Thousands protest Iraq war in London

[maplesyrup]

Thousands protest Iraq war in London

How mujch longer do we have to endure this illegal war started by a fraudulantly sick biased us supreme court appointed president and his sychophant buddies in England and Australia?

La Presse was involved in an international polling process concerning the upcoming us presidentail election and there were only two countries, russia and israel, the other world war mongers outside of the US that supported bush being relected. The entire rest of the world wants him out. What does that tell you?

[kimmy]

"End the illegal occupation!"

...and let the bloodbath begin.

-kimmy

[Slavik44]

Thousands protest Iraq war in London

How mujch longer do we have to endure this illegal war started by a fraudulantly sick biased us supreme court appointed president and his sychophant buddies in England and Australia?

La Presse was involved in an international polling process concerning the upcoming us presidentail election and there were only two countries, russia and israel, the other world war mongers outside of the US that supported bush being relected. The entire rest of the world wants him out. What does that tell you?

well, I didn't support the original war in Iraq, and I am not a big bush fan, not a big kerry fan either though. However Pulling out of Iraq will cause many innocent Iraqi's to die, and that is something I can't support. There needs to be an international U.N lead effort to establish democracy in Iraq. That is what people should be protesting for, that is what people should be trying to accomplish. Now that America is in, we cannot just take America out and say abra kadabra look it is a peacefull stabilized Iraq with a democratic government.

[Black Dog]

"End the illegal occupation!"

...and let the bloodbath begin.

In case y'all haven't noticed, the bloodbath has been going on for over a year now and is showing no sign of letting up.

However Pulling out of Iraq will cause many innocent Iraqi's to die, and that is something I can't support. There needs to be an international U.N lead effort to establish democracy in Iraq

Bush has pretty much rejected any UN involvement, much as he rebuffed a plan last month for a Muslim peacekeeping force that would have helped the United Nations organize elections in Iraq.

As a result, the UN continues to have a skeletal presence in Iraq, with only four staff members working full time on preparing for elections set for the end of January. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has refused to establish a new UN headquarters in Baghdad unless countries commit troops for a special force to protect it

...

the Bush administration objected because the special force would have been controlled by the UN instead of by U.S. military officers who run the Multi-National Force in Iraq. Muslim and Arab countries refused to work under U.S. command, and the initiative died in early September.

[Hugo]

There needs to be an international U.N lead effort to establish democracy in Iraq.

I don't believe any such effort will be successful in our lifetimes no matter what non-Iraqi entity spearheads it. See my musings here.

Arab culture is inherently unsuited to democracy. They have not shared in the renaissance and the rise of individualism that has made democracy reasonable in the West. This talk of making Iraq democratic is far-fetched and in complete denial of the truth. This is a culture very different from our own, with very different values, and it is very foolish to try to apply concepts to it as though it were just another Western liberal, individualistic, material and secular culture.

[kimmy]

"End the illegal occupation!"

...and let the bloodbath begin.

In case y'all haven't noticed, the bloodbath has been going on for over a year now and is showing no sign of letting up.

Do you think the humanitarian cost of the current fighting in Iraq would compare to the humanitarian cost of an all-out civil war?

-kimmy

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Do you think the humanitarian cost of the current fighting in Iraq would compare to the humanitarian cost of an all-out civil war?

Where would the USA be if they weren't 'allowed' their Civil War? Should England, France and Spain have invaded the USA and imposed a gov't by force (which would not be the 'will of the people') in order to avert 'too much' bloodshed?

The 'humanitarian cost' would be 4x=y, most likely. I think Hugo sums it up well with

This is a culture very different from our own, with very different values, and it is very foolish to try to apply concepts to it as though it were just another Western liberal, individualistic, material and secular culture.

They must make their own way, and true freedom is never granted, but won if the will is there.

[Guest eureka]

I agree completely, Hugo. I think that I might have said something similar elsewhere.

The democracy we know is alien to the religion and culture of that part of the world. Turkey is struggling in spite of a lengthy period of secularism brought about by its own people.

[August1991]

They must make their own way, and true freedom is never granted, but won if the will is there.

I would agree with you Thelonious. Consider Canada with all its regional arguments, it would be a worse mess if a foreign power were to be directly involved. At the level of a country, there is something debilitating about having an outsider resolve your own problems.

As to democracy in the Arab world, most of Hugo's comments could be made about India - and yet, India has been a functioning democracy for over 50 years. And it's been more or less a pluralist state to boot.

But true, among Arabic countries, only Lebanon resembles a democracy and it has a relatively large Christian population.

I don't know why democracy seems to work in some places and doesn't in others. Perhaps it has to do with how one identifies with a clan.

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

Do you think the humanitarian cost of the current fighting in Iraq would compare to the humanitarian cost of an all-out civil war?

Where would the USA be if they weren't 'allowed' their Civil War? Should England, France and Spain have invaded the USA and imposed a gov't by force (which would not be the 'will of the people') in order to avert 'too much' bloodshed?

Say, aren't you the same guy who earlier criticized the Americans for not involving themselves in the Rwandan civil war because it didn't meet their 80,000:1 cost-benefit ratio?

The 'humanitarian cost' would be 4x=y, most likely.

4x=y? Does x represent Sunni casualties and y represent Shiite casualties?

I think Hugo sums it up well with

This is a culture very different from our own, with very different values, and it is very foolish to try to apply concepts to it as though it were just another Western liberal, individualistic, material and secular culture.

