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

It is not simply the US having troops in Iraq. It is also the fact that the US is militarily occupying Iraq and until very recently Iraq was run by the US and is still to a large extent run by the US and that Iraq is almost completely dependent on US support and aid. This situation is very different from that of China because as has been pointed out many many times, US possesses much more coersion on Iraq than China.

Or are you denying that the US has this coersive power over Iraq to a much much greater degree than it does over China?

The level of coersive power does of course matter and distinguishes the situation completely. Is not there a huge difference between your boss saying you are slacking off vs say, a friend saying you are slacking off at work? Of course there is but according to your "logic" since your friend's statement doesn't threaten your job neither does your boss's.

 

Yes, these things are true.

You mean 'as has been asserted many many times.' You don't ever show that the premise above, namely that we were running Iraq, and that we have military in Iraq, translated into coercive power - much less that the statements passed by the Ambassador to the Jaafari regime coerced action by that regime. I deny that you've shown anything to indicate such a power has been used. The mere existence of the conditions sufficient for coercion does not equate to the conditions necessary to show coercion. If Bush said 'either Jafaari steps down or our military will remove him,' then that would be coercion and an anti-democratic action. But you can't show that. The China example shows that external criticism does not necessarily inhibit the independence of a country. The Carter example shows that an external mediation does not inhibit the independence of the mediating parties. Further, if you actually believe your point - that we have and are using this oh so powerful coercive power in Iraq - then why are we even having this disscussion? The changes the Bush administration wants would have already happened. This is either or: Either the administration has the coercive power and intent to get Jafaari to step down, or they don't have the coercive power/intent. As he hasn't stepped down we can safely conclude the latter is more likely than the former. If they haven't coerced anything, then they haven't done anything undemocratic or anti-independence.

 

It's about power.

 

You don't think the US had a hand in writing the Iraqi Constitution and their rights?
You don't think the US intentionally gave the Sunnis and Kurds the amount of leverage to stop the process of forming this government?

There were talks of Iran's influence even before the first shots were fired. Given our actions, it'd be inconsistent of our admin to not fret about the Shia bloc.

 

That's no excuse, and I bet she doesn't appreciate it you cold hearted SOB.

 

How is this relevant to the current discussion? A Constitution without the Kurds and Sunnis involved wouldn't have gotten too far, eh?

Sigh. The most likely candidate to succeed Jaafari, if he were to step down, is closer to Iran than Jaafari. So insinuating that they are trying to keep the Shia down is just silly.

 

The fact that the US hasn't use its coersive power fully is not equivalent to saying that the US statements of disapproval and rejection of Jaafari as PM isn't therefore improper coersion. michecon brought up a great example of sexual harrassment so I'm going to use it here to demonstrate my point.

Supposed a boss asks a subordinate to go out on a date with him. He doesn't threaten to fire her or anything. Still because of the power he has over her, it is deemed entirely inappropriate to make such a request. The fact that she nevertheless refused him and the fact the he did not explicitly threaten her would not negate the inappropriateness of his request and the subordinate feeling undermined at work.

It is the same thing here. Bush, "the boss", did not go so far as to say to Jaafari, "either step down or be arrested and jailed". But by saying he "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Jaafari as PM it is still inappropriate interference with Iraqi politics and undermines Iraqi independence and democracy because the US is still like the "boss" of Iraq.

China OTOH is not comparable to the boss's secretary. Rather, by analogy China would be like a female CEO of another company. So in the case, just as that female CEO would not be undermined by being asked out by this man, it doesn't therefore mean follow that his subordinate would also not be undermined.

 

So its not full coercion it half full coercion? Or semi coercion, lol? You ought to be able to explain how a mediating a deadlocked process is coercion.

OK, I couldn't help myself, lol. This analogy is terrible. The 'underling' is always going to be the underling. Not so with Iraq. In fact, they are already independent enough to tell Bush to buzz off. They already have the power that the 'underling' in your scenario would never have. Of course the woman in your scenario still has independence, the ability to decide what to do, and recourse if she's unhappy about the situation (just read some literature about what happens to a professor if they ask a student in their class out). However, in reality the situations are fairly dissimilar. Further, you still just continue to assert that their independence and democracy are undermined without explaining how that is so. Jaafari refused, so he is still independent. Iraqis are still deciding who their leadership is, so their fledgling democracy is still intact. Further, we don't even know if that's what Bush said, its second hand coming from someone trying to build support using the anti-american card.

Oh, and let me reiterate again that I'm glad we all at least agree that the thread title is incorrect. Its good to know we can still find some common ground.

 

I hope they (Bush and company) did attempt to give the Kurds and Sunnis enough clout to produce a divided government requiring cooperation to get things done, and a check on Shia fundamentalist power, with it's tilt to Iran. After all, it's what we desperately need in our own country, and will get in the Fall, which is a return to divided government, with a check on Bush run amok. What's good for the goose...

I don't think anyone has been more critical than I towards Bush's Iraq disaster, but since we are there, and have enormous influence over events in the country, political or otherwise (and we certainly do, Hayes... to suggest otherwise is just ignoring the obvious, IMO), if we don't attempt to nudge the Iraqis towards power sharing, and a weakening of Shia political power, it would be an act of incompetence.

