The Real Iraq

[peter12]

So what? We all know communism has never worked, socialism is a dismill failure, why allow the Iraqi people to elect government's of that nature?

If the Iraqi people choose a socialist government than that is simply the best choice for Iraq. The general will should always be sovereign in a democracy. We have no right to interfere in the decision making process, THAT is dictatorship.

[Azure]

Fair enough. I never said I supported any of the alternative forms of goverment. But I reject the point that 'Iraqis were free to select their own form of government'. Whether thats an important issue or not is up to you. I'm not passing judgement on what government they picked, just on their ability and freedom of range to pick.

True. But the people picked, from a ballet that was pretty long. Could you possibly fit 200 different parties, all from the same political spectrum on one ballet?

No. That's why I said, 'if you...' as opposed to 'you...' (HOZ-style). You're free to say you don't believe in it.

Well maybe you should quit trying to compare me to HOZ.

I guess that depends on how relevant things that happened 20 years ago are today. Being a history graduate, I think that the last 2 decades is incredibly recent history, and that nearly everything going on today has roots in the years and decades preceding.

Not what I meant. I never said history was not important, but am kinda ****ed off that everyone that opposes the US in their struggle to install democracy in Iraq, will always go back and mention how the US, 20 years ago supported anti-democratic governments in Asia, or South America. This is a different era, different war.

History is _hugely_ important. Those who don't know it are doomed to repeat it. Its where we draw our lessons from. In 10-20 years we'll be looking at the Iraqi occupation and drawing conclusions that will affect politics then, just as Vietnam did.

Yes indeed we will.

Since they disbanded basically every Iraqi government organization, yes, the US military would be responsible for looking after the government.

Naturally.

I remember. I certainly think its too soon to judge whether or not they were right. They also don't believe in invading North Korea and Iran, something that the US apparently agrees with at the moment.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the UN was right. What they should do now is get into Iraq and help the people rebuild the country. Forget about the reasons for going to war, what happened and who did it.

The UN also didn't agree with invading Rhwanda during the genocide. What does that say of their credibility?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

So what? We all know communism has never worked, socialism is a dismill failure, why allow the Iraqi people to elect government's of that nature?

If the Iraqi people choose a socialist government than that is simply the best choice for Iraq. The general will should always be sovereign in a democracy. We have no right to interfere in the decision making process, THAT is dictatorship.

Even if they could, which they should be able too(you're right, again ) I don't think they will.

Not after the last 30 years.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Even if they could, which they should be able too(you're right, again ) I don't think they will.

Not after the last 30 years.

The last 5 years haven't exactly shown them the benefits of liberal democracy either. The upheaval and chaos that Iraq has suffered may cause the people to seek solace in a more stable and authoritarian government once again.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

The last 5 years haven't exactly shown them the benefits of liberal democracy either. The upheaval and chaos that Iraq has suffered may cause the people to seek solace in a more stable and authoritarian government once again.

I really doubt that. People remember things, and I'm sure they don't want another Saddam back.

Democracy doesn't become sucessful overnight.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

The last 5 years haven't exactly shown them the benefits of liberal democracy either. The upheaval and chaos that Iraq has suffered may cause the people to seek solace in a more stable and authoritarian government once again.

5 years?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

True. But the people picked, from a ballet that was pretty long. Could you possibly fit 200 different parties, all from the same political spectrum on one ballet?

Sure, they had great range of choice... but only within the pre-selected political spectrum.

I guess when I see, say, the Iraqi Communist Party running in the election, I take it with a grain of salt. A big piece of me does not believe that the US would allow the Iraqi Communist Party to take power in Iraq, and would take steps before that even happened to ensure a different winner (by supporting them financially, logistically, socially). Whether they've done this or not I have no idea... but if I were the US looking to instill democratic-liberalism I certainly wouldn't allow a non-liberal party to win.

Well maybe you should quit trying to compare me to HOZ.

Wouldn't dream of it; I was comparing putting words in people's mouths (HOZ) with suggesting or outlining the other person's ideas.

