American freedom, American values

[balkan]

Are you saying the new government in Iraq is based off Christianity?

for Gods sake! is putting words into peoples mouth a hobby in this place? is this how you make sure you don't ever loose an argument?
i was trying to show an example! did i say it was an atheist government? no... wonder why you didn't ask me if i said that as well... see, that would've been a contradiction and then you wouldn't have to listen to anything i said at all...

 

[Entropy]

for Gods sake! is putting words into peoples mouth a hobby in this place? is this how you make sure you don't ever loose an argument?
i was trying to show an example! did i say it was an atheist government? no... wonder why you didn't ask me if i said that as well... see, that would've been a contradiction and then you wouldn't have to listen to anything i said at all...

Gez, who lit the fuse on your tampon? A simple "no" would due. I was just asking a question.

 

[JohnDubYa]

and what a wonderfull democrasy it is :) everyone is happy :)

Panama is far better off today. Human rights abuses have dwindled dramatically since Noriega left power. Corruption has diminished. They even elected a female President for the first time in the country's history.

So are you saying that Panama is worse off today than under Noriega? Seriously?

 

[JohnDubYa]

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran?

The government installed in Iraw is not governed by the Bible. So your analogy is based on a false premise.

is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

No. We're not trying to convert Muslims into Christians. This is a straw man you created.

 

[cragwolf]

Yes, yes..sorry. Although, I don't agree with your numbers I was dramatizing. But, nonetheless, you get the picture.

No problem, I don't have complete confidence in those numbers either. When it comes to casualty figures, nothing is written in stone. We can just come up with plausible estimates or ranges. The error bars are often very large.

 

[balkan]

The government installed in Iraw is not governed by the Bible. So your analogy is based on a false premise.

No. We're not trying to convert Muslims into Christians. This is a straw man you created.

no, it's called a freaking parallel... did i mention iraq even once? how many times do i have to say that?

if you would feel fine about, hypothetically, being invaded by a communist country and forced to take on their ideals, then i can see why you can't grasp the parallel...

i think it is very wrong to force another idealism on people... it should be their choise... I've tried to make you see, that you would oppose such a behaviour yourself, but i know, you're right and they're wrong, so that makes the entire difference, and gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want...

so, you want to kill everyone that doesn't want democrasy? sounds like a great plan...

 

[balkan]

You're being naive. Democracy has always been enforced. It's been enforced either by the elites or by gunpoint. Furthermore, no one here has said anything about people just converting instantly. In fact, historicly it has often been just the opposite, resisted and treated with suspect only to later be embraced by the populous. Nor has anyone said that democracy is always used for all good purposes, human nature is such that there is always going to be an element within it willing to abuse systems that allow them freedoms, that doesn't dissallow the right to a democratic system as a BASIC human right.

I find at this stage that it's absolutely ridiculous to have to advocate for the goodness of democracy as system, as opposed to dictatorships, totalitarianisms and authoritarianisms of all sorts.

I'd find it as ridiculous to have to be advocating basic schooling for children as opposed ot leaving children unschooled and illiterate... or advocating medical care as opposed to "letting nature run its course" even if it kills them all for lack of vaccination and sanitary conditions.

I find it difficult to believe that democracy, a basic Human Right already inside the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, has to be explained and re-explained, and reasoned over and over, as better and more desirable than the other political totalitarian offers.

It is not only the mass of misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment, persecutions, absolute demolition of what HR are about that all those dictatorships have brought to their populations as compared with the net improvement enjoyed by populations that have democratically something to say about their present and their future...

What I find most serious and most allarming is that democracy has to be defended against those who enjoy it, who think it is "best for them", who would not be willing to live under the political aura that created "Saddamish conditions" for one week... and who don't manage to sum up that minimum of the necessary empathy, that minimum of the human capacity to get into someone else's shoes, and understand that in the same manner "whites" in the USA enjoy democracy and could not even conceive daily life without, it is as much as HR of others, less lucky politically/historically, deserve as much that democratic, that participative, that HR comfort.

i don't question the idea myself... i don't question any of the basic rigths you mentioned... I'm questioning the way it is "enforced"... you don't have to defend anything, like I've said before, so i wonder why you keep doing it... is it to avoid the question of the enforcement policies?

a few other basic rights, i believe:
the rigth to live in peace
the rigth to a different oppinion
the freedom of choise
religious freedom
the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country

it doesn't matter what is "better", what does matter, is letting people choose, and not deciding for them. and definitely not when it includes unneccessary killing of innocent people...

