Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

  • News
  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
In summary: So are you trying to say that no one has a plan because no one cared seeing as how it was not their own country? And this is not getting Iraq to be American, its about how anyone was going to turn Iraq from what it was into what most people think of when they think of a democracy.Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It seems like many people on this forum are more interested in the idea of liberating Iraq than making sure that Iraqis get the opportunity to choose their own government without American interference.
  • #106
Rev Prez said:
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Art said:
says in Wikipedia he was elected

Which means what?

Rev Prez
 
  • #108
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
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.
 
  • #110
russ_watters said:
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. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #111
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #112
Art said:
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.
 
  • #113
Mercator said:
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
 
  • #114
Art said:
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
 
  • #115
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #116
Art said:
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? :rolleyes: 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. :smile:
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.
 
  • #117
russ_watters said:
Sounds great if those (and others that followed) are legitimate elections. Do you also believe that Hussein's elections were legitimate? :rolleyes: 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. :smile:
russ_watters said:
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 :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #118
Rev Prez said:
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. :biggrin:
 
  • #119
Mercator said:
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
 
  • #120
Art said:
Well, my pseudo-intellectual Prez if you want to use strict dictionary definitions rather than popular usage then 'shrub' is also a dictator. :biggrin:

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
 
  • #121
Rev Prez said:
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. :rolleyes:
Here let me help you... :biggrin:

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #122
Art said:
I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a 'Shrubite' questioning the legitimacy of other countries' elections. :smile:
Oh please, are you really that far off the deep end? A conspiracy theorist? :rolleyes:
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 :rolleyes:
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.
 
  • #123
russ_watters said:
Oh please, are you really that far off the deep end? A conspiracy theorist? :rolleyes:
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 :rolleyes:
russ_watters said:
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.
russ_watters said:
Wow, Art - Milosevich, Hitler, and Hussein weren't dictators, but Bush is? That's really out there.
Having difficulty understanding the point again Russ? :rolleyes: Your friend Prez was playing semantics with the word dictator so I was helping him out with some definitions he'd missed.
 
  • #124
Art said:
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
 
Last edited:
  • #125
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #126
Art said:
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
 
  • #127
Mercator said:
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
 
  • #128
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #129
Mercator said:
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
 
  • #130
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #131
If you want to report a post, use the triangle-shaped icon in the bottom-left corner of that post.
 
  • #132
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #133
Mercator said:
I am typing with two fingers and I am dyslexic, just FYI.

Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #134
Evo said:
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? :smile: I need some of that!
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
69K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top