[QUOTE=sailor]
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.QUOTE]
Geez! Every time I go to the supermarket, the organic stuff seems to cost twice as much as the generic kind.
This plan. Now rjung will have to make up his mind if this is a bad thing because they intended to neutralize Saddam pre-9/11, or a bad thing because they didn’t.
Dio got to this before me, so this may be largely redundant, and I will try not to repeat his points, but I have to say:
WTF?
Since when does “not helping us” equal “causing enough trouble to be invaded?” What’s next, are we going to invade France?
Wait, I didn’t give you any ideas, did I? You’re taking “with us or against us” to a whole new level. You know, India didn’t help us, either. In fact, they’re fighting our close buddy (and thorough democracy and terror-free state) Pakistan. We’d better get them before they get us! Saudi Arabia is backing down - not only are they not helping us, they aren’t even a (fake) democracy!
Where’s the outrage?
Please. The only countries “helping” us are daddy England (largely unwillingly) and a few third world countries that we bullied, threatened, or paid to sign on the dotted line.
I mean, unless El Salvador is really an upstanding member of the international community and a valued partner in the fight against crime. Oh, I mean, aside from the parts where we backed up coups and participated in open rebellion.
So everyone else is on the list to get bombed?
Wait, just like Musharaff? Musharaff you say? I thought you can’t deal with terrorists? I thought that violence is the only language they understand?
Oh, I see. The terrorists who work FOR us are good. It is only the ones who work AGAINST us who we need to slaughter.
That’s pathetic. Come up with a better reason to invade a sovereign country and overthrow their legitimate (albeit corrupt) government and set up a puppet state.
Wait, you are using an objective publication that starts an article with:
“A SECRET blueprint for US global domination”
, is co-written by Jeb Bush, and that is published a year and a half after the election - to prove that Bush campaigned on a platform to “liberate” Iraq?
Come on, you can come up with better than that.
Just admit that both sides are trying to mold it into their own forumla.
He may very well have said something stupid, but not, so far, in my presence. Further, his tolerance and gentlemanly sufferance presents an excellent example, one which I haven’t the slightest intention of emulating, outside of heartily recommending it to you.
We have already established the only point I wish to convey to you, that your definition of democracy is only distantly similar to the ordinary meaning of the word. You are, of course, free to maintain your own unique vocabulary, just as your are free to entertain the extravagant notion that democracy can be imposed.
If the Iraqi people are not free to choose what we would not have them choose, then they are oppressed by us as surely as if by Saddam himself. That our intentions are more benign and our methods less direct is pretty, and pleasing to the eye, but it is little more than a bright red cherry atop a turd sundae.
That’s right, sorry, so it was you who said that, uh… Where were we? Oh, that’s right, sorry, so it was you who said that, uh… Not a bad idea at all. Now, if we just… Look, why don’t you just sell out and help us hash out all the details, what do you say? Huh? Where were we, again?..
Tommmy-rot and unfettered, utter balderdash.
Not by any reasonable stretch of a flight of fancy did we ask. We said that we didn’t have position on the Iraq Kuwait border dispute. We didn’t ask Iraq to annex Kuwait. We didn’t even discuss annexation of the whole country.
Unless you’re member of the GWB Admin who’s been caught illegally transferring classified national security information to agents of foreign governments, who’s escaped a conflict of interest scandal on a techincality, a conflict of interest scandal that involved trying to broker the sale of the Federal governement’s and the Army’s phone lines to a firm associated with Chinese military intelligence, (hutchison-whampoa), even though the FBI opposed the sale on national security grounds. If your nickname for decades has been the Prince of Darkness.
If you are such a member, then raising money for the international terrorist group with a genuine, well-documented, operational relationship Saddam Hussein, that has carried out attacks on Americans, is okay.
This is the kind of person the GWB Admin has entrusted with our national security.
How many denials before plausible deniability is no longer plausible?
