[marden]

If we HAVE to Fight Iran ANYWAY why Give up the Iraqi Beachead we Already Have?

Wouldn't our leaving Iraq even hasten and encourage Iran's hostilities?

[subego]

Remind me again why we "HAVE" to fight Iran "ANYWAY"?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Remind me again why we "HAVE" to fight Iran "ANYWAY"?

Because they are facing a win-win-win situation no matter what we do or don't do and if the Iranians don't get what they want they will force a fight. It might already be planned and their plans and contingencies already set.

They win if they get nuclear weapons because they will be able to use them to intimidate their neighbors.

They win if they use their nukes to wipe Israel off the map as promised.

They win if the US uses ANY means to stop them which they can manipulate into looking like a US attack on Iran.

How?

Ahmadinejad believes that a nuclear conflagration could lead to a holy war and the resulting chaos would be sufficient to summon the 12th Imam, the Mahdi who will turn off the lights and lock up Earth and usher life here to an end.

And Ahmadinejad welcomes this event.

Win. Win. Win.

So, we fight them with a force that is nearby and is both a deterrent to war and provides us a tactical advantage but it also leaves our forces tantalizingly close to Iran's current weaponry or we have to fight to one day RE-CLAIM the Iraqi territory we've already paid and bled for.

[subego]

So, what are you thinking here?

Do we level the place, or would we try and put boots on the ground?

[Nicko]

Apparently Marden didn't get the memo: Bush's dreams of conquering the middle east are over.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, what are you thinking here?

Do we level the place, or would we try and put boots on the ground?

CONVINCING Ahmadinejad that he can not count on a war triggering a world wide response from all the jihadists would be the trick.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Apparently Marden didn't get the memo: Bush's dreams of conquering the middle east are over.

And you've been reading memos from monkeys.

Bush has never had dreams of conquering the M.E. But now that you reveal that is what you believed it explains a LOT of your nonsensical posts.

You were operating on the basis of propaganda.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

CONVINCING Ahmadinejad that he can not count on a war triggering a world wide response from all the jihadists would be the trick.

Who's war?

Our preemptive war against Iran, or Ahmadinejad on somebody?

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Bush has never had dreams of conquering the M.E. But now that you reveal that is what you believed it explains a LOT of your nonsensical posts.

You were operating on the basis of propaganda.

Oh, I'm sure you've read some propaganda in your day.

But since we're on the subject of Bush's motivation for the war, I think that's where things aren't quite as you portray them.

The "jihadist" threat is nothing to be laughed at, and I unfortunately think the... ahh... intensity of your posts is yet another factor that makes people want to dismiss it.

The problem is that the jihadist threat is a post hoc rationalization for the war. It's a damn good one, mind you, but it was still generated after the fact, and this yields us the main reason people dismiss it.

There is a total disconnect between the administration's actual reasons for the war and the post hoc rationalization. This sets off people's bullshit detectors and they end up dismissing the jihadist rationale regardless of how legitimate it is.

As for the actual reasons we invaded? The administration wanted to smoke Saddam, and it was decided we should hit more than one ME country in retaliation for 9/11. Of the available choices, Iraq was the easiest, and was home to the guy we wanted to kill. It was a cowboy revenge deal, and it was executed as such.

People don't buy the jihadist argument (or the WMD argument) because you don't respond to a serious threat like a cowboy. Open yourself up to the possibility that the sophistication of this little foreign policy venture never really got above the "let's kick some ass" level.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

If we HAVE to Fight Iran ANYWAY why Give up the Iraqi Beachead we Already Have?

And if you DON'T?

You're a paid shill, aren't you?

[ebuddy]

Suggestions had been made that Bush was simply acting out a "cowboy" fantasy of avenging his father. Some have said WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq and the argument has always centered around the "illegal invasion". Some have sited points made by David Kay and others that deny WMDs, but paint a very different necessity for invading. Most did not listen.

In 2004 public testimony, David Kay argued that decisive action in Iraq was not only necessary, but came not a moment too soon. People latched on to Kay's conclusion that there were no WMDs, but somehow missed what David Kay truly knew. In this testimony, Kay rejected the claim that intelligence analysts were pressured by their political masters to conclude only on those things that conformed with the excuses needed to go to war. Kay claimed his investigators gathered first-hand from Iraqis involved in the weapons program evidence that was obscured from UN inspectors to the very last day: "We have learned things that no UN inspector could ever have learned, given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth ... I suspect regardless of how long they stayed, that attitude would have been the same." Finally, Kay argued that Iraq, in its final days had descended into little more than a "criminal terrorist conspiracy", and how this greatly increased the risk that the WMD know-how could be sold to other rogue nations, or extremists: "I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that was probably a risk that, if we did avoid, we barely avoided."

Hmm, that's one pretty good reason and sounds an awful lot like Bush's claim for going to war. But there's more;

In 2000, Saddam changed his petro-monetary unit for Iraq from the US dollar, to the Euro. I don't think you could ignore the implications this would have on the US economy. WAR FOR OIL. Umm yeah, you bet. OPEC's promises to maintain trade in the US dollar was becoming increasingly questionable. I know "patriotism" is a nasty word, but how about just plain "survival"? Yeah, I like the sound of that. It seems many want to survive. Why didn't France, Germany, Russia, and others not support our enforcement of UN policy drafted in an International body including the above participants? I think the answer is pretty clear. By the way, Iran is considering a similar shift. They'll likely oppose any action that threatens an Iranian conflict as well.

Reasons for Iraq; "Change the Face of the Middle East", per Bush;

The Iranian; "As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

The Palestinian; "For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.

The Egyptian, and the people of Saudi Arabia; "The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region. The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity."

Why Iraq? Well, several reasons. From Clinton forward, Saddam was viewed as a threat to International security. When brought before the UN in multiple instances, it was clearly agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to be addressed. The disagreement? How to address him. Finally, after multiple failed UN resolutions, one was drafted threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Threats made in vane through continued appeasement and the dragging of feet by member-nations bent on filling their own pocketbooks was not enough to coerce Saddam's compliance. How much time did we give him? Over 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions only serving to starve the Iraqi poor to death with another oppressive economic sanction.

Again, why Iraq? Global Democratic Revolution.

"This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

Where did the applause come from in this 2003 address? Members of the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy including; members of Congress, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties.

