News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[Mercator]

From the CIA World Factbook:
The Czech Republic is one of the most stable and prosperous of the post-Communist states of Central and Eastern Europe. Growth in 2000-04 was supported by exports to the EU, primarily to Germany, and a strong recovery of foreign and domestic investment. Domestic demand is playing an ever more important role in underpinning growth as interest rates drop and the availability of credit cards and mortgages increases. Current account deficits of around 5% of GDP are beginning to decline as demand for Czech products in the European Union increases. Inflation is under control. Recent accession to the EU gives further impetus and direction to structural reform. In early 2004 the government passed increases in the Value Added Tax (VAT) and tightened eligibility for social benefits with the intention to bring the public finance gap down to 4% of GDP by 2006, but more difficult pension and healthcare reforms will have to wait until after the next elections. Privatization of the state-owned telecommunications firm Cesky Telecom is scheduled to take place in 2005. Intensified restructuring among large enterprises, improvements in the financial sector, and effective use of available EU funds should strengthen output growth.

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU. Other east Euroepan countries are following. The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey. Turkey wants to be a player in the European garden. For this, they even reinstated the Kurds as equal Turkish citizens. Te Kurds have been persecuted for ages. This enormous change happened without military intervention. The only thing it costs us is the price of solidarity. For making a more perfect and equal "network Europe", we are paying the price in the West of the Union. But we knwo that in the long term it's the only way possible. Americans prefer to keep their GDP high with all means. Just an observation.

 

[Rev Prez]

The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU.

It's a prime example of the transformative force of the collapse of Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, a process which took two generations to complete. The EU had nothing to do with the Velvet revolution. Either way, we're not talking about a dictatorship here.

The only example even stronger than this one is the transformation of Turkey.

Turkey was not and is not a dictatorship.

This enormous change happened without military intervention.

Lots of things experience enormous change without military intervention. We didn't have to intervene militarily in South Africa to end apartheid, nor in Israel to secure the roadmap. What's your point?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Sorry for the confusion,in my language it's Chech. Did you hear about the Soviet invasion in 1968? And the Velvet revolution in the late nineties? Are you going to claim US intervention for this too?

Why would I? It is in no way related to this discussion.

Germany can hardly be an example of your theory, if it already was a democratic republic and was only "attended" after Hitler was given free play for a decade or so.

Unattended dictatorships have a poor track of turning. You continue to confuse dictatorship with other sorts of political abuse, and then picking examples of totalitarian states that took sixty to seventy years to reform.

Can you explain (in less than two book volumes) the situation in former Yugoslavia compared to now?

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Before 1999, Milosevic was a dictator in Yugoslavia. After the Kosovo intervention, his regime fell and was replaced by a democratic government.

Rev Prez

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

 

[Rev Prez]

No he wasn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milosevic

Uh, yes he was.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Uh, yes he was.

Rev Prez

Slobodan Milošević was first elected President of Serbia by the National Assembly in 1989.

Milošević presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Milošević was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.

says in Wikipedia he was elected

 

[Rev Prez]

says in Wikipedia he was elected

Which means what?

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Which means what?

Rev Prez

Oh well, we'll play semantics then. :zzz: As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power as opposed to a democracy whereby the leaders are elected; rather than in the old 'soft' Roman dictator sense whereby dictators were elected in time of national emergency for terms of 6 months.

 

[russ_watters]

The Milosevich situation is very similar to the Hitler one - the fact that either won an election once upon a time has nothing to do with whether or not they were dictators. The fact of the matter is that they were and they did sieze that power. The power they were given in the elections was not the same power that they eventually siezed.

 

[Art]

The Milosevich situation is very similar to the Hitler one - the fact that either won an election once upon a time has nothing to do with whether or not they were dictators. The fact of the matter is that they were and they did sieze that power. The power they were given in the elections was not the same power that they eventually siezed.

Sorry Russ but you are wrong;

Milošević presided over the transformation of the League of Communists of Serbia into the Socialist Party of Serbia (July 1990) and the adoption of a new Serbian constitution (September 1990) providing for the direct election of a president with increased powers. Milošević was subsequently re-elected president of the Serbian Republic in the direct elections of December 1990 and December 1992.

In the first free parliamentary elections of December 1990, Milošević's Socialist Party won 80.5% of the vote. The ethnic Albanians in Kosovo largely boycotted the election, effectively eliminating even what little opposition Milošević had. Milošević himself won the presidential election with even higher percentage of the vote.

Incidentally Hitler didn't seize dictatorial powers either he was granted them legally following a vote in the Reichstag on the 23rd March 1933 where he achieved the 2/3 majority necessary. This was followed up by a public plebiscite ratifying the changes which received 90% approval. So from that point of view they are similar.

