News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[vanesch]

What about American strategic primacy is necessarily repulsive to the laissez-faire instinct, especially if power expands and secures the market?

Ah, yes, if you consider going on a robbery trip part of the market mechanism

 

[False Prophet]

By only two indicators--the incidence and lethality of terrorist and insurgent attacks. To catch up with 600,000 executions over twenty years, you'd have to have 2500 Iraqi deaths a month. Either way, you're essentially arguing that its better to accept Hussein than to take the bloody risks associated with military intervention.

Rev Prez

Please explain the nature of 600,000 executions, cite a source or tell me what it represents/who was killed.

Lets say in 2000, 2001 2002 and the months immediatly prior to the coalition invasion, Huessein was executing 2500 Iraqis per month?

 

[Rev Prez]

Please explain the nature of 600,000 executions, cite a source or tell me what it represents/who was killed.

600,000 is from the Documentation Center for Human Rights in Iraq. If you prefer, we can also use 290,000 figure from HRW [1] and get an average of 1200 dead a month for the past twenty years. Using Iraq body count's totals [2] that gives us a rate of 690 dead a month.

Rev Prez

 

[Burnsys]

600,000 is from the Documentation Center for Human Rights in Iraq. If you prefer, we can also use 290,000 figure from HRW [1] and get an average of 1200 dead a month for the past twenty years. Using Iraq body count's totals [2] that gives us a rate of 690 dead a month.

Rev Prez

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

 

[russ_watters]

In fact, it is funny that hardline "republicans" who stand for the "laissez-faire" mentality, without social care etc... and absolute freedom of individual initiative without mixing in or helping for INDIVIDUALS want to have a very "social" view between nations, where "strong and good ones" should impose their "social security" to other nations (liberate them, insure democracy etc...).

Don't you have it backwards? Republicans want people in other countries to be free. Sounds downright liberal to me.

The question is: why don't liberals want people in other countries to be free? I mean - domestically, liberals will give people all the help they need and then some. So why not internationally?

 

[ron damon]

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

 

[rachmaninoff]

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

Why so?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[vanesch]

Don't you have it backwards? Republicans want people in other countries to be free. Sounds downright liberal to me.

The question is: why don't liberals want people in other countries to be free? I mean - domestically, liberals will give people all the help they need and then some. So why not internationally?

Yes, the paradox works both ways But you could understand the international "laissez-faire" mentality of liberals, in that the more you give and spend elsewhere, the less you can give at home, so there's a balance: you cannot help and interfere in unlimited amounts.
However, it is harder to explain the international "liberal" attitude of conservatives: after all, it doesn't cost any money to let others lead their own life without interfering, so you can "laisser faire" in unlimited amounts, which, you would think, would provide conservatives with unlimited satisfaction

 

[ron damon]

Why so?

Because human and state actions obey different laws and rules, and produce vastly different consequences. Specifically, what is done every day to preserve your safety and well-being could not be justified on an individual basis. History is her own maiden.

 

[Burnsys]

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

But it was only 20 years ago, and beside the state it was Donald Rumsfeld who did it... and he was well aware of the 1200 killings a day... so it's not an exuse for the invasion if it wasn't before...

Just like if states should not have memory...

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the paradox works both ways

Well, part of the reason why I'm a republican is that the way I see it, it only works one way:

But you could understand the international "laissez-faire" mentality of liberals, in that the more you give and spend elsewhere, the less you can give at home, so there's a balance: you cannot help and interfere in unlimited amounts.

That's not an "international laissez-faire" attitude, that's an "international I-don't-care" attitude.

However, it is harder to explain the international "liberal" attitude of conservatives: after all, it doesn't cost any money to let others lead their own life without interfering, so you can "laisser faire" in unlimited amounts, which, you would think, would provide conservatives with unlimited satisfaction

See, this is what people just don't understand about conservatives. Bush's "compassionate conservative" thing got ridiculed because people don't understand the 'give a fish/teach to fish' parable: Republicans really do want to help people, but helping people does not mean giving handouts. For example (and on this, Bush failed...) unemployment compensation is a handout: it does not help people find jobs. I know that for a fact after watching my roommate use his government handout to fund a vacation and then enable him to do virtually nothing for a year. For foreign aid, (the African aid thread), simply throwing money at the problem does not actually help fix it (well - unless you're a socialist who thinks that forced equality is really the way it needs to be). Giving a fish requires a perpetual handout otherwise the benefit is lost. But the "teach to fish" thing is a once and done real solution: If Bush actually succeeds in making a democratic Iraq, after a 5 or 10 year comittment, we may never need to send troops to Iraq again, permanently fixing a problem area that has been a big problem for decades.

