Cost of the war in Iraq: Democrat's analysis

  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
20,141
6,669
vanesch said:
We all know what will be the final form: an islamic republic!
I'm not sure if you're being serious (because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow) or if thats a multi-layered irony, but I'll answer it either way: "Islamic republic" is an oxymoron, kinda like "People's Republic of China." Its a name that doesn't mean what the words in the name imply it means. Its an autocratic form of government and one which is not considered legitimate by the international community. Only governments formed by a mandate from the people are legitimate forms of government.
 
  • #27
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
russ_watters said:
But we are not dictating the final form of the Iraqi government.
russ_watters said:
because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow
Now, I'm confused :confused:
 
  • #28
187
0
kat said:
I don't know what the **** your idea of fair is, but leaving people at the mercy of brutal, genocidal dictators doesn't come under the heading of "fair" in any manner that I know of. Maybe if you compassionate *******s had gotten on your band wagon years ago and taken care of Saddam when he first started going screwy you could talk "fair", or maybe if you had screamed to continue and remove him over Gulf War 1 you might have the right to say anything about "Fair" but **** you if you think "fair" is being left to live under the brutality of a man like that.
Leaving them to handle their own internal affairs unfair? America did America it's own revolution. Now, if any state lets things go bad internally, that's there problem.

I'm sorry to say you are convinced it was internal in Iraq. Iraq's problem were significantly created by a world that turned against it and pressured it into circumstances that were very difficult to respond to. But this takes research that goes deeper than the mainstream America press. To print the significant facts would be a conflict of interst of those who are responsibe in American leadership of murdering 500,000 Iraqi children. Saddam never came close to that.

BTW, the collateral damage was the only damage to Iraqis. 90% civilians. Wanna know the other ten percent? The other ten percent are called civlians who turn the gun on the murders who are invading their country. Bush calls them terrorists. So does that idiot Kerry, even though he's better for the presidency, because we have no other choice.

russ_watters,

The basic idea is cooperative trade versus murder and theft. Very simple. The basic economy is cooperative in all societies. This war is murder and theft. It's inferior theory, literallly.

Would you like to rhetort again?
 
Last edited:
  • #29
356
3
russ_watters said:
I'm not sure if you're being serious (because a a theocracy is one form we will not allow) or if thats a multi-layered irony, but I'll answer it either way: "Islamic republic" is an oxymoron, kinda like "People's Republic of China." Its a name that doesn't mean what the words in the name imply it means. Its an autocratic form of government and one which is not considered legitimate by the international community. Only governments formed by a mandate from the people are legitimate forms of government.
Oxymoron, n. pl. ox·y·mo·ra (-môr, -mr) or ox·y·mo·rons
A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined.

Islamic Republic is not an oxymoron. It's a noun with a condition. Theocracy is a society in which the Clergy of a Religion(s) rule over the state, Thats neither here nor there. To me it seems unreasonable for Iraq not to ultimatly end up with an Islamist Republic, 90% of the country is Islamist. It will simply be a republic based on the traditions or rules of Islam.
 
  • #30
kat
26
0
Gokul43201 said:
Ha ha. Perhaps, Bush should have used this line when he went to war. He should have told America and Congress that Saddam is a genocidal maniac who tortures and kills his people. And that it's only fair to liberate them from him. (But for the longest time, everyone's known that...and no one - especially, the conservatives - gave a rat's a$$)

Like that would have rallied support for the war...

And now, the supporters of the War can't say enough (I'm not refering to you, Kat) about how Saddam was a brutal dictator, and it was the right thing to liberate the people of Iraq (now that there's no WMDs or al Qaeda link to talk of).

