Victory At Last

[Shady]

You can claim victory at any time. GW Bush declared victory as soon as Saddam was gone, i.e. Mission Accomplished.

Or you could wait until Iraq becomes like Canada.

Ignoring the title of this thread, the OP contains this:

I think it's apt. I also continue to oppose war, on principle. It's usually a response to a problem that was ignored for too long. But I can see that good things can come from bad things too.

Wel said. One can absolutely oppose the decision to invade Iraq, but at the same time, still notice progress.

[eyeball]

This by far is the biggest indicator pointing to the emergence of a democratic Iraq.

The fiercely nationalistic Iraqi public still chafes at U.S. interference and resents any Iraqi politicians who seem to be too much in Washington's pockets.

I'll reserve judgement on victory at last until I see how the west reacts if Iraqi's elect an Islamist government.

But the greater risk may be having the Americans see themselves as indispensable.

[bush_cheney2004]

No it's not primarily about establishing democracy per se, but more specifically about establishing cooperation with the US regime. I'm sure you know that, but let me clarify-

Nope..."democracy" is just a bonus. Not essential at all.

In the Kirkpatrick Doctrine established under President Ronald Reagen, it was argued that stable dictatorships are useful especially when they oppose communism and are inclined towards western cooperation. It did not matter that the people in those countries enjoyed western style liberties.

The policy and strategy are much older than Kirkpatrick's tenure under President Reagan. She was a fine keeper of a long tradition.

[Dithers]

Yes...that's how the United Stated was founded. Bye bye Crown!

Better bone up on the foundations of your own nation, friend.

The United States was founded upon principles of non-intervention. Its democratic values were to be a beacon of light for others to aspire to, but never forcefully exported to others.

[bush_cheney2004]

Better bone up on the foundations of your own nation, friend.

The United States was founded upon principles of non-intervention. Its democratic values were to be a beacon of light for others to aspire to, but never forcefully exported to others.

Sure....except for the Natives, slaves, and Canadians. The "foundation" was present and future property owners (the only ones who actually got to vote on such "democratic values"...LOL!).

Edited April 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Dithers]

Sure....except for the Natives, slaves, and Canadians. The "foundation" was present and future property owners (the only ones who actually got to vote on such "democratic values"...LOL!).

What on earth are you on about? Make sense, please.

Your founding fathers preached non-intervention.

What is this vote on democratic values you are LOLing about?

Gibberish form a bushite, color me surprised.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Dithers

[Shady]

Bush is probably this eras Truman.

I made this statement on March 29th, 2010. Well two weeks later, look what we have here!

Will Bush Be the Next Truman?

They both gave hell and got hell.

As presidents, George W. Bush and Harry S. Truman had a lot in common.

Both were skeptical of elites and the media, driven by their faith, had troubled presidencies, made momentous and difficult decisions, took the nation into war, were unpopular in their time and weren’t concerned about it. They deeply believed if they did the right thing, history would sort things out in the end.

This week marks the 65th anniversary of Truman’s inaugural, it’s an appropriate time to remark on his historical evolution and reflect on the similarities between the two presidencies.

Link

[waldo]

I made this statement on March 29th, 2010. Well two weeks later, look what we have here!

whaaa! But what about the real U.S. President... whose working to repair his legacy? Speaking of psychic projection:

[Moonlight Graham]

Let's come back to this thread in 20 years, then we'll have an idea what kind of success it was. By that time we'll actually see some self-determination on the Iraqis' part, with the US (mostly) gone. Should be interesting to see if they embrace democracy. my hopes arent high

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's come back to this thread in 20 years, then we'll have an idea what kind of success it was. By that time we'll actually see some self-determination on the Iraqis' part, with the US (mostly) gone. Should be interesting to see if they embrace democracy. my hopes arent high

The Iraqis will be fine...hell, the Americans fought a much bloodier civil war long after establishing a "democracy".

[Moonlight Graham]

The Iraqis will be fine...hell, the Americans fought a much bloodier civil war long after establishing a "democracy".

Comparing the evolution of democracy in the U.S. and Iraq is about as apples and oranges as you can get. Your comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan to post-WWII Japan and Germany is a somewhat better analogy, but even then there are massive cultural and historical differences, even between Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think its naive to predict any outcome of democracy in either country. I say i'm not very optimistic, most especially in Afghanistan, but one obviously cant know for sure. Judging any kind of progress in the country while the powers that destroyed the former and build the current governments and hold them up on stilts are still hanging around is even more naive. As i said, let's come back in 20 years and then we'll see.

