The Iraq Thread 2

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

People are so very good at warping the truth as they desire until they dont even recognise it when it comes back and bites them in the arse. The media warps the truth, governments warp the truth, even people in a little forum like this warp the truth.

I suppose conflicts under these circumstances are inevitable.

It never ceases to amaze me how little people think for themselves. Having recently been to America its surprising how closely peoples views conform to those expressed by their national media (on both sides of the atlantic). Of course it would be nice to think that thats because the various national medias simply reflect the mood of the public whilst gently informing ,but not so. Our minds are incalculably warped by the media. You can hear tribal chants even in the minds of the people in this forum. Its funny how little truly free thought there is. Who can detach themselves from their immediate and superficial thoughts?

Im not sure i can so perhaps all i can say on this subject now is that i just do not know.

Quote[/b] ] Most of the people that post in this thread consider democracy to be a culturally dependant and not universal value.

Im not sure you can state that as a matter of fact. Have you actually counted? I wasnt even here for that debate.

Are human rights universal? What if a society holds a certain practice central to their culture even though it does not respect human rights?

Why should respect for cultures be universal if respect for individuals is not? Why should the integrity of a society be respected more than the integrity of the mass of individuals living in that society?

Quote[/b] ] I find your idea of forcing demcratic principles onto others be as justifiable as the idea of forcing a religion onto others, as we did for so many years.

How actually can you force democratic principles on people without violating the concept of democracy?  You can remove a tyrannical government but thats not the same. Do any of us live in truly democratic societies? I dont think the US in this situation can force democracy to occur. If the people do not want a say in government then they will act accordingly.

Has suffering been increased or decreased in the long term by the actions of the coalition? I dont know. Too early to tell for sure.

[denoir 0]

Our minds are incalculably warped by the media. You can hear tribal chants even in the minds of the people in this forum. Its funny how little truly free thought there is. Who can detach themselves from their immediate and superficial thoughts?

And what is so wrong about that? If we want a functioning society we have to be in agreement on most things. The media is a practical application of this. We can't very well all go running off to Iraq to see for ourselves. Furthermore who says that what we would see would be a representative truth?

The best we can do is to average it out by trying to get information from multiple sources. But also that is very limited as they usually all have the same sources and just add their political spin to things.

In short, there is no alternative.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] Most of the people that post in this thread consider democracy to be a culturally dependant and not universal value.

Im not sure you can state that as a matter of fact. Have you actually counted? I wasnt even here for that debate.

Yes, something like that. Check this thread and you'll see that a clear majority of the people agree that democracy is culturally dependant and the cross section of the posting population in this (Iraq) thread is about the same as in that thread.

Now, the fact that you wern't here for that debate has very little impact of what the majority thought.

For the more abstract questions in your post, perhaps we should continue in the other thread and keep this one within the realms of the Iraq war.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ] I find your idea of forcing demcratic principles onto others be as justifiable as the idea of forcing a religion onto others, as we did for so many years.

How actually can you force democratic principles on people without violating the concept of democracy?  You can remove a tyrannical government but thats not the same. Do any of us live in truly democratic societies? I dont think the US in this situation can force democracy to occur. If the people do not want a say in government then they will act accordingly.

The irony is that it does inded violate democratic principles. The "Iraqi Council" is a typical such enforced quasi-democratic institution.

USA: You are all now free! Free to choose your leaders! Free to choose your future!

Iraqis: Ok, we want the "Islamic Jihad "Join Iran" party"

USA: Umm..no, you can't have that one.

Iraqis: Ok, then we want the "Really Red Communist "Give All Oil to Cuba" party" in power.

USA: Umm, no. You can't have that one either.

Iraqis: Ok, how about giving us our Baath party back?

USA: Not possible. The Baath party has been banned.

Iraqis: Ok, give us then the "Free Kurdistan Party".

USA: No, that would piss off Turkey. Sorry.

Iraqis: So why do you call this a democracy?

USA: It is! You can choose any party that isn't fundamentalist, religious, communist, nationalist or a threat to American interests. Actually we prepared a list for you. You are entirely free to choose from the following list:

Quote[/b] ]

1) "Yay for America" party

2) "The Democratic Friends of America" party

3) "The Let's give away oil for free" party

4) "The Democratic Americophile Coallition"

[ralphwiggum 6]

The irony is that it does inded violate democratic principles. The "Iraqi Council" is a typical such enforced quasi-democratic institution.

USA: You are all now free! Free to choose your leaders! Free to choose your future!

Iraqis: Ok, we want the "Islamic Jihad "Join Iran" party"

USA: Umm..no, you can't have that one.

Iraqis: Ok, then we want the "Really Red Communist "Give All Oil to Cuba" party" in power.

USA: Umm, no. You can't have that one either.

Iraqis: Ok, how about giving us our Baath party back?

USA: Not possible. The Baath party has been banned.

Iraqis: Ok, give us then the "Free Kurdistan Party".

USA: No, that would piss off Turkey. Sorry.

Iraqis: So why do you call this a democracy?

