Real World Event Discussions

Did Bush lie? It doesn't matter any more.

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 18:35
VIEWED: 11007
PAGE 3 of 11

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
Goals: I'd go mostly with what Geezer said, and Japan is probably the best example of what we've done before. Mostly democratic state in place - you could go farther than that, but let's leave the social and economic engineering to be worked out by said democratic state (which might be a reversal goal - it could be argued we're already doing such engineering *sigh*). Preferably a lenient and secular democracy, but if we end up with a sharia(sp?) fundamentalist gov't, so long as they didn't "enforce" elections with local thugs and have females stoned for face exposure I think I'd take it. Relative security, on a par with other MidEast states in the area, who have the occasional car bomb or natural disaster but generally plod on with uninterrupted lives.

In my opinion a Sharia government would be utter disaster. Islamafascism is bred from the distortion of Sharia mixed with government. Thats one of the issues breeding extremism in Saudi Arabia. Most college grads in SA have degrees in Islam making them unqualified for legitimate technical jobs or any other jobs other then religion. A secular government with perhaps UN oversight until it is stable would be the best fit.

Quote:
My own personal desire for a goal would also be to leave with a decent morale among the Iraqis. Strategically, it's the only way we can make sure the Qaeda goons will move in and set up recruiting stations as soon as we leave.

Hopefully with proper and "accurate intelligence" this time we can prevent Al Qaeda from getting a solid foothold anywhere. My hope is that a true (and honest) taste of capitalism and freedom will convince the Arabic world that they don't need to rely on religion to feed them.

Quote:
Morally, it's just the right thing to do after the hell we put them through. The rest of you can aim as you like - this'll be what I'm trying for. Higher than sky to aim, but hell, we're crazy anyway.

Unfortunately these people haven't known peace or security for 30+ years (except maybe the ruling party) What we've put them through is just a smidge of what they've already known. I have a couple of Iranian and Iraqi friends. All of which were happy to see us invade. Primarily because they have known what it was like to live under Saddam and the Ayatollah. My Iranian friend Bobak's father was a member of the youth revolution in Iran. He was forced to flee on threat of death from the Ayatollah's thugs. 2 of his (Bobak's father) brothers were dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and never seen again.

Quote:
Al-Sadr: Hell. With Sistani, the only respected Shiite on both sides, now out of the picture, I'm honestly not sure what to do with the guy. Before they started bombing Najaf, I would've made an offer for the merging of his Brigade with the Iraqi army. But I think they tried that tack anyway. If we invade or shell the mosques, we're fucked, that's certain. I don't think the Iraqi Guard yet has the manpower and certainly not the morale, if their previous desertions are any indication, to handle it, so we'd probably have to force the issue. Sadr may be using them and committing blasphemy himself by using them as bases, Allawi might order us in, but no Shiite is gonna give a good damn about any of those things. It'd tip the populace of Iran into wanting open war, and we'd turn what might be a handful of foreign invaders and bombers here and there into a veritable flood. The only thing I can come up with is to take out Sadr, hard and fast, best surgical hit we can come up with even if it means invading one site, and then back off the army bulk so Najaf can cool down and the Brigade can start to disperse without their leader. Maybe pushing in on the mosques will get us close enough to pin his location for such a thing, and we won't have to invade the mosques in full. I'm not smart enough to know if that effect would work too slow or work perfectly, but it's the best course I can see. Sadr won't surrender, and while he's preaching his fire, neither

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, August 12, 2004 7:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes but Saddam was a SECULAR tyrant, which is why we used him against Iran. So obviously your goals extend beyond "fundamentalist" Islamic dictators to include.... who???

There are many young people in Iran and Iraq who hunger for a legitimate secular democracy. There are many in the US who would return to both countries if that type of government existed there. I'm confident that if allowed, once stability is secured, the Arabic peoples would elect capable Non-tyrannical leaders who want to bring them into the modern day.

A great book is "Reading Lolita in Tehran: A memoir in books" by Azar Nafisi.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081297106X/103-0991860-2
647825?v=glance

SIGNYM

Friday, August 13, 2004 10:11 PM

So the next country in your sights is Iran. But obviously there are many other tyrannies in the Mideast and Asia: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Uzbekistan, Pakistan ec. Which leaderships would you ideally like to change, and why?

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 14, 2004 12:38 PM

Uh... this wasn't meant to be a trick question. But two years ago, very few people thought about ending the regime in Iraq, and two months ago few people were talking about Iran. I'm just trying to get a perspective on what you think is the ideal endpoint of our intervention, and then what you think is the achievable endpoint.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 2:41 AM

No proactive plans for Iraq, Iran or the Mideast?

RUE

Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:57 AM

Quote:
My hope is that a true (and honest) taste of capitalism and freedom will convince the Arabic world that they don't need to rely on religion to feed them.

Just wanted to point out some erroneous equations.
It is NOT true that capitalism = democracy = independence = secularism = 'freedom' .

capitalism - an economy of government in service to business (as opposed to one of business in service to government, which is socialism)
democracy - a meaningful vote
independence - operating without outside influence
secularism - social governance not based on religion
freedom - at times meant as one of, or any combination of, the above

Venezuela is a prime example. It is possible for people to meaningfully vote for a socialist economy.
It is also possible for people to meaningfully vote for a religious government. (As my Pakistani friend - a PhD biophysicist - said 'the way things are here, I want to go home and put on the veil.')

Ideally, Iraq would be 'free' to chose its course independently (without Bremer's rules and US decrees) and democratically, even if it meant they voted for a socialist economy and religious law.

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:00 AM

Rue, I don't think I've read a single post of yours that didn't make me glad in some way. Relieved. We get so inundated with these false dichotomies and bizarre equations. Thanks for a little clarity.

What is the deal with people having to equate democracy with capitalism anyway? Does capitalism promote egalitarianism? Civic mindedness? Pluralism? Not that I've seen. Lately the only "taste" I get is the old familiar bitter one of Darwinian, zero sum, plutocratic f*ck-your-neighborism.

I heard somebody this week say that they were afraid of John Kerry because they didn't want to live in a socialist country. John Kerry, married to one of the richest heiresses in U.S. history is gonna turn the country socialist...yep.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RUE

Friday, August 20, 2004 3:58 AM

Hi HK,

Thanks for the reply. Sometimes it seems like I'm banging my head on a wall, so I do enjoy a little appreciation from time to time.

I've been puzzling over that democracy = capitalism equation for a while - where did it come from, when did it get to be official US policy etc. I haven't tracked it down yet. I think it may have got formalized during the cold war, but US government support for US businesses - including using US troops to strong-arm foreign governments with gun-boats and marines, and to shoot down pro-union demonstrators in the US, goes back much further.

RUE

Friday, August 20, 2004 5:26 AM

PS. I've been busy and not following the board very closely, so if I've missed your postings ignore the rest. But - where have you been? I depend on you, SignyM and some others for posts to enlighten, brighten, even criticize ....

PIRATEJENNY

Friday, August 20, 2004 8:39 AM

Quote:
That's right. It's no longer a matter of any significance.

what does that say about us as a nation if it doesn't matter

its really sad..because it doesn't seem to matter..and I suppose the next lie won't matter either so where does that leave us....will we keep settleing until their is nothing left to settle