Power turned over to Iraq!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. The proud Iraqi's can now sort out the baddies. (I mean this)
Smart move. Our Moore film crews......I mean "press" were just last night saying the hand-off will be delayed until at least next Saturday. They were wrong....and have been wrong....
Smart move. Our Moore film crews......I mean "press" were just last night saying the hand-off will be delayed until at least next Saturday. They were wrong....and have been wrong....
Count on the America haters as portraying any effective action against the terrorists on the part of the new government as another repressive regime supported by America.
It is sickening how many people are willing to trash any chance Iraq has at freedom, to get rid of Bush.
It is sickening how many people are willing to trash any chance Iraq has at freedom, to get rid of Bush.
I agree with Pablo. The press has been harping about how bad things are, when in reality they have been probably going better than expected. What is with this negative news reporting in this country? What blames can be put on Bush for this early power transfer? I bet CNN is scrounging to find something to report. What will Dan Rathernot and Tom Brokenjaw say?
Also related, Moore's 911 movie is #1 this week. Any wagers on if it will be #1 next week? I am guessing it will drop out of the top ten by next week.
Anyway, it just proves the news as reported is usually not as bad as it is reported.
Also related, Moore's 911 movie is #1 this week. Any wagers on if it will be #1 next week? I am guessing it will drop out of the top ten by next week.
Anyway, it just proves the news as reported is usually not as bad as it is reported.
I just heard on the local news, a particular known Dem, is now concerned that we have turned power over too soon!
Last week this same well known Dem was saying it was taking too long for us to turn over power!
Must be something in the water at Washington D.C., as this seems to happen on both sides of the isle.
Last week this same well known Dem was saying it was taking too long for us to turn over power!
Must be something in the water at Washington D.C., as this seems to happen on both sides of the isle.
Don't start claiming success yet, this thing has a long long way to go in lives and our money. We all know that this is not a hand over of "Power", and that it is not full or legitimate sovereignty yet. Here's a good piece from the CATO Institute web site which has more good discussions about Iraq.
Cato Policy Analysis No. 505 January 5, 2004
Can Iraq Be Democratic?
by Patrick Basham
Patrick Basham is a senior fellow with the Center for Representative Government of the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
"Is Iraq capable of moving smoothly from dictatorship to democracy? This paper contends that the White House will be gravely disappointed with the result of its effort to establish a stable liberal democracy in Iraq, or any other nation home to a large population of Muslims or Arabs, at least in the short to medium term.
Why are Islamic (and especially Arab) countries' democratic prospects so poor? After all, in most Muslim countries a high level of popular support exists for the concept of democracy. In practice, popular support for democracy is a necessary, but is not a sufficient, condition for democratic institutions to emerge. Other factors are necessary. Hypothetical support for representative government, absent tangible support for liberal political norms and values and without the foundation of a pluralistic civil society, provides neither sufficient stimulus nor staying power for democracy to take root. That reality was borne out over the past generation in numerous countries where authoritarian regimes were displaced by newly democratic regimes but democratization failed because of shallow foundations.
The building blocks of a modern democratic political culture are not institutional in nature. The building blocks are not elections, parties, and legislatures. Rather, the building blocks of democracy are supportive cultural values?the long-term survival of democratic institutions requires a particular political culture.
Four cultural factors play an essential, collective role in stimulating and reinforcing a stable democratic political system. The first is political trust. The second factor is social tolerance. The third is a widespread recognition of the importance of basic political liberties. The fourth is popular support for gender equality.
Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a repressive one. It is one thing to adopt formal democracy but quite another to attain stable democracy. A successful democracy cannot be legislated. The White House is placing a very large political wager that the formation of democratic institutions in Iraq can stimulate a democratic political culture.
On the contrary, political culture shapes democracy far more than democracy shapes political culture. Therefore, the American government may need to compromise its democratic ideals with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Democracy is an evolutionary development rather than an overnight phenomenon." end quote
Take a close look at paragraph 4 and look at our own democracy. Does our present political climate meet all 4 cultural factors?
Cato Policy Analysis No. 505 January 5, 2004
Can Iraq Be Democratic?
by Patrick Basham
Patrick Basham is a senior fellow with the Center for Representative Government of the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
"Is Iraq capable of moving smoothly from dictatorship to democracy? This paper contends that the White House will be gravely disappointed with the result of its effort to establish a stable liberal democracy in Iraq, or any other nation home to a large population of Muslims or Arabs, at least in the short to medium term.
Why are Islamic (and especially Arab) countries' democratic prospects so poor? After all, in most Muslim countries a high level of popular support exists for the concept of democracy. In practice, popular support for democracy is a necessary, but is not a sufficient, condition for democratic institutions to emerge. Other factors are necessary. Hypothetical support for representative government, absent tangible support for liberal political norms and values and without the foundation of a pluralistic civil society, provides neither sufficient stimulus nor staying power for democracy to take root. That reality was borne out over the past generation in numerous countries where authoritarian regimes were displaced by newly democratic regimes but democratization failed because of shallow foundations.