This is nothing like the democracy we are accustomed to here, and in other democracies around the world. This is an unholy mess, which will require a miracle to produce anything close to a stable, effective government. The number of factions, with their different religions at the forefront of their competing agendas, in a country that has never known democracy, and has a long history of tribal rule, writ large by Saddam's own tribal group during his reign, and prior to it, and with tribes long oppressed getting their chance to grab power, needs a nudge, and then some, to avoid what is probably going to happen anyway... an even deeper descent into ethnic conflict, religious warfare, and the resulting civil war. That there are outside terrorist groups having a field day, who had been kept out of Iraq by Saddam, and given their opportunity by Bush's invasion and occupation, just adds fire to the chaotic gumbo overflowing that cooking pot the size of California that is Iraq, and that is smothering the country in murder and mayhem.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Reading your post, a different fowl saying came to mind, something about chickens and counting.

 

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply anymore - I guess I just like arguing in the morning.

Whatever Hayes. I can break this down for you again if you like, but I think it more efficient for you to just read through this bloody thread yourself. As you do, ask yourself why you keep trying to pigeonhole me into some glynch-mindset. I guess it's easier to argue with someone if you can paint them into a "category". It certainly fits your absolutist methodology of debate.

Your tonality implies the usual Hayesian elitism, but I'll pander to you again just for kicks.

False Dilemma .

That's just a really dumb argument. Don't bother asking me to "prove it" - you already know that the "logic" path above is fatuous.

Again - what kind of assinine argument is this? Yes you quoted them - bravo Hayes! Of course, you quoted them and then subsequently brushed them off as "self serving soundbites", thereby ignoring the implication they communicated.

Your inability to compromise on the most remedial of arguments (In this case, that Bush can influence the Iraqi election) is indicative of bias. I give up Hayes - another great discussion - but entirely to frustrating.

 

What is kinda funny is the "Guest Worker" program that the Republicans are touting was first started by the French. You know, the ones all the right-wingers hate.

What is even more funny, is that the French immigration situation is maybe worse than ours since all their muslim population is very poor and feeling ignored so they are rioting and burning cars in protest.

 

exactly. even george will mentioned that. we basically have two choices. either criminalize them or legalize them. if you criminalize them even more we will have france on our hands. if we help legalize and incorporate them into our society we wont have those issues.

 

I'm confused. I thought we agreed and I already apologized for misunderstanding/mischaracterizing your position. Not sure what the 'tude is about.

Now how its a dumb argument? The problem with your accusation of 'false dilemma' is that I don't set up such a construct. Its an if/than (conditional)statement - we are assuming they are true - not asserting they are true.

If Bush has the power and motivation to block Jaffari, then Jaafari would be blocked. That doesn't even fit the dilemma, but I think you should explain how that is false to begin with.

Its called rejoinder. You accused me of ignoring Jaafari's statements. I pointed out that I had not ignored them. Rather I had made specific comments about his statements after evaluating their worth in this argument. Claiming I've ignored the implication now is new, but just as baseless. I haven't ignored anything. I evaluated them and found them wanting in their impact on this argument. And its silly for you NOW to claim they are oh so important when you as much as conceeded they WERE self serving statements when I originally made the response. Check your indignation, buddy. Its offline.

Sorry you're frustrated. We did agree that glynch's claim was false. However, that I don't agree with you on a particular issue is not indicative of bias, and if it WERE indicative of bias it could just as easily be you who has the bias.

 

Good post, Deckard. My point is not that we have NO or little influence in Iraq. My point is that an attempt to break the deadlock is not an usurpation of Iraqi independence or democracy.

 

this has been an interesting thread to read. i'm guessing there is a little bit of truth to both sides of the argument.

 

lol Hayes - you're making it worse. Let's break this down.

"If Bush has the power and motivation to block Jaffari, then Jaafari would be blocked. "

Deductive Fallacy. Bush could of course, have both the power and the motivation and be induced to not block Jafaari by his aides, or ulterior judgement, or any other external variable. Your ability to deduce a conclusion is hampered by the same ignorance of the situation that led me to state that I cannot prove Bush is actively blocking Jafaari. Weasel all you want, but you're in the same hole I am - I just had the balls to admit it from the beginning.

To summarize: the false dilemma argument contains another logical fallacy, i.e.:

1) Bush has no mechanism. (true or false)
OR
2) IF he did, THEN Jafaari would have stepped down (true or false, AND deductive fallacy).

Subjective and completely incapable of proving your "argument" that Bush has no capability to influence the election. I could just as well say that quotes from Bush and/or his aides are wanting.

Well - not really. Glynch's claim was that Bush tried. I cannot prove or disprove that statement. I can however, agree with you that there is no verifiable evidence at this point that Bush has directly impacted the democratic process in Iraq.

 

In my humble opinion, this is a true observation ~99% of the time. I certainly have enjoyed seeing Hayes' perspective.









But he's still more wrong than me.