mean then I might be able to address it.
The US is a foreign influence, but it's only 1. As oppossed to it going through Kofi Annan, which brings in 15 foreign influences.
So Iraq has the choice of one power imposing their will or the watered down wants of 15. 1 has more potential for extreme views. That's more dangerous.
But I think you view the United States as virtually flawless so you'll choose their sole more potentially dangerous view over a democratic 15.
So Iraq has the choice of one power imposing their will or the watered down wants of 15. 1 has more potential for extreme views. That's more dangerous.
That may be a compelling argument if it weren't for the real past of this situation. You know, the real past where the "watered down wants of 15" have killed 1.2 million Iraqi civilians.
Keep your head in the sand. UNICEF is a right-wing Pax Americana group. The last 12 years have all been a lie.
Quote:
But I think you view the United States as virtually flawless so you'll choose their sole more potentially dangerous view over a democratic 15.
I view the United States as virtually flawless?
I harbor no illusions that the US has some selfish economic goals, but the US's selfish economic goals will leave the Iraqi people in a much better position than the UN's selfish economic goals, which has been starving the Iraqi people for a decade.
I suppose it really is too much to ask for you to remember what is said in the post you are quoting. Did you ever look into those remedial reading classes I told you about earlier?
I suppose it really is too much to ask for you to remember what is said in the post you are quoting. Did you ever look into those remedial reading classes I told you about earlier?
Yeah, but when you know the U.S. is responsible for the starving of the past 12 years and you pretend that they aren't it's more accurate for me to say that you believe the U.S. if virtually flawless.
Your idea of reading classes is to take what you say at face value even though you contridict yourself in multiple threads depending on what you need to believe at a given time. Reading classes have taught me how to acknowledge that and sift through the BS someone like you spouts.
Yeah, but when you know the U.S. is responsible for the starving of the past 12 years and you pretend that they aren't it's more accurate for me to say that you believe the U.S. if virtually flawless.
The US is responsible through the UN. And since I've explained to your hard-of-reading self multiple times, the US is part of the UN. And as I've also told you many times, the US played a very strong role in the horrible UN sanctions.
The funny thing about this is that you accuse me of ignoring the US's role in the sanctions by (rightly) saying "UN", but you never acknowledge the role anti-war nations played in the 1.2 million deaths. Nor do you acknowledge their reluctance to remove the chokehold from the Iraqi people. Would it be possible for you to acknowledge that?
Quote:
Your idea of reading classes is to take what you say at face value even though you contridict yourself in multiple threads depending on what you need to believe at a given time.
If you can find an instance of me ever saying the US wasn't responsible for sanctions through the UN. Please.
The funny thing about this is that you accuse me of ignoring the US's role in the sanctions by (rightly) saying "UN", but you never acknowledge the role anti-war nations played in the 1.2 million deaths.
Actually, I'd love to know what that role was. In all honesty I've always seen that it was mainly the U.S. and sometime Britain who were obstacles to getting humanitarian aid to the people.
Actually, I'd love to know what that role was. In all honesty I've always seen that it was mainly the U.S. and sometime Britain who were obstacles to getting humanitarian aid to the people.
And the elborate palaces built by Hussein in those 12 years are inconsequential? And the billions Hussein and greedy UN members skimmed off the top? Or the fact that 30% of the oil-for-food program money goes straight to the UN for the harshest reparations scheme since the end of WWI? Or the fact that schemes like oil-for-food could never work, no matter how well funded? Or ignore that it takes 9 UNSC votes with no vetoes to get resolutions and sanctions passed? And ignore that it's the US that's asking to permanently remove the sanctions now?
It's not all about getting humanitarian aid to the people, and the US did hold a lot of stuff up and kept the sanctions worse than they should have been, but you can't spin that into total responsibility and ignore everyone else's responsibility. Well I guess you could if your first instinct and goal is to pin the blame on the US.