The building blocks of a modern democratic political culture are not institutional in nature. The building blocks are not elections, parties, and legislatures. Rather, the building blocks of democracy are supportive cultural values?the long-term survival of democratic institutions requires a particular political culture.
Four cultural factors play an essential, collective role in stimulating and reinforcing a stable democratic political system. The first is political trust. The second factor is social tolerance. The third is a widespread recognition of the importance of basic political liberties. The fourth is popular support for gender equality.
Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a repressive one. It is one thing to adopt formal democracy but quite another to attain stable democracy. A successful democracy cannot be legislated. The White House is placing a very large political wager that the formation of democratic institutions in Iraq can stimulate a democratic political culture.
On the contrary, political culture shapes democracy far more than democracy shapes political culture. Therefore, the American government may need to compromise its democratic ideals with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Democracy is an evolutionary development rather than an overnight phenomenon." end quote
Take a close look at paragraph 4 and look at our own democracy. Does our present political climate meet all 4 cultural factors?
I wouldn't take the Cato Institute's word that the sun came up today without looking out the window.
Well, we Brits still don't think you have a democracy. The people don't come into it. Need to be a millionaire son of millionaire to get elected. Two parties, an electoral college, no Electoral Commission empowered to seek and destroy corruption, and unfettered electoral shennanigins equals an oligopoly. Only half kidding!
Well Labman you can't say the CATO Institute is a bunch of liberal liars. I think the entire discussion bears reading as I only posted the executive summary.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa505.pdf
Now think if Bush had come truthfully to the American public and said I want to spend billions of your tax dollars and kill 100's of our military to put democracy into Iraq and the middle east, would you all have stood up and said go get'm Mr. President? Do you think that the sovereignty ceremony done in secret and Bremmer sneaking out after is really what Bush had in mind a year ago?
Bush can't claim any benefit for America yet.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa505.pdf
Now think if Bush had come truthfully to the American public and said I want to spend billions of your tax dollars and kill 100's of our military to put democracy into Iraq and the middle east, would you all have stood up and said go get'm Mr. President? Do you think that the sovereignty ceremony done in secret and Bremmer sneaking out after is really what Bush had in mind a year ago?
Bush can't claim any benefit for America yet.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Or ..if you look at anywhere BUT our recent history, ....widespread acceptance of social intolerance.
Ditto. Women's sufferage wasn't a cornerstone of our democracy ..and "equal rights" wasn't passively adopted until the last 25 years.
Ahh yes, the "Middle east will never have a democratic style government, because of thier cultural differences" ploy.
I bet the Brits said the same thing about our colonial (sp?) ancestors.
It's not a victory, so to say, but it is a very big step forward.
Who ever said that that they should set up a gov't identical to ours?
[ June 28, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: 02supercrew ]
I bet the Brits said the same thing about our colonial (sp?) ancestors.
It's not a victory, so to say, but it is a very big step forward.
Who ever said that that they should set up a gov't identical to ours?
[ June 28, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: 02supercrew ]
I'm pretty sure Bush did fudge the facts a bit. I'm not saying he lied, but he emphasized on other stuff such as WMDs and terrorism, with the ultimate goal of Democratizing the middle east.
With that said, I believe the means justified the end! I believe you have to constantly think of the future and not just the present. Had we let the situation degrade (unification of bad elements) in the middle east, God only know where we would be in 10-20 years from now. A bright outlook, we would be in a situation similar to Israel with daily suicide attacks....worst case, we would be a full blown Islamic state!
I believe the Democrats have made "some" valid points and every life is precious......but since I'm always thinking of the future (except when I'm eating
), Bush has made much bigger and better points!
My 2 cents.
With that said, I believe the means justified the end! I believe you have to constantly think of the future and not just the present. Had we let the situation degrade (unification of bad elements) in the middle east, God only know where we would be in 10-20 years from now. A bright outlook, we would be in a situation similar to Israel with daily suicide attacks....worst case, we would be a full blown Islamic state!
I believe the Democrats have made "some" valid points and every life is precious......but since I'm always thinking of the future (except when I'm eating
My 2 cents.
Guess you told us.
We never intended to have a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic.
Yep, bottom line is the majority in government are "lawyers", and $$$$ rule.
I'd venture to guess that it's no different in any English speaking country. Only the accents are different.
What an astonishing bunch of revisionist history here. If you recall, we didn't invade Iraq under the pretext of "restoring democracy." It was to punish Saddam for WMD's and his link to al-Qaeda. Those two assumptions didn't pan out.
At best, the Administration hastily came to faulty conclusions in the absence of real data. At worst, they lied to us. Either way, it's nothing to be proud of.
Hey, I'm happy that Jane and Joe Iraqi will be better off under democracy than under Saddam. When things aren't exploding, they're better off. But America is not more safe from terror. We've squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, long-standing global alliances, and 857 precious American lives in this war.