And laissez-faire doesn't mean doing nothing it means doing only what is necessary to set up the conditions for the market (or the political climate) to take over. In precisely the same way that the market needs some protection against monopolies, dictatorships are extremely hard to break out of and outside help is virtually always required.

So I guess the question comes back to: do the Iraqis deserve help or not?

 

[klusener]

If Bush actually succeeds in making a democratic Iraq, after a 5 or 10 year comittment, we may never need to send troops to Iraq again, permanently fixing a problem area that has been a big problem for decades.

That's a very big if and one that most people around the world would disagree with too. You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a very big if...

Yes, that's true.

...and one that most people around the world would disagree with too.

Also true. But:

You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

Well, I have the same facts to go on as everyone else: historical facts. One key historical fact is that about 60 years ago we turned an expansionist, miliraristic, imperialist dictatorship with no democratic tradition and a racial hatred for pretty much everyone else in the world into a peaceful, prosperous, stable democracy by conquering it and remaking it in our image.

We did it before and we can do it again. Is it guaranteed to work everywhere? No. But it is very possible. About the only thing guaranteed is that if we didn't try, Iraq would have been guaranteed to live under Saddam until he died.

 

[Rev Prez]

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was helping Stalin and doing business with the bastard while he was executing hundreds of thousands a month.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

Beat me to it.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

But it was only 20 years ago, and beside the state it was Donald Rumsfeld who did it... and he was well aware of the 1200 killings a day... so it's not an exuse for the invasion if it wasn't before...

If I read you correctly, you're claiming that because FDR dealt with Stalin 63 years ago he's not as culpable as Reagan dealing with Hussein 20 years ago, and that hey FDR didn't know about the brutality of Stalin's regime. The first point is absurd on its face, and the 1937-38 executions were public knowledge.

Rev Prez

 

[ron damon]

You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

Like those crazy liberals who held that Germany and Japan could be made into peaceful and progressive democracies, while Truman wanted to reduce them to a state of subsistence?

The US has done it again and again. The second and third world economies today are the product of thinking analogous to the rationale for invading Iraq. Look at South Korea. Remember how it was? The north Korean region was then the industrialized part, while the south was backward and poor. Today South Korea is part of a very select crew of nations building the first fusion reactor :

The US has worked miracles before. There is no "statistical evidence or facts" to indicate she can't do it again...

 

[Burnsys]

If I read you correctly, you're claiming that because FDR dealt with Stalin 63 years ago he's not as culpable as Reagan dealing with Hussein 20 years ago, and that hey FDR didn't know about the brutality of Stalin's regime. The first point is absurd on its face, and the 1937-38 executions were public knowledge.

Rev Prez

No. you where the one who bring FDR, i am talking about rumsfeld, i never mentioned FDR, and i never mentioned reagan. I was talking about rumsfeld helping saddam houseing while he was killing 1200 a month and when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on iranians to "Keep stability in the region"

My point is same as vanesch, it doesn't matter if they are cruel dictators, if they use chemical weapons, if they invade other countrys, if they are democracies or dictatorships,if they are comunist or capitalists... all that matters is if they "have american interests as a priority" or said in another way, if they are US puppet goverments or not.

That was obvious to anyone from the beginning, but... did it work out as (not) planned ? (which was also obvious from the beginning).
Wouldn't it have been simpler to deal with Saddam then ? Lift sanctions, give him money, weapons and praise, and ask him to keep the region stable ? Train his soldiers, send in troops to help him...) I'm sure he'd be willing to do so. After all, with a democracy, you never know who people are going to elect. Better have a faithful dictator (which he was, btw, until he misunderstood the "US permission to invade Kuweit")
After all, working with a US-stabilized dictatorship is much more sure as an investment than any talk about "freedom": look at Saoudi Arabia.

 

[vanesch]

The US has done it again and again. The second and third world economies today are the product of thinking analogous to the rationale for invading Iraq.

No, not really, and although for some this is difficult to understand, all the difference resides there: "moral authority".
Japan and Germany had agressed the US, and they lost, which means that the winner, which defended himself, had moral authority. Someone who defends himself always has higher moral authority than the agressor (whether for the "right" or "wrong" causes).
That, plus the fact that it wasn't just the US, it was almost the whole world (being in a large international coalition also gives moral authority) who wanted Japan (not Germany, it was already a democracy) to have a "regime change" helped a lot. Also the fact that they knew they couldn't do anything: they got 2 nukes on their head!

Under such a pressure of moral authority, it was possible to convince people to adopt "the other way".

But that's totally lacking in Iraq. The US is the agressor ; you don't have the world's approval ; you don't have this crushing overmight. In other words, you don't have an once of moral authority in Iraq.

Look at South Korea. Remember how it was? The north Korean region was then the industrialized part, while the south was backward and poor. Today South Korea is part of a very select crew of nations building the first fusion reactor :

Yes, but again, you had moral authority, against the big bad commies.