[bloodyminded]

Comparing the evolution of democracy in the U.S. and Iraq is about as apples and oranges as you can get. Your comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan to post-WWII Japan and Germany is a somewhat better analogy, but even then there are massive cultural and historical differences, even between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, he just repeated verbatim what some reactionary, Limbaughesque knuckledragger spat out, mistaking it for a sober argument.

[sharkman]

The Iraqis will be fine...hell, the Americans fought a much bloodier civil war long after establishing a "democracy".

Yep, and Iraq will forever be grateful to America for sticking it out in spite of wing nuts like Cindy Sheehan and certain members of congress/senate who tried their best to prevent the troop surge.

[bloodyminded]

Yep, and Iraq will forever be grateful to America for sticking it out in spite of wing nuts like Cindy Sheehan and certain members of congress/senate who tried their best to prevent the troop surge.

When is this magical gratitude set to begin? I assume it will occur during prime news-viewing hours (you know, like Reagan's media-coordinated attack on Libya), so that CNN and FOX will be able to perform their proper duties as stenographers for Power.

Hell, there's so much gratitude that they had to fake the celebratory aspects of the toppling of Saddam's statue; though news organizations helpfully neglected to mention that it was a propaganda exercise.

[sharkman]

Don't look to the MSM to go looking for Iraqi gratitude, they believe it doesn't exist, so why go look for something that doesn't exist?

But ever so often a symbol of gratitude pops up, my personal favorite was the revelation that some Iraqi parents are naming their kids Bush.

[bloodyminded]

Don't look to the MSM to go looking for Iraqi gratitude, they believe it doesn't exist, so why go look for something that doesn't exist?

But ever so often a symbol of gratitude pops up, my personal favorite was the revelation that some Iraqi parents are naming their kids Bush.

Anecdotes like this are irrelevant. Trivial little items turned into political fictions.

[sharkman]

yeah, I know, the gratitude doesn't exist.

Like I said, the Iraqis will be always grateful for liberation. And since they are the only democracy in the region, they will prosper in ways their neighbors can't.

[M.Dancer]

Don't look to the MSM to go looking for Iraqi gratitude, they believe it doesn't exist, so why go look for something that doesn't exist?

Actually, if you know what to look for, evidence of gratitude...or at least the end result, is there.

The voter turnout in Iraq's general elections was 62%, officials said, despite attacks that killed 38 people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8556065.stm

[punked]

yeah, I know, the gratitude doesn't exist.

Like I said, the Iraqis will be always grateful for liberation. And since they are the only democracy in the region, they will prosper in ways their neighbors can't.

What happened to Israel being the only democracy in the middle east? Now it is Iraq?

[sharkman]

I didn't say middle east, I said region. But I'm glad you brought up Israel, a democracy that has risen head and shoulders above her neighbors in spite of their many attempts to stifle that tiny state.

[punked]

I didn't say middle east, I said region. But I'm glad you brought up Israel, a democracy that has risen head and shoulders above her neighbors in spite of their many attempts to stifle that tiny state.

Considering Jerusalem is 875 km southwest of Baghdad, I would say they are in the same region.

[sharkman]

Okay, I may have been inaccurate on that point, anything else?

[punked]

Okay, I may have been inaccurate on that point, anything else?

No I just didn't want Israel down played I get your point though. Also Palestine holds elections as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Comparing the evolution of democracy in the U.S. and Iraq is about as apples and oranges as you can get. Your comparison of Iraq and Afghanistan to post-WWII Japan and Germany is a somewhat better analogy, but even then there are massive cultural and historical differences, even between Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "differences" are secondary....economics transcends culture and history.

I think its naive to predict any outcome of democracy in either country. I say i'm not very optimistic, most especially in Afghanistan, but one obviously cant know for sure. Judging any kind of progress in the country while the powers that destroyed the former and build the current governments and hold them up on stilts are still hanging around is even more naive. As i said, let's come back in 20 years and then we'll see.

We have already seen it...what is important is the very dynamic of change itself, regardless of the cause. Not many gave rag-tag colonists much of a chance either.

[Bonam]

The "differences" are secondary....economics transcends culture and history.

An interesting claim. I'm not sure that it is necessarily the case. Different cultures seem to have developed economic systems that differ from each other. And of course economic systems have varied greatly throughout history.