 

[Mercator]

It's a prime example of the transformative force of the collapse of Soviet influence in the Eastern Bloc, a process which took two generations to complete. The EU had nothing to do with the Velvet revolution. Either way, we're not talking about a dictatorship here.



Turkey was not and is not a dictatorship.



Lots of things experience enormous change without military intervention. We didn't have to intervene militarily in South Africa to end apartheid, nor in Israel to secure the roadmap. What's your point?

Rev Prez

You just made it. Thanks. Your invasion of Iraq does not lead anywhere, while everywhere in the world you see examples of tarnsformations that came about without violence.
And if you don't see the role of Europe in the Czech velvet revolution, (which was not the point), then I don't see the role of the US in the Dominican republic. A typical mistake of people on your side of the ocean:You're not aware of what's going on in Europe unless violence attracts your attention and then you still don't understand it,
Let me put it one more time: it's the attraction of the EU that provided the single biggest tranformative power for people in the former East block to change their future.

 

[Mercator]

Oh well, we'll play semantics then. :zzz: As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power as opposed to a democracy whereby the leaders are elected; rather than in the old 'soft' Roman dictator sense whereby dictators were elected in time of national emergency for terms of 6 months.

He's using the terms as it suits him, but he still cannot proof his point. Let me help him a bit: Unattended dictatorships by black females over 2m tall married to Chinese weight lifting champions have a poor track record of change.
I think I would agree with that.

 

[Rev Prez]

You just made it.

I don't think so.

Your invasion of Iraq does not lead anywhere...

And you base this on the fact that the American president changes every four years?

it's the attraction of the EU that provided the single biggest tranformative power for people in the former East block to change their future.

Which, of course, is complete bull.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Oh well, we'll play semantics then.

Let's not. Instead let's pretend you're enterprising enough to look up the dictionary definitions already provided in the thread.

As you contrasted dictatorship with democracy I presume you are using the term dictator in the modern popular 'hard' sense of an unelected leader who seizes power...

Which is not the definition of dictator either in the dictionary or in IR.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

I don't think so.



And you base this on the fact that the American president changes every four years?



Which, of course, is complete bull.

Rev Prez

Thank you, but you did, even if you don't realize it. Others will notice how your turn in circles.

Listen, I do not appreciate such cynicism when Iraqi people are suffering because of your arrogance.

Again: you understand nothing about Europe, keep on sleeping. QED.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry Russ but you are wrong;

Sounds great if those (and others that followed) are legitimate elections. Do you also believe that Hussein's elections were legitimate? Milosevich did as most dictators did: he tried to manipulate elections to give himself the appearance of legitimacy. Milosevich attempted in 1996 to annul an election that didn't go his way. He was almost overthrown then. And with that act, any claim to legitimacy of his rule ended.

Incidentally Hitler didn't seize dictatorial powers either he was granted them legally following a vote in the Reichstag on the 23rd March 1933 where he achieved the 2/3 majority necessary. This was followed up by a public plebiscite ratifying the changes which received 90% approval. So from that point of view they are similar.

Yes, as I know you believe that, but it doesn't make it true. For example, you leave out the fact that Hitler burned the Reichstag down on February 27, 1933. The fact that through propaganda and manipulation he wanted to give the appearance of legitimacy does not change the fact that the siezure was illegal.

 

[Art]

Sounds great if those (and others that followed) are legitimate elections. Do you also believe that Hussein's elections were legitimate? Milosevich did as most dictators did: he tried to manipulate elections to give himself the appearance of legitimacy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a 'Shrubite' questioning the legitimacy of other countries' elections.

Yes, as I know you believe that, but it doesn't make it true.

Russ, we are not talking 'beliefs' here, the way Hitler rose to power is a historical fact. Check it out for yourself if you think I'm inventing it

 

[Art]

Which is not the definition of dictator either in the dictionary or in IR.

Rev Prez

Well, my pseudo-intellectual Prez if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator.

 

[Rev Prez]

Thank you, but you did, even if you don't realize it. Others will notice how your turn in circles.

Others will notice you argue that dictatorships can transition peacefully because non-dictatorships do. Whether dishonesty or rank ignorance is behind this latest crazy outburst of yours remains to be seen.

Again: you understand nothing about Europe, keep on sleeping.

The Velvet Revolution spread in 1989, three years before the Maastricht was signed. This is getting old real quick.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Well, my pseudo-intellectual Prez if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator.

Not that I expect this to actually get through to you, but American executive authority is restricted by constitution and opposition in both law and fact. Therefore, President Bush does not meet the definition's criteria for unrestricted, one man rule.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

Not that I expect this to actually get through to you, but American executive authority is restricted by constitution and opposition in both law and fact. Therefore, President Bush does not meet the definition's criteria for unrestricted, one man rule.