Not what I meant. I never said history was not important, but am kinda ****ed off that everyone that opposes the US in their struggle to install democracy in Iraq, will always go back and mention how the US, 20 years ago supported anti-democratic governments in Asia, or South America. This is a different era, different war.

I hear you. But at the same time plenty of people all over the world remember vividly the events of 10, 20 years ago. Its not like the US since these activities has publicly apologized or claim an entirely new international philosophy. Its easy to 'just forget and move on' when you're looked upon as the guilty party.

It really doesn't matter whether or not the UN was right. What they should do now is get into Iraq and help the people rebuild the country. Forget about the reasons for going to war, what happened and who did it.

I guess it all depends on whether or not they 'win' in the end. If they don't, then it does matter who was 'right' or not before the war started. If the US loses, and Iraq turns into a debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd 'wished' they'd never gone in. But obviously we'll have to see whether or not they're successful or a failure. I think as long as US troops are there the mission is 'going to be successful'. Its not until they've all pulled out that the country fully realizes from the top down that it lost the conflit (as in Vietnam).

The UN also didn't agree with invading Rhwanda during the genocide. What does that say of their credibility?

Neither did the US. What does that say about their credibility? One could argue that the US, not the UN, had the power to prevent the genocide. Where was US interventionism then? And yet the US is surprised when people call them hypocrites for enforcing interventionism against Saddam, but not against Rwandan killers (and I do understand that Clinton is different than Bush... but US is US). If the US is going to pursue a policy of intervening in illiberal state's policies, then it can't just pluck one off the map (especially suspicious given its incredible natural resources); it has to hold the same attitude toward all of them.

[Azure]

I guess when I see, say, the Iraqi Communist Party running in the election, I take it with a grain of salt. A big piece of me does not believe that the US would allow the Iraqi Communist Party to take power in Iraq, and would take steps before that even happened to ensure a different winner (by supporting them financially, logistically, socially). Whether they've done this or not I have no idea... but if I were the US looking to instill democratic-liberalism I certainly wouldn't allow a non-liberal party to win.

And I would agree. Allowing a communist party to run or even get into power puts Iraq back into the Stone Age.

I hear you. But at the same time plenty of people all over the world remember vividly the events of 10, 20 years ago. Its not like the US since these activities has publicly apologized or claim an entirely new international philosophy. Its easy to 'just forget and move on' when you're looked upon as the guilty party.

Just like we haven't heard the liberals apologzie for wasting our money?

Seriously though, someone who is expecting the US to apologize for supporting anti-democratic governments 20 years ago is reaching for it. At that time, such action was in the best interests of the United States and they acted accordingly. This is now a different era, different "type" of enemy.

I guess it all depends on whether or not they 'win' in the end. If they don't, then it does matter who was 'right' or not before the war started. If the US loses, and Iraq turns into a debacle, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd 'wished' they'd never gone in. But obviously we'll have to see whether or not they're successful or a failure. I think as long as US troops are there the mission is 'going to be successful'. Its not until they've all pulled out that the country fully realizes from the top down that it lost the conflit (as in Vietnam).

As long as the US keeps a presense there, its not going to turn into a "debacle." The UN should realize that and get off their rear ends and help. I really can't understand the holdup.

Neither did the US. What does that say about their credibility? One could argue that the US, not the UN, had the power to prevent the genocide. Where was US interventionism then? And yet the US is surprised when people call them hypocrites for enforcing interventionism against Saddam, but not against Rwandan killers (and I do understand that Clinton is different than Bush... but US is US). If the US is going to pursue a policy of intervening in illiberal state's policies, then it can't just pluck one off the map (especially suspicious given its incredible natural resources); it has to hold the same attitude toward all of them.

When actually the Military Officer in charge of troops in Rhwanda at the time, went before the UN and asked for troops and they refused him the offer.

Nice try though. I knew you were going to bring the US into it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

And I would agree. Allowing a communist party to run or even get into power puts Iraq back into the Stone Age.