This is a bold and complex agenda. Did we debate whether or not the US should actively engage in thrusting democracy abroad? Not really. We debated WMDs. Did we debate the potential demise of the US economy? Not really. We debated the whereabouts of Osama. Did we debate the importance and progress evidenced by massive democratization occurring throughout the globe, from approx. 40 of them to over 120 today? The system of governance that freed Mandela, among others such as Walesa and Havel converting them from "prisoner of state to head of state." No, not really. You see, those agendas are too visionary, too inarguable, too bold, and too inconvenient for the layperson. It's more convenient to discuss things like ending tax cuts "for the wealthy", opposing Social Security reform, flag-burning, and gay rights, and opposing a war we once supported, an ideal we once applauded, and an agenda upon which we still agree. We just say something else, look the other way, distract ourselves with meaningless partisan banter like "he just wanted to be a cowboy" for an expedient, but temporal political gain.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

marden: honestly, do you think the US would ever take on Iran in the next couple years? Because if you do, I think you're insane.

Have you ever looked at Iran?? It's freakin' huge! And unlike Iraq, it hasn't been crippled by a decade of harsh sanctions regarding weapons and materials. Their army is probably not much in the way of a force compared to US firepower, but it's relatively well-equipped, very large, and an order of magnitude more dangerous than Iraq's circa 2003 offering

It would cost a fortune and result in a horrendous death toll to take over Iran, at a time when budget deficits are spiraling out of control and the American people are increasingly questioning the validity of US armed force in the ME (hmmm, sound like another US war that ended in disaster?!). Are you so blinded that you think this isn't something that every last step will be taken to avoid?

The only way I can see it happening is if Iran goes so completely insane that most of the world's powers agree that cooperation in an armed invasion is the only reasonable solution. However, thus far Iran's been relatively smart enough on the political scene to keep some big friends while antagonizing the others.

greg

[BRussell]

Reason MCMXCVILII to invade Iraq: To have a beachhead to invade Iran! It's all finally coming together, isn't it marden?

[Atheist]

I have no personal animosity toward any particular group of people in the Middle East. That said, I firmly believe there will NEVER be a lasting peace and the only solution is to wipe the entire area off the map. Cynical? Yes. Realistic? Maybe.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Suggestions had been made that Bush was simply acting out a "cowboy" fantasy of avenging his father. Some have said WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq and the argument has always centered around the "illegal invasion". Some have sited points made by David Kay and others that deny WMDs, but paint a very different necessity for invading. Most did not listen.
.........

We just say something else, look the other way, distract ourselves with meaningless partisan banter like "he just wanted to be a cowboy" for an expedient, but temporal political gain.

Bush drank the neo-con kool-aid and suffered the consequences.

Iraq is a failure. Revolutions cannot be promoted from outside, only inside.

Thankfully, after last week the neo-con agenda is all but dead. en ' shalla if the Dems win the presidency in 2008, that will be the final nail in the neo-con agenda's coffin.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Bush drank the neo-con kool-aid and suffered the consequences.

Iraq is a failure. Revolutions cannot be promoted from outside, only inside.

Thankfully, after last week the neo-con agenda is all but dead. en ' shalla if the Dems win the presidency in 2008, that will be the final nail in the neo-con agenda's coffin.

I can always count on you nicko.

The neo-con agenda is all, but dead? How so? I'll remember you said that when our troop levels in Iraq escalate okay?

If Dems maintain control of the House and Senate and we see a Democrat President in 2008, you will see the neo-con wet dream come to fruition faster than the blink of an eye. Why? Because the Conservative Dems you elected to office today are the neo-cons of tomorrow, but the mind-numbingly duped can't see how that could ever be possible. Don't believe me? Watch.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can always count on you nicko.

The neo-con agenda is all, but dead? How so? I'll remember you said that when our troop levels in Iraq escalate okay?

If Dems maintain control of the House and Senate and we see a Democrat President in 2008, you will see the neo-con wet dream come to fruition faster than the blink of an eye. Why? Because the Conservative Dems you elected to office today are the neo-cons of tomorrow, but the mind-numbingly duped can't see how that could ever be possible. Don't believe me? Watch.

How would a temporary escalation of troops in Iraq mean the neo-cons agenda isn't dead?

The neo-cons thought they could remake the world in their image. They thought they could conquer Iraq, Syria, Iran, N. Korea ect.. turn them into glorious democracies.

They have failed on every front. Iraq is the end of the road for the US. They don't have the stomach for another war with Iran or anyone else for that matter. Frankly, I think the election showed that the neo-con's bark is worse than their bite. The neo-cons fantasy that is pax-america has been proven to be just that, a fantasy.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Suggestions had been made that Bush was simply acting out a "cowboy" fantasy of avenging his father...

...We just say something else, look the other way, distract ourselves with meaningless partisan banter like "he just wanted to be a cowboy" for an expedient, but temporal political gain.

I'm basing my opinions on how the war was executed, not why people said they did things.

We didn't run the invasion like WMDs were an issue. No one had gone through the list of WMDs until the last moment. The job of securing WMDs wasn't given to an intelligence unit, it was given to an artillery battallion. The Rumsfeld doctrine of using the smallest force possible was in direct opposition achieving a non-military goal (finding and securing WMDs). Our decision to blow out Saddam's command and control also blew out out the possibility of us maintaining the chain of evidence had there been WMDs.

The fact that our invasion plans were completely contrary to the supposed goal of securing WMDs is what calls the other rationales given into question.

FWIW, the "cowboy" part is us entering in this war as revenge for 9/11, I didn't say anything about Bush 41. Why did Rumsfeld write that memo about judging whether we hit Saddam at the same time? Because he had a well rationed plan against global jihadism, or that jihadists had just attacked America, as well as himself personally.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who's war?

Our preemptive war against Iran, or Ahmadinejad on somebody?

My deductive reasoning goes like this.

Iran believes it wins any way you look at it.

They will continue to plow on toward obtaining nuclear weapons. If we get in their way they will attack us in some surprising manner. If we don't get in their way they will use the nuclear weapons to their advantage and we would be left to merely respond...perhaps too late.

[Ron Goodman]

Sort of makes you wish we had left them to their elected soclialist government 50 years ago instead of bringing back the Shah, which led directly to the return of Khomeni. Another fine mess left over from the Cold War for us to deal with.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Suggestions had been made that Bush was simply acting out a "cowboy" fantasy of avenging his father. Some have said WMDs were the only reason for invading Iraq and the argument has always centered around the "illegal invasion". Some have sited points made by David Kay and others that deny WMDs, but paint a very different necessity for invading. Most did not listen.

In 2004 public testimony, David Kay argued that decisive action in Iraq was not only necessary, but came not a moment too soon. People latched on to Kay's conclusion that there were no WMDs, but somehow missed what David Kay truly knew. In this testimony, Kay rejected the claim that intelligence analysts were pressured by their political masters to conclude only on those things that conformed with the excuses needed to go to war. Kay claimed his investigators gathered first-hand from Iraqis involved in the weapons program evidence that was obscured from UN inspectors to the very last day: "We have learned things that no UN inspector could ever have learned, given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth ... I suspect regardless of how long they stayed, that attitude would have been the same." Finally, Kay argued that Iraq, in its final days had descended into little more than a "criminal terrorist conspiracy", and how this greatly increased the risk that the WMD know-how could be sold to other rogue nations, or extremists: "I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that was probably a risk that, if we did avoid, we barely avoided."