To them, I like to say **** *** !
I've always said Saddam should be removed becuase he's a genocidal maniac, you can check my early posts. What I'm referring to is the "lefts" silence on the matter. I cannot believe that so many can rise up and argue against a war to remove Saddam and not have so very many of the same people who are supposedly the peacemakers...rising up and demanding genocide to stop in countries that it occurs in. THAT is the left I would like to see, It's the left that probably never really existed but the left that I did romaticize as existing. It's the LEFT that stands for SOLIDARITY and for human rights FOR ALL. Maybe, during my college years I was living in an illusion while screaming for an end to Aparthied, maybe there was never the unity in ending unfair domination of other human beings EVERYWHERE. But the left I believed in was that which believed humans are together and equal as a universal concept! NOT only for the white Western world! Not only for the WOMEN of the white western world.
The left I believed I knew, brought into actuality the human rights of the first generation, the right to remain alive, right to liberties and right to access to justice FOR ALL, not just those who the despotic rulers deign to grant them to! The security in the social solidarity safety net that is present in developed democracies, is an achievement of the left! It was the lefts innovation which was unique, that for any of those rights was their universality based on the equality of ALL men in dignity and rights. NOT just men of the WESTERN world!!!!
So, I'm going to ask WHERE THE HECK WAS THE LEFT?!!!
It should not have been left to the "right" Where the heck was the left?! and now the "left" is screaming about invading Iraq yet they were quiet during Saddams brutal reign. IMO you've lost your right to speak for the Iraqi people, because quite frankly I don't think this pretend "left" that is so vocal gives 2 ****s for the Iraqi people, either then or now! This "left" (which is no left that I was ever famliar with) is as big of a hypocrit as the RIGHT who now wants to pretend they cared about those "po' li'l Iraqi's). Give me a break!

While we're in the business of saving people from crazy despots, why stop with Saddam ? Let's get Kim Jong Il, and King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdulla. (Along with Charles Taylor, these people were rated as worse dictators than Saddam, as published by Parade Magazine upon consultation with Freedom House, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch) Let's take out Than Shwe and Teodoro Nguema. Let's topple Mugabe and the Sudanese regime.

Now, that would be fair, wouldn't it ?
That sure the hell would be EQUAL and FAIR and if the worlds "Left" rose up like it did to try and stop the removal of Saddam...Maybe things would be a little different and less hypocritical.
 
  • #31
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
kat, are you suggesting that there is nothing two-faced about the right wing argument that the War is justified because is removed Saddam, even though they were at least as silent as the left about Saddam's atrocities ?
 
  • #32
kat
26
0
Gokul43201 said:
kat, are you suggesting that there is nothing two-faced about the right wing argument that the War is justified because is removed Saddam, even though they were at least as silent as the left about Saddam's atrocities ?
I'M saying that the war is justified because it has removed a genocidal dictator.
I'm also saying that the so called "left" which is no left that I'm familiar with has NO moral high ground and in fact has blood on it's hands because of it's silence.
As for the right, I don't think I NEED to make any remarks relevent to what they are or are not, those of the so called "left" which is again, no left that I'm familiar with are very well occupied with commentary on the right, so well occupied that they've become hypocrits and much like the little monkey covering it's eyes, mouth and ears when the evil is effected by anything other then white and western (oh yes, and the juuuuuuesss). Where are the millions in the streets protesting genocide in Sudan?!

Is the cry of "NO CHANGE" "NO CHANGE" conservatism? Is the cry of "NO INTERVENTION"? Conservatism? Is the cry that protects the TRADITIONAL VALUES of SHaria law conservatism?!!!! Yes it IS, and by GOD this so called "left" isn't so freakin left at all...YOU"VE been usurped! by the god awful no-change conservatives and people all over the world are dying while this so called "left", which AGAIN, is no left that I"M familiar with, is busy undermining anything that MIGHT bring change. WHERE are your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your demonstrations?! Where is/was and will be your outrage on anything other then Bush while people are being subjected to such HUGE human rights violations ALL OVER the world?! Give me a break, this left of today is nothing but a bunch of hypocrits.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
kat said:
I'M saying that the war is justified because it has removed a genocidal dictator.
And the protesters believe that you don't remove a genocidal dictator through more genocide.


I'm also saying that the so called "left" which is no left that I'm familiar with has NO moral high ground and in fact has blood on it's hands because of it's silence.
So the left has blood on it's hands if it didn't rile up against Saddam, but the right gets a free pass ? I'd say that the right has all the blood, because it was the left that has been calling for sanctions against dictators, while the right, while having no qualms with starting a war, didn't raise a finger. When they did chose to, you can bet you @$$, it wasn't to save the Iraqis from a dictator.


