So you think you gain the moral high ground by insulting the intelligence of those that support the Iraqi war in some form?
not saying* I** have much intelligence, just that I think that statement, was at the very least, an insult.
I think we have to take a step back from the whole “middle east deomcracy=safer America” claim. I’m sure we’ve all noticed that the recent elected governments there have been…less than…in our best interests. So don’t try and tell me “stable democratic government” makes everything ok.
I agree. Poor form.
In that vien, I think I’ll keep this hijack going.
You’re not being very committal on Katrina. Can you be more specific? Would you support a “Powell doctrine” of sorts for FEMA and the domestic responders: i.e. lots of manpower at the lower (state) levels, with less emphasis on centralized communication and technology?
If you’re going to blame our failures in Iraq on incompetence, then you’re going to at least have to have a consistent management strategy you think would be better.
Apparently it’s too big a word for someone unable to make an actual argument instead of an ad hominem. And a demonstrably false ad hominem at that:
Now, what did you say about the mission of this board again? :rolleyes:
No management strategy could be better, allow the military to plan the war, not the cabinet etc. Would it be better? I have no clue as it didn’t happen, but it was what I expected. Let those that know battle, do battle.
I am going to be flogged for this, but my opinion on Katrina is swayed because I am a personal responsibilty believer. FEMA etc is just another government monster created to make people less responsible for there actions and the choices they make. FEMA did a bad job on the task it is assigned, and that was and is inexcusable, but maybe, just maybe it will make people realize they are ultimately responsible for there own safety in life.
Mother Nature can smack down the best of us, but you have choose to live where you do, or at the very least should know you live in:
1: A hurricane zone
2: In a flood plain
3: In a tornado prone area
4: Below sea level
5: Earthquake zone
etc.
And prepare yourself to take care of you, and those you love. (end hijack once again, along with my apologies for continuing the hijack)
It’s not preposterous nonsense, and I don’t appreciate being called a fool or blackguard by association.
For the time being, we’re dependent on oil, and the world’s largest oil supplies are in the Middle East, which means we’re dependent on the Middle East. Therefore, political instability in the Middle East is a threat to the US, and, in fact, to the entire industrialized world, because anything that threatens the flow of oil is a crisis.
Now, of all the different government types out there, one of the most stable is liberal democracy, especially in those societies with a strong civil society (and the development of a strong civil society is tied to a liberal democracy). That’s because liberal democracies both guarantee basic rights to their citizens and give them a voice in the affairs of the government. It also allows its citizens to peacefully change the government if the government acts in a way against the wishes of the majority.
Further, there’s evidence that liberal democracies are less prone to war than other government types. Cecil discusses that here:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_328.html
and while he doesn’t endorse the theory himself, it’s still a heavily debated theory.
So, a liberal democratic Iraq would help contribute to US security, obviously more so if the state were a US ally, but even if it weren’t.
We are readying some interesting new weapons. Conventional warheads for our SLBMs. Improved bunker-busting bombs. Shiny new air facilities in some nations bordering Iran. I’m not saying that those are definitely the reasons that we are waiting, but it does make sense that we wouldn’t act until the military situation is as much in our favor as possible.
The situation in Iraq was ten or so years in the making. I don’t know that the situation with Iran will take as long to resolve, but I certainly don’t see the point of acting rashly.
The very second post gave you links to numerous articles outlining the differences.
Then you should have started a thread about that subject, instead of one about Iran.
The pragmatic reason is surely that even this Administration can’t delude itself that Iran won’t shoot back - and that the occupation would be even worse than in Iraq.
Perhaps there can be an idealistic reason that Iran is already a democracy in a sense. Is there any evidence that a truly free vote wouldn’t lead to pretty much the same government as there is now? (Liberal democracy, no. )
On the other hand, remember that we used to support Saddam, and have never supported the current government of Iran, so that can’t be it. Saddam’s attack on his neighbor can be used to support the justifiable war - the one with both UN and worldwide support, remember? It’s hard to use it to justify the last one.
And Iran really has WMDs - but see explanation 1.