Hmm, that's one pretty good reason and sounds an awful lot like Bush's claim for going to war. But there's more;

In 2000, Saddam changed his petro-monetary unit for Iraq from the US dollar, to the Euro. I don't think you could ignore the implications this would have on the US economy. WAR FOR OIL. Umm yeah, you bet. OPEC's promises to maintain trade in the US dollar was becoming increasingly questionable. I know "patriotism" is a nasty word, but how about just plain "survival"? Yeah, I like the sound of that. It seems many want to survive. Why didn't France, Germany, Russia, and others not support our enforcement of UN policy drafted in an International body including the above participants? I think the answer is pretty clear. By the way, Iran is considering a similar shift. They'll likely oppose any action that threatens an Iranian conflict as well.

Reasons for Iraq; "Change the Face of the Middle East", per Bush;

The Iranian; "As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy."

The Palestinian; "For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.

The Egyptian, and the people of Saudi Arabia; "The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region. The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity."

Why Iraq? Well, several reasons. From Clinton forward, Saddam was viewed as a threat to International security. When brought before the UN in multiple instances, it was clearly agreed that Saddam Hussein was a threat to be addressed. The disagreement? How to address him. Finally, after multiple failed UN resolutions, one was drafted threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Threats made in vane through continued appeasement and the dragging of feet by member-nations bent on filling their own pocketbooks was not enough to coerce Saddam's compliance. How much time did we give him? Over 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions only serving to starve the Iraqi poor to death with another oppressive economic sanction.

Again, why Iraq? Global Democratic Revolution.

"This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

Where did the applause come from in this 2003 address? Members of the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy including; members of Congress, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties.

This is a bold and complex agenda. Did we debate whether or not the US should actively engage in thrusting democracy abroad? Not really. We debated WMDs. Did we debate the potential demise of the US economy? Not really. We debated the whereabouts of Osama. Did we debate the importance and progress evidenced by massive democratization occurring throughout the globe, from approx. 40 of them to over 120 today? The system of governance that freed Mandela, among others such as Walesa and Havel converting them from "prisoner of state to head of state." No, not really. You see, those agendas are too visionary, too inarguable, too bold, and too inconvenient for the layperson. It's more convenient to discuss things like ending tax cuts "for the wealthy", opposing Social Security reform, flag-burning, and gay rights, and opposing a war we once supported, an ideal we once applauded, and an agenda upon which we still agree. We just say something else, look the other way, distract ourselves with meaningless partisan banter like "he just wanted to be a cowboy" for an expedient, but temporal political gain.

This is a fascinating point of view and articulated well.

But I cannot help but point out what strikes me as the central flaw in this reasoning:

The people of a democratic nation cannot be trusted to understand an agenda to promote democracy.

To say that we poor laypeople cannot be trusted with decisions of such weight implies a fundamental disdain for democracy itself...yet you support an agenda to extend it.

You quote Bush as he advocated democracy in Palestine...can I assume you are as displeased with the results of the most recent democratic election there as he is?

What we have begun in Iraq is not "global democratic revolution." Revolutions come from within. What we have begun in Iraq is a push for some type of hegemony. Bush, and apparently you, would like to say--perhaps even to believe--that it is a democratic hegemony. However, as I already pointed out, you don't--and I would argue Bush doesn't either--trust democracy.

So how can this really be about democracy?

The simple and obvious answer is that it isn't. Democracy is the clapboard facade which proponents of this agenda like to hold up, but behind it comes another social and cultural paradigm which these same men would like us to believe is inextricable from democracy:

Capitalism.

And not free market capitalism, as they claim, but a brand of capitalism that benefits from heavy regulation in favor of corporate interests. Take, for example, what has been written into the Iraqi constitution guaranteeing that the oil companies will be the ones profiting from the end of Hussein's regime, not the Iraqi people.

Democracy can be trusted, but it requires certain provisos. It must exist in an open and free society with the opportunity for self-determination. Right now, the Middle East does not have this fertile ground. In fact, the United States is quickly losing its own claim for such conditions. Still, I believe in democracy. You, though, don't appear to.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

Iran believes it wins any way you look at it.

Like it or not, that's a realistic assessment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

This is a fascinating point of view and articulated well.

But I cannot help but point out what strikes me as the central flaw in this reasoning:

The people of a democratic nation cannot be trusted to understand an agenda to promote democracy.

To say that we poor laypeople cannot be trusted with decisions of such weight implies a fundamental disdain for democracy itself...yet you support an agenda to extend it.

I absolutely support an agenda to extend it. I believe the world will come to a head of ideals. While flawed, I believe democracy holds the best opportunities for peace and prosperity. You've dramatized my statement a bit. I never said; "poor" laypeople, to suggest some type of massive ignorance. Actually, the laypeople I was referring to were political heads who only wanted to discuss what they're 'against', not what they're 'for' when at one point it was clear what they were for and it included the desire to spread democracy. This mutual cause is not convenient when one party is trying to win points over the other. I've been very critical of the Bush Administration's inability to communicate this message to the American people. I believe this is one of the reasons why the voter spoke in this recent election and again, it was not a referendum on Conservatism, it was a referendum on what it viewed a secretive and corrupted Republican party. Perhaps now that the elections are over, the adversarial nature of partisanship can be set aside and these mutual desires can be discussed more openly amongst one another and the American public. For example, had the concerns over US economy as it related to shift away from the US dollar in Iraq been openly discussed with the American people, we'd have had a little more resolve in the long-term. It wasn't. Perhaps it was an Administration out of touch with the public. Perhaps it was an Administration that did not want to stir market concerns. None the less, it was yet another compelling reason to address Saddam that the average American was unaware of.

You quote Bush as he advocated democracy in Palestine...can I assume you are as displeased with the results of the most recent democratic election there as he is?