They must make their own way, and true freedom is never granted, but won if the will is there.

I doubt that they'll be making their own way whether the US forces are there or not. If I was an average Iraqi citizen, particularly one of the Shiite majority, I would be very worried about what the future would hold if the occupying forces pull out before the provisional authority has any capability of maintaining order. I think they would be in for sectarian violence, and I would be worried about what the other side would be bringing to the fight. Certainly the people with the weapons and training and the willingness to fight to the death aren't moderates... and I believe you'll find that they're not Shiite, either, and many of them probably won't even be Iraqi.

-kimmy

[Hugo]

As to democracy in the Arab world, most of Hugo's comments could be made about India - and yet, India has been a functioning democracy for over 50 years. And it's been more or less a pluralist state to boot.

India has also been the scene of a lot of violence and bloodshed between Hindus and Muslims. There's also the matter of the appalling amount of corruption within the Indian government, it's basically a way of life there. This is one of the primary causes of Indian poverty and economic stagnation.

Don't forget Jammu-Kashmir, where the Indian government has seen fit to relieve the populace of 12 million people of their rights. I believe it is the case that any soldier of the rank of sergeant or higher has the right to shoot any civilian on sight in Kashmir if he believes they are acting "suspiciously", which is very ambiguous and poorly defined. This power was given to them in the Disturbed Areas Act and the Indian Armed Forces Act of 1990.

India is indeed a functioning democracy. How does it function? Very poorly.

[Guest eureka]

India also had a century or so of preparation and the Insitutions of democracy were a legacy of that time it took to build them. Democracy was also not imposed at he point of a gun. It was learned and adopted by the Indians.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Say, aren't you the same guy who earlier criticized the Americans for not involving themselves in the Rwandan civil war because it didn't meet their 80,000:1 cost-benefit ratio?

I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to war, it's declarations, and it's boundaries.

I would not call the actions in Rwanda 'civil war', although it was part of it.

The Hutus tried to exterminate the Tutsis, man, woman or child. I find this different than warfare, which is usually about territory and/or political control. Legally, if one faction wins the territory of another, the become responsible for the welfare of the people in the country/territory of that which they conquered. (Interestingly, the victor also becomes responsible for the body count, something which the US hastily estimated recently in Iraq).

So, the Rwandan genocide could not be called a 'circumstance of war' any more than Hitler's attempted extermination of European Jewry could be considered 'an act of war'.

[d4dev]

This is a culture very different from our own, with very different values, and it is very foolish to try to apply concepts to it as though it were just another Western liberal, individualistic, material and secular culture.

Are you talking about "Muslim culture" in general or "Arab culture" in particular? In case of the former, I'm sorry to say that you're terribly wrong.

[Slavik44]

There needs to be an international U.N lead effort to establish democracy in Iraq.

I don't believe any such effort will be successful in our lifetimes no matter what non-Iraqi entity spearheads it. See my musings here.

Arab culture is inherently unsuited to democracy. They have not shared in the renaissance and the rise of individualism that has made democracy reasonable in the West. This talk of making Iraq democratic is far-fetched and in complete denial of the truth. This is a culture very different from our own, with very different values, and it is very foolish to try to apply concepts to it as though it were just another Western liberal, individualistic, material and secular culture.

according to your theory Democracy should never have caught on anywhere, because it isn't there now and an "enlightment" period hasn't occured, that doesn't mean it can't happen. Would it be tough? Is it nearly impossible? Yes and Yes, but that doesn't mean we should just get up and get out of Iraq. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but it would be an even bigger mistake to leave Iraq now in the situation it is in. As it is Right now, either America is in control of Iraq, or terrorists are in control of Iraq, perhaps the both are. However George Bush has no created an environment where Iraq and terrorism are closely linked, they may not have been previously but if the most powerfull faction in Iraq leaves (America) it makes logic sence that a terrorist backed government or terrorist formed government will come to power. That is not in world's best interests, because then we actually do end up with a the kind of country Bush tried to convince us to invade. So it is in the best interest of the world to atleast try to establish a stable democracy.

[Hugo]

Are you talking about "Muslim culture" in general or "Arab culture" in particular?

When I said "Arab culture" (which was the exact phrase I used) I meant "Arab culture." If I had meant "Muslim culture" I would have said "Muslim culture."

Does that clear things up for you?

Yes and Yes, but that doesn't mean we should just get up and get out of Iraq. It was a mistake to go into Iraq, but it would be an even bigger mistake to leave Iraq now in the situation it is in.

I didn't say that it would be a great idea to pull out, don't imply that I did. However, trying to get Iraq to adopt Western democracy is the wrong direction to go in and is only going to lead to more problems for the Iraqi people.

Saddam's regime is the logical conclusion of what would happen in a democratic Iraq. Read the thread I linked to, it saves me having to repeat myself.

[barbarosa]

6 quik 'n' easy steps to world domination

1)indirectly set up a puppet government, in a small largley unnoticed nation, that resembles communisum

2)indirectly make the government threat "democracy" and western ideals

3) start ranting about how u r the symbol of democracy and cannot allow such a surpresor to exist and how freedom and justice must be done upon him

4)make the general public think u r fighting for a noble cause

5)round up a possy of nations to "put an end to the haters of freedom" (preferably small time nations and isolationists and maybe a few british war dogs)

6)make all checks payable to you