[OldManMac]

Orion, read my posts. It has nothing to do with making Saudi Arabia, or any other ME country, a democracy. If they don't want to be one, that's their business, not ours This "we would like" statement shows exactly what's wrong. We don't have any business telling others what kind of government they should have; the only reason we do it is for our convenience. It has to do with us (remember the mirror) not continuing to guzzle ME oil, without suffering the consequences thereto. I find it interesting that conservatives are always preaching the doctrine of personal responsibility for our own actions, yet when it comes to liquid gold, they conveniently ignore their own personal responsibilities.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Karl read my post. We will be very happy to see the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia evolve into a democracy. The whole point of the policy is to destabilize the fiefdoms.

What are we, the US, doing to de-stabilize the fiefdom in Saudi Arabia? They, and their perverse brand if Islamic extremism, are the single biggest supportes or anti-Western hostility in the world. Alost all money/funds in the Middle East going to terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters (pick your term) come from Saudi Arabia. When the US government puts the Saudi's on noitce that this behavior is no longer acceptable then we will make some progress in bringing freedom to the Middle East. But, I think as long as we are sucking on the teat of cheap-oil from Saudi Arabia, nothing fundamental will change in the Middle East.

But, as KarlG has pointed out several times now, why is it up the the US to decide when a country should embrace democracy? What hubris allows us to think we kow what is best for other countries? and that we will give them what we think is best for them even if we have to invade their country and destroy it in the process. How is that good foreign policy: The US marching around the world deciding if, when, and how other countries eill mebrace democracy? Hmmm?!?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What are we, the US, doing to de-stabilize the fiefdom in Saudi Arabia? They, and their perverse brand if Islamic extremism, are the single biggest supportes or anti-Western hostility in the world. Alost all money/funds in the Middle East going to terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters (pick your term) come from Saudi Arabia. When the US government puts the Saudi's on noitce that this behavior is no longer acceptable then we will make some progress in bringing freedom to the Middle East. But, I think as long as we are sucking on the teat of cheap-oil from Saudi Arabia, nothing fundamental will change in the Middle East.

But, as KarlG has pointed out several times now, why is it up the the US to decide when a country should embrace democracy? What hubris allows us to think we kow what is best for other countries? and that we will give them what we think is best for them even if we have to invade their country and destroy it in the process. How is that good foreign policy: The US marching around the world deciding if, when, and how other countries eill mebrace democracy? Hmmm?!?

For the most part, we do leave nations to their own devices. The democratization of Europe after WWll proved very stable. It appears to be working in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's worked well in Japan as well. There is something to be said there has never been an instance of a democracy attacking another democracy, although some will cite the fact Hitler was initially elected in Germany. It makes sense to give people a stake in the game. A vested interest and the rule of law. Sorry you don't see it that way. We at least try to work within that framework but politics is politics. If you can not see the humanity in our efforts, so be it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

For the most part, we do leave nations to their own devices. The democratization of Europe after WWll proved very stable. It appears to be working in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's worked well in Japan as well. There is something to be said there has never been an instance of a democracy attacking another democracy, although some will cite the fact Hitler was initially elected in Germany. It makes sense to give people a stake in the game. A vested interest and the rule of law. Sorry you don't see it that way. We at least try to work within that framework but politics is politics. If you can not see the humanity in our efforts, so be it.

You keep bringing up Europe and Japan, and these have nothing to do with the current situation. If people want a "stake in the game" then let them go after it. If they want the "rule of law" then let them make their own laws. If you knew anything about what is going on in Iraq, you would know that there are no courts as we have them, even today. The vast majority of issues are settled between families and tribes, without outside interference, because that's the way they've done it for centuries, and apparently they're in no hurry to change. Who are we to tell them otherwise? What framework have we worked within to try to help the Iraqi's; was it via a staged photo op of pulling Saddam's statue down? Was it by them having less electricity, poorer roads, less water, and much worse medical systems than when we went in there? The Iraqis want us out of their country. Please tell me how we've helped them, and do so in specifics, without bringing up Europe and Japan and every war we've been in, etc., and don't make general statements like, "Politics is politics," and "Fundamentally though, the argument goes deeper. It's called free will. If you believe in it, we all possess it. Fundamentally we are free agents or not. The prevailing wisdom is free will is an illusion. We never had and never will. We will all disemble into peace or eternal conflict despite the illusion of best intentions."