You should assume nothing if you also are not equally as displeased as Bush on the results of that election. That said; we cannot expect all democracies to look like our own, nor can we expect they will always make decisions we can agree upon. In the case of Palestine, assuming you read it, it was stated clearly that leaders need to push for reform. Democracy requires specific institutions to give it weight and thrust. As long as these Institutions are handicapped, so too will the democracy. The people have opted to elect a labeled terrorist organization into leadership. There are many who would like to enter into contractual agreements with Palestine (after all, democracies will self-sustain through win-win agreements with others), but simply do not trust the organization. Australia being one off the top of my head. The US, likewise cannot bring itself to make any long-term agreements with Hamas because of its roots. This is no doubt, a concern and Hamas has entered into specific agreements with Russia as a result. The Palestinian people (through increased educational improvements in general, but as it relates specifically to progressive methodology and democracy as one important Institution of it) will give the opportunities of government to whomever it sees fit, but it can also use it's vote to remove those whom it does not see fit to govern. This is where democracy in Palestine will be tested. The Palestinian is oppressed and the majority view Israel as the cause of their oppression. It does not surprise me that a centrist-humanitarian would lose an election to a sworn opponent of Israel.

What we have begun in Iraq is not "global democratic revolution." Revolutions come from within.

It came from within. The corrupted regime needed to be removed for this to occur, but make no mistake; when elections were held the Iraqi spoke in such numbers as to put US elections to shame.

What we have begun in Iraq is a push for some type of hegemony. Bush, and apparently you, would like to say--perhaps even to believe--that it is a democratic hegemony. However, as I already pointed out, you don't--and I would argue Bush doesn't either--trust democracy.

I can't speak for Bush. I believe in democracy not based on your misrepresentation of what I've said, but in fact how I felt when I said it and how I feel now.

So how can this really be about democracy?

The simple and obvious answer is that it isn't. Democracy is the clapboard facade which proponents of this agenda like to hold up, but behind it comes another social and cultural paradigm which these same men would like us to believe is inextricable from democracy:

I believe it is neither all of one thing, nor all of another.

Capitalism.

Que dark and scary orchestral score...

And not free market capitalism, as they claim, but a brand of capitalism that benefits from heavy regulation in favor of corporate interests. Take, for example, what has been written into the Iraqi constitution guaranteeing that the oil companies will be the ones profiting from the end of Hussein's regime, not the Iraqi people.

There are many profiting from oil in the US, not just the oil companies. Would you expect the UK and US would reap nothing from the immense amounts of money being spent there?

Could you provide a link to the text of the Constitution that guarantees oil company profits and not the Iraqi people? I mean, this doesn't even make sense. Of course oil companies are going to make a profit, that's what businesses do. Does this mean the Iraqi cannot work for the oil company? Does this mean the Iraqi cannot manage a gas station? I guess I don't know what you're driving at. Please again, cite for me where the Constitution mandates this and also indicate where it mandates US and/or UK exclusively-owned businesses. Thanx.

While we're at it... You know doubt live in a democracy, what were your personal oil profits; fiscal year 2006?

Democracy can be trusted, but it requires certain provisos. It must exist in an open and free society with the opportunity for self-determination.

Exactly! These things cannot likely occur in less than 4 years because those provisos of which you speak fondly are wholly unsustainable if established on sand. This takes time. How much time? More than many in our McWorld are willing to give. I disagree with how the Bush Administration has executed the war, post-Saddam, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the entire action.

Right now, the Middle East does not have this fertile ground. In fact, the United States is quickly losing its own claim for such conditions. Still, I believe in democracy. You, though, don't appear to.

You've misrepresented what I said to suit a strawman. You've thrown around so much unqualified banter I don't know where to start. I understand your distaste for US foreign policy, but this does not mean complete inaction is somehow more noble and effective for the cause of freedom and democracy.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've misrepresented what I said to suit a strawman. You've thrown around so much unqualified banter I don't know where to start. I understand your distaste for US foreign policy, but this does not mean complete inaction is somehow more noble and effective for the cause of freedom and democracy.

I find it fascinating that you support the neo-con agenda with such enthusiasm, even though less than a week ago the majority of Americans rejected it completely.

It’s not a matter of having distaste for ‘American’ policy, rather it has to do with having a distaste for the perverted vision of American policy by the neocons. There is a big difference.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

How would a temporary escalation of troops in Iraq mean the neo-cons agenda isn't dead?

Because it would mean victory in Iraq and a democratized Iraq. This is not solely a "neo-con" agenda my US policy enthusiast. As for the rest of your post, there's not really anything I could say to make you hate my country any more or less.

Other than trips to the printer for a lucrative little cashier's-check fraud business, I suppose there's nothing more to do around Nairobi eh?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I find it fascinating that you support the neo-con agenda with such enthusiasm, even though less than a week ago the majority of Americans rejected it completely.

It’s not a matter of having distaste for ‘American’ policy, rather it has to do with having a distaste for the perverted vision of American policy by the neocons. There is a big difference.

You're not paying attention, the newly elected Dems of today are the neo-cons of tomorrow. You simply don't understand US politics. Based on the platforms of the candidates now enjoying the majority of seats in the House and Senate, it is clear that this election was not a referendum on Conservatism, it was a referendum on Republicanism. There's a big difference. Their goals however, don't differ much at all. It's really not worth going into with someone who's bent on political partisanship the likes of which Nancy Pelosi herself could not subscribe.

What major shift in policy do you expect to see with the results of the election? I mean, are we going back to Yugoslavia or something?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I absolutely support an agenda to extend it. I believe the world will come to a head of ideals. While flawed, I believe democracy holds the best opportunities for peace and prosperity. You've dramatized my statement a bit. I never said; "poor" laypeople, to suggest some type of massive ignorance. Actually, the laypeople I was referring to were political heads who only wanted to discuss what they're 'against', not what they're 'for' when at one point it was clear what they were for and it included the desire to spread democracy. This mutual cause is not convenient when one party is trying to win points over the other. I've been very critical of the Bush Administration's inability to communicate this message to the American people. I believe this is one of the reasons why the voter spoke in this recent election and again, it was not a referendum on Conservatism, it was a referendum on what it viewed a secretive and corrupted Republican party. Perhaps now that the elections are over, the adversarial nature of partisanship can be set aside and these mutual desires can be discussed more openly amongst one another and the American public. For example, had the concerns over US economy as it related to shift away from the US dollar in Iraq been openly discussed with the American people, we'd have had a little more resolve in the long-term. It wasn't. Perhaps it was an Administration out of touch with the public. Perhaps it was an Administration that did not want to stir market concerns. None the less, it was yet another compelling reason to address Saddam that the average American was unaware of.