 

[Loren Booda]

What's to prevent a "democratic" Iraq to vote-in a permanent, divisive and backward theocracy - do we, a la communism, then establish a "consensus" for them?

 

[Prometheus]

A chance is the best one can ask for. That is why when they call a country "The Land of Opportunity" it is generally agreed to be a compliment.

Opportunity is better than no opportunity, do you agree?

There you go again, phrasing your question in simplistic black and white.

I am fairly knowledgeable about the Kamikaze, having read Saburo Sakai's autobiography. Are the two situations identical? Are two situations ever identical? Is equivalence the standard that must be reached in order to compare two situations?

Nice way to generalize my question out of existence. Who cares how different they are, since nothing is ever identical. Nice move.

To you, any difference between the two cultures is going to be called a huge dissimilarity and thus be considered an insurmountable problem.

Would you like me to start putting words in your mouth too? Perhaps you would appreciate it, since you do it so much.

You simply do not want to entertain the notion that Iraqi democracy has a chance, that's all, because it doesn't coincide with your anti-Bush agenda.

Very intellectual of you. I am against the war in Iraq, and to you this qualifiies as part of my anti-Bush agenda. Talk about black and white thinking.

If Iraqi democracy really did take hold, it would ruin your day.

Thank you for telling me what I would think. You use your simplistic thinking to tell me how I would think in a given situation. Aren't you the clever one.

Because your stance is not based on what is best for the Iraqi people, but what is worst for George W. Bush.

You seem to be able to think to the same tremendous depth as Bush. You pretend to care about the Iraqi people. Sure. We believe you. There is nothing else in the world that has any impact on this situation but the welfare of the Iraqi people. Sure, let's boil it down to what is best for the Iraqi people, in your opinion. And then, you have the gall to tell me that my only motivation is to do what is worst for Bush, while you only care about the Iraqi people.

Perhaps you really are this shallow of a thinker. It might behoove you to recognize that there are other people who can think a little more deeply than your shallow self-serving method of putting words in other people's mouth and then attacking the words that you put there.

It certainly is easier to look at the world in simplistic black and white. Far be it for me to tell you to learn how to think.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Speaking of "putting words in one's mouth":

There is nothing else in the world that has any impact on this situation but the welfare of the Iraqi people.

I never said that, but I will say this: We are giving the Iraqis a chance to live freely. That is better than not giving them any chance at all.

 

[kat]

i don't question the idea myself... i don't question any of the basic rigths you mentioned... I'm questioning the way it is "enforced"... you don't have to defend anything, like I've said before, so i wonder why you keep doing it... is it to avoid the question of the enforcement policies?

a few other basic rights, i believe:
the rigth to live in peace
the rigth to a different oppinion
the freedom of choise
religious freedom
the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country

it doesn't matter what is "better", what does matter, is letting people choose, and not deciding for them. and definitely not when it includes unneccessary killing of innocent people...

It certainly does matter what is better, letting people choose how they are led IS democracy. Without it, the only people who are choosing are the tyrants and elites.
You've stated:

you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?

This is one of several times in this thread you have made a parrallel between religion and democracy. I have pointed out that Democracy is a very BASIC human right as supported UNIVERSALLY by the U.N. Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) Tyrants and Elites who profit from dictatorships very seldom give it up willingly. Untill the populous has an opportunity to vote for their leadership someone IS choosing for them! and worse yet, when you infer as you did earlier in this thread that they are not "ready". Do you now how many times and in regards to how many oppressed people these same words have been used?! Sharmuta! let them speak for themselves with their votes!
Double sharmuta for ignoring that more Iraqi's were dying under Saddam's brutal dictatorship then they are now as they are moving into a democracy and voting for their own leaders.

 

[member 5645]

the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country

Where is this right written?
Every sovereign nation has the right to attack and defend itself, and thus reap all consequences that come from.