The primary deficienty of fools, blackguards and reprobates is in morals. Failing intelligence is an associated disorder.
John Mace,
“calculus is such a big word to use for an Iraq war supporter” reads rather better than
" calculus is such a generous word to describe the cognitive process of Iraq war supporters"
and means the same thing, which incidentally is not “is such a big word for an Iraq war supporter to use.”
Reprobate’s ok then?
Some strange new use of the word ‘safer’ to mean ‘rich’. Funny that I don’t recall previously hearing, “Let’s invade Iraq, we’ll be rich.”
CapAmazing: Any response to what I posted above? That the democratic process in the Middle East recently has decidedly NOT been in America’s interest and that, therefore, installing a democracy in Iraq does not make us safer at all? I promise not to call you silly names and am curious to hear a quality argument.
Not that this changes the argument all that much, but yes there is a lot of evidence that a free vote would lead to a different government. The mullahs control who is allowed to run, and when some reformers were allowed to a few years back, there was a significant upsurge in voting among the urban population, and especially the young. With the latest round of (sham) elections, all the enthusiastic air in that balloon was let out. Many people just don’t care to vote because it really doesn’t matter. The outcome is predetermined by the “Council of Guardians”.
Not checked is “could be developed into first arab democracy.”
A big part of my own support for the war is/was based on the idea that if Iraq, with American aid, becomes a semi-successful free-market liberal democracy, it will fuel reform movements throughout the middle east. The goal is not, and never has been, to remove “Destablizing forces.” On the contrary: if the current regimes in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt remain in place in 2015, the Iraq war will have failed in one of its goals.
Iran is not Arab, for starters, which reduces its utility as a model state for the rest of the Arab world. But more simply, it wasn’t first in line. in 2002 Saddam was asking for a beating more loudly than the Mullahs were, and moreover he was in violation of UN resolutions, which provided a nominal Casus Belli; so he got the beatdown and Iraq got the chance for an Extreme Makeover.
Until that makeover effort either succeeds or fails beyond hope of repair, it is priority #1.
You could have asked this question about Iraq in spring 2002.
Well, I can try, allthough I’m not good at quality argument. 
I’m not entirely sure that the democratic process hasn’t been in America’s interest. Besides the Iraqi elections (which is part of the general subject), and the Egyptian elections (which really weren’t free and democratic…Mubarak rigged them), you had two, the Lebanese elections and the Palestinian elections.
Now, admittedly, the people who did well in both of those elections, Hezbollah and Hamas aren’t friends of the US, and if we had our choice, they wouldn’t be the people we wanted in charge of either state. But think about it…here are two armed terrorist groups that put down their guns and participated in the democratic process. This is a pretty major step in and of itself. Any time conflict can be resolved at the ballot box rather than by bullets, that helps make the underlying society more peaceful And it means that, in order to govern, they’ll have to moderate their stances somewhat. It’s one thing to be outside and act as a disruptive force. With no accountability, there’s no reason not to blow up shopping malls and busses. But as a part of the government, they need to be concerned about how their actions affect their people and world perception. Hamas can’t just blame the PLO and Israel any more for everything. They have to actually come up with their own plans for the Palestinian people. The same is true for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
So while, in the short term, democracy in the Middle East has been against US interest, it opens up the posibility for stability and peaceful transformation in the long term.
Also, remember my caveat…it’s not just democracy that’s neccesary, but liberal democracy. The state has to respect civil and human rights, and not oppress minorities. Unfortunately, this might be a long way off, but look how long it took in the “West” for liberal democracy to emerge.
I’ll certainly agree that the outcome would be different in that sense, but do you really think a free election would result in a liberal democracy, or even an non-Islamist one?
I think it would less Islamic, if you take my meaning. As for “liberal democracy”, I’m not exactly sure what the definition of that is, but no, I doubt we’d see that in Iran after one round of free elections.
One other important thing… I doubt that free elections in Iran would end Iran’s nuclear ambitions, either.
Moderator’s Warning: Sevastopol, you need to cool it with the personal insults and ad hominem attacks in this forum.
How was Saddam asking for a beating?