US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

yes, implicitly

 

OK, I think we're finding some middle ground here. I never said the administration was doing this out of altruism. It certainly is in our interest to get a new government in place to (hopefully) start to deal with the issues of the day in Iraq.

Bad publicity is your own rhetoric. It is much more likely and based in the literature that its in our interests to have the new government up and running to deal with the issues facing Iraqis. Read every source in this thread, plus any other on the issue, and not one will say WE are blocking or trying to block the new government. Even Jaafari is not accusing the US of causing the stalemate, which is what you are doing, lol. He only says he wants us to stay out of it. OTOH every source recognizes that it is the minority parties that are refusing to accept Jaafari as the new PM, as is their right. Their mechanism to achieve this is exactly what they are doing, refusing to form a majority with the Shias.

No, I point to the workings of a coalition style (Parlimentarian) government, in which a party that does not have a clear majority must form a coalition government. That is a fact. In Iraq the Shias do not have a clear majority, but are the leading party - putting them in the position to decide who the PM is, which is also a fact. The minority parties are refusing to join their coalition. That is a fact. They do not want Jaafari as PM and so the new government has not been formed - that is as close to a fact as you can get since it is what is being reported from every source about Iraq. There is no source that disagrees with this. I didn't say there was no US involvement, I said that the 'revelation' on which this thread is based is NOT an example of the US trying to block the new government, rather it is an example of the US trying to get the Iraqis over their self initiated impasse.

Irrelevant to the current situation in which available specific reports point to another conclusion.

Generally when you accuse someone of underhanded behavior you should have pretty damning evidence of such. At least in my opinion. I guess you feel differently and it is your right to do so, but I find that spurious reasoning to say the least.

Different argument. At least you now seem to acknowledge that Bush is not 'trying to block the new government.' This argument is that we should be hands off instead of trying to mediate the gridlock. I disagree. It is in our and the Iraqis interest to get a new government in place.

No it doesn't. The Iraqis are still the decisionmakers on who rules. Hence their democracy is still tied only to the decisions they make. For this claim to be true you'd have to show that WE are making the decisions. Clearly we aren't or (a) there would already be a new government in place - we agree Bush wants this asap, right?; (b) a leadership of our chosing - clearly the Shia's and certainly not the #2 behind Jaafari are not the leadership of our chosing, right?

No, I am defending good reasoning and argumentation. I am anti-lynch mob reasoning. It isn't too sound.

 

I'm getting such a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I would say, "Hang in there, Hayes!" but I know you will, regardless. I agree that democracy is "Holy," in an agnostic, Liberal Democrat sort of way. I must say that I'm currently more concerned with Democracy at home, than I am about the attempt to shoe-horn a democracy, "in the heart of the Middle East," whether it is wanted or not. Honestly, I hope the attempt, now that Bush has gotten our country into this unholy mess, is successful. I am very pessimistic, however. A President busy stepping on the foundations of Democracy at home seems an unlikely man to build one in a country like Iraq, through it's invasion and occupation.

Oh, I forgot... he doesn't intend to be successful. He intends to leave the mess for someone else to clean up. Well, it'll get cleaned up, one way or another.

I would add that my signature fits Bush's Administration, so between the two of us, Hayes, I guess we have everything covered!

Keep D&D CIvil.

 

Let's just be clear that none of those words are my own, rather they've been attributed to me.

Certainly a valid concern.

lol.

 

Which is it Hayes - am I saying Bush has blocked it?

Or that we caused a stalemate?

Or neither - which you would have realized if you wern't so busy defending the D&D against the evils of inference.

There's the root cause of the argument - not your stream of unfounded assertions that I'm either ignorant of coalition government or a biased Bush hater proclaiming him an Iraqi meddler. *sigh*

I think you're wrong. It is not in our best interest to give any indication of impropriety with regard to the Iraqi democratization process. The level of that impropriety is ambigious, but (to borrow from the Hayesian book o' D&D tactics) you can't have it both ways: You want the Iraqis to be independent - then stay out of their government activities.