I think you're missing the point here. I don't care who the Iraqi people vote for, nor would I ever be so presumptuous as to say 'good' or 'stupid' upon hearing what government they've elected.

But as far as I'm concerned you've veered off into 'is democracy better than other forms of government', which isn't really a topic I'm interested in. I'm fairly sure it is. The fact is though, that the Iraqis didn't specifically choose the vessel, they just filled it.

Just like we haven't heard the liberals apologzie for wasting our money?

Um... sure, depending what political axe you feel like grinding. Though, just as with the US, the Liberals probably don't agree that they've done anything wrong...

Seriously though, someone who is expecting the US to apologize for supporting anti-democratic governments 20 years ago is reaching for it. At that time, such action was in the best interests of the United States and they acted accordingly. This is now a different era, different "type" of enemy.

No one is expecting the US to apologize for anything (at least, I'm not). All I'm saying is that people don't just forget this stuff because _some_ people believe we're in a 'new era'. Maybe for US foreign policy (and 'era' is stretching it), but not for everyone else. When 2000 came its not like conflicts everywhere got reset. The losers still remember, and they still hate. 'Get over it, it was 20 years ago' doesn't seem to cut it for them.

As long as the US keeps a presense there, its not going to turn into a "debacle." The UN should realize that and get off their rear ends and help. I really can't understand the holdup.

I hear you. Though, w/ the US in Vietnam it wasn't going to turn into a 'debacle'; that happened when they left.

When actually the Military Officer in charge of troops in Rhwanda at the time, went before the UN and asked for troops and they refused him the offer.

Nice try though. I knew you were going to bring the US into it.

The US wields the most influence in the UN out of every nation on earth. The US went into Iraq unilaterally, one could argue Rwanda would have been a great place to practise humanitarian-interventionism... they just didn't.

This thread is called "The Real Iraq"... how did I 'try to bring he US into it'? Aren't they already in it?

[Azure]

I think you're missing the point here. I don't care who the Iraqi people vote for, nor would I ever be so presumptuous as to say 'good' or 'stupid' upon hearing what government they've elected.

But as far as I'm concerned you've veered off into 'is democracy better than other forms of government', which isn't really a topic I'm interested in. I'm fairly sure it is. The fact is though, that the Iraqis didn't specifically choose the vessel, they just filled it.

I disagree, but won't argue. I've said it enough times what I think.

Um... sure, depending what political axe you feel like grinding. Though, just as with the US, the Liberals probably don't agree that they've done anything wrong...

Exactly. And the US would argue the same thing. So whats the point?

No one is expecting the US to apologize for anything (at least, I'm not). All I'm saying is that people don't just forget this stuff because _some_ people believe we're in a 'new era'. Maybe for US foreign policy (and 'era' is stretching it), but not for everyone else. When 2000 came its not like conflicts everywhere got reset. The losers still remember, and they still hate. 'Get over it, it was 20 years ago' doesn't seem to cut it for them.

Its not the idea of "get over it" but how people are still stuck on 20 years ago, and cannot understand why the US would work for freedom in Iraq, when in fact 20 years ago they opposed freedom in some South America country.

I hear you. Though, w/ the US in Vietnam it wasn't going to turn into a 'debacle'; that happened when they left.

Still a different war. With Russia and China supporting the Viet Cong, there isn't really anyway the US would have been able to firmly win that war. Unless the North Vietnamese would have ran out of people.

The US wields the most influence in the UN out of every nation on earth. The US went into Iraq unilaterally, one could argue Rwanda would have been a great place to practise humanitarian-interventionism... they just didn't.

I really can't help that, but I know that the man in charge of troops in Rhwanda at the time, asked the UN, not the US to give him 2,000 some troops and he could shut down the genocide. Maybe France or Germany should have lent a hand.....

This thread is called "The Real Iraq"... how did I 'try to bring he US into it'? Aren't they already in it?

Talking about Rhwanda here. And how you brought the US into the arguement, when we were talking about the UN.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I disagree, but won't argue. I've said it enough times what I think.

