Indeed it is, and no denying it. It is entirely proper for a member state of a collective international insitution to press for, shall we say, a redress of grievances. But Tennessee cannot launch a National Guard attack on Kentucky, nor can she declare war on Canada on behalf of the USA.
You say my argument makes sense if “the U.S. attacked outside the UN”. (By which I assume you mean outside of the UN’s mandate (rather than lobbing a howizer shell onto UN Plaza. "Yee-haw, you got thier attention now, GeeDubya! Look at them vote!)
But they have given every idication that they intend to do precisely that! They’ve said so from day one! The UN is being lobbied for its cooperation, not its permission. They can get on board, they can watch from the platform, but the train moves when GeeDubya says so.
It is an absurdity to simultaneously deny the UN’s authority while attempting to write checks on its legitimacy.
So we’re gonna free the Iraqi’s, huh, Sam. That’s what this is all about. Gonna free them, give them the vote…
Well, probably not right away. Gotta settle things down a bit, get that ol’ economy humming along, get some of those democratic institutions going. Get that economy going, that’s the ticket. Got all kinds of expertise here in the US, got your Chevron, your Exxon, your Haliburton. Rarin’ to go, spreadsheets all ready prepared. Once we get the economy all squared away, then we can start thinking about tentative dates for free elections.
So what do we do if they elect Saddam Hussein? What happens if the leading party is a “Hate the Great Satan” coalition that is united only on one issue: that one? What happens if the Iraqi people should fail to comprehend the depth, the wonder of this gift we have bestowed upon them? What if they still hate us?
The US will KILL people who are enslaved, and install a new SLAVEMASTER over the survivors. The Taliban in Afghanistan has simply been replaced by a loose coalition of thugs, criminals and warlorlds.
kind of like the current Bush administration.
<<Hmm, military occupation for 18 months. Some democracy building.>>
Ummm, geez, capacitor–how was it we built democracies in postwar Japan, West Germany, and Italy? A. a period of military occupation.
You might want to get a clue by reading a biography of Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Put another way, just how does democracy in Iraq stand a chance WITHOUT a military occupation of some sort? Shall we just leave a door wide open to any insurgency at all who happens to want to derail democracy in the region? After all, even Democracies retain enough power to enforce the laws of the land against bandits and criminals.
Another clue: Shay’s Rebellion.
Also, as Sam rightly points out–military occupation is not at all the same as military rule.
The U.S. continues to occupy Germany and Japan, for instance. But our militaries do not rule those countries.
Oh, OK. Glad we got that cleared up. Military occupation is not military rule. Got it.
So if the Iraqi people vote for us to get the hell out, why, we’ll just pack up our old kit bags and smile, brother, smile. After all, we’re there to liberate them, right? Establish democracy. Nothin’ imperialist about us, by golly, so if they vote to establish an Islamic state along Taliban lines, we’ll just scoot ourselves right out of the picture.
I suppose the history of the US and its treatment of Japan, West Germany, Italy, South Korea, and so forth, is no indication of how Iraq will be treated.
Or how we invaded Iran after the Shah was kicked out. Oh wait, that never happened.
It also explains why Panama is under military rule after we arrested Noriega. Oh wait, that didn’t happen either.
What do you suppose will happen if a plebescite favors a regime that GeeDubya regards as hostile to our interests?
Tell me that you believe that if what the peope of Iraq really want is an Islamic state, the US will smile benignly and get the hell out of Dodge. Or suppose they choose to re-elect Saddam bin Laden, or a stand in thereof from the Baath party.
So, then, doesn’t appear obvious that we mean “democracy” and “liberation” according to our lights. Period.
Actually I believe that Iraq is too secularized to go for the sort of Taliban clone you are suggesting. But yes, once we have set up a democracy, and have some reasonable expectation that it will last, we will withdraw control. Just as we did with Japan, and after far worse provocation.
And the other examples I cited.
No bluff involved. History.
The Sandanistas were voted out of office in Nicaragua after they were fools enough to believe their own propaganda. But the US did not enslave Nicaragua either, even after some Sandinistas were voted back into office.
The purpose of regime change in Iraq is to install a government that does not threaten its neighbors, and will abide by the cease-fire agreement. Then the sanctions can be lifted, and Iraq can rejoin the community of civilized nations.
That’s the plan. It is what the US has done in the past.
There is such a thing as being too suspicious.
Keep in mind that I am not guaranteeing that life in Iraq will instantly become a bowl of cherries the instant Saddam Hussein reaches room temperature. It would be ridiculous to blame the US for not being able instantly to resolve problems that have been festering in Iraq for lo, these last few decades. But the intention of the US is not conquest, nor is it enslavement.
That is what Saddam wanted for Kuwait, which is the proximate cause of everything that is likely to happen in that benighted part of the earth. The US prevented it in Kuwait, and will also do so in Iraq.
There was that small matter of the Contra war waged by the U.S. You remember, the one where U.S. trained and supplied mercenary forces killed 30,000+ Nicaraguans. You will recall the judgement of the World Court in 1986 calling on the U.S. to cease its murderous attack and pay $17 billion in reparations, and then dismissed with contempt by the U.S. You will also recall the economic strangulation of the backward country of 4 million, and the fact that days before the 1990 election (the 1984 election has been consigned to the memory hole), George Bush held a press conference on the White House lawn in which he announced that a vote for the U.S. candidate would result in an end to the Contra war and sanctions. Otherwise, the war would continue.
The people of Nicaragua had a choice: vote the way we tell you or watch your children starve to death.