The US had a key role in the UN sanctions, but you want to act like it's just their vote (and the UK's) that makes this stuff happen. But your goal isn't honesty, it's to bash the US.
This refers to your stance before the war in another thread. It was there that I maintained that the US would have a presence in Iraq for years to come. You replied that they would be just in to do what they had to do to topple Saddam " that's the plan " and then out.
I believe that we will be there on a more or less permamante basis due to it's stratigic ( and economic ) value. This means we will be spending money there for some time to come. Not so much for the Iraqi people as for ourselves.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Why would Chalabi be a dictator?
He would not only be the unelected ruler of Iraq, he would also be a ruler that Iraqis specifically do not want. Furthermore, military strength will be what puts him in power, not popular or even large minority support. He would be making dsecisions for Iraq even though the people are opposed to him.
groverat:
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?
It's more complicated than that. Look at latin america. Money and power go a long way, especially if you are already in power. Not only that, the neo-cons want him to stay in power, so once he's there he has at least their full resources.
As I pointed out a long time ago in this thread, he could even be given the appearance of legitimacy by the US. I already gave the example of the INC being represented as the authority that not only officials should surrender to, but also the main folks on Saddam's trail. As Josh Marshall points out:
So what to do about the fact that he's got no constituency in the country and the fact that the Iraqis seem hostile to the idea of being governed by emigres? Well, the thinking goes something like this ... America's got a lot of stuff. Stuff? Well, money, water purifiers, electrical generators, medicine, you name it, all sorts of stuff.
But who becomes the conduit for that stuff? If that conduit happened to be someone like Ahmed Chalabi that would be a very good way of building up a constituency on the ground in the country.
As far as the government under him, the structure is just as, if not much more, important as the people. I already said that, so don't ask questions I've already answered. It shows you are not reading what I am writing and just responding blindly.
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?
If there is a plan to move to democracy I don't see the problem with installing an interim leader, no.
Installing a dictator is bad, absolutely.
Another thing I don't believe in, acting like something is happening when it is not.
--
giant:
He would not only be the unelected ruler of Iraq, he would also be a ruler that Iraqis specifically do not want. Furthermore, military strength will be what puts him in power, not popular or even large minority support. He would be making dsecisions for Iraq even though the people are opposed to him.
- You don't know that he will be put into power.
- You don't know what his role would be if he were.
- You don't know how much power he would have to make decisions.
- You don't know how long he would remain in place.
- You don't know that his appointment would negate future developments towards democracy.
You have little idea what he would be, but you want to say he would be a dictator.
Maybe my tin-foil hat isn't blocking as many propaganda gamma rays as it used to, but it seems to me you're making the Rocky Mountains out of a mole hill.
It's more complicated than that. Look at latin america. Money and power go a long way, especially if you are already in power. Not only that, the neo-cons want him to stay in power, so once he's there he has at least their full resources.
I look at what Reagan did in Latin America and see that it is almost completely different in every measureable way from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Almost exactly the opposite.
Tell me, did we play this game with Pinochet? Was the presidential administration holding very open and heavily publicized government formation meetings?
I don't know if you're still arguing against me, because bringing up South America might be the worst thing possible for your argument.
BOOYA!
Originally posted by groverat
And to me the state department plan sounds brilliant. If I am understanding it correctly as building the government from the local levels up. Each city starts with its municipal responsibilities and as security becomes stronger and life moves back to normalcy and (most importantly) economic avenues open up you move upwards in the government and end up with a federalized democracy.
BOOYA!
at least we agree on something. I think you even put it well: bottom up, not top down.
Originally posted by groverat
And it's also a compelling reason to keep the UN the hell away. As little foreign influence as possible, please.
Phillip Carrol, former Shell executive, is to be put in charge of the Oil Ministry. It's not about 'foreign influence' (although it's interesting that you don't feel that the US is a 'foreign influence') it's about accountability and impartiality. For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
Well groverat doesn't see the UN as an 'open' process. I agree it might not be perfect, but it's far more transparent than one country like the US 'going it alone.' That's just dangerous.
