Yup. Saddam’s capture proved too large a variable for anyone to make predictions around, so the thread was left to rest.
Since then, the US casualty rate dropped for a month or two as our soldiers changed tactics and forted up, but now the Iraqi’s have had time to adjust, a new anti-american group has made itself known, and casualties are back up.
Why so harsh? Who do we, “those who supported the war”, irk you so much? So much that you are ready to ridicule any possibility for “democratization of Iraq” and openly declare that you don’t want to have anything with it?
What if we turn it anoter way around. Suppose your side would prevail. Suppose Bush would withdraw. Suppose Saddam was left in power, under sanctions. Then everyday we would be treated to the stories of dying children, Muhabharat murders and Baath goon rampages, just as we were for 11 years. But we, “those who supported the war”, wouldn’t give a damn. We would say, “Best luck with your sanctions, you are going to need it!” What would it say about us?
Hope you can make a connection.
Oh, I dunno… because they just got a few thousand people killed, sowed dissent in millions of minds, destroyed any remaining international reputation we may have had, and ensured another generation of hatred and warfare? And that they believed blatant lies by the government, with nary a peep of concern when said lies were exposed, making them a threat to American freedom?
When terrible stuff was happening in Iraq, that was Saddam’s fault. Now, its ours. “Irk” is far too mild a word.
As far as the “democratization of Iraq” goes, whom is kidding whom here? Fearless Misleader firmly and forthrightly declares that “sovereignty” will be handed over on June 30. To whom? Well, we Perfidious Liars [sup]TM[/sup] suspect it will be “handed over” to a group of reliable puppets whose first act will be to humbly beg the US to keep its troops in Iraq.
Answer me this Isk, as regards “Iraqi democracy.” If it is clear that an election in Iraq would be won, fair and square, by candidates for an Islamic fundamentalist policy much like Iran…would the US permit such an election to go forward?
Would you? And if not, then what, exactly, do your fine words about “Iraqi democracy” amount to?
Yes, we all know how obsessed the Republicans were with liberating the poor repressed Iraqis during Clinton’s administration. :rolleyes:
The simple truth was that most Americans didn’t give two toots about Iraq “for 11 years.” This whole “save the poor oppressed Iraqis” came up only after Bush’s “stop Saddam from using WMDs” fell down like the paper-mache joke that the anti-war folks have been saying from the start. Your attempts at revisionist history won’t fly around here, sorry.
I thought you lefties were the ones pitching a fit because Republicans had a plan (before 9/11 - horrors) to force Saddam out of power.
Now you claim that this is revisionist history that Republicans saw the situation in Iraq as something more than a chance to wag the dog when your boy is getting impeached.
Can I ask you to pick a story and stick to it?
Regards,
Shodan
Would I what? Would I answer you or would I permit “such an election”? Just to cover all the bases, I will answer and I wouldn’t permit. Democracy is a very delicate flower, you can’t just toss the seed and watch it grow. In our own country we had aristocracy safeguarding the seat of power for 30+ years after Independence, until it was wrangled from them by Jackson, who was not only a good American, but also a charismatic and ruthless killer, which reputation averted any excesses associated with power transfer for another 20+ years, only to come to a head in the shape of Civil war, which was followed by an era of plutocracy… the last I heard many people are still dubious whether we really have democracy or not around here.
I didn’t wax poetical about benefits of democracy, I only asked why such vehemence in denying them to Iraqis, simply because one disagrees with the methods? Surely more balanced attitude is conceivable?
Republicans had a plan to oust Saddam during Clinton’s presidency? Cite? Can you name one prominent Republican who publicly urged an inavsion of Iraq during Clinton’s presidency?
And what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
What “attempts at revisionist history”? I’m only asking why so much anger? I understand one can shout how stupid Bush is all day, but we all would benefit from establishment of democratic Iraq. Why say, “Best luck, you gonna need it?”
-
I don’t recall the Iraqis asking for us to provide them with the “benefits of democracy*.”
-
Who are we to force democracy on people who don’t want it?
-
It is not ok to invade another country under false pretenses in order to foist a non-consenual “democracy” on them.
-
We all know this proposed “democracy” is a joke and the the goal is to install a US puppet government. The will of the Iraqi people could not be of less interest to the Bushistas. How supportive will the US be if the Iraqi people decide they want a theocracy?
-
The Iraqi people don’t want us there. Period. Isn’t it time to take the hint? How many more US soldiers should we be willing to sacrifice for this bogus cause?
It is not for you or for GWB to decide what forms of government other countries should adopt.