This is typical of U.S. democracy building. There is a difference in Iraq, though. In Nicaragua, there were no major U.S. interests at stake, apart from preventing the threat of a good example. In Iraq, though, the U.S. will be heavily invested in siphoning off the wealth of the country to Wall Street. Under these conditions, it is unlikely that the people of Iraq will have even the choice of voting for the U.S. candidate or watching their children starve. Nothing will be left to chance. As it stands now, the U.S. is starving the country literally to death to try to force the euphemistically named “regime change.”
Clearly the last thing on GWB’s mind is the well-being of the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein’s regime is brutal, but it would not be as brutal as an all-out war in Iraq. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030107/80/di19y.html
Clearly a non-military solution is preferable, but I have yet to see the whitehouse even seriously look into one.
elucidator and some others seem to be predicting that the instant the Iraqis vote someone we don’t like into office, the US will re-invade and conquer her. My point was that even after Nicaragua elected some of the Sandinistas to office, we neither invaded the country nor started supporting the contras. So the dark predictions of US malfeasance did not happen then, and should not be expected to happen in Iraq either. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, as the stockbrokers say, but it is a pretty good indication - much better than unsubstantiated accusations of what the US is going to do.
** Which rather disproves your conspiracy theories about how the upper classes in the US control everything, and always foment wars in their own interests. You claim that the Illuminati of the Wealthy had no interest in Nicaragua, so by your logic they should not have bothered to act.
My contention is that the US did have interests in the region, since Ortega was stupid enough to trot off to the USSR on the eve of the elections to make it clear where he was interested in forging alliances. He wanted to create some deep water harbors in the country, so the Soviets could send their ships over and extend their influence (read ‘foment terrorism’) in the area.
Accusations are, obviously, not proof, and no one need accept your allegations of “Amerika Ueber Alles” without evidence that they are more than paranoia run riot.
I assume your reference to starving children means the UN-installed sanctions against Iraq. Since food and medicine are specifically exempted from the sanctions, and since the sanctions continue to be imposed solely because Saddam is in violation of the cease-fire agreement, the idea that the US is starving children is as silly as it is hysterical.
Well, in the other thread you accuse me (I think) of being a liar. Here you call me a fool.
Perhaps you may wish to move this to the Pit, where other participants in the debate are free to give as well as take.
Not exactly. It is very unlikely that US troops would be withdrawn without an established government in place in Baghdad. Hence, such elections would take place during the military occupation.
And the impact on children of the sanctions is pretty well established, though the primary impact is not food related, directly. America refuses to permit chlorine to be imported, as it is considered to be “dual use”, that is, chlorine has many applications. Its application of foremost importance is as a water purifying agent. Its absence has caused much breakdown in the safety of Iraq’s water supply, leading to water borne intestinal diseases. The effect of such diseases on children, who are most at risk, is too gruesome for polite company.
However “hysterical” you may regard Chumpsky’s various Jeremiads, they are based on fact.
Nicaragua had an election in 1984 which was one of the most remarkable displays of democracy in history. In fact, I can’t think of anything like it. Under attack from a foreign superpower, they held free and open elections in which all political parties including the front group for the Contras were allowed to participate, given free media time and funds for their campaigns. With over 70% of the electorate voting, the Sandinistas won 67% of the vote.
Yet, the U.S. declared the Sandinistas to be “Marxist dictators.”
In 1990, after a decade of a ruthless attack on the backward country, and two devastating natural disasters, the U.S. announced that a vote against the U.S. candidate would result in a continued war, whereas the attack would stop if they voted for the U.S. candidate. Under this threat, Nicaraguans narrowly elected the U.S. proxy, placing the country back under U.S. control.
Yes, you can have elections, as long as you vote the way we tell you. Otherwise we will kill you and your family.
In 2001, Daniel Ortega once again ran for president of Nicaragua. And, once again, the U.S. made various threats if Nicaragua voted for the Sandinista. In particular, they announced that Nicaragua would be placed on the list of countries that sponsor international terrorism (!), and that sanctions would again be placed on the impoverished country. The threat of military intervention always hangs in the background.
Yes, you can have elections, as long as you vote the way we tell you. Otherwise we will kill you and your family.
No interest? No, just no major interests. The interest the U.S. has in Nicaragua are primarily in preventing the threat of a good example. No country must be allowed to develop along independent lines, lest “the rot spread.”
OH MY GOD! THE HORROR! You mean, Ortega wanted to forge alliances!? Well, obviously, Nicaragua had to be destroyed. Thank God Reagan saved us from this horrible threat.
In fact, the U.S. intentionally drove Nicaragua into the arms of the USSR. After the Sandinista revolution, the U.S. imposed a blockade on Nicaragua and began attacking the country in a ruthless counter-revolutionary campaign that took 30,000 lives out of a country of 4 million. An equivalent number of people killed in the U.S. would be over 2 million. Under attack, Nicaragua tried to buy arms from western powers in order to defend itself. They were especially interested in obtaining French fighter jets, but the U.S. applied pressure to its allies to prevent Nicaragua from obtaining weapons so that it would have to go to the USSR. You see, “Russian MiG” is so much better for propaganda purposes than “French Mirage.” In any event, Nicaragua obtained very little from the Soviets, not nearly enough to defend itself from the U.S. onslaught.
Directly false. Plenty of medicine and other supplies are prohibited from going into Iraq, including even pencils, for fear that the Iraqis will build a giant pencil of mass destruction. The U.S. has had a consistent policy that the sanctions will not be lifted unless Saddam is out of power, compliance or no.
The U.S. is killing Iraqi children as directly as if U.S. soldiers went and shot each one in the head personally.