You should assume nothing if you also are not equally as displeased as Bush on the results of that election. That said; we cannot expect all democracies to look like our own, nor can we expect they will always make decisions we can agree upon. In the case of Palestine, assuming you read it, it was stated clearly that leaders need to push for reform. Democracy requires specific institutions to give it weight and thrust. As long as these Institutions are handicapped, so too will the democracy. The people have opted to elect a labeled terrorist organization into leadership. There are many who would like to enter into contractual agreements with Palestine (after all, democracies will self-sustain through win-win agreements with others), but simply do not trust the organization. Australia being one off the top of my head. The US, likewise cannot bring itself to make any long-term agreements with Hamas because of its roots. This is no doubt, a concern and Hamas has entered into specific agreements with Russia as a result. The Palestinian people (through increased educational improvements in general, but as it relates specifically to progressive methodology and democracy as one important Institution of it) will give the opportunities of government to whomever it sees fit, but it can also use it's vote to remove those whom it does not see fit to govern. This is where democracy in Palestine will be tested. The Palestinian is oppressed and the majority view Israel as the cause of their oppression. It does not surprise me that a centrist-humanitarian would lose an election to a sworn opponent of Israel.


It came from within. The corrupted regime needed to be removed for this to occur, but make no mistake; when elections were held the Iraqi spoke in such numbers as to put US elections to shame.


I can't speak for Bush. I believe in democracy not based on your misrepresentation of what I've said, but in fact how I felt when I said it and how I feel now.


I believe it is neither all of one thing, nor all of another.


Que dark and scary orchestral score...


There are many profiting from oil in the US, not just the oil companies. Would you expect the UK and US would reap nothing from the immense amounts of money being spent there?

Could you provide a link to the text of the Constitution that guarantees oil company profits and not the Iraqi people? I mean, this doesn't even make sense. Of course oil companies are going to make a profit, that's what businesses do. Does this mean the Iraqi cannot work for the oil company? Does this mean the Iraqi cannot manage a gas station? I guess I don't know what you're driving at. Please again, cite for me where the Constitution mandates this and also indicate where it mandates US and/or UK exclusively-owned businesses. Thanx.

While we're at it... You know doubt live in a democracy, what were your personal oil profits; fiscal year 2006?


Exactly! These things cannot likely occur in less than 4 years because those provisos of which you speak fondly are wholly unsustainable if established on sand. This takes time. How much time? More than many in our McWorld are willing to give. I disagree with how the Bush Administration has executed the war, post-Saddam, but that doesn't mean I disagree with the entire action.


You've misrepresented what I said to suit a strawman. You've thrown around so much unqualified banter I don't know where to start. I understand your distaste for US foreign policy, but this does not mean complete inaction is somehow more noble and effective for the cause of freedom and democracy.

My personal oil profits? Huh?

As to Iraq's constitution and the oil, I must apologize for oversimplifying, but I assumed anyone who is clearly following the situation as closely as you are would be aware of what I was referring to. The Constitution protects oil fields that are currently in production for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but so much of Iraq's oil is not currently under production that the vast majority of its reserves falls under subsequent provisions granting big oil companies--which are multinational and not US and UK owned, to be sure, but they are tied inextricably to the US economy and the Bush administration--contracts known as "production sharing agreements." What's more, the PSA's in Iraq have fallen under harsh criticism for the degree to which they will funnel profits out of Iraq and into the West.

The cynical nature in which you discuss the war and America and Britain's right to profit by it is, frankly, disturbing. We invade the country, supposedly to protect ourselves from weapons of mass destruction but really to spread "democracy" which was a motive too complex to trust in the hands of the laypeople elected by other laypeople, and now after destroying its infrastructure and killing thousands of this nation's people and destabilizing the country to the point of virtual civil war you can claim that we have the right to offset the cost we incurred while demolishing this country? Again, I point to real motivations peeking through this facade of spreading democracy. Nobler crusaders for righteousness don't ask those they are liberating to pick up the check.

That is also true of your suggestion that Iraq's moves away from the dollar constitute a valid pretext for war. Yes, given your interpretation of capitalistic "competition" I should think we should keep that dark and ominous soundtrack running. You've illustrated perfectly the kind of thinking of modern capitalism. Free markets be damned--if the markets moving against you, alter the market by any means necessary. Iraq has no right to make economic moves of their own that might hurt our bottom line and hence they have to be taken out.

Obviously this is not what you meant to say, and it may seem to you as though I'm putting words in your mouth. I intend only to reframe your positions from a different light so that you too might see the flaws in your reasoning.

The problem in Iraq is not that too little time has passed, it's that the entire endeavor was flawed philosophically to begin with. Advancing democracy was secondary to the profit-motive and so it suffered on the wayside.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

The problem in Iraq is not that too little time has passed, it's that the entire endeavor was flawed philosophically to begin with. Advancing democracy was secondary to the profit-motive and so it suffered on the wayside.

IMO this was obvious right after the invasion of Bagdad. The entire city was sacked/destoryed except for ONE building that was protected...the Oil Ministry building. That says it all really.

[vmarks]

Google Maps

Doesn't look sacked/destroyed to me.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Google Maps

Doesn't look sacked/destroyed to me.

Constructive as always.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

My personal oil profits? Huh?

That's what I thought. I wouldn't expect a full back-pedal from an argument made of nothing more than emotional dramatization.

As to Iraq's constitution and the oil, I must apologize for oversimplifying, but I assumed anyone who is clearly following the situation as closely as you are would be aware of what I was referring to.

On the contrary, I assumed anyone who follows foreign policy and has an ounce of knowledge on what "interests" are and how they shape the foreign policy not only of the US, but of Syria, China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea, Europe, etc..., would understand the nature of the verbiage in question, but again you've not given me the benefit of seeing that verbiage.

The Constitution protects oil fields that are currently in production for the benefit of the Iraqi people, but so much of Iraq's oil is not currently under production that the vast majority of its reserves falls under subsequent provisions granting big oil companies--which are multinational and not US and UK owned, to be sure, but they are tied inextricably to the US economy and the Bush administration--

This is where the fun conspiracy buffs stuff really rears its head...

contracts known as "production sharing agreements." What's more, the PSA's in Iraq have fallen under harsh criticism for the degree to which they will funnel profits out of Iraq and into the West.

But this is precisely what PSAs are intended to do while a volatile economy (such as Iraq's) is in transition. PSAs are a form of cooperation between an investor and a state in the process of mineral production (usually oil) and is used in more than 40 countries, including Angola, Vietnam, Libya, Egypt, Malaysia, Peru, Syria, the Philippines, Equatorial Guinea and others. In recent years, PSAs have begin to be used in the CIS: e.g. Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. PSAs are necessary as a means of exploration, extraction, and production (not to mention, rebuilding in this case) and Iraq simply does not have the means to conduct this endeavor. So... The subject of the given contract is the agreed program of the parties for the extraction of mineral resources which must be fulfilled by the investor in favor of the state. Such program includes the type, costs and period of performance. As a result, contractual relations arise between two legally equal parties, each having rights and obligations, the violation of which shall entail their legal liability. In other words, the state has hired the investor as a contractor to perform the work envisioned by the program. As with any other commissioned work, there is compensation. This is not nefarious, it's necessary. If I sound cynical it's because I get tired of having to untangle twists at every turn.

