The Phantom Menace

Remove all ads!

Disconnect from reality? No way!

The insurgency in Iraq is in it's last throes sez Dick, right Rummy? How clintonesque: What 'last throes' means depends on how you define 'last throes' ...

Of course, what the hell do they know - The War is Over, and the U.S. Won! If there is any doubt: In Iraq, cell phones have spread like wildfire!

... reality truly beats satire.

[ June 27, 2005, 11:36: Message edited by: Beren ]

 

Appalling. Especially since just yesterday Rummy said that we could be in Iraq another 12 YEARS to complete the process of stabilzing and rebuilding. Find me one average American citizen who would have been in support of the war if that little gem had come out back in 2003.

The other thing that's just killing me is how Western leaders are decrying the results of the recent election in Iran as not being truly democratic. Hello? Unless there's PROOF that the election process was fraudlent, the Iranian people have chosen their leader themselves. What could be more democratic than that? Just because Bushie doesn't like the result doesn't mean it's not valid. If that were the case, he'd have to step down because the REST OF THE WORLD didn't like the result of the 2004 election.

He sounds like a whiny little kid who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. Even my father-in-law - as avid a Republican as ever there was - thinks that Bush II is on track to be the Worst. President. Ever.

 

So the US destroyed the infrastructure of the nation, and is having difficulty rebuilding that infrastructure. What do you expect when you've got a bunch of idiots with explosives told that they have special seats in the afterlife if they but kill a few Americans? I say pull out, let them worry about rebuilding their infrastructure and if they piss us off again, go back and trash it again...

This goody two shoes act really isn't working. If the guy wants to go to war, then don't try to be a nice guy after that is done. Make no apology, go in, get the objective accomplished (make sure that you have them of course) and get the hell out.

 

Are you forgetting that Iraq never asked to be invaded, well at last not in this fashion.

When people are raped, killed and tortured, do you think they will still greatful? Try putting youself in the position of an ordinary Iraqi and see what you can come up with.

I find it amazing that there is talk of Mormons being persecuted, yet think its okay for Iraqi civillians to be carpet bombed!

 

Okay, I was under the distinct impression that the official targets were the oppressive regimes.

Any soldier guilty of rape, murder and torture must stand accountable, but I have a hard time believing that all the soldiers are jerks like that. Carpet bombing civilians would be a foolish tactic. Take out the criminals, yes, but the citizens that were oppressed are innocent (for the most part).

It goes back to making sure that there was an objective in the first place. I've heard elsewhere in AoLS that the US really didn't think out their objective properly in either invasion.

The person wanting the war was not Iraq or Afghanistan, but George W. Bush. He was the one so eager to overthrow the Taliban and bring Western Style Democracy to Afghanistan then Iraq. Iraq didn't ask to be invaded, you are right. But George W. didn't seem to care. That's why I said that is should be done quickly and then get back out. And I would guess that there would be less **** getting blown up in the process of reconstruction...

 

Ok, but what I find appalling is that for all this talk of "bringing democracy" all the pretty words are used for is to prolong a stay most people don't want. For all the people who died in the process, I don't think the Afghanistanian regime or the one Iraq will have after the elections later this year (this government is a preparatory one, heck knows what sh... stuff it prepares).
So now we have a Bureau that works on "preparing" countries to become market democracies, huh? I always thought the CIA was in charge of this, as this "preparation" usually included busting a few heads - covertly, of course. No mention that this would be basically undermining and undertaking hostile acts towards other countries, of course. No mention of any other form of democracy save a "market" one - open for any corporate, political, or military interest backed by "market" forces.
Hey, how about Saudi Arabia creating a bureau preparing countries to become just and moral societies? It would be just as insolent as that.

As long as any one country could judge any other a dictarorship and act on it unilaterally, there is always a potential for abuse of such power.

 

'Western democracy' is such a crude term. What works in the US will not necessarily work in any other country. Let them have demoracry in their own way, and help them if necessary, but don't make them completely change their way of life.

The people of Ireland have a different lifestyle and dispite what is thought over there, we are not jealous of the US and happy as we are. I am sure the same is true of other countries also.

 

Doh! There are IMO some countries much better served with a monarchy or a loose tribal council than with a western style democracy.

But no, they must have elections, must have a president and so on. IMO you simply cannot implant democratic spirit in a country and expect it works. The majority of african 'democracies' are democratic only by name and only conduct token rituals like rigged elections and token instutions like one sided parliaments.

There was a time when even neoconservatives understood that - Jeanne Kirkpatrick slammed Carter for that, and mocked the apparent belief that it is possible to democratize governments anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances." Democracy, she said, depends "on complex social, cultural and economic conditions." It "normally" takes "decades, if not centuries."

Hear, hear. Why not tell that Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and George Bush at the next dinnerparty, too, Jeanne?

[ June 29, 2005, 15:18: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

That's an argument I've heard regarding the former USSR and I have to agree. After centuries of czarist rule and decades of communist control, you cannot expect the people to adjust to democracy right away, if indeed they can. Maybe on an intellectual level they understand but in practice maybe not yet.