USA: It is! You can choose any party that isn't fundamentalist, religious, communist, nationalist or a threat to American interests. Actually we prepared a list for you. You are entirely free to choose from the following list:

Quote[/b] ]

1) "Yay for America" party

2) "The Democratic Friends of America" party

3) "The Let's give away oil for free" party

4) "The Democratic Americophile Coallition"

just becuase some system is 'democratic', it doesn't mean anyone can do as one pleases. Your argument is basically stretching that limit and saying, 'oh, if Iraq is democratic, why don't they have anarchy?'

or in other words, since you nor i do not approve the war, that means we support Hussein's regime and his two son's action.

[denoir 0]

No, I'm talking "democratic" in the sense of allowing the people choose their form of government as they see fit and not as America sees fit. This includes choosing an islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. Or an anarchy, should it be desired by the people.

Or more to the point by saying "democracy" it genreally implies a western-style rule.

[E6Hotel 0]

The war was unbloody for the americans but definetly not for the Iraqis. DO YOU SERIOUSLY CALL THOUSANDS CIVILLIANS CASUALTIES HELP!

In comparison with the millions of people who died because of Saddam's regime, it's the lesser of two evils.

DO YOU REALY TELL ME THAT PREVENTING A WAR MEANS THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO HELP THE IRAQIS.

No.  However, war was the only way to take Saddam down.  I suppose we could've waited for Queasy to take the reins, but given his track record I really didn't consider him an improvement.

2 soldiers dead per day. Yeah things are really calming down, and infrastructure is improving (still no secured water and electricity even in Bagdad)

Actually, it's around .58 soldiers KIA per day as of 31 July.  Speaking as former cannon fodder, any KIA is too many, but that's still a very low death rate.

Initially a large amount of your troops should have been sent back to the US end of July...they will stay (oh they stay because things are actually running so well that they intend to stay for holiday in Iraq)!

We'll stay until the job is done, I hope.

If we want to help we do it! We dont need the US to allow us to give aid to Iraq.

I believe we've already asked Germany and India (among others) to contribute.  What's the hold-up?

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

No, I'm talking "democratic" in the sense of allowing the people choose their form of government as they see fit and not as America sees fit. This includes choosing an islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. Or an anarchy, should it be desired by the people.

The last thing in the world Iraq needs is "democracy," at least from the standpoint of the Kurds and the Sunnis.  What is needed is majority rule, subject to minority rights.  This is where that "Constitution" thingie comes into play.

Semper Fi

[denoir 0]

2 soldiers dead per day. Yeah things are really calming down, and infrastructure is improving (still no secured water and electricity even in Bagdad)

Actually, it's around .58 soldiers KIA per day as of 31 July.  Speaking as former cannon fodder, any KIA is too many, but that's still a very low death rate.

It depends on what interval you're looking at. If you look from May 1st then your number is accurate. If you look at more recent numbers then Albert's are accurate. Last seven days 14 soldiers were killed (2 /day). The week before 9 were killed (1.29 / day). The week before that 6 were killed (0.85 /week).

Yes, the death rates are not alarming, but the increase is.

[ralphwiggum 6]

No, I'm talking "democratic" in the sense of allowing the people choose their form of government as they see fit and not as America sees fit. This includes choosing an islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. Or an anarchy, should it be desired by the people.

Or more to the point by saying "democracy" it genreally implies a western-style rule.

i think a couple of pages back, you did mention that Iraqis are now close to coming out of the stage where they are talking what the listener wants to hear. So in other words, they are not ready to speak in public or express in public manners(voting).

thus if some minority group takes over Iraq through democratic process, and impose their beleifs which is not good for secular Iraq in general, then it's acceptable?

you cannot tell a bed-ridden patient to suddenly stand up and walk with a single shot in the arm. you have to feed him, progressively increasing the nutrients so that he/she gets his/her health back, then the patient can walk on his/her own.

unfortunately, US plan is not good, and has room for improvement. but that doesn't mean that we can throw a kid taking his first swimming lesson to 10 feet of water and expect him to swim out safely.

[denoir 0]

No, I'm talking "democratic" in the sense of allowing the people choose their form of government as they see fit and not as America sees fit. This includes choosing an islamic fundamentalist dictatorship. Or an anarchy, should it be desired by the people.

The last thing in the world Iraq needs is "democracy," at least from the standpoint of the Kurds and the Sunnis.  What is needed is majority rule, subject to minority rights.  This is where that "Constitution" thingie comes into play.

Semper Fi

Yeah, but what has happend now is that the all the major players of the three factions have been shut out and irrelevant figures have been chosen. It's the same fuck-up as with Afghanistan.

Furthermore, a constitution is defined through a majority consensus. So it does neither automatically imply minority protection nor majority rule. A constitution can look in any way. Saddam's Iraq had a constitution that said Saddam was the ultimate ruler.

[denoir 0]

unfortunately, US plan is not good, and has room for improvement. but that doesn't mean that we can throw a kid taking his first swimming lesson to 10 feet of water and expect him to swim out safely.

