News American freedom, American values

[kat]

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.

I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

But as someone else pointed out, Saddam killed far more, and with the US intervention the violence could stop. It definitely was not going to stop without direct intervention, unless you think Saddam's sons were going to be any better than their father in terms of civil rights.

This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you?

No, but Saddam's terror was a sure thing, wasn't it?

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq. The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure. Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome. But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

 

[Entropy]

I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures?

Opps, I didn't mean to imply I had been there. Its just what I heard off the news. If you consider that a creditible source.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

True. It is certainly quite possible that the people who died in the US invasion will think that they are better off.

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions? Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?

Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure.

To be sure.

Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

And you know this for a fact?

 

[cragwolf]

Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule.

What are you talking about? The NATO bombing of Serbia? According to Human Rights Watch, no friend of the US government, about 500 civilians died in Serbia as a result of NATO bombing. The number of civilians killed in Iraq (according to various sources) is at least 5000, and possibly as high as 10,000. At least a couple of thousand were killed during the initial phase of the invasion (i.e. from the start of the invasion up to the point Bush declared victory). This number is not "miniscule", neither absolutely, nor relative to NATO bombings in the Balkans.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

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?

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

Nope, we are under no obligation to help every country, nor do we have the necessary resources. Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I have no problem with that.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

Nothing prevented the allies from helping give the Iraqis the chance they needed.

Now, if aiding Iraq caused the people in Germany to suffer, you would have a point. But as it stands, they were not harmed in this situation whatsoever. So why should I be worried about them?

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions?

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?

Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?

Define what you mean by social order. On the individual family scale, probably not.

J: Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

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

If Iraqi democracy really did take hold, it would ruin your day. Because your stance is not based on what is best for the Iraqi people, but what is worst for George W. Bush.

 

[studentx]

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?

My point was this.
Sure Iraqis didnt like the war, they didnt like to lose friends and family. But we weren't talking about the war or liberation. We were talking about democracy , regardless of the way it is implemented or what happened before it, we are talking about NOW.
Today few iraqis would vote to live under Saddam again, they rather be free. And you are blinded by anger over the war if you believe otherwise.

 

[balkan]

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

i never said that! read once again:
you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it and you don't have the rigth to force it on others, just because it's your perception... what gives you the right?
it's a principle that has to be taught and nurtured, not enforced... democrasys have been created several times with UN supervision when the people were ready for it...

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

so piss on you for putting words into my mouth...

 

[JohnDubYa]

you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it

We've done it before, and it worked.

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

Tell it to the Japanese.

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

 

[balkan]

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

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

 

[balkan]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of a lot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

 

[kat]

i never said that! read once again:
you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it and you don't have the rigth to force it on others, just because it's your perception... what gives you the right?
it's a principle that has to be taught and nurtured, not enforced... democrasys have been created several times with UN supervision when the people were ready for it...

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

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.

 

[kat]

What are you talking about? The NATO bombing of Serbia? According to Human Rights Watch, no friend of the US government, about 500 civilians died in Serbia as a result of NATO bombing. The number of civilians killed in Iraq (according to various sources) is at least 5000, and possibly as high as 10,000. At least a couple of thousand were killed during the initial phase of the invasion (i.e. from the start of the invasion up to the point Bush declared victory). This number is not "miniscule", neither absolutely, nor relative to NATO bombings in the Balkans.

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

 

[studentx]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of a lot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

Balkan, we don't enforce religion. We are talking about politics here.
Nobody is forcing Iraqis to be christian, so what dream are you talking about?
The people in Iraq have been enforced many things in the past decades, was this ok with you? I assume not, so what do you suppose to do to stop this? Free them perhaps so they can make their own choices? OHNO! We have no right to set them free so they can make their own choices, because we are changing their lifestyle
Do you seriously think Iraqis today would give up their freedom and ask Saddam back or some other dictator, than you opened your mind so far that it fell out.

 

[Entropy]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of a lot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

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

 

[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!