 

[member 5645]

What's to prevent a "democratic" Iraq to vote-in a permanent, divisive and backward theocracy - do we, a la communism, then establish a "consensus" for them?

Has any democracy ever done this before?
We have already stated that if they want a theocracy, they can have it - althought that WAS after that large poll of Iraqis in which almost none wanted a theocracy.

 

[JohnDubYa]

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

The US was formed with an armed populace (one of the reasons the Second Amendment was so important to the Founding Fathers). Thousands died in the Revolutionary War.

The French had an armed populace as well. The French Revolution was particularly violent.

When the average citizen is unarmed and the ruler brutal, it usually takes a foreign power to overthrow him. Examples are numerous.

 

[balkan]

This is one of several times in this thread you have made a parrallel between religion and democracy. I have pointed out that Democracy is a very BASIC human right as supported UNIVERSALLY by the U.N. Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) Tyrants and Elites who profit from dictatorships very seldom give it up willingly. Untill the populous has an opportunity to vote for their leadership someone IS choosing for them! and worse yet, when you infer as you did earlier in this thread that they are not "ready". Do you now how many times and in regards to how many oppressed people these same words have been used?! Sharmuta! let them speak for themselves with their votes!
Double sharmuta for ignoring that more Iraqi's were dying under Saddam's brutal dictatorship then they are now as they are moving into a democracy and voting for their own leaders.

explain turkey to me then, if change has always come at the end of a gun? change can also come slowly by support and incitement from other countrys. or by the elite.
untill now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule... Sharmuta to you for ignoring that fact!

and the polls speak for them selves. if the iraqi people were to select a leader, it would be a highly religios one, a shia muslim... i really don't remember his name, maybe someone else do... and that guy would basically be the worst thing happening to a democrasy... so usa is not going to let them pick their own leaders, the leaders will be picked by the usa and, maybe the iraqi will be allowed to pick one of them... sharmuta for calling that a democrasy!

 

[balkan]

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

The US was formed with an armed populace (one of the reasons the Second Amendment was so important to the Founding Fathers). Thousands died in the Revolutionary War.

The French had an armed populace as well. The French Revolution was particularly violent.

When the average citizen is unarmed and the ruler brutal, it usually takes a foreign power to overthrow him. Examples are numerous.

in the past days, yeah... but in the late 18's lots of democrasys evolved quite peacefully... I'm sorry to hear you don't know your history.
btw... the us soldiers knows very well, that the iraqi populace is anything but unarmed...
Both facts leaves this "To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force." looking quite foolish...

 

[russ_watters]

until now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule...

Maybe if you only include direct murders of Saddam's and leave out the purposeful starving of his own people. Include the whole toll and Saddam wins by several hundred thousand.

edit: also, you need to subtract most of the civilian deaths of the past year and a half from the American column and add them to Saddam's toll. Stationing tanks in civilian areas (for example) means any civilian deaths resulting from an attack on those tanks are on Saddam's toll.

 

[balkan]

Maybe if you only include direct murders of Saddam's and leave out the purposeful starving of his own people. Include the whole toll and Saddam wins by several hundred thousand.

note: i was talking per year "quota"...
saddam is the winner though... i give him an 8 out of ten... "and i hear he's a really modest guy aswell, hank..."

 

[JohnDubYa]

in the past days, yeah... but in the late 18's lots of democrasys evolved quite peacefully... I'm sorry to hear you don't know your history.

Do you ever provide evidence to back your claims? How about some examples so that we can examine them?

Japan's democracy was certainly installed at the barrel of a gun.

So was Germany's (in both instances).

So was Panama's.

Also Grenada.

 

[kat]

explain turkey to me then, if change has always come at the end of a gun? .

Huh? Please quote the phrase where I have said "change has always come at the end of the gun"

change can also come slowly by support and incitement from other countrys. or by the elite.

and that support and incitement from other countries culiminates into what actions that directly create a democracy?

untill now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule... Sharmuta to you for ignoring that fact!

support this with links, facts and figures please.

and the polls speak for them selves. if the iraqi people were to select a leader, it would be a highly religios one, a shia muslim... i really don't remember his name, maybe someone else do... and that guy would basically be the worst thing happening to a democrasy... so usa is not going to let them pick their own leaders, the leaders will be picked by the usa and, maybe the iraqi will be allowed to pick one of them... sharmuta for calling that a democrasy!