And I'm with Deckard - I'm way to pessimistic/cynical to trust Bush with this type of operation. That may be our greatest divide Hayes - maybe you're just intrinsically optimistic. But I'll wear you down - soon you'll think all humanity incapable of doing the right thing.

 

"There is a moral reason for every US FP."

-- The D&D Hayesian Book of Moral, Chapter 1

 

Actually I think you've done both. Or its possible that since the first assertion is simply a non-starter, I inferred you were moving on to the second, lol.

Well, I disagree as you initially backed glynch's claims that we were trying to block the new government. If you aren't ignorant of coalition government then I'd have expected you to realize the flaw in that point right away, but since we've isolated an actual tangible disagreement, let's concentrate on that (acknowledging, of course, that glynch's original assertion was unfounded).

Our Congress puts pressure on China everytime MFN status comes up. I don't think that means they aren't independent. We have forever been trying to mediate the Israeli/Palestinian situation, yet Israel is still independent. According to your POV, Carter was a grand meddler when he mediated the Peace Process. Your causal chain is flawed. Participation does not equal subjegation. As for what is in our best interest - what needs to be weighed is the continued gridlock vs an appearance of impropriety. I don't think we can determine that until we see the outcome.

I don't really see a need to 'trust' Bush on this. His motives seem fairly easy to judge: its in his interest that things work out in Iraq, its more likely the situation will stabilize if there is a new government in place, there is currently gridlock on that process. The other options are (a) that he is trying to stir up anti-americanism and fostera full blown civil war [no offense but I don't have to 'trust' him or believe in him to think this is probably NOT the option he is going for], or (b) he is really trying to altruistically gently nudge Iraqi democracy on its way [I don't have too much faith in this option either].

 

WTF? - show me where this happened. My 2nd post:

Don't expect me to respond anymore if you intend to continue to make up ****. Parse my words - I know you're good at it. I'll wait for the apology...

You can't possibly tell me you think the Iraq situation is on par with our relations to China - get real. Stop turning everything into some bizarre absolute to further your perspective.

Subjective deduction and another terrible analogy.

Color me sceptical. If you honestly don't think the Bush admin has the capability to influence the election - I don't have any more to say. You choose to ignore the opinions of the other side, i.e.:

If you don't buy into that concern - well - again, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

These comparisons are completely invalid. China, Israel/Palestine are not situations analogous to the situation right now in Iraq. These places do not have hundred of thousands of foreign occupying troops stationed in those countries and completely dependent on US support. It is a much more coercive situation in Iraq than elsewhere. To compare the situation of occupied Iraq to these other situations is absurd.

The opinion of Bush and the US govt matter a lot more in Iraq than in other places (not that they don't matter in other places). To deny this basic reality is simply astonishing.

 

Calm down. This whole 'parse words' thing is a lame defense against being asked to be specific. Initially you accused me of not 'being able to put two and two together,' or 'ignoring evidence to the contrary' - in response to my objection to glynch directly. That is why I said you were initially backing glynch's claim. Later you did say it might be premature to judge, so if you say those initial statements were not an endorsement of glynch's position, I believe you and apologize for misrepresenting your position (or more appropriately misunderstanding your position).

I don't have any problem with my perspective, and have been correct since my initial objection to glynch's proclamation. No, Iraq and China are not the same situation, but it goes to show that expressing a perspective on the internal workings of another nation does not remove that nations independence.

Your opinion. Since its your assertion why don't you delineate for us the threshold at which an expression from one country about another countries internal matter removes their independence. After all, I can only guess at this broad generalization.

