Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mbrown]

Oh, and if anyone is interested here is a quick link to the Afghan Constitution which explicitly recognized religious freedom and also has the United Nations Human right reference in the first few lines:

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html

It's easy to confuse politics and law. The law is clearly on this man's side.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Being on the Left and supporting Fascism go together now? Where did you get this? The University of the Calgary Sun?

This is a blatant lie. I'm going to go ahead and call you out on it. Find some examples of where I am 'continually on the side of Fascism'. A pathetic smear and totally baseless. Contemptuous.

Being on the left and fascism definitely don't go together.

The looney-left and fascism have made very strange bedfellows recently.

Your defense of Lanny's "bring back the dictator" stupidity would be a prime example. Unless you are willing to admit that Lanny has launched himself into the Looloo-land.

Iran and the defense of their Pres's "wipe them off of the face of the planet" speach would be another.

[mbrown]

Oh, before I forget, here is some of the reactions to the universally celebrated successfull elections from the far left:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3527-1015r.htm

NADA
(coles notes versions).

It's too bad, but alot on the far left do not want it to work, it's no longer being against the war, it's being against something else.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Oh my god, this is too rich!!! Iraqis turned out in huge numbers so democracy is working? I think you and mbrown should get together and do some studying about democracy and what it actually takes for the mechanism to function. Casting a vote is not democratic without comprehension of the ramifications of the action. Iraqis didn't know what was going on and did exactly what the local imam told them to do and who to vote for. That is no democracy. That is not an election. That is a sham.

Lanny,

Who are you to be so high and mighty and say that they did not know the ramifications of what they are doing? How in the world can you be so bloody arrogant and say such a thing? There is no way anyone can take you seriously when you say such things. They made a choice to risk their lives 3 times to make a vote for their constitution and their government. What is the difference that an Iraqi cast his vote because someone he trusted told him "so and so" is a good candidate versus a Torontonian casting his vote for the local Liberal candidate because the Toronto Star told them that the Conservatives were blood sucking barbarians about to eat their children?

It is shocking that you believe that since the Iraqis are new to democracy that they really don't deserve it and need a murderous dictator to keep them in line! Well the birthplace of modern democracy took 300 years and a few invasions and a civil war to settle on Parliamentary Democracy. Just for example....

France had a civil war. Lots of headlopping!

So did the US. 600,000 sould lost

So did Russia...remember that very easily governed place? Check 1917 for details. Those Caucasus are just teeming with love for Mother Russia!

Good thing people didn't give up.



And....

Casting a vote and making a choice of your rulers IS DEMOCRACY. I have no idea what your definition of democracy is...but it is obviously a whole lot different than mine.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mbrown

than the misguided and freeloading pacifists and 'war is bad peace is good crowd'.

Freeloading pacifists? Fair enough. I'm a freeloading pacifist. Of course, everyone who isn't in the military is a freeloading pacifist. Yes, even those pro-war types with the puffed up chests and all that tough talk are freeloading pacifists, down here in the dirt with us hippies and left-wing wackos. Don't let the crewcuts and sensible shoes fool you.

I'm also happily in the "war is bad, peace is good" crowd. Are you in the "peace is bad, war is good" club?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Oh, before I forget, here is some of the reactions to the universally celebrated successfull elections from the far left:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3527-1015r.htm

NADA
(coles notes versions).

It's too bad, but alot on the far left do not want it to work, it's no longer being against the war, it's being against something else.

Reaction from the "far left"? WTF are you talking about? The "Mooney" owned Washington Times is so far right they make FoxNews look liberal. And what proof did they present that "democracy was working"? Nothing. Oh, a quote from a writer in Rupert Murdoch (the same guy who owns the FoxNews channel and several other neoconservative rags) owned Chicago Sun-Times. Wow! What stunning proof.

Oh yeah, here's some "universal reaction to the celebrated successful elections".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-09-iraq_x.htm

The commission already has thrown out 40 boxes and more than 200 plastic sacks of votes that bore signs of ballot-stuffing or other irregularities.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...html?dpfrom=th

In northern Iraq, protests have repeatedly broken out over the last few days in several cities, where officials claim that hundreds of thousands of citizens, many of them Kurdish Christians, were not able to vote because balloting materials arrived inexplicably late.