*boggle* questions for you, who is Lakhdar Brahimi? and what recent action is he known for? who does he represent?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."

 

[balkan]

Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."

but i thought it demanded an external force?
anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now... thank you for providing proof for that

and notice how the latter was a coup, my friend... the fact that the word "military" is involved, doesn't mean there was a war... so there's no need for war, and a potent populace can make changes, which they choose themselves...
so are you saying the war on iraq is unneccessary? are you finally caving in?

 

[balkan]

Huh? Please quote the phrase where I have said "change has always come at the end of the gun" and that support and incitement from other countries culiminates into what actions that directly create a democracy?

support this with links, facts and figures please.

*boggle* questions for you, who is Lakhdar Brahimi? and what recent action is he known for? who does he represent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhdar_Brahimi
what does that has to do with anything?? like i said, the iraqis are not allowed to choose on their own...

"Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) "
oh, so you don't like to being put words into your mouth (me leaving out the "elites of a society")? then i suggest you consider real hard about not doing it yourself.

btw... let me give you a few cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany <- quite unviolent workers revolution... more of an uprising really...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_the_Italian_Republic ... okay, there had just been a war, but the creation of the republic itself was quite peacefull...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia - as far as i remember, no revolution... just slow change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - kinda unique history there... they weren't unfamiliar with democrasy after the brief introduction to dictatorship, so that was no biggie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium - who knows?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

yes, indeed, very few examples of countrys adapting democrasy without war and violent revolution...

 

[JohnDubYa]

The point is that democracies often have to be implemented by force, and sometimes this force must come from an external source if the dictatorship is particularly brutal.

Does this sound like Iraq?

but i thought it demanded an external force?

Here is what I said earlier in this thread:

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

Nowhere do I suggest that only an external force is sufficient to install a democracy. (And why would I say it, being an American and knowing our country's history?)

anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now...

I was already aware that Turkey evolved into democracy on its own. That doesn't negate anything I have said, but it does show that violence is often necessary.

Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?

 

[balkan]

Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?

well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...
you said democrasy couldn't come without litterarily force it over peoples heads, and that forcing it was a great and lovely thing in your perspective... and no one else had done it different anyhow from your knowledge... well... there (in my previous reply to kat) is some knowledge about it...
actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area... it was one of the most educated middle eastern countrys and had students groups, and women attending universities and were allowed to get jobs... it was a very western oriented country, so i suspect there could be some change along with some outside influence, yes... but that's a totally irellevant question since the was has already happened...

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people... the countrys outside of iraq are pissed because you do it, and well, your soldiers experience the other reactions on their own skin...
this thread is about why people react so strongly when you force your values on them... "why don't they want them and bla. bla. bla" ... so it's not just about iraq... it's about consequences of action and reflection upon actions...

my post was a reply to your and kats claim, nothing else...

 

[JohnDubYa]

well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...

Weren't you the one that offered Turkey as an example in the first place?

Sometimes you can force a country into democracy through the actions of a global boycott, thus crippling the country financially (see South Africa). But the boycott by the UN was so weak and misguided that, if anything, it strengthened Saddam's power. That Oil For Weapons program was a real smooth move.

actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area...

Sure, NOW. But that is only because we forced a dictator out of power, an action you opposed.

Ask the Kurds how likely it was that Iraq was going to form into a democracy on its own with the Husseins in power.

I sometimes think that you completely misunderstand just how brutal Hussein's regime actually was. In terms of outright cruelty and control over the population, it probably eclipses Stalin's. Luckily with the USSR, power was not handed down to offspring, so at some point more reasonable politicians took over as the older leaders died. However, neither son of Saddam's was going to be any easier on the population.

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people...

And as I said many times, we have done it before with good results. Japan is a shining example of how the US crafted a government that endured. Panama is much better off because we invaded.

I am sure you opposed the Panamanian invasion as well. Is this correct? If so, what would be the condition of Panama and its people if we had taken your advice?

And why don't we see vicious anti-American actions by Hispanics?