The US has worked miracles before. There is no "statistical evidence or facts" to indicate she can't do it again...

Well, there are a lot of failed situations in South America, there are quite some failures in Africa (but who cares), and in the middle east (think of Saoudi Arabia, again, and many Gulf states: rich, but not necessarily democracies!)

 

[Rev Prez]

i am talking about rumsfeld...and i never mentioned reagan.

Is it your intention to separate Rumsfeld's actions on behalf of the Administration that sent him from Reagan?

I was talking about rumsfeld helping saddam houseing while he was killing 1200 a month and when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on iranians to "Keep stability in the region"

And two people have already brought up FDR and Stalin. Do you have a problem with those two buddy-buddying it up as well?

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

No, not really, and although for some this is difficult to understand, all the difference resides there: "moral authority".
Japan and Germany had agressed the US, and they lost, which means that the winner, which defended himself, had moral authority. Someone who defends himself always has higher moral authority than the agressor (whether for the "right" or "wrong" causes).

...But that's totally lacking in Iraq. The US is the agressor ; you don't have the world's approval ; you don't have this crushing overmight. In other words, you don't have an once of moral authority in Iraq.

Well, whether we finished what we started in 1991 or in 2003, does it really matter? Saddam was an agressor and he never lived up to the peace agreement made in 1991. How quickly we [choose to] forget!

That, plus the fact that it wasn't just the US, it was almost the whole world (being in a large international coalition also gives moral authority) who wanted Japan (not Germany, it was already a democracy) to have a "regime change" helped a lot.

Morality by committee? No thanks. The world quite often makes wrong decisions or simply doesn't have the guts to do what's right. The nations of Europe happily gave Hitler country after country to the east in hopes he'd never turn west (oops). That's some real moral courage.

Well, there are a lot of failed situations in South America,

The US has never made such an attempt in South America.

...there are quite some failures in Africa (but who cares)...

Well, you should care - a great many of them are former French colonies. But again, none of them have ever been under the US's domain.

...and in the middle east (think of Saoudi Arabia, again, and many Gulf states: rich, but not necessarily democracies!)

Once more with feeling - the only country in the Middle East that the US has tried to shape in her image is Israel - and lo and behold - Israel is a stable, prosperous democracy. The rest have never been under the US's domain.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single country the US has attempted a Marshall-Plan style reconstruction where we failed to turn out a stable, prosperous democracy (well, there have only been half a dozen or so). In addition, a number of countries in Eastern Europe modeled themselves after us and have done quite well for themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

My point is same as vanesch, it doesn't matter if they are cruel dictators, if they use chemical weapons, if they invade other countrys, if they are democracies or dictatorships,if they are comunist or capitalists... all that matters is if they "have american interests as a priority" or said in another way, if they are US puppet goverments or not.

Burnsys, do you know nothing of international politics? You should - what you are describing is international politics. That's how it works. Its how every country works. You're making an utterly pointless argument.

Yes, the US aided Saddam Hussein in the '80s in order to maintain a stable stalemate between Iraq and Iran. News flash: so did just about every other country with the means to do so: including France and the USSR. The US did it to counter the USSR, the USSR did it to counter the US, and France did it for profit.

 

[Informal Logic]

People outside the US know far more about world affairs than the average American. Oh, but I forgot there are some who think they know everything and everyone else is ignorant.

Update:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8387168/

Bush seeks to set ‘clear path forward’ on war
President rejects timetable for withdrawal, saying the struggle 'is worth it'

Bush mentioned the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks five times during his address, prompting some Democrats to accuse him of falsely reviving the link that he originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad.

<Insert Profanity Of Choice Here>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8399147/

Iraqis mixed on Bush's pledge on U.S. forces
Citizens divided over presence of foreign troops in war-torn country

Iraqi PM: 'No country accepts having foreign troops'

“We want the foreign troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible,” al-Jaafari was quoted as telling the newspaper in an interview. “No country accepts having foreign troops on its lands because this indicates our inability to defend our country and our acknowledgment that there is a security problem.”
-----------
Real estate agent Ali al-Jibouri, 45, disagreed, saying that only Iraqi politicians are benefiting from the foreign presence. “Everything was plotted by the Iraqi politicians who came from abroad to prolong the time of the occupation because it will serve their personal interests,” al-Jibouri said.
-----------
“We haven’t felt any change since the transfer of authority last year, and the reason behind that is the lack of a withdrawal timetable,” said Saeed Yasin Moussa, 52, an employee at the Oil Ministry. “The timetable can lessen the psychological pressure on the Iraqi people.”
-----------
“The transfer of authority was a great dream, but nothing took place,” said Samah Abdul Mihsen, a 24-year-old housewife who lives in a middle-class neighborhood in Baghdad. “Bush does not want to pull out the American forces although we can defend our country. There are so many problems because of the presence of foreign troops.”