I understand, I feel like I've been saying the same thing every time as well.

Exactly. And the US would argue the same thing. So whats the point?

Well.. many, many people here stuck it to the Liberals for their past. Many, many people around the world are sticking it to the US for their past. Thats the point, and the reason '20 years ago' still matters. It may not matter to the people who want to forget it, I understand.

Its not the idea of "get over it" but how people are still stuck on 20 years ago, and cannot understand why the US would work for freedom in Iraq, when in fact 20 years ago they opposed freedom in some South America country.

Well... I suppose because every time the US intervenes unilaterally it usually has the same rhetoric, opening markets, encouraging liberalism/democracy, deposing an evil government, etc. Its not like back then the US said 'we're kicking ass, taking names... and the country'... they said the same type of stuff liberal-democracies always say.

Still a different war. With Russia and China supporting the Viet Cong, there isn't really anyway the US would have been able to firmly win that war. Unless the North Vietnamese would have ran out of people.

Well... sure... and Vietnamese people are in Vietnam, and Iraqis in Iraq. You can find plenty of differences between the two conflicts. But I suppose I think there are also some similarities that can be drawn upon. All I recall stating was that American 'stay the course' attitude now may have been similar in 1970, regardless of what AA guns the Vietcong were using and how the Iraqis are better (these type of details don't matter in what we're talking about; winning/losing).

I really can't help that, but I know that the man in charge of troops in Rhwanda at the time, asked the UN, not the US to give him 2,000 some troops and he could shut down the genocide. Maybe France or Germany should have lent a hand.....

I don't know for sure, but that might have been Canadian Romeo Dallaire. And I agree with you, it is totally reprehensible that the UN, Germany, France, US, China, and Russia didn't get Rwanda solved. But I don't see how the UN takes the full blame while the US gets off light; they were equally responsible in solving the problem. If the UN wasn't willing to go in, where was the Coalition of the Willing? Obviously the will wasn't there.

Talking about Rhwanda here. And how you brought the US into the arguement, when we were talking about the UN.

Well, I suppose I think that if its fair for you to bring in the UN and Rwanda, its fair for me to bring in the US. I didn't have to... and neither did you re: UN.

[Azure]

I'll get a reply to you later Agamemnon.

Got some work to do.

[Azure]

I understand, I feel like I've been saying the same thing every time as well.

Well in this arguement anyways.

Well.. many, many people here stuck it to the Liberals for their past. Many, many people around the world are sticking it to the US for their past. Thats the point, and the reason '20 years ago' still matters. It may not matter to the people who want to forget it, I understand.

True, but those same liberals were still in power, prior to the election in Jan. So I would think that you can't really make that comparison.

Well... I suppose because every time the US intervenes unilaterally it usually has the same rhetoric, opening markets, encouraging liberalism/democracy, deposing an evil government, etc. Its not like back then the US said 'we're kicking ass, taking names... and the country'... they said the same type of stuff liberal-democracies always say.

Like I said, different time, different war, different enemy. If the US has chosen to try and spread freedom and democracy in the world, and they chose to start and do it in the ME, we should be glad.

Well... sure... and Vietnamese people are in Vietnam, and Iraqis in Iraq. You can find plenty of differences between the two conflicts. But I suppose I think there are also some similarities that can be drawn upon. All I recall stating was that American 'stay the course' attitude now may have been similar in 1970, regardless of what AA guns the Vietcong were using and how the Iraqis are better (these type of details don't matter in what we're talking about; winning/losing).

Can't argue with that.

I don't know for sure, but that might have been Canadian Romeo Dallaire. And I agree with you, it is totally reprehensible that the UN, Germany, France, US, China, and Russia didn't get Rwanda solved. But I don't see how the UN takes the full blame while the US gets off light; they were equally responsible in solving the problem. If the UN wasn't willing to go in, where was the Coalition of the Willing? Obviously the will wasn't there.

Yes it was Romeo Dallaire. The US doesn't get off light IMO. I blame them as much as I do Germany, Britain and France. Even Canada to some extent.