It's true that they need time to explore their new options but shutting out all the relevant parties that do have popular support is not the way to do it. That's what was done in Afghanistan. And the result? The leadership has US troops as bodyguards as they fear their own citizens who would not mind killing them. Such a situation is fundamentally fucked. And from what I can see it's happening the same way in Iraq now. The "Council" consists of a number of figures without any pull in Iraq. They have been chosen just because they were the most willing to cooperate with the occupying force.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and back to the cycle.

Two soldiers killed

[E6Hotel 0]

A constitution can look in any way. Saddam's Iraq had a constitution that said Saddam was the ultimate ruler.

Exactly.  The mere existence of a constitution isn't enough, the ground rules laid out are what matters.  With three antagonistic ethnic factions in Iraq, I can only see two options:

1)  A strongman who rules through terror, or

2)  Separation of church and state.

It will be interesting to see if such a Western idea as 2) can be implemented.

Semper Fi

[denoir 0]

What makes you think that a theocracy could not be benevolent and good for the people?

Edit: Ok, missed your statement about "With three antagonistic ethnic factions in Iraq"

[E6Hotel 0]

Yes, the death rates are not alarming, but the increase is.

As patrols and raids are stepped up, casualties will follow.  Correlation coefficient = 1.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

What makes you think that a theocracy could not be benevolent and good for the people?

History? Examples set by neighboring countries?

Semper Fi

[denoir 0]

Yes, the death rates are not alarming, but the increase is.

As patrols and raids are stepped up, casualties will follow.  Correlation coefficient = 1.

These were not killed during raids. And the number of patrols have greatly been reduced. Central Baghdad, especially the university area is no longer patroled.

[denoir 0]

What makes you think that a theocracy could not be benevolent and good for the people?

History?  Examples set by neighboring countries?

Semper Fi

You mean peaceful countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc etc?

They are not democracies, their people are happy with the government and they do not separate church and state.

[E6Hotel 0]

You mean peaceful countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc etc?

They are not democracies, their people are happy with the government and they do not separate church and state.

I was thinking specifically about Iran.  Aren't Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and the UAE plutocracies?

Semper Fi

[denoir 0]

Yepp, but they don't have a separation between church and state nor do they have freedom of religion.

And the people are quite content with it. Thanks to Saddam, Iraq had a secular orientation so other considerations will have to be taken into account.

[E6Hotel 0]

These were not killed during raids. And the number of patrols have greatly been reduced. Central Baghdad, especially the university area is no longer patroled.

[Lumbergh] Ummm, yeahhh, wellll, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Bob. [/Lumbergh]

Quote[/b] ]Thousands of suspected Iraqi fighters were detained over the six-week period, many temporarily, in hundreds of U.S. military raids, most of them conducted in the dead of night.

Washington Post

Quote[/b] ]In a 24-hour period ending Tuesday afternoon, soldiers conducted 58 raids across the country and detained 176 people, military officers said.

Washington Post yet again

Although you're correct in that the KIA's are not from raids, there is a heightened level of activity now to exploit intelligence being received.

Semper Fi

[E6Hotel 0]

And the people are quite content with it. Thanks to Saddam, Iraq had a secular orientation so other considerations will have to be taken into account.

Now I'm confused.  Wasn't 9/11 due to our support of repressive middle eastern regimes like Saudi Arabia?

Semper Fi

[ran 0]

And the people are quite content with it. Thanks to Saddam, Iraq had a secular orientation so other considerations will have to be taken into account.

Now I'm confused.  Wasn't 9/11 due to our support of repressive middle eastern regimes like Saudi Arabia?

Semper Fi

it was due to the american presency in ME and the support to Israel

[denoir 0]

And the people are quite content with it. Thanks to Saddam, Iraq had a secular orientation so other considerations will have to be taken into account.

Now I'm confused.  Wasn't 9/11 due to our support of repressive middle eastern regimes like Saudi Arabia?

Semper Fi

No, more likely because your support of the democracy Israel. Also 11/9 is really a problem for your society, not for SA. The violence and opposition they have problems with are due to their close cooperation and friendship with the US.

[FSPilot 0]

I thought it was because we built bases on muslim holy land, even though they never went into mecca.

[E6Hotel 0]

it was due to the american presency in ME and the support to Israel

No, more likely because your support of the democracy Israel. Also 11/9 is really a problem for your society, not for SA. The violence and opposition they have problems with are due to their close cooperation and friendship with the US.

As sarcasm obviously > you, (heh) let me be clear:  9/11 was due to OBL's resentment of our presence in Saudi Arabia.  Full stop.  Even Yassir Arafat has told him to stop trying to connect AQ with Palestine.  Our support of Israel as a motive for OBL is a fairly transparent attempt to widen his support base.

You can use Saudi Arabia as an example of integrated church and state, but I don't think it's accurate to use it as an example of a population happy with their government.  In any case, it's not a theocracy so the point is kinda moot.

Semper Fi