As clerks pounded vote-count tallies into computers to compile final results, interim President Ghazi al-Yawer also said chaos and a power vacuum in Iraq mean U.S. forces need to stay for now, even though a new government will be formed after the results are known.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...BD35E8E84E.htm

Among the allegations are that police took ballot boxes from heavily "no" districts and that some "yes" areas had more votes than registered voters.

HUGELY successful!!!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Well Winsor, you are by definition not a left winger. Congrats.

...Or your defintion is off. A left winger is not someone who supports Saddam. In fact Saddam would be on the far right of spectrum. So maybe we should start calling all right wingers like yourself Saddam supporters.

And funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all, why should I? I am merely experssing my well-informed opinion on world events. Because I don't agree with Lannt doesn't make me embarassed at all. I just don't pretent to know everything, but the ironic part is, I probably know much more about world events than Lanny does and the historical context in which to take them. I think alot of the differences today is that less and less people are taking history. They are getting all their informaiton from CNN and CBC Newsworld - most don't know to quesiton context and delivery of a message. Most people take the news as unflitered fact.

A common observation of the right. Funny how you turn it around to the left. I'm sure there's people on both sides of the spectrum who do this, but by definition, the right are the ones who ignore context and don't react to history. Maybe look up the definition of "Conservatism" after you're done with "left wing".

Like I say, it's my opinion that Iraq and Afghanistan will turn out ok and that it will work. How can I be wrong in expressing my opinion?
I can't. I hope it works out and I am surprised at the flak that I have taken here in expressing that. I have no problems with people thinking that it won't turn out ok, the problem is with people who HOPE it doesn't turn out ok.

Most people giving you flak (including myself) also want the situation to turn out ok. You're recieving flak for the pompous way you choose to express your opinion and the insults (wackos) you give along with them. Not the opinion itself.

At the end of the day I'd rather be on the side of say the 'dregs of society
(our Canadian Forces that Lanny likes to call them) than the misguided and freeloading pacifists and 'war is bad peace is good crowd'.

It's a very narrow minded view to seperate these into 2 sides. Even most soldiers themselves would tell you war is a bad thing, and they would rather have peace. They're certainly not at war because they like it, but rather as a means to a peace.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Who are you to be so high and mighty and say that they did not know the ramifications of what they are doing?

Let see. How about having a brain in my head and knowing how to use it. In the west, where democracy has been in practice for over a hundred years, and the voters actually know how the democratic process works, an election and education of the voters on the issues takes MONTHS to take place. Using a multitude of media, the parties get their platform out to the voters and they have time to weight the issues and decide what party they are voting for.

Now, in Iraq there has been limited media coverage, limited opportunity for the candidates to even decide what the country has a head of it, let alone formulate platforms on which they are going to run, and no way of getting to the regions to compaign personally. So how are the voters going to be informed on what they are voting on, or who they are voting for?

I know, they just know because they have been saved from a tyrant by America!

Jesus, if you can't admit that the people of Iraq had no chance to get educated in the democratic mechanism and find out the information to make an informed vote, then you are beyond delusional and bording on a mental case.

How in the world can you be so bloody arrogant and say such a thing? There is no way anyone can take you seriously when you say such things.

This coming from a guy that thinks that casting a vote is democracy. Do yourself a favor, STFU and go enroll yourself in a political science class. Hell, just read a grade 8 civics text book (I know that might be a bit advanced for you, but give it a chance). There is more to democracy than just getting purple ink on a finger.

They made a choice to risk their lives 3 times to make a vote for their constitution and their government.

Good for them. And they did exactly what their imams told them to do. Yeah, that's a democracy.

What is the difference that an Iraqi cast his vote because someone he trusted told him "so and so" is a good candidate versus a Torontonian casting his vote for the local Liberal candidate because the Toronto Star told them that the Conservatives were blood sucking barbarians about to eat their children?

