tough crowd!sorry dont have a cite…umm…my neighbour, teacher and a couple of friends, some people interviewed by the BBC, people on this board from other threads…etc…no links, sue me!Perhaps you are right that i have made a mistake in making such a generalization, but i did not say all people opposed to Bush are making this argument.
Interstingly enough for an OP with little to debate about, its turned into a pretty long thread.
From Clucky
I didn’t take your opinion and twist it Clucky…you stated that ‘democracy’, which I interperated to be the US (am I twisting here, or did you mean Britan?), was “Shoving democracy down their throats? I have to say, democracy’s looking a lot like empire these days.” I then took exception to comparing the US to an empire…not for some knee jerk reason, but because I fail to see the comparison. The word ‘empire’ means specific things when related to a type of government. It has historical meaning. Neither of them fit in with how I see the US actions in Iraq. As I said, if you have specific examples I’d be happy to see them.
I never said the occupation, or the war itself, was a ‘noble cause’. It is what it is…and occupation of a defeated and to a certain extent still hostile power. It ISN’T a new American colony though, we DON’T plan (as far as I know at least) to anex either Iraq OR its oil, nor do we plan (as far as I know) to make it a complete puppet government. Those are all the hallmarks of a true empire.
I don’t understand how your cite shows that America is acting in an imperal manner in Iraq. Because we are reforming their army and police force? Thats hardly standard imperialism. Now, if we were drafting them into OUR army as irregulars, using their civilians as unwilling workers in our fields, then you might have a case. Maybe you could explain this…I really don’t get it.
From Clucky
Did Iraq ask? No, they didn’t. They are currently a defeated power, reguardless of what the administration might say about liberation or whatever. I would equate them to post war Germany or Japan. We didn’t ask THEM either, at this stage, Clucky…we TOLD them. Neither Japan nor Germany, as far as I know, ASKED to become democracies, or free market economies, or anything else. I’m sure both of them also would have prefered to make their own decisions, and for the allied troops to get off their soil too. It took literally years to rebuild both their economies and their political structure, and make them ‘democracies’, such as they are. Such is the fate of a defeated power.
Now, right or wrong, the war did happen. Its over now…Iraq lost. Now we are in the very initial stages of reconstruction. As I said, the jury is still out on whether we will succeed or fail…its MUCH to early to know whats going to happen.
This is getting a bit long here, and I’m late for my vacation. 
As to your other assertions that the administrations plan sucked…well, I won’t disagree with you there. I think they DID underestimate things in Iraq. A lot of what was said though is nice 20/20 hind sight. However, assertions like this:
To me, they don’t prove your point…quite the contrary. 3 months after Husseins governemt collapsed and the bureaucracy remains dysfunctional…and this is not unexpected? It could be better how? I mean, there are a lot of things to nit pic about, and maybe later on this will be one of them (i.e. if this time next year things still look this grim, your assertion that we’ve failed miserably would have a lot more weight). But to assert that after a mere 3 months the Iraq govenment is not fully functional, thus proving that we’ve not only failed miserably but are an imperial power to boot is crazy. Its been 3 months!! My god, SH ruled for years…it will take some time to make changes. That doesn’t even take into account the fact that, well, you know, there was a WAR there. To me its phenomonally fast that after a mere 3 months 25 Iraqis are being asked to share limited power. I wonder how soon after the defeat of German or Japan such a thing happened…
From Clucky
I’ll have to google some for this. I was reading an article the other day where they were saying that things don’t look nearly as bad as is being portrayed, that food and water are being distributed and that power was back on in a majority of homes that previously had power, and that the majority of the populace over there, far from being rabidly anti american, are taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude, but the source wasn’t as unbiased as I’d like (it was on Fox). I’ll have to do some research to see if I can find some other sources for that (and if I can’t, I’ll retract my statement, as I won’t go out on a limb with just Fox as my sole info source), and if the thread is still alive on monday, I’ll try and get back to you then on it.
BTW, I also have to appologize to you Clucky…I thought you just did a drive by when you didn’t respond earlier. I think your response was much better than your first post, and I appreciate the feedback.
-XT
I think when you said “kneejerk reaction,” you tried to lump me in with people who don’t think this through. Not true. I’ve done a lot of research and soul-searching on this topic. I have what I believe to be a valid opinion.
I think we just disagree with what constitutes “empire.” You’re talking about bygone days of empire. I’m talking about today’s version: Influencing other nations so that they must conform to America’s social beliefs and economic system, as well as open your borders to our corporations – which, btw, are already over there, uninvited by the Iraqi people, because the Iraqi people have not been given a voice.
If you want the U.S. to come out and “annex” countries for empire to be confirmed, then, yeah, you’ll never see empire.
Interesting choice of words, “still hostile power” and “complete puppet government.” Who is hostile? Why? Shouldn’t the Iraqi people be given a say in their government, even if there’s certain groups trying to derail the U.S. occupation? When is any type of puppet government okay when you’re trying to create a “model democracy for the Middle East,” as the Bushies put it.
We’re coming from different worlds on this issue. To you, a government has to set up shop, put its flag up, and start ordering the locals around in order to be considered imperial. To me, liberation means allowing the Iraqi people to form a government through a representative process. Why are we waiting to give Iraqis a say in this, when we were supposed to be liberating them and teaching them how democracy works. If we’re supposed to teach them democracy, we’re failing. We are setting up shop in Iraq for American purposes, despite the P.R. spin. To me, that’s empire.
Well, this is my point. We are treating the Iraqis as enemies, using their nation as we see fit, in our grand scheme of things. When we should be working with Iraqi people to find out what they want, we are giving them what we think they should have. And, we’re doing it because it suits us, not them. Bush never declared war on the Iraqi people. If he had, would that make it easier to make the case for empire? If you don’t think he’s fighting the Iraqi people – if you think of them as victims of Saddam – why not give the Shi’ites, with 60 percent of the population, more of a say in what’s going on? Why not get together warring groups and try to foster communication? Why not try to fix what’s going? Why, instead, treat them like enemies?
It’s all about perception. You say, “It’s just three months. Let’s see what happens next.” I say, “It’s been three months. Let’s see what the U.S is actually doing in Iraq.”
And, I see nothing that comes close to fostering democracy. If I did, that’s how things could be better.