What plan was that? All I remember is platitudes about using the armed forces to fight wars, not to engage in police work and “nation building” (an apparent critical reference to the NATO efforts in the Balkans). I remember now Vice-President Cheney and now Secretary Rumsfeld blathering on about seeing as how the US was the last superpower standing, the US could go do pretty much anything it wanted without regard to what the Russians or anybody else thought or wanted. I remember mad scientist schemes about anti-ballistic missiles. I remember talk about eating up the unjustified federal surplus with tax cut (that one sure worked). I remember talk about the need to drill for oil in Alaska. I remember talk about eschewing fellatio during business hours. But I sure don’t remember anything along the lines of going off on an adventure worthy of Napoleon the Little. It seems to me that little ambition was concealed pretty good.
The point is this: for good reasons or bad (and I think for the worst reasons) my country has gotten itself enmeshed in a major fiasco that it can’t just walk away from. We made this bed (although we were assured that it was a sofa) and we are going to have to sleep in it. It seems to me that we ought not now reward the people who dragged, cajoled and chivied us into this experiment in big power international relations.
No rational and responsible person is calling for a bug out at this point but the history of the whole region suggests that trying to finagle the East is a lot like taking a punch at Joel Chandler Harris’ tar baby.
If there was a plan to do this before the catastrophe of Sept 11, 2001, nobody told me about it. Do you really think that the less than a plurality that elected President Bush really did so in the expectation that one of the administrations priorities was to invade and occupy Iraq?
I don’t recall us asking them to give absolute powers to Saddam, I don’t recall us asking them to invade Kuwait, etc… As a result of those things we had to get involved in the region more than anyone of us wanted to.
Let’s not loose our heads in terminology. Nobody can give nobody a democracy. What we want is “no trouble”. We want them to give us “no trouble”.
What trouble did they give us, again?
Well, then, you need some sort of euphemism, something that can deflect attention from the unseemly aspects of your proposal. “Democracy Lite”, perhaps? Sukarno had a good one, he called his form of ruthless tyranny “guided democracy”.
So then, I take it, your plan is to keep the Iraqis under our control until such time as they evolve into a nation of shopkeepers and Starbucks entreprenuers, who can be trusted to vote correctly. I could go on, I suppose, tell you what I think of this idea.
It seems hardly necessary.
Smoke and mirrors. Mr. Svinlesha said a very stupid thing and you know it. If we lived at the time of sanctions and I’d say, “Best luck with clearing all that mess, you gonna need it”, you’d decry my “heartlessness” in a, well, heartbeat. We all stand to benefit from “democratic” Iraq. We can argue about the means and ways, but to throw it at each other saying, “It’s all yours now” is stupid.
Where is Mr. Svinlesha, anyway? Whisked away to some re-education camp? Don’t be too hard on him, comrades, he might still be useful to you.
You have that backwards. We are the ones who propped up Saddm in the first place. He owed his position largely to Reagan and Bush Sr, not that who some other country gives power to is in any way our business.
Google April Glaspie. We sort of did ask.
We got involved once to push an aggressor away from our…er, I mean Kuwait’s oil fields. Since then, Iraq had posed no threat to anyone. We had no compelling cause at all to invade that country.
I don’t want any trouble from those damn Micronesians either. let’s go bomb the crap out of them. :rolleyes:
Invasion of Kuwait, 11 years of sanctions, present resistance: all this is “trouble”. We don’t want that, see. Saddam didn’t have to invade Kuwait. He could be reasonable. He could be useful, just like Musharaff. He could help us fight alQaida.
Generalissimo Franco’s dictatorship (backed by the good ol’ US of A) was termed an “Organic Democracy” and the term is used in Turkey as well. As far as I can gather an “organic democracy” is when the dictator appoints everybody and then everybody agrees with the dictator. This seems to describe pretty well what America is attempting in Iraq, an “organic” democracy. Maybe genetically modified as well.
One thing is for sure: the outcome has been decided and now it is a matter of finding the process which will lead to that outcome of electing a pro-American government. In any case it will be seen as a puppet by the Iraqis and it will have no legitimacy. Only American presence can keep it in place.
Right. The question was what trouble has Iraq given us since then?
Huh? *Us imposing sanctions on *them]/i] = the giving us trouble. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, you must be using some strange definition of “trouble” that I’m comletely unfamiliar with.
Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yes that pesky resistance that never would have occurred if we hadnt invaded them in the first place.
What sort of trouble or threat did Iraq pose to the US that justified an invasion and the pending installation of a puppet government?
We dealt with Kuwait 13 years ago. It is irrelevant to this conversation, and nobody has any obligation to help the US fight al-Qaeda. The US is not the center of the universe, man. The rest of the world may choose to give a shit about us or not according to their whim. If choose not, that does not give us the right to attack them and kill them and install pet governments.