What's the difference? The fact that you have to ask is pathetic. You don't think that being raised in a democratic system, a system that people learn about in school, makes a difference? You don't think the flood of information that the Torontonian is subjected to is better than the lack of information the Iraqi suffered from? If the obvious isn't obvious to you, then you are dumber than I thought, and you DO need game tapes to get through life.

It is shocking that you believe that since the Iraqis are new to democracy that they really don't deserve it and need a murderous dictator to keep them in line!

Sure Iraqis deserve democracy, but only if THEY want it and THEY choose it. The United States has no right to invade their country and install any system THEY see fit. If Iraqis go to the polls and elect candidates NOT put in place by the American government, then things are wonderful. But the fact of the matter is that the Americans put forth two candidates that could become President. That is not democracy. Democracy is what took place in Iran, where the people voted in the party of candidates THEY wanted. Whether we like it or not, the people spoke and THEY decided. THEY knew the outcome, THEY knew what was down the road and THEY chose accordingly. THAT was democracy in action. No tricks, no bull****, just an election by Iranians of Iranians for Iranians.

BTW... Why aren't you defending the Iranians for their democratic vote? Hmmmm?

Well the birthplace of modern democracy took 300 years and a few invasions and a civil war to settle on Parliamentary Democracy. Just for example....

Yup, but that country settled things itself. It didn't need another country coming in and telling it what to do.

France had a civil war. Lots of headlopping!

So did the US. 600,000 sould lost

Again, the country deciding for itself. I didn't see Britian or France sticking their nose in and making sure democracy worked there?

So did Russia...remember that very easily governed place? Check 1917 for details. Those Caucasus are just teeming with love for Mother Russia!

Good thing people didn't give up.

The people didn't give up? WTF??? You're going to rewrite history now and make it that the people in Russia were the reasons behind the failure of Communism? It wasn't the bankruptcy of the nation after several brutal winters and growning seasons? It wasn't the failure in Afghanistan that bankrupted the military? It wasn't the disintegration of the iron curtain as countries succumbed to the bright lights and blue jeans of the west? It was really the people's desire to cast a vote in a democratic country? Holy ****, step away from the sake bottle!

And....

Casting a vote and making a choice of your rulers IS DEMOCRACY. I have no idea what your definition of democracy is...but it is obviously a whole lot different than mine.

Again, feel free to pick up that 8th grade civics book and do some reading. When you find out that there is more to a democracy that just casting a vote you can come on back and we can discuss this subject further. Until you comprehend the functions of democracy, the democratic government, fair representation, the court system, etc., its useless. Casting a vote is just one step in the democratic process. Learn about the rest and then tell me how democratic Iraq and Afghanistan are.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by mbrown

Oh, and if anyone is interested here is a quick link to the Afghan Constitution which explicitly recognized religious freedom and also has the United Nations Human right reference in the first few lines:

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html

It's easy to confuse politics and law. The law is clearly on this man's side.

No kidding. Again, who said it first? I did, you moron. I was the one who pointed out that the constitution guaranteed him his right of religious freedom, yet there he was, on trial for his life BECAUSE of the religion he was practicing. This was a case that was going to set legal precident in Afghanistan and WAS going to be the standard for which laws would the ones the people would follow. The WAS going to be democracy in action. But that was dashed when a backroom deal was struck by the United States to have the guy cop a plea to temporary insanity (yes, he was insane for 20+ years while he practiced Christianity) so they would toss the case out of court. Those are the facts, they are undeniable.

Originally Posted by mbrown

Oh Lanny, you're reaching - the Afghan consitution has guarantees of freedom of religion - the religious fanatics were demanding that he be executed under Sharia Law - In other words, the Koran.

Thanks for coming out and demonstrating your critical reading skills to us though.

It seems you might want to bine up on your critical reading skills. That is exactly what I have been saying since I brought the subject up.

I'll ask you again, since you like to dodge questions so much. If this guy were indeed free to practice what ever religion he wanted, why was he arrested, why was he on trial for his life, why was a deal struck to throw the case out of court (against the judge's wishes BTW) and why is the guy pleading for asylum from any country that will take him?

