Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

I can't wait to see the comebacks... after the hangovers!

 

So why is this a good reason for the US to invade Iraq? Call me callous, but I don't give a **** if the Iraqi people have democracy or not, and I don't see why it's the US government's job to bring them democracy, especially at a cost of $300+ billion (BUT REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY) to American taxpayers.

 

I think Blair summed it up best in his speech to the US Congress.

"If we are wrong we are still right."

That's basically the attitude. No matter what happens in their minds they're always going to be right. They've blinded themselves to anything that runs counter.

Can you imagine the argument if elections didn't go off but WMD's were found?

"Stupid Liberals. We weren't going there for democracy. Only Liberal weirdos think you can impose democracy. Its about the WMDS"

 

None of that is about using military force to bring democracy to Iraq. Those were about regime change. There are other courses to attempt regime change than military invasion. The policy toward Cuba, for instance has been one of regime change. We haven't in recent times carried out a military invasion of Cuba.

One of the rationales you posted even talks about an Iraq where the U.S. enters into a dialogue. That seems to indicate one where we aren't occupying it, and dealing with it as a sovereign nation.

Then one of the rationales you posted talks about the UN NSC resolutions which deal once again with WMD's.

In nothing that you've posted does it say military intervention and occupation is warranted to bring democracy to Iraq.

You can accuse me of splitting hairs, but I'm just holding the administration to a consistent standard. They did after all say that Saddam's WMD's warranted military invasion. Why would they shy away from saying that about democracy as directly as they did about WMD's? Why did they have to speak in a code, that allowed only Bush supporters to understand that saying something about a leader being a bad guy, and freedom being good means that is enough reason to start a war?

 

Great post, FB.
Basso, you hear what you want to hear. You'll come back with saying we hear what we want to hear, but it wouldn't be true. We've heard very little from George W. Bush, since he's been in office, that was something we wanted to hear.

Ya hear??



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

democracy my a$$.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20021002-2.html

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime.... "

http://www.library.cornell.edu/coll...east/libera.htm

"... My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. "


HOW DO YOU CHANGE REGIMES? DOESN'T THE U.N. HAVE FORCES?

 

Again none of that says the U.S. will be using military force to bring about democracy. Regime change has been the policy in Cuba for 40 plus years. We've tried embargos, a special immigration policy and other diplomatic means to bring about regime change their. Regime change doesn't automatically mean military invasion.

The public law you mentioned talks about regime change. It doesn't talk about military invasion.

The second link you mentioned is specifically related to the UN resolutions which deal with WMD's not bringing democracy to Iraq. Bush was saying that he didn't believe the resolutions(again regarding WMD's) would be carried out under Saddam's regime in Iraq.

I'll ask again why would Bush mention using troops to invade regarding WMD's but only mention bringing democracy to Iraq requiring a military invasion by the U.S. in code, or language so subtle that only Bush supporters knew its meaning?

Why was Bush so plain spoken about one cause for the war, but not about the other supposed cause?

 

Because if Bush would have sold it straight-out as a Liberation of the Iraqi People, the American people never would have supported it. He had to use WMD, and the innuendo that these WMD were an inevitable threat to the people of the United States, in order to get popular support for the invasion and subsequent occupation.

 

I'll answer that!

It's because he knew that the American people wouldn't back a war for "democracy."

[Edit] What Tex said!

 

That's entirely possible. But that leads us to the other conclusion that Bush supporters hate talking about. He lied in order to start a war.

 

Oh, so your argument is that we should ignore everything Bush said beforehand, and use the military code name for the war as the real reason for going.

So during the Gulf War I, when it was operation Dessert Storm they went to war of meteorlogical concerns right? I can't believe we fought a war over the weather.

 

Come now. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" sounds pretty, and we don't name "operations" based on any standard other than that.

 

If IRC this was not the original name. I believe it was first called "Operation Enduring Freedom" and was later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom." There was even talk from the pentagon to call it "Operation Blue Spoon" and "Operation Just Cause."

 

You know, originally, it was called Operation Iraqi Liberation:
O peration
I raqi
L iberation

People think it was a Leno joke, but:

[From March 24, 2003]MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. Let me give you a report on the President's day. The President this morning has spoken with three foreign leaders. He began with Prime Minister Blair, where the two discussed the ongoing aspects of Operation Iraqi liberation.

[From April 1, 2003]MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the point the President is making is he is visiting many of the places that are involved in Operation Iraqi Liberation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030324-4.html

Also, the Afghan war is known as Operation Enduring Freedom, but originally was called Infinite Justice. Would it then be a stretch to believe that the name of this war is obviously chosen to give you warm tingly and fuzzy feelings?

Anyways, you can talk about Iraqi freedom all you want, but you can't change history, the emphasis on this war was always WMDs. I even remember you stating that you supported this war because you didn't want a WMD version of 9/11 happening.

 

Remember, back in the day, when the names were cool?

I mean, what sounds better, Operation Overlord or Operation European Freedom? It's a no brainer.

 

I just wish we could get democracy out of the United States and we could get back to a Constitutional Republic like they set it up in the beginning.

Republic v. Democracy

by David Barton

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:



[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.2 James Madison

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.3 John Adams

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.4 The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.5 Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt.6 Gouverneur Morris, Signer and Penman of the Constitution

[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.7 John Quincy Adams

A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils.8 Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.9 Noah Webster

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.10 John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.11 Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=4