Letting the Germans put the Nazis right back in power wasn't 'letting them decide' either, according to your equation. In the end, I guess we'll see who's right and who's not. I'm speaking purely of MacBeth's position. He was against the intervention in Bosnia, preferring to leave the Bosnian Muslims to the rape camps and genocide. B-bob: rimbaud is a frog lover, so that automatically reduces his credibility. but i'll refrain from calling macbeth arrogant again. if someone reading his posts can't figure it out then me stating it ain't gonna help 'em.
Our stated goal in Germany wasn't to restore democracy. It was part of a war against a dictator who was actively attempting for domination of all Europe and allied with Japan. Any type of democracy that came there afterwards was part of a huge rebuilding plan. When you(not the specific you, but the genral you) go in saying that you are going to set up a democracy in a country, and that the people there should be free to choose, then they should be free to choose. If you say that you are going in to remove a dictator and set up a government that pleases us after he's gone, that's more accurate with what's going on, and it isn't the highest level of freedom, or democracy. It is very close to imperialism.
Thought i'd just add this here ~ exactly how does one get seduced by obviously shoddy Iraqi exile intelligence? Ex-general: War planners did not expect insurgency One of the nation's top generals during the invasion of Iraq said Thursday that the insurgency took U.S. military leaders by surprise because they believed the assurances of Iraqi opposition groups and defectors that American forces would be welcomed. Gen. John Keane, who served as the Army's vice chief of staff during the war and who has since retired, told the House Armed Services Committee: "We did not see it coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it. . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be." Keane's testimony echoes a recent admission by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who told the House committee last month that the Bush administration mistakenly believed the capture of top Iraqi leaders would quell insurgent violence. Keane said an insurgency in Iraq after the end of major combat was discussed during months of war planning but was not made a priority. Although Thursday's hearing was ostensibly held to examine Army plans to adopt new technology and transform its tactics, it became an examination of the trouble the military has encountered in Iraq. Testifying with Keane were two other retired Army officers, Col. Douglas Macgregor, who left the service last month, and Maj. Gen. Robert Scales. Scales advocated spending less money on new weapons and technology and more on educating soldiers in cultural, language and strategic skills. Macgregor, who used his recent post at the National Defense University to serve as an in-house Army critic, said Army leaders paid little attention to the possibility of unrest following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Keane, who served briefly as acting Army chief of staff after the invasion, agreed. Spreading his hands wide, he told the committee, "This represents the space for the intellectual capital that we expended to take the regime down." And then drawing two fingers nearly together to reveal just a small gap, Keane added, "This represents the space for the intellectual capital to deal with it after. I mean, that was the reality of it." Macgregor said that rather than a large invasion force, a small force should have raced to Baghdad, avoiding fights with the Iraqi army, whose officers, he said, could have later helped administer a U.S.-run Iraq. Scales said the Army based much of its Iraq strategy on the use of advanced weaponry and computer technology that linked battle units and did not emphasize intelligence. All three retired officers portrayed an Army overtaxed by events in Iraq, as well as a National Guard and Reserve system bearing an unfair burden to support operations there and in Afghanistan. Keane said the system of using those units as support for the active Army must end. "That whole World War II or Cold War mobilization process we've got is broke," he said. "And I know the institution knows that, and they've got to fix it." link
Having 100% choice (the 'highest level of freedom') is a non-realistic assessment of freedom. My point was that it wouldn't have made much sense to defeat the Nazis and then let the people reelect them. So we said 'no nazi candidates.' They didn't have a 100% choice but it was definitely a step up from what came before.
So in summary- We invaded a country based on faulty intelligence with respect to both the threat posed by this country to our national security and the resistance our troops would face. Where does the buck stop?
Actually, Kerry wants to get other countries to commit troops to Iraq so that we don't have to bear the burden alone and don't have to leave so many of our troops there. I'm guessing that means that we'd have to let other countries share in the spOils, but in my mind, the heavy lifting wasn't getting rid of Saddam, it's going on right now and we need some help. Kerry also wants to add 40K more troops to our military. I have absolutely no idea how he expects to do that. Maybe it's outlined on his website, but I haven't had a chance to read anything lately.
But former Baath party members aren't the only ones excluded as a party for elected office. Do you honestly think that a majority of people would vote for Baath party to rule them again? But to say you have a choice as long as we approve of who you choose, isn't giving them autonomy, freedom, or anything else.
Kerry has not said this. No Democratic Party spokesman has said this. Where do you get this? Kerry has said he supports a more international coalition (which even the Bush administration moved towards since the beginning of the year; why else do they refer to the Coalition of the Willing now? Why do they emphasize the people from other countries being taken hostage?), not pulling out. Please don't put words into any candidate's mouth. You're devaluing the process. And - it already is a civil war. Duh.