Come on smart guy, I'm waiting. Repeating things that I have already used to point out the flaws in your logic are not good answers.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sure Iraqis deserve democracy, but only if THEY want it and THEY choose it. The United States has no right to invade their country and install any system THEY see fit. If Iraqis go to the polls and elect candidates NOT put in place by the American government, then things are wonderful. But the fact of the matter is that the Americans put forth two candidates that could become President. That is not democracy. Democracy is what took place in Iran, where the people voted in the party of candidates THEY wanted. Whether we like it or not, the people spoke and THEY decided. THEY knew the outcome, THEY knew what was down the road and THEY chose accordingly. THAT was democracy in action. No tricks, no bull****, just an election by Iranians of Iranians for Iranians.
BTW... Why aren't you defending the Iranians for their democratic vote? Hmmmm?

Because you know that it was not a fully democratic vote. The candidates where/are chosen by the Ayatollah and the people are then able to choose from them. Is that a fully democratic vote? I don't think so. In order for it to be completely democratic, anyone should be able to become PM or President.
From Iran's Wiki

The selection of candidates for the election is restricted to those individuals approved by the 12-member religious Council of Guardians. The Council's members are appointed either directly or indirectly by the Supreme Leader and are intended to preserve the values of Iran's theocratic Islamic government.

You can find the link here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preside...s_and_election

It is essentialy the same as choosing vanilla ice cream from different suppliers. Sure, there may be subtle differences, but it is still vanilla ice cream.

And on the whole "The Iraqi's didn't ask for a democratic system, so why are we forcing it upon them".
How exactly are you supposed to start a revoluion against someone that will gas his own people? How exactly are you to start a revolution when you don't know for sure if your friends are working for the dictator, or against him?
How are you supposed to start a revolution when the minute you start talking revolution, you disappear Hoffa style? The Sunni's (southern part Iraq?) wanted to start a revolution back after the first Gulf War. They asked for help from the American's, and all they got was weapons, no troop support. Saddam then gases them, brings in the army, revolution dead. And one more question, how do you start a revolution when you can barely afford to feed your family, yet the leader of your country is skimming millions of dollars from the oil for food program in back door deals. The size of revolution needed in order to actually succeed, would have never been able to get organized under Saddam's regieme.
In order for a revolution to be successful, there needs to be co-operation with the people of the country, money and support (either internally or externally). Those where not possible under Saddam's rule. And it is becoming apparent that the co-operation part may not be possible.

On the bright side, the bombing today was at an Iraqi Security Force recruitment center. Which means, there are still Iraqi's who are willing to fight for what the US started. Which means that there is still hope that in the long run, Iraq will be a stable, prosperous country (again).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

On the bright side, the bombing today was at an Iraqi Security Force recruitment center. Which means, there are still Iraqi's who are willing to fight for what the US started. Which means that there is still hope that in the long run, Iraq will be a stable, prosperous country (again).

I remember the good old days when it was all about rolling weapons laboratories and how many flowers the locals would give the "liberators". I didn't expect to see the day when a suicide bomber murdering 40 people is described as something "on the bright side".

It's a testament to how far this thing has gone off the rails.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Let see. How about having a brain in my head and knowing how to use it. In the west, where democracy has been in practice for over a hundred years, and the voters actually know how the democratic process works, an election and education of the voters on the issues takes MONTHS to take place. Using a multitude of media, the parties get their platform out to the voters and they have time to weight the issues and decide what party they are voting for.

Now, in Iraq there has been limited media coverage, limited opportunity for the candidates to even decide what the country has a head of it, let alone formulate platforms on which they are going to run, and no way of getting to the regions to compaign personally. So how are the voters going to be informed on what they are voting on, or who they are voting for?

I know, they just know because they have been saved from a tyrant by America!

Jesus, if you can't admit that the people of Iraq had no chance to get educated in the democratic mechanism and find out the information to make an informed vote, then you are beyond delusional and bording on a mental case.



This coming from a guy that thinks that casting a vote is democracy. Do yourself a favor, STFU and go enroll yourself in a political science class. Hell, just read a grade 8 civics text book (I know that might be a bit advanced for you, but give it a chance). There is more to democracy than just getting purple ink on a finger.



