See, there lies the fundamental difference in the world view between yours and mine. A true self-determination should bear little or no burden of any foreign hegemony. The size this US embassy in Iraq -- which will be several orders of magnitude of any other embassy -- is an unmistakable sign of Iraqis living under U.S. domination. It's anything but self-determination.
How is striving to build a democracy in a 19th century society going to "destroy the idea of Democracy." The birth of democracy here in America was itself bloody. Why should it be any different elsewhere? Were it so that would be great... but I don't think it could be and it is obviously not so in Iraq. Scale, my man, scale. Culprits have been and are being dealt with. Scale. How many Jews were executed in the Holocaust? How many insurgents were executed at Abu Grahb or any other place you can name? Too sarcastic to touch. Why was failure in Iraq predictable? That's a telling remark. Because a few people thought so? That doesn't sound the final bell. It's not as bad as MSM depicts. Yeah it's tough and there is unexpected trouble but that is the nature of war. Anyone who has been in one can tell you that.
It's funny and sad how this grand palace or prison called the US embassy is being built on time and all the contracters are being paid in advance or on time as well, while the rest of the country lacks basic services which it did have under Saddam until the US destroyed the country's entire civilian infrastructure. Three years and hundreds of billions of dollars later and the people still don't have basic services. I can't even begin to imagine the hardships the average Iraqi has to endure on a daily basis.
"an unmistakable sign of Iraqis living under U.S. domination" - no. It's just a practicle measure to house a large diplomatic mission. It doesn't have anything to do with self determination - it doesn't affect Iraqi participation or control in any way.
The U.S. authorized building this embassy of freakingly enormous size -- which only serves U.S. self-interest -- without giving Iraqi people a chance to voice their approval/disapproval to vote in referendum, or even in a form of public poll. How can that possibly be self-determination?
How many are this big, to the effect of being an imposing virtual colony that's meant to intimidate the people with whom the U.S. is supposed to have diplomatic relation on equal footing?
Now you are asserting to know the intention of building the embassy - something you cannot possibly back up.
Because the impetus has to come form the people themselves. We didn't have a Revolution in 1750 or 1710 or 1680. If France had come in around 1750 and said "Here, let us fight the English together and win your freedom," we would have sided with the King and fought France. In so doing, we would have been even more wedded to the crown then we were and thus the Revolution would have been much more difficult, if not delayed. Similarly, we can't go in to Iraq and say "Here is Democracy," because our presence and the way it was done allow the anti-Democratic forces to control things. If we had just had patience, used diplomacy and other tools to encourage the ideas of Democracy and free enterprise and freedom of speech, etc., I firmly believe Iraq would have come around... maybe after Saddam's death, maybe after his son's, but eventually... when the Iraq people were willing. Now, it's chaos and will take years to get back to where it was before the invasion. I think we've set the cause of Democracy in Iraq back greatly. Scale indeed. I'm not talking about any one place, but rather the policies of this administration and the theories underlying those things such as extraordinary rendition, holding people without due process, and torture. Better a smart ass than a dumb ass. Iraq was predictable. Just as it's predictable that the Texans will not win the Superbowl this year, no matter what Kubiak says and no matter how many fans want to bet their house and hope against all reason that they will. Doesn't matter how fancy their web page is or how many stories the Chron does on the excellent players and systems in place, they will not win the Superbowl this year. Realistically, the Texans need to take a long-term view, which is what we should have had in Iraq... but apparently other considerations, such as the 2002 mid-terms were more important to the decision-makers. Again, the argument is no longer "will it be a success or failure." It's now "How do we keep this failure from getting worse."
Why is the will of the Iraqi people dependent upon Saddam's or Qusay's or Uday's being alive? It's abundantly not. The anti-Democratic forces don't control things in Iraq. Yes, the can bring mayhem and a certain level of fear, but they are but a large but loose band of thugs who kill innocents Iraqi women and children on their way to take down one American soldier. So this Administration is fascist and no better than the Nazis? Are we there again? War criminals are held without due process; they are prisoners of war. Torture still? Scale. You seem just determined to feel bad about this war effort. Good comeback! How many wars has the US lost? I see no reason to be so pessimistic about eventual outcomes. BTW, the Texans haven't even had a winning season. That's a fine analogy. Are you sure you're not a dumbass? J/K You are welcome to your opinion.