Etc.

 

[vanesch]

Well, whether we finished what we started in 1991 or in 2003, does it really matter? Saddam was an agressor and he never lived up to the peace agreement made in 1991. How quickly we [choose to] forget!

The case wasn't so clear, in fact: Kuwait violated an international agreement with Iraq (pumping in a common oil field) ; the US ambassador's wordings let Saddam understand that he had kind of indifferent permission to invade Kuwait, as long as he didn't touch Saoudi Arabia.

The US has never made such an attempt in South America.

A lot of "regime changes" were worked by the US - although indeed, no large scale military invasion took place. There was no need: the dictators served US interests much better than any democracy which would flirt with communism/socialism. And when they did, the democracy also needed a regime change.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single country the US has attempted a Marshall-Plan style reconstruction where we failed to turn out a stable, prosperous democracy (well, there have only been half a dozen or so).

It has to be once a first time. You never lost a war... until Vietnam.

Again, I didn't mean to say that changing Iraq in a stable, prospering democracy is, by itself, such a bad thing to do (even though I think one should leave people deal with their own business). The point is that that goal is almost unreachable the way you guys tried to do it, and the explanation for that was my stuff on "moral authority". It wasn't a qualifier of whether the ultimate goal was morally good or bad (even though one could discuss about it). It was the explanation of why this whole project is failing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You know I'd kinda be interested to hear what people have to say about the subject of the thread. You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?
I don't think that an invasion was the only way personally so please don't take this as some sort of defense of the US invasion. I seriously want to know what people think.
And I know that the Penguin stated the subject differantly but I'm pretty sure this is what he meant.
Oh and please stop the flow of reason's why the US invasion was wrong. We've all heard it several times now in several different threads, it's not the subject of the this thread.

 

[Mercator]

In addition, a number of countries in Eastern Europe modeled themselves after us and have done quite well for themselves.

That's untrue. Eastern Europe is modeled after Western Europe and is/will be integrated in the EU.

 

[Rev Prez]

Burnsys, do you know nothing of international politics?

Few people here do, yourself included. See why below.

You should - what you are describing is international politics. That's how it works. Its how every country works.

An untenable claim. Realist theories, like any other theory in the other three image paradigms, are highly conditional. International relations studies a cornucopia of these models under a stringent set of assumptions that are geographically and temporally constrained. Arguably, institutionalist theories have had the most practical and wide reaching consequences, although that's a great deal of well documented international interaction centers on law.

You're making an utterly pointless argument.

That said, you're right. Burnsys is making an utterly pointless argument.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

You know... How would a turn around in the situation in Iraq possibly have occurred if the US had not invaded?

There's no evidence that it would have. What do you think is the track record of unattended dictatorships turning?

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

There's no evidence that it would have. What do you think is the track record of unattended dictatorships turning?

Rev Prez

The track record must be very good. ALL democracies today once have been dictatorships or totalitarian monarchies in their past. Very few of them changed by invasions by foreign nations. Countries where others interfered are often STILL dictatorships, just like what will happen with Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

The case wasn't so clear, in fact: Kuwait violated an international agreement with Iraq (pumping in a common oil field) ; the US ambassador's wordings let Saddam understand that he had kind of indifferent permission to invade Kuwait, as long as he didn't touch Saoudi Arabia.

Omg, you actually believe that, don't you? Wait, wasn't France part of the coalition...?

No, vanesch, the 1991 war was not some border dispute (well heck, you tell me - is that a legitimate reason to annex a country?), it was the first step in an attempt by Saddam to take over the entire Arabian peninsula. Saddam owed Kuait and Saudia Arabia (among others) a lot of money after they helped him finance the Iran/Iraq war and rather than pay it back, he was just going to take them over.

The oft-cited approval of the US is similarly bogus: Saddam misread the reaction of our ambasador and made a big mistake. Yes, that's right, it was Saddam's mistake, not ours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Iraq_and_the_United_States_pre-war

A lot of "regime changes" were worked by the US - although indeed, no large scale military invasion took place.

So... you agree that your previous assertion was incorrect?

It has to be once a first time. You never lost a war... until Vietnam.

So... you agree that your previous assertion was incorrect? But this does bring up a new point: yes, there has to be a first time for everything. So you tell me why you think this will be the first time the US fails to create a functioning democracy through an invasion and Marshall-Plan style reconstruction.

Again, I didn't mean to say that changing Iraq in a stable, prospering democracy is, by itself, such a bad thing to do (even though I think one should leave people deal with their own business). The point is that that goal is almost unreachable the way you guys tried to do it, and the explanation for that was my stuff on "moral authority".

What does the method/justification have to do with the outcome?