Good for them. And they did exactly what their imams told them to do. Yeah, that's a democracy.



What's the difference? The fact that you have to ask is pathetic. You don't think that being raised in a democratic system, a system that people learn about in school, makes a difference? You don't think the flood of information that the Torontonian is subjected to is better than the lack of information the Iraqi suffered from? If the obvious isn't obvious to you, then you are dumber than I thought, and you DO need game tapes to get through life.



Sure Iraqis deserve democracy, but only if THEY want it and THEY choose it. The United States has no right to invade their country and install any system THEY see fit. If Iraqis go to the polls and elect candidates NOT put in place by the American government, then things are wonderful. But the fact of the matter is that the Americans put forth two candidates that could become President. That is not democracy. Democracy is what took place in Iran, where the people voted in the party of candidates THEY wanted. Whether we like it or not, the people spoke and THEY decided. THEY knew the outcome, THEY knew what was down the road and THEY chose accordingly. THAT was democracy in action. No tricks, no bull****, just an election by Iranians of Iranians for Iranians.

BTW... Why aren't you defending the Iranians for their democratic vote? Hmmmm?



Yup, but that country settled things itself. It didn't need another country coming in and telling it what to do.



Again, the country deciding for itself. I didn't see Britian or France sticking their nose in and making sure democracy worked there?



The people didn't give up? WTF??? You're going to rewrite history now and make it that the people in Russia were the reasons behind the failure of Communism? It wasn't the bankruptcy of the nation after several brutal winters and growning seasons? It wasn't the failure in Afghanistan that bankrupted the military? It wasn't the disintegration of the iron curtain as countries succumbed to the bright lights and blue jeans of the west? It was really the people's desire to cast a vote in a democratic country? Holy ****, step away from the sake bottle!



Again, feel free to pick up that 8th grade civics book and do some reading. When you find out that there is more to a democracy that just casting a vote you can come on back and we can discuss this subject further. Until you comprehend the functions of democracy, the democratic government, fair representation, the court system, etc., its useless. Casting a vote is just one step in the democratic process. Learn about the rest and then tell me how democratic Iraq and Afghanistan are.

Holy Smokes Fella you have really gone off the deep end now! I don't think even Agamennon can gather up enough lefty-power to support such BS.

Once again Lanny...Brittain turned into a Democracy with less than the Iraqis have today. I am also sure the Brittish Edjamacation THEN wasn't as high now or even THEN as IRAQ's. Brittain did it with less.

JUST AN ASIDE: Brittain is the birthplace of modern Democracy.

You are sinking fast and sinking deep.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Holy Smokes Fella you have really gone off the deep end now! I don't think even Agamennon can gather up enough lefty-power to support such BS.

Once again Lanny...Brittain turned into a Democracy with less than the Iraqis have today. I am also sure the Brittish Edjamacation THEN wasn't as high now or even THEN as IRAQ's. Brittain did it with less.

JUST AN ASIDE: Brittain is the birthplace of modern Democracy.

You are sinking fast and sinking deep.

Ummm, no he's not. You look like you're running away from someone having taken you down in your rhetoric induced haze. Righty spouting neoconservative fascist you.

Go watch some recorded hockey.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Holy Smokes Fella you have really gone off the deep end now! I don't think even Agamennon can gather up enough lefty-power to support such BS.

Where is anything "leftist" in that approach? Seems that you are just another one of those morons who get their knowledge from FoxNews and use the same tactics to make your argument. "Whatever I don't agree with is leftist rubbish!!!" Kindly pointout where I made any "leftist" claims? It seems that you and mbrown (sharing those same two failing brain cells) have your ends of the political spectrum all confused. I'm supposedly a leftist, but a supporter of Facists. Which is?

Once again Lanny...Brittain turned into a Democracy with less than the Iraqis have today. I am also sure the Brittish Edjamacation THEN wasn't as high now or even THEN as IRAQ's. Brittain did it with less.

Britain did so of their own choice. They did NOT have a gun pointed at them telling them they would do anything. THEY as a people made they choice.