The US (and others, notably Turkey) cannot and will not allow this to happen. Therefore, Iraq will not have real democracy. Instead, it will have any uneasy peace (if it is lucky), governed by a pro-American strongman and guarenteed, most likely, by foreign troops.
Sorry guys, but there it is.
Hahahaha
try meritocracy
Originally posted by fred_lj
Whoever said the U.S.A. was a democracy? (edit: I mean in regards to anti-war people being anti-democratic)
Hahahaha
try meritocracy
Please feel free to persist in this illusion.
He might have intellectual capacity higher then plankton, but I would suggest that someone who ...
... was unable to name the president of Pakistan prior to election and
... almost certainly learned all he needs to know about the Middle East off TV (and in the last couple of years CIA briefings)
... is not the best guy you could have found to run the country.
There are no doubt plenty of people waaay better to do it who never had a hope by virtue of being (say) black or never having an education through no fault of their own or not being born with the surname "Bush."
Originally posted by bunge
Well groverat doesn't see the UN as an 'open' process. I agree it might not be perfect, but it's far more transparent than one country like the US 'going it alone.' That's just dangerous.
It's hard to take groverat seriously anymore. He was just sure we'ed be in and out in short order. At least it worked for his argument at the time.
It's not about 'foreign influence' (although it's interesting that you don't feel that the US is a 'foreign influence') it's about accountability and impartiality.
The US is a foreign influence, but it's only 1. As oppossed to it going through Kofi Annan, which brings in 15 foreign influences.
For all the (perceived) failings of the UN, this is what it does best which is why the American obstruction of the United Nations is potentially so damaging.
What is what the UN does best?
Can you give me an example of the UN doing this successfully? (Please please please please!)
You've got East Timor, which is still up in the air.
How are things in Kosovo? How much did they help in Angola? After all, this is their stated purpose for existing, right?
How the hell can you call the UN a success in Iraq when UN sanctions have been starving them for a decade? When over 60% of them are living off of handouts and their economy was geared around building palaces for Hussein and his cronies stockpiling cash?
Does the nearly $1 billion in cash US forces have found not convince anyone that the UN's management of Iraq has been an astounding and horrible failure?
It's pathetic that so many people will act like they know what they're talking about just to bash the administration. Just bash the administration, don't talk crap about things you don't know about.
Why must people always use this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic? You dislike the Bush administration and want to bash it, fine. But don't be so stupid as to act like the UN is any better, it defies logic and fact.
Where did the UN keep the Iraqi oil money? European banks.
Where does the US think Iraqi oil money should be? Iraqi banks.
I harbor no illusions that the US has some selfish economic goals, but the US's selfish economic goals will leave the Iraqi people in a much better position than the UN's selfish economic goals, which has been starving the Iraqi people for a decade.
For those of you who think the UN has an "open" process with regard to Iraq, ESPECIALLY the oil-for-food program, please find for me the details, ANY details about the contracts that went through. (*hint* - you can't because it's a secret process)
jimmac:
It's hard to take groverat seriously anymore. He was just sure we'ed be in and out in short order. At least it worked for his argument at the time.
If you could explain what you mean then I might be able to address it.
Originally posted by groverat
The US is a foreign influence, but it's only 1. As oppossed to it going through Kofi Annan, which brings in 15 foreign influences.
So Iraq has the choice of one power imposing their will or the watered down wants of 15. 1 has more potential for extreme views. That's more dangerous.
But I think you view the United States as virtually flawless so you'll choose their sole more potentially dangerous view over a democratic 15.
So Iraq has the choice of one power imposing their will or the watered down wants of 15. 1 has more potential for extreme views. That's more dangerous.
That may be a compelling argument if it weren't for the real past of this situation. You know, the real past where the "watered down wants of 15" have killed 1.2 million Iraqi civilians.