We botched a job we had no business taking on in the first place. I do agree with you that it was an attempt to "stabilize the region," but it was for completely different reasons than, for whatever reasons, you apparently need to believe.

[Orion27]

>>If you knew anything about what is going on in Iraq, you would know that there are no courts as we have them, even today. The vast majority of issues are settled between families and tribes, without outside interference, because that's the way they've done it for centuries,<<<

The idea was to frame a constitution, so they would have laws, ( Sadam was tried and convicted in a court )
private proprerty to spur investment, and a police and military force to uphold the law.

>>What framework have we worked within to try to help the Iraqi's;<<

We worked with the United Nations to build a consensus under international law.
Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
1) That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
2) That 1441, and its deadline, represented Iraq's final opportunity to comply with disarmament requirements. In accordance with the previous Resolutions, this meant Iraq not only had to verify the existence or destruction of its remaining unaccounted-for WMD stockpiles, but also had to ensure that all equipment, plans, and materials useful for the resumption of WMD programs was likewise turned over or verified as destroyed.
3) That "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations ............."

>>I do agree with you that it was an attempt to "stabilize the region," but it was for completely different reasons than, for whatever reasons, you apparently need to believe<<

And what reasons to you propose?

[OldManMac]

Of course Saddam was tried and convicted in a court, but it's one of the few they have. The fact of the matter is that most issues are still settled between tribes and families. I'm also well aware of what the proposed plans were, as far as making a constitution, policing, army, etc. The problem is that, except for the constitution (which is pretty much ignored), not much of the rest has wound up as envisioned. The police and army often just don't show up, or desert, or are working for an isurgent group while in Army or police uniforms. There've been numerous instances of people in police uniforms kidnapping people, in broad daylight.

You keep bringing up the United Nations. Yes, we did "work with them," to bring about some of these resolutions, but that is only because they suited our needs. I've already stated once that President Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be U. S. Ambassador to the U. N., which he had to do, as he couldn't get the appointment through Congress. Bolton has long been screaming about abolishing the U. N., and has a reputation as being nothing but a mean, tough, guy to work with. I've also clearly stated that we conveniently decided that, despite Bush's disdain for the U. N., he all of a sudden found it convenient to use the resolutions as an excuse for an invasion without U. N. support. You have to look at the whole picture, not just cherry pick the parts you want to use to augment your argument.

I've also made it perfectly clear that I believe that the reason we invaded Iraq, to "stabilize" the region, was to ensure that we had long term supply to the region's oil. I'll say it again, because you apparently need to hear it over and over; this had nothing to do with bringing "democracy" to the ME.

The U. S. is not some nice, altruistic, nation that just goes around handing flowers to everybody on the planet: we went there with anything but an altruistic attitude, and for anything but altruistic reasons.

[Sky Captain]

Well looky here, the good that is islamic law strikes again.
It must be wonderful to be a woman and islamic.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course Saddam was tried and convicted in a court, but it's one of the few they have. The fact of the matter is that most issues are still settled between tribes and families. I'm also well aware of what the proposed plans were, as far as making a constitution, policing, army, etc. The problem is that, except for the constitution (which is pretty much ignored), not much of the rest has wound up as envisioned. The police and army often just don't show up, or desert, or are working for an isurgent group while in Army or police uniforms. There've been numerous instances of people in police uniforms kidnapping people, in broad daylight.

You keep bringing up the United Nations. Yes, we did "work with them," to bring about some of these resolutions, but that is only because they suited our needs. I've already stated once that President Bush made a recess appointment of John Bolton to be U. S. Ambassador to the U. N., which he had to do, as he couldn't get the appointment through Congress. Bolton has long been screaming about abolishing the U. N., and has a reputation as being nothing but a mean, tough, guy to work with. I've also clearly stated that we conveniently decided that, despite Bush's disdain for the U. N., he all of a sudden found it convenient to use the resolutions as an excuse for an invasion without U. N. support. You have to look at the whole picture, not just cherry pick the parts you want to use to augment your argument.