JUST AN ASIDE: Brittain is the birthplace of modern Democracy.

Wow, I guess you did crack that grade 8 civics book. Good for you! And did I say any different (although you are going to get an argument from many an American in this regard)?

You are sinking fast and sinking deep.

Sinking fast in what way? Believing that country and its people should be able to chart their own course in the world? Believing that an illegal invasion under false pretenses in immoral and that attempting to install a false illiberal democracy in that country is wrong and will fail, doing more damage to the cause than good? I don't see that as sinking, and based on the reactions of others, neither do they. That's called standing up for the rights of others and believing that they have the right to make their own choices, not be forced into something at the end of gun.

The only one that is sinking here is you. If you would spend less time waiving your arms in the air, attempting to draw attention away from the fact you have nothing to support you, and bring something to the table it would be not only refreshing, but stop you from sinking. All that time you are waiving your arms madly, screaming look over there, look over there, you are not treading water and going under.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Because you know that it was not a fully democratic vote. The candidates where/are chosen by the Ayatollah and the people are then able to choose from them. Is that a fully democratic vote? I don't think so. In order for it to be completely democratic, anyone should be able to become PM or President.

An interesting point that should be brought up in this discussion. What you say is indeed true, that in a utopian democracy ANYONE can become President. But that is not the case in the real world. Very seldom does a peasant grow up to lead his nation. That right is reserved for the societal elite.

Now considering Iran, lets examine who that societal elite is. From a Western stand point we like to think of our elite as either the rich capitalists or the educated intellectuals. Those what our society values and deems as the elite (although that is shifting to include the famous/infamous). For Iran that is very different. The rich capitalists and educated intellectuals were all forced to flee the country when the Ayatollah Khomeni took power from the Shah of Iran. The Ayatollah instituted and encouraged an Islamist government State and changed everything, including education. Everything was now based on Islamist ideals. The elite in the country became the theologians and those Islamic scholars who knew their Quran. These were viewed the moral superiors of country, and from that group would come the future leaders.

In North America we choose our leaders from the "elite". It is very seldom you see just anyone elected to a prestigious office like President or Prime Minister who has not worked his way up the ladder. Whether we care to admit it or not, not just anyone can be a leader in the Western world, they must come from a certain class and have earned their way into the position. Coming from that "elite" makes it much easier to earn the nomination. Heck, in the United States even a complete imbecile can become President as long as he went to the right school and has powerful friends in high places (and a daddy who was President). Having access to that elite status gives you access to the seats of power.

So was it any different in Iran? Not really. Those in the "elite" were nominated. If you think outside the confines of Western society and place yourself into the context of Iran society, these men that were chosen from their pool of candidates and then the people voted. Its very much like the nomination process here, only less political and more theological. It is definitely superior to that which goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan IMO, and more closely resembles what we like to think of as democracy.

And on the whole "The Iraqi's didn't ask for a democratic system, so why are we forcing it upon them".
How exactly are you supposed to start a revoluion against someone that will gas his own people? How exactly are you to start a revolution when you don't know for sure if your friends are working for the dictator, or against him?

That's a good question. How about the way it has happened in so many other countries? Grassroots unrest? Or maybe just a military coup? I really don't care how it happens, when it happens, or if it happens at all, it is up to the people of that region to do/say something to cause change. The Iraqi people did not ask for help. They did not ask to be invaded to start their revolution. If it were the way you suggest, there would not be the unrest and turmoil in the country as it now sits. The country would not be on the verge of civil war over the presence of the United States military.

How are you supposed to start a revolution when the minute you start talking revolution, you disappear Hoffa style? The Sunni's (southern part Iraq?) wanted to start a revolution back after the first Gulf War. They asked for help from the American's, and all they got was weapons, no troop support. Saddam then gases them, brings in the army, revolution dead.

I think you are thinking about the Kurds, in the north near Turkey. The Sunni's are the majority in Iraq with the #####es having large numbers in eastern Iraq and Iran. The Wahabis are the radicals and based predominantly in SW Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

And one more question, how do you start a revolution when you can barely afford to feed your family, yet the leader of your country is skimming millions of dollars from the oil for food program in back door deals.