 

Americans have every right to be immensely proud of their represetative government and their Constitution. Whether or not one belives it is "good for everyone else," depends on if one believes that the notion of self-government is good in itself. There are two core beliefs in the American system: That all political power derives from the people, that the people are sovereign. Secondly, that America is a nation of laws in which all are treated equally by the law. No one is above the law, nor is anyone beneath it. Beyond that, even the founders themselves could not agree on much else. And at times, we are Jeffersonians; and at others, Hamiltonians. But I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the above two basic principles on government.

John Adams considered James Otis to be the first original of the revolutionary generation. These are a few of his thoughts on government. The echos of his words can be heard throughout the entre generation that followed him:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s5.html

And Jefferson commented that "every generation had the right to build its own government anew," without the "dead hand of the past." But all of them believed that they were building the world anew with the revolution that they had wrought, and the government they had carefully crafted.

Interestingly, here, Jefferson echos some of the points made in previous posts. This is a portion of a letter he wrote to Lafayette, regarding the revolution in France:

Jefferson's words make sense, because America already had a tradition of self-government extending all the way back to November, 1620, with the Mayflower Compact:

The stirrings of self-government are faint, but are there nevertheless.

[ June 30, 2005, 07:17: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The first part is becoming apparent to everyone but Georgie an the glee club. The second part will have to be the ultimate solution, but it has to be a fair democracy. All sides must be heard (to my knowledge, that's not even the case in the US). And all the people must have the right to have a free vote, not be threatened to vote a particular way...

Then now that that process has begun, let the UN observe and keep them on track, but remember that there won't be immediate results...

That's an excellent place to start though. It also recognizes that any such document for a country will be unique. Canada tried to draft a new constitution in the early 1990's but that was abandoned when the groups couldn't agree on anything and put some cobbled together drek that satisfied a couple special interest groups but pissed off the rest of Canada, so the people voted it down. Even the US didn't get it right the first try. The Continental Congerss had very little power when it was first established, and that lead them to squabbles with France, England and Spain. It wasn't until they took the time to draft the Constitution that these problems could be addressed...

 

I personally hold that most, if not all, societies can accept some democratic institutions that are tailored to their experience, or at least can "nativize " them. However, I feel it a bit arrogant that the only "acceptable" democracy for this agency is one stressing a free market economy. So what, will it start "liberating" Sweden? Rule of the people I understand and support, but it should be the local people who decide what their economy will look like.

 

Chandos, my problem is not with the idea of wanting to spread democracy throughout the world. Where I have a problem is when an election WAS held and the local people spoke their minds, and outsiders whine that the result couldn't have been truly democratic because the locals didn;t choose the outsiders' preferred candidate.

Part of democracy is beng a gracious loser.

 

And so they should.

Don't get me wrong democracy is a good (actually great) thing, but if privatizing public services such as health care (USA) and public transport (England)falls under 'democracy' then I can do without that aspect of it. We used to have a government run supermarket up until the early 90's, then it was sold to Tescos, which meant less choice (they choosen what we spend our money on) and higher prices.

 

I could not agree more. There are many institutional services which should remain in the public sector, and not be given to those who would seek only individual profit. As you point out, the healthcare services in the US are in disarray and no longer really serve the public good, but the profiteers.

But this problem is not really under the catagory of democracy vs depotism as such. Instead the issue is the role of government vs the private sector. Do you want certain important institutions to be under the control of the people at large? or under the few - the wealthy and the powerful? If these valuable institutions are left to the few, who will protect the public interests if there is no representation? Should the public good be protected by law, principle and public delegation? Or should they be left to the marketplace and the pursuit of wealth, speculation and profit?

Ben Franklin was the founder most vocal in denouncing government programs which aided the poor. As a completely self-made man, who began with just a few coins in his pocket, he worked his way to become one of the greatest men of his own time, dining with kings. And this was during a time when such things were unheard of, since it was a system of heredity and patronage, of which Franklin possessed neither. Even Hamilton had the benefit of a patron at the beginning.

Franklin believed that to give the poor aid was to make them only more dependent, and was the greatest impediment to their development. But there are two areas which even Franklin exempted from this: the aged and the sick. But Franklin was a civic-minded man. He founded a public library, police patrol, fire department, hospital, and school (Uni of PA, the first public college in America). But he believed that it was the public's reponsibility to care for the elderly and the sick.

Franklin was also a man of principle. As much as Franklin pursued wealth, and he did, he retired in his forties to devote himself, at first to the public good, and later, to devote himself to the good of his country. Both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams risked, in part, the finacial stability of their estates to dedicate themselves to public service.

I am taking a round-about way of saying that there is a definite distinction between private self-interest and public service. And that the lines between the public and private spheres of influence should be distinctly and sharply drawn, as they both have their place in building a nation that is both fair and just to its citizens. But they can both be labeled democratic, because it balances the liberties and the pursuits of both the public and individual.