Rev Prez

tut tut so you only want to use the dictionary definitions selectively.
Here let me help you...

dic·ta·tor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
An ancient Roman magistrate appointed temporarily to deal with an immediate crisis or emergency.
One who dictates: These initials are those of the dictator of the letter.

ty·rant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trnt)
n.
An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a 'Shrubite' questioning the legitimacy of other countries' elections.

Oh please, are you really that far off the deep end? A conspiracy theorist?

Russ, we are not talking 'beliefs' here, the way Hitler rose to power is a historical fact. Check it out for yourself if you think I'm inventing it

When you leave out key facts, what you are left with can only be called a belief. Unless you do it on purpose, that is...

...if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator.

Wow, Art - Milosevich, Hitler, and Hussein weren't dictators, but Bush is? That's really out there.

 

[Art]

Oh please, are you really that far off the deep end? A conspiracy theorist?

Conspiracy theory?? So the election irregularities in Bush's brother's state when he won his first term in office is only a theory? Duh right

When you leave out key facts, what you are left with can only be called a belief. Unless you do it on purpose, that is...

Which key facts would that be Russ? Your assertion that Hitler organised the burning of the Reichstag is unproven and irrelevant to Hitler's perfectly legally endowed authority and so therefore aren't you falling prey to the conspiracy theory mentality you just accused me of? Feel free btw to post any facts I've omitted that are relevant to the legal authority Hitler held.

Wow, Art - Milosevich, Hitler, and Hussein weren't dictators, but Bush is? That's really out there.

Having difficulty understanding the point again Russ? Your friend Prez was playing semantics with the word dictator so I was helping him out with some definitions he'd missed.

 

[Burnsys]

Conspiracy theory?? Your assertion that Hitler organised the burning of the Reichstag is unproven and irrelevant to Hitler's perfectly legally endowed authority and so therefore aren't you falling prey to the conspiracy theory mentality you just accused me of?

Wow russ! you really sayid the reichstag was put in fire by hitler? and you are also talking about people manipulating elections?
Damn russ you disapointed me... you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist

 

[Mercator]

Others will notice you argue that dictatorships can transition peacefully because non-dictatorships do. Whether dishonesty or rank ignorance is behind this latest crazy outburst of yours remains to be seen.



The Velvet Revolution spread in 1989, three years before the Maastricht was signed. This is getting old real quick.

Rev Prez

Which non-dictatorships are you talking about? Franco was not a dictator? Absolute despots were no dictators? Or are you referring to someone who dictates to students, then I understand your confusion.

Europe did not exist before Maastricht? It was the transformative power of Europe that inspired Czechs to take their lot in their own hands. Read Vaclav Pavel. Just like most other east European former soviet-style dictatorships and now Turkey, which was not a dictatorship, but an oppressive state.

 

[Rev Prez]

tut tut so you only want to use the dictionary definitions selectively.

I want to use them appropriately and meaningfully. There's nothing to discuss if you're only interested in definitions that serve to insult and disparage.

dictatorship

n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Which non-dictatorships are you talking about?

The one you erroneously labeled a dictatorship--Turkey.

Franco was not a dictator? Absolute despots were no dictators?

What's your point?

Europe did not exist before Maastricht?

The European Union did not exist before Maastricht, and you claimed that incentive of European Union membership was the chief reason for the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.

It was the transformative power of Europe that inspired Czechs to take their lot in their own hands. Read Vaclav Pavel.

You mean Vaclav Havel, and he was in prison in 1989 and didn't start pushing for CZ's entrance into the EU until after 1992. Face it, you ****ed up the dates.

...and now Turkey, which was not a dictatorship, but an oppressive state.

Which has nothing to do with your point that membership in a non-existent organization was the primary reason the Eastern Bloc broke away from the ailing Soviet Union, and does nothing to establish your hypothesis that dictatorships, on their own, transform into democracies quickly enough to satisfy international interests.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

The European Union did not exist before Maastricht, and you claimed that incentive of European Union membership was the chief reason for the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.



You mean Vaclav Havel, and he was in prison in 1989 and didn't start pushing for CZ's entrance into the EU until after 1992. Face it, you ****ed up the dates.



Which has nothing to do with your point that membership in a non-existent organization was the primary reason the Eastern Bloc broke away from the ailing Soviet Union, and does nothing to establish your hypothesis that dictatorships, on their own, transform into democracies quickly enough to satisfy international interests.

Rev Prez

Read again. I said Europe.
I am typing with two fingers and I am dyslexic, just FYI.

You don't get the point, I f** nothing up, the dates are unimportant. It's Europe that made people like Havel rise up against their oppressors.