Look, i'm not ignoring the opinions of the 'other side,' but one must decide and evaluate when forming one's own opinion. Can you deny that Jaafari has a motive for these public statements? Do you think it helps solidify his Shia base to position himself opposite the intruding Americans? Don't we see this same type of rhetoric from the PRC and North Korea when they want to build internal support? I think so. I am not out of hand rejecting Jaafari's statements, I am pointing to how the step by step process actually works; how the Iraqis are those holding up the new government; and how the administration is trying to break the deadlock - not install their own candidate. Those variables together make a much more sound evaluation of the situation than a self serving soundbite from Jaafari, the very candidate that is under fire. Further, examine exactly what Jaafari is saying: 'there is concern among the Iraqi people..' Who is that refering to? We know the Kurds and the Sunnis and almost half the Shia's don't want Jaafari, lol. So Jaafari's supporters are concerned? That's funny.

Thank you. Yes, I am entitled to my own opinion. If you buy Jaafari's statement - which is very similar to glynch's statement that you are most definitely not buying, then you are - I guess - entitled to do so as well.

Well, we know Bush's opinion is not enough to actually affect the elections. If that were true then the Shia's would probably not be in control right now, right? So please quantify what you mean when you say his opinion 'matters.' Jaafari hasn't capitulated has he? And if he did his party would still nominate the next PM, and the REST of the Iraqis would get what they want, which is Jaafari out - so how is that undemocratic, lol. You can have it both ways - either it is wrong to comment at all because comments removes a country's independence (which would be the case with China if this were true), or there is a particular threshold an outside nation should not cross because of the risk of removing the independence of a nation (as you would assert in Iraq). So what is the threshold?

 

Ridiculous. See r35352's post.

I knew you'd ream me for posting that. Funny how you aren't quite as eager to crucify Bush for the same "self-serving soundbites".

By the same logic /conjecture you employ above, I go the other direction. Edit: Actually, both Bush and Jafaari are deceitful, sly assholes. But stay positive Hayes - after all, America is bound to solve everything.

 

Where he says its absurd, lol? He doesn't provide any demarcation at which such a statement removes the independence of a country. Nor do you. See my last post re: threshold.

I'd ream you for posting it because you know its self serving, and you admit as much by analogizing Bush. I don't know which self-serving soundbites of Bush's that I've endorsed - feel free to point them out. In fact I do believe I said Bush was doing this because its in our interest to get the new government up and running, not because he has a purely altruistic need to further democracy in Iraq.

I don't know how, lol. You already conceeded that the original assertion, that we're trying to block the new government is at best unprovable. I'm pretty sure you recognize that its .org fantasy land which is why you moved to the second argument that interference of whatever kind is bad. So I can't help but feel that you're a moving target in some ways. Can you tell me again exactly what you ARE saying other than the opposite of me, but not the opposite of me when we're talking about glynch's assertion? Color me confused, lol.

 

The influence that the US has on Iraq is orders of magnitude greater on Iraq than China for plainly obvious reasons that I hope I don't need to spell out. Again your comparison with China is plainly ridiculous because the situation of Iraq and China vis-a-vis the US is nothing alike. Why do you insist on using a comparison that is totally invalid? The only time the US has been in this situation vis-a-vis another country was when Japan was occupied after WWII. There are few other comparable situations to Iraq.

The main point though is that the US claims to be trying to nurture democracy in Iraq yet is interfering and meddling when the outcome isn't what the US wants. This is the crux of the criticism.

 

I am surprised Hayes has not pulled "moral" card. It's OK, Hayes, just do it.

 

Why is it necessary to make a demarcation when a demarcation is plainly obvious to almost everyone but you?

Iraq is plainly in a much more coercive situation than China. To compare the two is like saying a friend asking you for money and a thug on the street asking you for money is comparable and since the former doesn't threaten you neither should the latter. Now this comparison is ridiculous but so is your ludicrous comparisoin between Iraq cna China.

Furthermore, Iraq is also supposedly a country the US is trying to nurture democracy. Therefore do you not see that interfering with said democracy will be seen as hypocritical and problematic?