Again, the most widely-accepted age-old practice of PSAs are necessary to legally acknowledge this process between an investor (in your words, the recipients of the funneled funds) and a State. Not unlike criticism of Haliburton, I've yet to hear from any of you on what company would be more qualified to do what Haliburton does, but it doesn't matter. Nefarious corporate conspiracies are much more fun for bolstering divisive rhetoric.

The cynical nature in which you discuss the war and America and Britain's right to profit by it is, frankly, disturbing.

Because you don't understand what I'm saying and because for whatever reason, you assume intentions are somehow evil. Of course, only contingent upon whether or not they happen to agree with your personal convictions.

We invade the country,

We give country 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions with final call threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance and we act in accordance with the details outlined in the otherwise idle threat made by an International body, yes.

supposedly to protect ourselves from weapons of mass destruction

Yes. And...

but really to spread "democracy"

No, this should read; "and to spread democracy". Yes. Again, it is entirely simpleton to adhere rigidly to these notions of A or B when in reality it's more like "all the above".

which was a motive too complex to trust in the hands of the laypeople elected by other laypeople,

Strawman. That's not what I said. I said it was much easier for the laypeople to discuss what they were "against", not what they were "for" because there was an awful lot of evidence to suggest they were all "for" the same things ultimately. This does not work well for separating yourself from your political foe and as a result we did not discuss what we were for, only what we were against. I blamed a significant portion of this on an Administration that for whatever reason, felt it could not communicate to the American people. The good news is they've paid a price for this they will likely not forget in the near future.

and now after destroying its infrastructure

Which is not the case. I know this looks good on the headlines of particular news papers, but we are in fact actively engaged in rebuilding the very infrastructure of which you speak. Again, good news doesn't sell to those interested only in bad news. You have to ask yourself what it is you're looking for personally.

and killing thousands of this nation's people

Not unlike 12 years of failed economic sanctions serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Save your brand of humanitarianism for bumperstickers. Thanx.

and destabilizing the country to the point of virtual civil war you can claim that we have the right to offset the cost we incurred while demolishing this country?

A. We've not demolished the country. Don't take my word for it, Vmarks provided some Google images if you don't believe me. Again, I know this all looks great on the cover of your favorite partisan rag of choice, but it's simply not the truth. B. There is nothing nefarious about profiting from oil.

Again, I point to real motivations peeking through this facade of spreading democracy.

You're right, for 'tis the reeeel motivations of the eeevilll neo-cons with their eyes moving to and fro for sustenance that they feed on the hapless victims of the Middle East, peering menacingly through their sheep's masks while plotting their wily, wolfen ways.

Nobler crusaders for righteousness don't ask those they are liberating to pick up the check.

... and people who don't know better will continue to insist this is what is happening.

That is also true of your suggestion that Iraq's moves away from the dollar constitute a valid pretext for war.

They do if they are given as a pretext for war while thumbing their nose at an International body having drafted numerous documents against them. Funny how you breezed past all the other points I've made. You latch on to the one thing that you believe will make me look like an eeevill capitalist because addressing David Kay's testimony was inconvenient? Maybe addressing what you'd have done on the issue of Iraq given 12 years of oppressive economic sanctions and the threat of "serious consequences"? Again, why are your ideals any more noble than mine? How would you have addressed Iraq? Can you guarantee less lives lost? More Peace? No? Well then I really have no clue what you're arguing other than "there are people in this world that I don't like and can't agree with." You could've saved yourself a lot of time by arguing with someone else.

Yes, given your interpretation of capitalistic "competition" I should think we should keep that dark and ominous soundtrack running. You've illustrated perfectly the kind of thinking of modern capitalism. Free markets be damned--if the markets moving against you, alter the market by any means necessary. Iraq has no right to make economic moves of their own that might hurt our bottom line and hence they have to be taken out.

That's just it, Iraq wasn't making moves on its own, Saddam was. Contrary to the rebuke of the International community, not just the US. Not just the UK. Arms race with Iran, weapons proliferation and blueprints and a host of rogue nations ready to buy.

Alter the market by any means necessary? Hell, every spigot in the world should say US on it then.

Obviously this is not what you meant to say, and it may seem to you as though I'm putting words in your mouth. I intend only to reframe your positions from a different light so that you too might see the flaws in your reasoning.

I'd rather you not reframe anything I say. You've proven unable to do it effectively and I'd much rather represent myself. Also, until you can establish that you have a firm enough grasp on the volatile nature of our globe and the immense complexities we faced with the growing tumors in the ME, it'd behoove you to recognize the flaws in your own reasoning before trying to "reframe" mine.

[Nicko]

ebuddy, you sound like a 19th century British imperialist, listing the virtues of bringing civilization to the barbarians.

I work in the development community and know people who work for large (American) NGOs in Iraq and its a bonanza there right now. Individual contractors are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars each and NGOs are being granted hundred million dollar contracts with little oversight. It's making a lot of people rich, but don't be under the illusion that most of the money is actually accomplishing a whole lot in terms of rebuilding a sustainable infrastructure.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

ebuddy, you sound like a 19th century British imperialist, listing the virtues of bringing civilization to the barbarians.

The "I'm more enlightened than you" response, followed by

I work in the development community and know people who work for large (American) NGOs in Iraq and its a bonanza there right now. Individual contractors are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars each and NGOs are being granted hundred million dollar contracts with little oversight. It's making a lot of people rich, but don't be under the illusion that most of the money is actually accomplishing a whole lot in terms of rebuilding a sustainable infrastructure.

the "I have more experience than you, so you really haven't a leg to stand on" response.

Not that this is putting words in your mouth, it's just a reframing, don't you see.

I intend only to reframe your positions from a different light so that you too might see the flaws in your reasoning.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

ebuddy, you sound like a 19th century British imperialist, listing the virtues of bringing civilization to the barbarians.

That's funny. I feel the same away about the xenophobic supposition that these "barbarians" (as you say) are not capable of democracy.

I work in the development community and know people who work for large (American) NGOs in Iraq and its a bonanza there right now. Individual contractors are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars each and NGOs are being granted hundred million dollar contracts with little oversight. It's making a lot of people rich, but don't be under the illusion that most of the money is actually accomplishing a whole lot in terms of rebuilding a sustainable infrastructure.

Regardless of the fact that I'd probably not believe a word you say including; "I work in the development community" (I mean afterall, who refers to contracting as "development community") I couldn't care less how you think I sound and even less how little you believe individual contractors working in Iraq deserve to make. Either qualify the statement with something more concrete or leave your "personal expertise" out of it. Frankly, I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. You're simply too bent on being a partisan hack to be trustworthy. Thanx.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's what I thought. I wouldn't expect a full back-pedal from an argument made of nothing more than emotional dramatization.