BTW, did you see any of our National Guard enjoy the luxury of leaving Iraq with Mr. Bremer?
MR
At best, the Administration hastily came to faulty conclusions in the absence of real data. At worst, they lied to us. Either way, it's nothing to be proud of.
Hey, I'm happy that Jane and Joe Iraqi will be better off under democracy than under Saddam. When things aren't exploding, they're better off. But America is not more safe from terror. We've squandered hundreds of millions of dollars, long-standing global alliances, and 857 precious American lives in this war.
BTW, did you see any of our National Guard enjoy the luxury of leaving Iraq with Mr. Bremer?
MR
LastZ, good points, when intelligent leaders see a way to take the proper course over the objections and nearsightedness of the population that can be a good thing. Lend/Lease for Britian prior to WW2 is an example that I know of. However I don't think Bush is intelligent enough as witnessed by his "Mission Accomplished" photo op. If you think he "fudged" to get his goal, then that's lieing. We now find ourselves in a situation that our troops and our money will be in Iraq a lot longer than we were led to believe. I think a far better course would have been to take the intellectual case to the American people and have them at least see his direction from the start. This country MAY have been more united then on this issue. The other argument is that war was not the only way to achieve democracy in the MidEast, and war was not the best way to protect us from terrorism, after all our security is the final goal. Where is that security? As for us ever being an Islamic state, well OBL and his kind would have to overthrough the country, hardly possible. However, what if Muslims evenually through immigration and procreation achieve a majority voting strength and want the Koran displayed in all government buildings. Where would our Christian followers be on separation of church and state be then?
There was REAL historical data. That put together with Saddam's refusal to account for his "past" WMD programs would make anybody very nervous. Yes, we haven't found the WMDs, BUT what if there really were big stockpiles and either Saddam uses them or worst yet, hands them over to Al-Zarqawi or UBL? All they need is 1 strike to kill a bunch of us.
Whose alliance? France's, Germany's, and Russia's? I hardly think so! If something, they have done nothing to help us out....not now, not ever! Saddam had French and German war equipment, not to mention France is up to its neck in the sea of ****e that the UN-Oil-for-crook-food-Saddam was! Russia is determined to build a nuclear plant in Iran. That's really gonna help us!
Well, you are looking at a glass half empty, while I'm looking at a glass half full! I don't believe he lied. He based his choices in "historical and factual" data. He may not have mentioned everything, but technically, that isn't lying!
Well, we haven't been attacked, have we? It isn't easy to keep the entire country attack free. All they need is to get it right one time. We need to get it right everytime! We are in much better shape than ever. If we get hit tomorrow, it would be because they outsmarted us.....not because we were sitting out our arses like prior to 9/11.
You are one smart dude....I have to admitt you got us, conservatives!!
However, our problem is not that we want to implement religion in all aspects of goverment.......our problem is organizations like the ACLU that are trying to earase our history and traditios and replace them with "New and Improved" ones, such as Socialism, "gay acceptance", marijuana use (for medicinal purposes, of course
Sorry, but I will do everything in my power not to have my baby girl grow in a society like that!
Sorry for this long post-but I couldn't resist it
Sorry for those who have seen it.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, '98
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, '99
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 (Now who is lying???)
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I know Democrats have short memories
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, '98
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, '99
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 (Now who is lying???)
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
I know Democrats have short memories
Hey Al, knock off the revisionist history.
I'll say it again. SOME Liberals WANT Iraq to be a failure. I need to get the quotes from today.....but I'll paraphrase:....we handed power over too soon!
I'll say it again. SOME Liberals WANT Iraq to be a failure. I need to get the quotes from today.....but I'll paraphrase:....we handed power over too soon!
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Don't think that the money and lives have been ill spent. Don't think that GW isn't aware that we're now aware that "he pulled one off". You assume that this is not an alternative agenda ...within an alternative agenda.
This had nothing to do with WMD or the war on terrorism per se~. It had more to do with letting the most troublesome region in the world know all too well that they have nothing that can withstand the all out (and for that matter ..limited) might of our military. That at will any organized opposition to us can be leveled in a pathetically easy manner.
No monarch is safe ..no dictator is safe ..no sancuary for terrorist organizations is safe ..none of them ..and doubt you not ..many an sphinctor puckered when Iraq fell in such easy a manner.
The unfortunate co-influence to this whole thing is that are enemies also are quite aware that our leadership has a 4 year deadline for success and that the American public tends to cower under any real discomfort. For them ..it's merely another bad scene looking for a place to happen ..essentially business as usual. We are easily effected by violent death ..stuff like that has been happening in the middle east for a long time. The baathist in Syria slaughtered about 40,000 (fellow "Muslims") in one seige upon the city of Hama just to gain control. This is the life that many generations have been used to in that region.
The only errors, IMHO, commited by Bush & Co. was how to manage the post war occupation. This didn't go as well as they thought. They wish that they hadn't disbanded the military and are now playing catch up.
This was a product demonstration.
- Status