Uprising and assassination, just like other countries.

The size of revolution needed in order to actually succeed, would have never been able to get organized under Saddam's regieme.
In order for a revolution to be successful, there needs to be co-operation with the people of the country, money and support (either internally or externally). Those where not possible under Saddam's rule. And it is becoming apparent that the co-operation part may not be possible.

I don't disagree with you at all. But it is up to the people of that country, and not an invading army from the United States to make that come to fruition. The actions taking place in Iraq today show that the US military presence was/is not the answer.

BTW... what you suggest is what has been tried. The #####es have received weapons and money from both the Soviet Union AND the United States to begin internal change in Iraq. It never happened because the #####es took the money and ran, and sat on the weapons. Are you forgetting that Iraq was once Soviet backed and Iran was once American backed? Then when Iran fell, the US threw its support behind a dictator named Saddam so he could fight Iran? And then when it appeared that Iraq would actually defeat Iran and assume control over the middle east the United States pulled a quick one and gave weapons and money to the #####es in Iran to continue their fight (hello Oliver North and the Iran Contra scandal). The United States has been playing dirty politics in the region for 40 years, so how the hell can they be trusted to establish democracy in Iraq? It doesn't make sense for the ones who have been key in the destablization of the region for so many years to be the ones that should establish anything in the region at all.

On the bright side, the bombing today was at an Iraqi Security Force recruitment center. Which means, there are still Iraqi's who are willing to fight for what the US started. Which means that there is still hope that in the long run, Iraq will be a stable, prosperous country (again).

WTF??? That's the bright side? And the bombing of an Iraqu Security Force reqruitment center is a bad thing. Those are the guys that are supposed to take over for the Americans. I don't see anything good from the bombing of one of those centers. Please explain your logic here.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Sinking fast in what way? Believing that country and its people should be able to chart their own course in the world? Believing that an illegal invasion under false pretenses in immoral and that attempting to install a false illiberal democracy in that country is wrong and will fail, doing more damage to the cause than good? I don't see that as sinking, and based on the reactions of others, neither do they. That's called standing up for the rights of others and believing that they have the right to make their own choices, not be forced into something at the end of gun.

Here is a question for MBrown and HOZ, how many of those 'non-self imposed democratic regimes' have actually prospered?

Lanny is bang on with his point about nations needing to be proactive with thier own domestic policy if they want to implement democracy otherwise it just is not going to be accepted by the general population.

The population in a nation needs to rise up and demand that, otherwise, it is just not going to work in the long run.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

WTF??? That's the bright side? And the bombing of an Iraqu Security Force reqruitment center is a bad thing. Those are the guys that are supposed to take over for the Americans. I don't see anything good from the bombing of one of those centers. Please explain your logic here.

Good thing that people are still lining up for recruitment. It's not a good thing that they are getting blown up by their countrymen. The fact that they where at the recruitment center shows that there are Iraqi's that are willing to fight and die for their country.

[mbrown]

"It's a very narrow minded view to seperate these into 2 sides. Even most soldiers themselves would tell you war is a bad thing, and they would rather have peace. They're certainly not at war because they like it, but rather as a means to a peace."

I 100% agree. That is why I support them. I want peace there too.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Here is a question for MBrown and HOZ, how many of those 'non-self imposed democratic regimes' have actually prospered?

Lanny is bang on with his point about nations needing to be proactive with thier own domestic policy if they want to implement democracy otherwise it just is not going to be accepted by the general population.

The population in a nation needs to rise up and demand that, otherwise, it is just not going to work in the long run.

You asked it so I'll asnwer it. Japan. You could argue S. Korea as well. I'm sure there are others. Is it easy? No. Is it the same situation? No.
Has it been done before? yes.

I hope the same situation will eventually arise in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We won't get there unless we are prepared to stay the course though.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mbrown

You asked it so I'll asnwer it. Japan.

Again with Japan?? You want history, start reading from the start of the thread and read where that point was already dismissed.

I guess it is true.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-George Santayana