Well, who else are we talking about then? As I said earlier, if you're looking for 100% freedom then you're being unrealistic. No one has that without constraint. And you seemingly agree that there are some undesirables (Baathists) that it makes sense to remove from the process, at least for now. The first step has to be stability, and that necessitates a compromise leadership, or if that is not a possibility, a picked leadership in the interim. If we had simply removed Saddam and withdrawn, that would be the 100% freedom you are talking about, and I don't think that would be AS desirable as the current course. You're weighing this as an all or nothing issue (freedom) and that is not the way it works. Besides, we're not 'giving them freedom,' we've removed an impediment to freedom. While the Iraqis may not be getting their full spectrum of choice now, that is the road they are on. And that ain't bad.
Well the U.S. had said no to religious parties, for one. I think if the people want religious parties to have a shot at election, then it shouldn't be up to us to say no. I wasn't suggesting that we removed Saddam and withdraw, just that we provide security for as long as an elected Iraqi govt. asks us to. I do hope that you are right and that they are on the road to a true independent freedom.
I acknowledge that doesn't intuitively SEEM right. But it doesn't make too much sense to remove a totalitarian regime and let another totalitarian regime take its place. There are plenty of Iraqis who don't want that, both the minority and the Kurds. As a first step in transition the government can't be totalitarian because that just isn't going to work, its going to cause either a split up of the country or a civil war. If once we withdraw they want to do that then that's ok by me I guess, although i'd feel like the really wasted an opportunity.
Allawi shot prisoners in cold blood: witnesses By Paul McGeough in Baghdad July 17, 2004 Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security centre, in the city's south-western suburbs. They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death". The Prime Minister's office has denied the entirety of the witness accounts in a written statement to the Herald, saying Dr Allawi had never visited the centre and he did not carry a gun. But the informants told the Herald that Dr Allawi shot each young man in the head as about a dozen Iraqi policemen and four Americans from the Prime Minister's personal security team watched in stunned silence. Iraq's Interior Minister, Falah al-Naqib, is said to have looked on and congratulated him when the job was done. Mr al-Naqib's office has issued a verbal denial. The names of three of the alleged victims have been obtained by the Herald. One of the witnesses claimed that before killing the prisoners Dr Allawi had told those around him that he wanted to send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents. "The prisoners were against the wall and we were standing in the courtyard when the Interior Minister said that he would like to kill them all on the spot. Allawi said that they deserved worse than death - but then he pulled the pistol from his belt and started shooting them." <snip> LINK I gues the more things change, the more they stay the same..
I'd hope they wouldn't vote in a totalitarian govt. But it still isn't our final decision. I think we can advise, show them why that wouldn't be wise, etc. I don't think that a totalitarian religious regime would in election or many or enough seats in a parliment to take control. Of course if we had done some things differently they would be more likely to take our advice, but that's those are the cards that our leaders have plaed in our hands. I think there are plenty of shiite that are more moderate and don't desire that. Perhaps the democracy will also be structured with a parliment situation comprised of many different parties. But if the people choose a fundamentalist muslim religious party, it is still their choise. I don't believe it's the wisest one, but it's not mine to make. They must make their choices. It's what autonomy means.
But to just abandon the minority to the majority isn't a good thing, which is why you need a transition government and someone to set the groundrules. Just as we'd say the next government can't just start killing people en masse again. If all the intervention accomplishes is to switch the power to commit genocide from the Sunni to the shiite then that's worthless. Hence a transitional government and elections at a later time. I'm not affirming an indefinite presence in Iraq. On the contrary a transition government is necessary to stabilize the...transition. Then elections once an equitable framework is in place. This is, afterall, a UN authorized framework, right? But then again, isn't it the point that soveriegnty is not the highest value? We think genocide outweighs it, right? Certainly everyone's goal is to have Iraqis in power. But that doesn't mean it should be anything goes. Then you're back to square one. Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, and on and on. If we're not ready to say 'you can't do THIS,' then why not?
I had yet to click on this thread but was bored this morning and decided to give it a read. Why are you freaks talking about me behind my back? I am betrayed. bob-o - that "rimabud is arrogant" claim is so 2000. Go find some originality. I thought TJ was the only one still clinging to that (although he uses "elitist"). MacB - I never cite my academic credentials in here during an argument or discussion. My field is fairly useless for this stuff. I bring it up when people ask or there is a thread about education or something. I will be happy if, in my life, more than ten people read and are interested in my work. Not just happy...shocked. Hayes - I finally learned the history of "frogs" as an insult. It was pretty obvious, but i simply never put it together. I might be moving to London, by the way. Closer to Paris, you know.
I'm not in favor of genocide or abandoning the minority. I don't mind a transitional government either. I do think a representative body like a parliment would give representation to the minority and should be part of the new government. But it shouldn't be limited to parties that a foreign power says are ok to run for election.