I agree, as a nuanced reading of my post would substantiate. My point is that we are... aren't we? Thanks. Even though the fixation on won/loss misses my point, I will stipulate that except for Vietnam, we're undefeated, though that one in 1812 was a little questionable and without the French that whole Revolution thing could have dragged on a bit more. But in spite of Neocons attempt to portray this as an offshoot of our Revolution, it's Vietnam that seems the most relevent here, no? In fact, I'm not sure I'm not a dumb ass... I probably am on a bunch of issues... just not this one.
There are a couple of different subjects going on in this thread (happens all the time, lol!), and I find this one very interesting. I agree with you, wnes. Who gave the US the right to build this embassy on such a huge scale, in the very heart of Baghdad, on the very best piece of land available, at the enormous size we're seeing... 104 acres and, good god, $592 million and counting? It reminds me of the foreign compounds the West used to have in different parts of China. Hayes, why are you so quick to dismiss this incredible building complex, this "embassy," which will have 21 buildings on that 104 acres? I don't completely agree with wnes saying it's, "anything but self-determination," but it is certainly intimidating, highly symbolic of US power and presence in the country, and again, who gave us permission to build it? Strictly from a financial point of view, it's an insane amount of money to spend on an embassy, and the costs will surely be higher than the crazy figure we're currently presented with. Watch that knee, Hayes... I think it may have developed a jerk or two! Keep D&D Civil.
You wrote: "...maybe after Saddam's death, maybe after his son's, but eventually... when the Iraq people were willing." Isn't this plainly stating that the Iraqi people wouldn't have the will for democratic determinism until Saddam or his sons had died? Sorry but that makes no sense to me. Explain the nuance please. Also, if U or Q had had a son would the Iraqi will have remained pent-up? It was YOUR Texan/Super Bowl analogy! Won/Loss records have to factor into that... or you don't even get to play in the SB. How did I miss your point? I'm only interested in the era of the US being a super-power in talking about military capability because that's all that matters since we are in that era still.
It plainly states nothing of the sort... Some things are predictable. In that case, we're 3 and 1, though some would argue about Korea... maybe we're 2-1-1. And certainly since Vietnam it has been shown that being a super-power doesn't necessarily win wars... see also the Soviets in Afghanistan. And with this, I must bid adieu, as there will be light posting from me until late July as my busy season started late this week... http://gacc.nifc.gov/swcc/predictive/intelligence/daily/swcc_news_notes.htm
The "maybes" reference the various (Saddam and sons) deaths which could unleash the political will of the Iraqi people. Since it is the only variable you pointed up, it has to be primary, right? Skate away.. If you want to make the argument more complex (and realistic) fine... but that's not what you wrote. You over-simplified it. How could you make an accurate predication about such a huge event when GWB had only been in office a short while... and had good "reviews" on his responsiveness to the aftermath of 9/11 (forget about those 7 seconds)? Is it due to some prejudice? We lost Viet Nam politically and that may be what happens in Iraq. I take it the one loss you are certifying is Iraq? Be careful out there. We need you back to cancel out my vote....
Why is it a knee jerk reaction? wnes self determination argument makes absolutely no sense. As to why the embassy is big, the article explains: Beyond security, it's no secret why a luxurious embassy might be needed in Baghdad. The State Department is finding it more difficult to persuade people to staff the embassy here, the foreign relations committee report said. The post needs people with language skills and experience that are already hard to find. Americans can't bring their families here, and the kidnappings and violence relegate Americans to the embassy complex. The current embassy staff, about 1,000 Americans, lives in makeshift trailers in the Green Zone and works out of temporary quarters at the Republican Palace, which Saddam Hussein built to honor himself. It's also where the Americans have added a Starbucks-like cafe. When the new complex is completed, the Americans will live in 700-square-foot apartments that will take up six of the new buildings. The Republican Palace will be turned over to the Iraqis, and the Americans will move into a palace of their own making. I'm not sure what part of that explanation is suspect, Deckard. Some of us may be knee jerking but I don't think its me. As for the second point 'who gave the US permission to build the embassy.' My guess is the Iraqi government. If you don't think so then I think its your burden to show some substantiation to that claim.