Stop rewriting my words and try to be honest and read only what's there. I deliberaltely speak of "network Europe" if you don't know what that is, have a look at www.markleonard.net
Your desparate attempt to get me on dates has no meaning. "network Europe" was born right after world war 2 and developed in stages BLUE, EGKS, EC, only the last stage of which is called EU. This great idea created the largest economic block on Earth and has enormous transformation power for all countries in it's sphere of influence, in so far that this "soft power" is now showing it's strenght as opposed to the agression of the US. Turkey is a very good example, being transformed from an oppresive state into a real western democracy without military pressure. The fact that they did not bend for the Us when they wanted to operate in Iraq from Turkey shows the strenght of the Euroepan attaraction. You are free to believe otherwise, but I just say this and don't try to misinterprete my words. If you want to be blind for what's really happening in the world, be my guest, just don't argue with the seeing.

 

[Rev Prez]

Read again. I said Europe.

No, you said: "The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU." If you actually meant Europe, then you'd at least explain to us what "transformative power" did Europe have in the 1980s that it didn't have in the decades before. Was it the opposition to American deployment of Pershing missiles in Central Europe? Was it Thatcher's revolution in the welfare state of Britain? What about Europe caused the Velvet Revolution?

I am typing with two fingers and I am dyslexic, just FYI.

I'm not fishing for pity. Why are you?

You don't get the point, I f** nothing up, the dates are unimportant. It's Europe that made people like Havel rise up against their oppressors.

Then do you care to explain yourself or is this something you take on faith?

Stop rewriting my words and try to be honest...

Try to be consistent. You now say you meant "Europe" when you wrote "EU." I'd love to see you defend this one.

I deliberaltely speak of "network Europe" if you don't know what that is, have a look at www.markleonard.net

You mind explaining where you're going with this, and how this link relates to it?

Your desparate attempt to get me on dates has no meaning.

Sure it does. You've already backed away from EU. Now you can elaborate on this latest revision.

"network Europe" was born right after world war 2 and developed in stages BLUE, EGKS, EC., only the last stage of which is called EU.

EC is fifty years old. So what happened between in 1989 that didn't happen in the five decades before? The same goes for your Turkey business, who didn't have a Soviet overseer preventing them from seeking rapproachment with the Europeans for decades before the end of the Cold War.

If you want to be blind.

I don't want to be blind, I just want to know what you've got on hand that would leave anyone to believe you're not piling on the bull****.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

I'm not fishing for pity. Why are you?




Rev Prez

Who is the mentor here? This is over the limit and I don't accept this.
If you go back, you will see that this individual cosntantly crooects typos, I just want to tell him the reason why I have so many, hoping he would get the hint and stop trying to humiliate me.

 

[Hurkyl]

If you want to report a post, use the triangle-shaped icon in the bottom-left corner of that post.

 

[Mercator]

No, you said: "The Czech republic is a prime example of the transformative force of the EU." If you actually meant Europe, then you'd at least explain to us what "transformative power" did Europe have in the 1980s that it didn't have in the decades before. Was it the opposition to American deployment of Pershing missiles in Central Europe? Was it Thatcher's revolution in the welfare state of Britain? What about Europe caused the Velvet Revolution?



I'm not fishing for pity. Why are you?



Then do you care to explain yourself or is this something you take on faith?



Try to be consistent. You now say you meant "Europe" when you wrote "EU." I'd love to see you defend this one.



You mind explaining where you're going with this, and how this link relates to it?



Sure it does. You've already backed away from EU. Now you can elaborate on this latest revision.



EC is fifty years old. So what happened between in 1989 that didn't happen in the five decades before? The same goes for your Turkey business, who didn't have a Soviet overseer preventing them from seeking rapproachment with the Europeans for decades before the end of the Cold War.



I don't want to be blind, I just want to know what you've got on hand that would leave anyone to believe you're not piling on the bull****.

Rev Prez

But on the issue, you don't get me. I have explained that the EU is the (maybe not even final) result of decades long development in Western Europe. You can argue about terminology as much as you want, but you have not given any counter argument to the generally accepted thesis that the EU, EC, Western Europe or perhaps you prefer to call it Old Europe has had a major transformative effect on the surrounding East block countries.
What you don't seem to know is that the idea of the EU was born just after the war and that since then it has been a project under development, under different names and forms. That's why I prefer to call it a modern "network Europe", as opposed to the old fashioned federal US of A.

Let me give an analogy to make it clear:
"Arpanet has had enormous transformative power on people all over the world". YOU will then argue, not it's INTERNET. But we're both talking about the same phenomenon, aren't we?

So, since you have no further arguments to disprove my statement about "network Europe", but limit yourself to semantics, we now know that you have nothing to add to this discussion.

 

[Evo]

I am typing with two fingers and I am dyslexic, just FYI.

I'm not fishing for pity. Why are you?

Rev, Mercator was simply explaining his typing skills, no need to be mean.

Mercator, have you tried using the spell check option? It may help, I use it.

 

[Mercator]

Rev, Mercator was simply explaining his typing skills, no need to be mean.

Mercator, have you tried using the spell check option? It may help, I use it.

The spell check potion? I need some of that!