Keep your head in the sand. UNICEF is a right-wing Pax Americana group. The last 12 years have all been a lie.
But I think you view the United States as virtually flawless so you'll choose their sole more potentially dangerous view over a democratic 15.
I view the United States as virtually flawless?
I harbor no illusions that the US has some selfish economic goals, but the US's selfish economic goals will leave the Iraqi people in a much better position than the UN's selfish economic goals, which has been starving the Iraqi people for a decade.
I suppose it really is too much to ask for you to remember what is said in the post you are quoting. Did you ever look into those remedial reading classes I told you about earlier?
Originally posted by groverat
I suppose it really is too much to ask for you to remember what is said in the post you are quoting. Did you ever look into those remedial reading classes I told you about earlier?
Yeah, but when you know the U.S. is responsible for the starving of the past 12 years and you pretend that they aren't it's more accurate for me to say that you believe the U.S. if virtually flawless.
Your idea of reading classes is to take what you say at face value even though you contridict yourself in multiple threads depending on what you need to believe at a given time. Reading classes have taught me how to acknowledge that and sift through the BS someone like you spouts.
Yeah, but when you know the U.S. is responsible for the starving of the past 12 years and you pretend that they aren't it's more accurate for me to say that you believe the U.S. if virtually flawless.
The US is responsible through the UN. And since I've explained to your hard-of-reading self multiple times, the US is part of the UN. And as I've also told you many times, the US played a very strong role in the horrible UN sanctions.
The funny thing about this is that you accuse me of ignoring the US's role in the sanctions by (rightly) saying "UN", but you never acknowledge the role anti-war nations played in the 1.2 million deaths. Nor do you acknowledge their reluctance to remove the chokehold from the Iraqi people. Would it be possible for you to acknowledge that?
Your idea of reading classes is to take what you say at face value even though you contridict yourself in multiple threads depending on what you need to believe at a given time.
If you can find an instance of me ever saying the US wasn't responsible for sanctions through the UN. Please.
Originally posted by groverat
The funny thing about this is that you accuse me of ignoring the US's role in the sanctions by (rightly) saying "UN", but you never acknowledge the role anti-war nations played in the 1.2 million deaths.
Actually, I'd love to know what that role was. In all honesty I've always seen that it was mainly the U.S. and sometime Britain who were obstacles to getting humanitarian aid to the people.
Actually, I'd love to know what that role was. In all honesty I've always seen that it was mainly the U.S. and sometime Britain who were obstacles to getting humanitarian aid to the people.
And the elborate palaces built by Hussein in those 12 years are inconsequential? And the billions Hussein and greedy UN members skimmed off the top? Or the fact that 30% of the oil-for-food program money goes straight to the UN for the harshest reparations scheme since the end of WWI? Or the fact that schemes like oil-for-food could never work, no matter how well funded? Or ignore that it takes 9 UNSC votes with no vetoes to get resolutions and sanctions passed? And ignore that it's the US that's asking to permanently remove the sanctions now?
It's not all about getting humanitarian aid to the people, and the US did hold a lot of stuff up and kept the sanctions worse than they should have been, but you can't spin that into total responsibility and ignore everyone else's responsibility. Well I guess you could if your first instinct and goal is to pin the blame on the US.
The US had a key role in the UN sanctions, but you want to act like it's just their vote (and the UK's) that makes this stuff happen. But your goal isn't honesty, it's to bash the US.
quote:
It's hard to take groverat seriously anymore. He was just sure we'ed be in and out in short order. At least it worked for his argument at the time.
If you could explain what you mean then I might be able to address it. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This refers to your stance before the war in another thread. It was there that I maintained that the US would have a presence in Iraq for years to come. You replied that they would be just in to do what they had to do to topple Saddam " that's the plan " and then out.
I believe that we will be there on a more or less permamante basis due to it's stratigic ( and economic ) value. This means we will be spending money there for some time to come. Not so much for the Iraqi people as for ourselves.