As for the right, I don't think I NEED to make any remarks relevent to what they are or are not, those of the so called "left" which is again, no left that I'm familiar with are very well occupied with commentary on the right,
But, of course, the right doesn't take any time out to bash liberals ! Tell me where you find more rhetoric, on CBS or Fox ?


so well occupied that they've become hypocrits and much like the little monkey covering it's eyes, mouth and ears when the evil is effected by anything other then white and western (oh yes, and the juuuuuuesss). Where are the millions in the streets protesting genocide in Sudan?!
Twice during this summer, I've seen groups standing (along High Street) just outside my University, protesting the Sudan genocide. That's twice that I saw - there may have been more. One of the posters read " If we weren't too busy murdering Iraqis, we would stop the murders in Sudan" or something to that effect. On July 14, Charles Rangel and Walter Fauntroy (D, DC) were arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy leading a protest by hundreds. On Aug 26, Danny Glover was arrested, leading another similar protest in DC. And these are the ones the news will report because of the arrests of liberal big-wigs.

Now where's that compassion in them conservatives ? The last time I remember the conservatives protesting something, it was the Kosovo war.

For every liberal protesting the Sudan genocide, are there a hundred, protesting the Iraq War ? Certainly.

Would you be able to tell your neighbour to stop yelling at his kids if your husband was giving yours a hiding everyday ? I think not. And who would you try to stop ?

Surely the people have a greter effect on the actions of their own government than on the actions of the UN, or the Sudanese Govt, or the US working through the UN, with the Sudanese.


Is the cry of "NO CHANGE" "NO CHANGE" conservatism? Is the cry of "NO INTERVENTION"? Conservatism? Is the cry that protects the TRADITIONAL VALUES of SHaria law conservatism?!!!!
And there's a word for the the cry that goes : "We need to change the world. We can stop the Arab world from treating women like dogs. We can root out evil, wherever it exists in the world." I call it the cry of STUPID.


Yes it IS, and by GOD this so called "left" isn't so freakin left at all...YOU"VE been usurped! by the god awful no-change conservatives and people all over the world are dying while this so called "left", which AGAIN, is no left that I"M familiar with, is busy undermining anything that MIGHT bring change.
Maybe the concept of bringing about change in a sovereign, foreign nation by imposing your will over it is cut and dried to you. To a lot of thinking people in the world, it's not that straightforward. There are several "primitive societies" all around the world that have not evolved at the pace of the west. Trying to force an overnight evolution is playing with fire.

The left is not against change. It's against stupidity.To bring about change, you need to understand the people that you're trying to change. The left is against putting a bunch of self-centered, isolationist, nutjobs in chanrge of bringing about change.


WHERE are your constructive alternatives? WHERE were your constructive alternatives?
If you pulled those tomohawks out of your ears, you might hear them.


WHERE were your demonstrations?! Where is/was and will be your outrage on anything other then Bush while people are being subjected to such HUGE human rights violations ALL OVER the world?!
I've covered this already.


Give me a break, this left of today is nothing but a bunch of hypocrits.
The left, the whole left, and no one but the left....so help us, God. Tut tut !

I don't claim that the left is not becoming more apathetic; that there is no hypocrisy or ulterior motive to the protests; that they are what they used to be in the 60s and 70s. I just disagree with the way you see things.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
kat
26
0
Gokul43201 said:
And the protesters believe that you don't remove a genocidal dictator through more genocide.
Either you are ignorant of the meaning of the term genocide or you are purposely convoluting the discussion. Which imo is extremely dishonest. It's impossible to have good dialogue with someone who wants to convolute terms to fit their agenda.
I have to log. (disgusted) :mad:
 
  • #35
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
kat said:
Either you are ignorant of the meaning of the term genocide or you are purposely convoluting the discussion. Which imo is extremely dishonest. It's impossible to have good dialogue with someone who wants to convolute terms to fit their agenda.
I have to log. (disgusted) :mad:
I didn't say that I was calling this genocide. But there are tons of people that believe it is. I've seen enough of them here on PF, and I know there ore several more out there.

I don't have an agenda. Nor am I being dishonest. And if you read your post again...it didn't seem to me like one that was attempting to engage in "good dialogue". I guess you didn't bother reading past the first line of my post.

kat, I respect your views, and more. Please, stop calling me a liar.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Cost of the war in Iraq: Democrat's analysis

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
158
Views
11K
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
115
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top