 

What is the threshold at which outside commentary removes the independence of a country? You can keep saying 'it ridiculous,' 'its absurd' but that doesn't mean anything. You're ridiculous and absurd. Woo hoo. In principle the actions are the same. In scope the situations are different, yes - but where is the threshold at which outside commentary removes the independence of a country. You obviously don't think that our commentary on China does so. Why does our commentary in Iraq remove their independence? Because we have troops there is not enough. If that is your threshold then you don't believe they had independence before this incident.

What do you think 'nurture' means? They are at an impasse. Nurturing democracy is exactly what they are doing by trying to mediate the impasse. On one hand you claim we should be 'nurturing democracy' and on the other you claim that any interference removes their independence and is anti-democratic. Those are two contradictory positions. Pick ONE please. This whole 'what the US wants' stuff is just a strawman because they aren't trying to appoint their choice of leadership - they are trying to get the Iraqis past their impasse. That the most likely next nominee from the Shia's is even MORE cozy with the Iranians just shows the .org-ness of your analysis.

I knew mentioning China would bring you out of the woodwork, lol.

How is trying to relieve an impasse hypocritical, lol. That's just plain ol' silly. What position have we taken that we shouldn't mediate a gridlocked process? Please do tell.

 

The debate has long been over. The dragging continues.

I don't you why you dudes are talking about independence? Last I check, Iraq is still under occupation.

Out of curiosity, Hayes, do you know anything about sexual harrassment law?

 

A little bit, why - you been slapping your secretary on the ass again?

 

Hayes: Your preferance for absolute definition and "statement purity" has gone too far here. If you can't acknowledge the obvious differances between occupied Iraq and independent "superpower" China it makes little sense to argue with you anymore.

I have not been a moving target. However, you have on occasion coerced my statements via the mechanism of bizarre absolutes/analogies to suit your arguments.

But I'll break it down for you, simply and succintly - and then let this thread die.

1) You say Bush has not "blocked anything". I agree. You like to pretend I don't.

2) You say Bush has no means to do so - I disagree. Your counterpoint is that since Jafaari has not stepped down, this is proof of lack of US ability to intervene. Logical Fallacy.

3) You say it only makes sense for Bush to encourage the Iraqi government to forge ahead - I disagree. It makes for a lack of propriety, particularly with the emphasis currently placed on an independent Iraqi democracy by the very same administration. Furthermore, you conveniantly ignore the statements by Jafaari and the ambassador that relate concern of US meddling. Those are meer "self serving soundbites".

 

Well, its up to you to make clear what distinguishes making statements about the internal affairs of one vs the other. As I have pointed out, saying we have troops there is not enough. There is no indication that our statements make China any less independent. Similarly, there is no indication that our statements make Iraq any less independent.

I coerced statements from you? Wow, I am MORE POWERFUL than I thought, muhaaaahahahahahahaha. Luke, I am your father......muhahhahahahahaha

Sweet. You'd have saved a lot of trouble by admitting this to begin with, but as I apologized for any misunderstanding already I don't know why you say 'You like to pretend I don't.' Edit: and as you pointed out so succinctly earlier, it is 'trying to block' anything.

No, my counterpoint is that he is not involved in the process, so he doesn't have a mechanism to block a new government. In addition I comment that if he had such a power the composition of the government would be different than it is. Why is that a logical fallacy (and to clarify I'd appreciate it if you tell us what type of logical fallacy you're accusing me of)? For glynch's argument to work Bush has to have both the means and the willingness to affect a different outcome. If he HAD the means, and you assume he has the willingness to do so, then he would have done so, lol. And you accuse me of not being able to put two and two togther.

Encouraging compromise in a deadlocked democratic process does not in any way endanger independence or democracy. This is the same argument from above. How exactly does this endanger democracy or independence?

I certainly don't ignore anything. Good Lord, first I parse and nitpick everything and now you accuse me of ignoring things. I'm just a crazy whirlingdervish. You quote me directly referring to Jafaari's statements as 'self serving soundbites,' so I have no idea how you THEN accuse me of ignoring them, lol. This time color YOU confused.