I've also made it perfectly clear that I believe that the reason we invaded Iraq, to "stabilize" the region, was to ensure that we had long term supply to the region's oil. I'll say it again, because you apparently need to hear it over and over; this had nothing to do with bringing "democracy" to the ME.

The U. S. is not some nice, altruistic, nation that just goes around handing flowers to everybody on the planet: we went there with anything but an altruistic attitude, and for anything but altruistic reasons.

The idea of regime change and liberal democracy as part of our foreign policy in the Middle East has been articulated for years. This is the opening of a very nice piece in the New Republic in February of 2003. This was before we invaded Iraq in March.

BUSH, CLOSET LIBERAL.
Regime Change
by Lawrence F. Kaplan
Post date 02.19.03 | Issue date 03.03.03
Printer friendly
E-mail this article

"Ideas have consequences," the conservative intellectual Richard Weaver wrote half a century ago. The truism comes to mind as another group of conservative intellectuals, this one guiding foreign policy inside the Bush administration, prepares to launch a war in the Middle East--not for oil or geopolitical advantage but on behalf of an idea. The idea is liberalism.

According to President Bush, "Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause," and, as such, he routinely casts the impending war as an effort to bring democracy to a land that has known only dictatorship. Nor, in Bush's telling, will America's duty be discharged when Iraq subsequently has a decent government. Instead, he suggests the war will be the beginning of a campaign that will "bring the hope of democracy ... to every corner of the world." If this sounds familiar, it's because it almost exactly echoes Woodrow Wilson's pledge to "make the world safe for democracy." Which stands to reason: In word, if not yet in deed, Bush is becoming the most Wilsonian president since Wilson himself. True, Bush has fallen short of his moralistic rhetoric in postwar Afghanistan, and many in his administration are Kissingerian devotees of realpolitik. Nonetheless, the man who entered office pledging to focus on narrowly understood "vital interests," is rapidly being transformed into a democratic crusader. He, more than his left-leaning critics, is harnessing American power to liberal ends.

Link to entire article: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030303&s=kaplan030303

[OldManMac]

One article, by someone who appears to have been duped, does not make the case. I'm constantly amazed at how some people are so easy to fool. Of course, Bush has been telling people, and some people have swallowed hook, line, and sinker, that we're going in there to bring democracy to these poor, maligned folks. Do you honestly think that he's going to come right out and say, "We're going there for the oil, but we can't say that, because we'll piss off the rest of the world." Bush is a damn good liar. He ran on the promise of getting government off people's backs; it's now bigger than ever. He's the most environmentally damaging president ever; he put people in positions to write rule and regulations that worked for companies that have a vested interest in weakening environmental rules and regulations. He wants to privatize everything, so that one day you'll go to McDonald's National Park, not Yellowstone! He's been denying global warming forever; now, when he senses that it's politically expedient to acknowledge it, he's saying that it may be true! The man has no principles whatsoever!

Most of the American people, or at least the ones who know who the president is, are admitting they've been duped, because they voted for change last November. The majority of the world knows what's going on, as they see the American government as a pariah on the world stage. Unfortunately for them, however, some people will go down with a sinking ship, as they cling to their fantasies, scratching their heads, wondering why nobody loves them anymore.

[vmarks]

You're mistaken.

Bush never ran on the promise of getting the government off people's backs. He ran on 'compassionate conservatism' which is about more government. He's no conservative at all. He has principles, but they only occasionally intersect with the conservative values of 'keeping government off people's backs.'

Unfortunately, you cling to whatever makes for the worst possible light, rather than the less hysterical truth.

[OldManMac]

I distinctly remember one of his promises in the 2000 election was to shrink the government's size. I'll work on finding that.

I'm well aware that he's no conservative.

There is, unfortunately, a lot to get hysterical about, considering what he and his ilk done to this country.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I distinctly remember one of his promises in the 2000 election was to shrink the government's size. I'll work on finding that.
I'm well aware that he's no conservative.

There is, unfortunately, a lot to get hysterical about, considering what he and his ilk done to this country.

While you're digging up what Bush said, see if you can dig up some of the statements made by Kennedy, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary), Edwards, Kerry, and Pelosi on any given host of topics to determine what if anything they and their ilk would have done differently.