On the contrary, I assumed anyone who follows foreign policy and has an ounce of knowledge on what "interests" are and how they shape the foreign policy not only of the US, but of Syria, China, Iran, Russia, N. Korea, Europe, etc..., would understand the nature of the verbiage in question, but again you've not given me the benefit of seeing that verbiage.


This is where the fun conspiracy buffs stuff really rears its head...


But this is precisely what PSAs are intended to do while a volatile economy (such as Iraq's) is in transition. PSAs are a form of cooperation between an investor and a state in the process of mineral production (usually oil) and is used in more than 40 countries, including Angola, Vietnam, Libya, Egypt, Malaysia, Peru, Syria, the Philippines, Equatorial Guinea and others. In recent years, PSAs have begin to be used in the CIS: e.g. Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. PSAs are necessary as a means of exploration, extraction, and production (not to mention, rebuilding in this case) and Iraq simply does not have the means to conduct this endeavor. So... The subject of the given contract is the agreed program of the parties for the extraction of mineral resources which must be fulfilled by the investor in favor of the state. Such program includes the type, costs and period of performance. As a result, contractual relations arise between two legally equal parties, each having rights and obligations, the violation of which shall entail their legal liability. In other words, the state has hired the investor as a contractor to perform the work envisioned by the program. As with any other commissioned work, there is compensation. This is not nefarious, it's necessary. If I sound cynical it's because I get tired of having to untangle twists at every turn.

Again, the most widely-accepted age-old practice of PSAs are necessary to legally acknowledge this process between an investor (in your words, the recipients of the funneled funds) and a State. Not unlike criticism of Haliburton, I've yet to hear from any of you on what company would be more qualified to do what Haliburton does, but it doesn't matter. Nefarious corporate conspiracies are much more fun for bolstering divisive rhetoric.


Because you don't understand what I'm saying and because for whatever reason, you assume intentions are somehow evil. Of course, only contingent upon whether or not they happen to agree with your personal convictions.


We give country 12 years and 13 UN Resolutions with final call threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance and we act in accordance with the details outlined in the otherwise idle threat made by an International body, yes.


Yes. And...


No, this should read; "and to spread democracy". Yes. Again, it is entirely simpleton to adhere rigidly to these notions of A or B when in reality it's more like "all the above".


Strawman. That's not what I said. I said it was much easier for the laypeople to discuss what they were "against", not what they were "for" because there was an awful lot of evidence to suggest they were all "for" the same things ultimately. This does not work well for separating yourself from your political foe and as a result we did not discuss what we were for, only what we were against. I blamed a significant portion of this on an Administration that for whatever reason, felt it could not communicate to the American people. The good news is they've paid a price for this they will likely not forget in the near future.


Which is not the case. I know this looks good on the headlines of particular news papers, but we are in fact actively engaged in rebuilding the very infrastructure of which you speak. Again, good news doesn't sell to those interested only in bad news. You have to ask yourself what it is you're looking for personally.


Not unlike 12 years of failed economic sanctions serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Save your brand of humanitarianism for bumperstickers. Thanx.


A. We've not demolished the country. Don't take my word for it, Vmarks provided some Google images if you don't believe me. Again, I know this all looks great on the cover of your favorite partisan rag of choice, but it's simply not the truth. B. There is nothing nefarious about profiting from oil.


You're right, for 'tis the reeeel motivations of the eeevilll neo-cons with their eyes moving to and fro for sustenance that they feed on the hapless victims of the Middle East, peering menacingly through their sheep's masks while plotting their wily, wolfen ways.


... and people who don't know better will continue to insist this is what is happening.


They do if they are given as a pretext for war while thumbing their nose at an International body having drafted numerous documents against them. Funny how you breezed past all the other points I've made. You latch on to the one thing that you believe will make me look like an eeevill capitalist because addressing David Kay's testimony was inconvenient? Maybe addressing what you'd have done on the issue of Iraq given 12 years of oppressive economic sanctions and the threat of "serious consequences"? Again, why are your ideals any more noble than mine? How would you have addressed Iraq? Can you guarantee less lives lost? More Peace? No? Well then I really have no clue what you're arguing other than "there are people in this world that I don't like and can't agree with." You could've saved yourself a lot of time by arguing with someone else.


That's just it, Iraq wasn't making moves on its own, Saddam was. Contrary to the rebuke of the International community, not just the US. Not just the UK. Arms race with Iran, weapons proliferation and blueprints and a host of rogue nations ready to buy.

Alter the market by any means necessary? Hell, every spigot in the world should say US on it then.


I'd rather you not reframe anything I say. You've proven unable to do it effectively and I'd much rather represent myself. Also, until you can establish that you have a firm enough grasp on the volatile nature of our globe and the immense complexities we faced with the growing tumors in the ME, it'd behoove you to recognize the flaws in your own reasoning before trying to "reframe" mine.

But you're so unwilling to really look at yourself, how can I leave it in your hands?

I understand our volatile world and what "interests" are, but I also understand that what you call pursuit of our interests is really just more economic exploitation, something you're unwilling to face: the possibility that we are wrong. You just can't combine this sort of realpolitik justification of our interests with calls for a crusade for democracy. They're incompatible--at least, if one is really committed to democracy and its true meaning.

Really, the condescending attitude doesn't get us anywhere. I've been around here awhile, I suspect you know damn well that I have just as much of a grasp on things as you do, but it's more convenient for you to dismiss disagreements as the product of your opponent's inferior understanding than to actually discuss issues and work through them.

I suspect we both feel like we're listening to broken records at this point, so why bother...

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's funny. I feel the same away about the xenophobic supposition that these "barbarians" (as you say) are not capable of democracy.

Regardless of the fact that I'd probably not believe a word you say including; "I work in the development community" (I mean afterall, who refers to contracting as "development community") I couldn't care less how you think I sound and even less how little you believe individual contractors working in Iraq deserve to make. Either qualify the statement with something more concrete or leave your "personal expertise" out of it. Frankly, I don't trust you as far as I could throw you. You're simply too bent on being a partisan hack to be trustworthy. Thanx.

Riiiiight, I'm lying!

Contracting, International development, consulting, its all the same thing.

If you don't want to believe me, that’s your choice. Just don't be under the illusion that the billions being spent in Iraq by the US is actually accomplishing as much as it should. It has nothing to do with being partisan - Im not even American; it has to do with corruption on a massive scale.