Well, I suppose I think that if its fair for you to bring in the UN and Rwanda, its fair for me to bring in the US. I didn't have to... and neither did you re: UN.

Funny thing is, most people will argue that the US didn't go into Rwanda because there was no oil there. Basically you could say the same thing for the rest of the world too.

I just can't stand it when the US always gets the blame for everything that doesn't happen, then gets blamed for everything that does happen. The anti-American attitude amongst some people is starting to already run on the personal side.

[White Doors]

I don;t recall any oil reserves in Yugoslavia... The UN refused to go in there too. Europe couldn't even get it together.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

True, but those same liberals were still in power, prior to the election in Jan. So I would think that you can't really make that comparison.

I'm not comparing administrations Liberal vs. Republican (I think you were the one who brought up the Liberals in comparison to the US... ). I'm comparing the contempt people in Canada had for the Liberals over past/present scandals to that of many around the world who dislike the US for past/present scandals.

Like I said, different time, different war, different enemy. If the US has chosen to try and spread freedom and democracy in the world, and they chose to start and do it in the ME, we should be glad.

"Different time, different war" means that you can never compare any war, at any time, anywhere in the world, because they are 'different wars'. Naturally we know this is wrong, given that there are many principles that have evolved out of war, and concepts that are pretty universal like 'guerillas', 'occupation force', 'hearts and minds', 'attack', 'defend'. Like it or not, comparisons _can_ be made between wars.

And, once again, all I'm comparing is American public opinion, nothing else. There's no need to dismiss it with a wave of the hand saying 'different time'. The 1970's is not ancient history, it is very, _very_ present. Rumsfeld has been around from then since now, as have many other administration players.

Funny thing is, most people will argue that the US didn't go into Rwanda because there was no oil there. Basically you could say the same thing for the rest of the world too.

You certainly could. But you began this by blaming the UN for Rwanda. I think that you can't just point a finger at the UN, and then absolve other states who are integral members of the UN.

I just can't stand it when the US always gets the blame for everything that doesn't happen, then gets blamed for everything that does happen. The anti-American attitude amongst some people is starting to already run on the personal side.

Um... when you're (US) the clear-cut 'winner' of the world, you have to expect some sour grapes. I mean, do you expect the rest of the world to play permanent second fiddle and like it?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I don;t recall any oil reserves in Yugoslavia... The UN refused to go in there too. Europe couldn't even get it together.

The UN and NATO were both heavily involved in Yugoslavia during the 1990s.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by peter12

The UN and NATO were both heavily involved in Yugoslavia during the 1990s.

Wrong.

The Un couldn't come to a 'consensus' and therefore did nothing. Europe (EU) then tried to talk and agree to do something, couldn't. The US and others that we were willing to do something, did it under the auspicies of NATO.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Wrong.

The Un couldn't come to a 'consensus' and therefore did nothing. Europe (EU) then tried to talk and agree to do something, couldn't. The US and others that we were willing to do something, did it under the auspicies of NATO.

Are you on crack?

As of March 1995, there were over 40 000 UN personel in the former Yugoslavia. From January 1992 to March 1996, UN expenses in Yugoslavia were $4.6 billion net.

[White Doors]

Yes, the chapter 5 mandate did them alot of good. Ask the dutch how proud they are of their soldiers who stood by and watched serbians massacre Muislims. They couldn't come to a consensus on striking Serbia to take away their ability to wage war.

My fault for not clarifying. Russia and China vetoed the escalation of the mission to this level. The US had to do it. Yet no oil there.
hmmm..

[peter12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Yes, the chapter 5 mandate did them alot of good. Ask the dutch how proud they are of their soldiers who stood by and watched serbians massacre Muislims. They couldn't come to a consensus on striking Serbia to take away their ability to wage war.

My fault for not clarifying. Russia and China vetoed the escalation of the mission to this level. The US had to do it. Yet no oil there.
hmmm..

Regardless you are wrong. The UN was present in the former Yugoslavia. That's the only point I was trying to make.