Heh, I'm not even saying contractors don't deserve to be well paid to work in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter), its a freakin war zone over there! If people were not well paid, they wouldn't go over there. They don't make 'war insurance', its a big risk to work in such an environment. The problem isn't unique to Iraq, but the oil money puts it into a category by itself really.


A standard example:

Say an NGO is given $10 million for a project in Iraq:

Off the top before anything is done ~30% goes to the NGO back in DC (or where ever they are based in the US) for service fees


From what is left 30% or so goes to expat salaries and living expenses


That leaves you with ~40% of which from that you still need to pay for having an office staff, ship in equiptment, security, vehicles, other running costs ect...

That leaves you with ~25% of the original money if you're lucky.

Do the math and not a whole lot of $$$ is actually left for implementing the actual project!

For Iraq firms are being awarded $100 million plus contracts, up to a billion or even multi billion (Hallburton anyone?). With that much money flowing around there is tremendous competition and corruption tends to creep in easily. I suppse part of it is just the nature of the business. I know of several specific examples of where corruption, or alteast unfair tactics were used by an NGO to aquire large contracts in Iraq (favors from DC), but that's touchy stuff and I can't name names.


Anyway, hopefully the Dems get their way and reinstate the commission investigating war profiteering, I'm sure the scale of the problem will be exposed for all to see.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But you're so unwilling to really look at yourself, how can I leave it in your hands?

I guess at least we can agree that it seems the other is lacking introspect.

I understand our volatile world and what "interests" are, but I also understand that what you call pursuit of our interests is really just more economic exploitation, something you're unwilling to face: the possibility that we are wrong.

Of course I'm willing to face the possibility we're wrong. What I've argued is that inaction did not prove right. I've been critical of this operation, post-Saddam. I've been critical of our execution of this action and of the lacking communication, Republican scandal, and lacking transparency. What I take issue with is when it comes to something being questionable, you say GUILTY! I'm not as quick as you to assume nefarious intent. It is reasonable to me (given the volatile nature of an increasingly complex globe) that action in Iraq was necessary for several reasons. You chose only one of several issues I presented in order to "reframe" my position to show the flaws in my reasoning. You did this using flawed methodology in selecting only the points you found convenient to address, flawed interpretations of the provisions detailed in Iraq's Constitution regarding PSAs, strawmen, and employed what in my view is a flawed premise of "guilty 'til proven innocent" prevalent among those with a wholly partisan mentality. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case with you, but I am getting that vibe with all due respect.

You just can't combine this sort of realpolitik justification of our interests with calls for a crusade for democracy. They're incompatible--at least, if one is really committed to democracy and its true meaning.

Here you're guilty of doing the same thing you'd likely find distasteful in others' arguments such as; "if you oppose our action in Iraq, you're un-American!" There are many facets to the good intentions of mankind and unfortunately one of them is corruption. I've never once claimed the US is beyond reproach, but I don't see these indictments as cause for scrapping what in my view, is a worthy cause.

Take the United Way for example. There are a great many in need of the United Way's services. Let's say there are 10 people altogether standing in a line. 9 United Way employees and 1 needy recipient. You take a cup of water and pour it into the cupped hands of United Way bureaucrat #1. #1 pours the water from his hands into the cupped hands of bureaucrat #2 and likewise down the line. By the time the water is poured into the cupped hands of the 10th needy recipient, it should come as no surprise that there is significantly less water than the original full cup poured into the hands of #1. The United Way is not beyond reproach in this. Certainly their activities could be a little more transparent, probably a lot less bureaucratic, there is the possibility with the immense exchange of funds that corruption has occurred and in fact some of their practices have come under question. However, this does not mean they are guilty and as such should immediately cease all operations. At least not IMHO.

Really, the condescending attitude doesn't get us anywhere. I've been around here awhile, I suspect you know damn well that I have just as much of a grasp on things as you do, but it's more convenient for you to dismiss disagreements as the product of your opponent's inferior understanding than to actually discuss issues and work through them.

I will give you the respect you give me. When you claim you are "reframing" my position to expose what you believe are "flaws in my reasoning" you are in fact, implying that you have a superior understanding. You do see that right? I just want to be absolutely clear here. I did not assume that "high-ground". You did. So, while you go on about how the other guy's not willing to look at himself, I hope your image is becoming clearer to you.

I suspect we both feel like we're listening to broken records at this point, so why bother...

That's two agreements between us. Not so bad considering.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Riiiiight, I'm lying!

Contracting, International development, consulting, its all the same thing.

If you don't want to believe me, that’s your choice. Just don't be under the illusion that the billions being spent in Iraq by the US is actually accomplishing as much as it should.

I never once claimed that our "billions being spent in Iraq" is accomplishing all it should. I've offered (now several times) my critique of how this action is being executed. I've mentioned that the recent vote is a referendum on lacking Republican transparency, miscommunication, scandal, and overall flawed execution of the war in Iraq.

*** As an aside; If you'd like to continue arguing with yourself I certainly have no problems with that. Simply click reply on one of your posts and have at it.

It has nothing to do with being partisan - Im not even American; it has to do with corruption on a massive scale.

I do not believe corruption is "on a massive scale".

A standard example:

Say an NGO is given $10 million for a project in Iraq:

Off the top before anything is done ~30% goes to the NGO back in DC (or where ever they are based in the US) for service fees


From what is left 30% or so goes to expat salaries and living expenses


That leaves you with ~40% of which from that you still need to pay for having an office staff, ship in equiptment, security, vehicles, other running costs ect...

That leaves you with ~25% of the original money if you're lucky.

Do the math and not a whole lot of $$$ is actually left for implementing the actual project!

You didn't include "scandal" or "corruption" in your example. Sounds like the predictable bureaucracy prevalent among any business endeavor. Now, this doesn't mean their actions are not questionable and in fact, I welcome investigations. However, "questionable" does not equal "GUILTY!"

For Iraq firms are being awarded $100 million plus contracts, up to a billion or even multi billion (Hallburton anyone?). With that much money flowing around there is tremendous competition and corruption tends to creep in easily. I suppse part of it is just the nature of the business. I know of several specific examples of where corruption, or alteast unfair tactics were used by an NGO to aquire large contracts in Iraq (favors from DC), but that's touchy stuff and I can't name names.

So what you've said above is; "gosh, with all this money being exchanged you know these corporate fat-cats are GUILTY OF SOMETHING!!!" and continue to qualify your suspicions with... zilch.

I disagree. By the way; please give me a list of some companies more qualified than Haliburton. Certainly, with your connections you should be able to "develop" two.

Anyway, hopefully the Dems get their way and reinstate the commission investigating war profiteering, I'm sure the scale of the problem will be exposed for all to see.

Because I happen to appreciate the checks and balances we now have on the Hill, I certainly hope none of their own get caught on the wrong side of the interrogation table.