Is my wish so awful?

[Stoker]

One more question, do you consider Afghanistain to be a succes or failure?

[Black Dog]

Why can't that argument be made against social welfare in this country?

It is: by libertarians.

However, the distinction lies in the fact that Canadians have chosen to implement social welfare policies by electing the governments that implemented them. They were not imposed on us from without.

And how do you know that won't be achieved with these elections, and ensuing elections in Iraq?

Because I have no reson to believe such is the case. The only thing to back up that theory is the Bush's rhetoric versus 200 years of American colonialism interventionism and support for tyrrany when it suited them to do so.

There's also the idealogical underpinnings of the occupation to contend with.

Can I ask what leads you to belieive this assumption you hold?

World history. The personal historys and connections of the individuals involved.

So any country that holds elections with forgein observers and peacekeepers can't have a true election?

Again, I can't tell if you're being intentionally disengenious or not. there's a difference bettween an impartial foreign observer standing in the corner with a clipboard and an trained killer in an M1 tank parked outside the polling station.

I mean gosh: there were plenty of Russian "observers" on hand for the first 2003 Ukranian presidential election...

Has the United Nations not helped in these elections?

Not really: there are but 35 UN workers in Iraq to assist in the election.

The security situaton (remember the UN HQ getting blown to bits last year?) is so bad that the UN is unwilling to risk involvement. Ialso suspect there's some politics at play here to. Perhaps (and I'm speculating) the UN doesn't want to give legitimacy to an Iraqi government that is not likely to adequately represent Iraqis.

And it's pretty easy to make judgments, that are akin to letting Iraqis fending for themsevles, when you are not under the gun......is it not?

Indeed it is. It's sad that American invasion and subsequent bungling has created a no-win situation for Iraqis. But the point remains that the Iraqi people and indeed people everywhere deserve the right to control their own destiny. Let them choose where they want their country to go and not make arbitray decisions on who shall be free or not.

So you have evidence that suggests the future Iraqi elected government, will in fact be only a "puppet"?

Think about it: the U..S has spent over $300 billion on Iraq. Do you think for second that, even if some Iraqi politician emerges with the balls to say "Thanks guys, we'll take it from here", that they'll simply walk away?

Is the positioning of ex-CIA asset Iyad Allawi as Prime Minister and frontrunner in the election merely a big co-inky-dink?

What about the fact that many Iraqi groups wanted free elections right after the fall of Saddam Hussein (before the insurgency got under way), but were rebuffed? The very fact that an election is taking place when it is is an American decision.

One more question, do you consider Afghanistain to be a succes or failure?

At this point it's a failure. The U.S. has ensured their man Kazari got elected (there are many questions around that election too, including allegations of death threats and fraud) as president, but that position means little outside Kabul, where the rule of law is non-existent, militias are still armed and regional warlords run the show.

If the U.S. wanted to build democracy in te region, they had a chance with Afghanistan. they blew it by chasing after phantom WMD in Iraq instead of securing Afghanistan and ensuring the safety of it's people. So either we're dealing with some of the biggest bumblers the world has ever seen, or maybe their intentions are not what they say they are.

[Stoker]

Because I have no reson to believe such is the case. The only thing to back up that theory is the Bush's rhetoric versus 200 years of American colonialism interventionism and support for tyrrany when it suited them to do so.

There's also the idealogical underpinnings of the occupation to contend with.

Is Japan, Germany and to a lesser extenent South Korea failures since they were all Democracies born out of (American) violence?

Again, I can't tell if you're being intentionally disengenious or not. there's a difference bettween an impartial foreign observer standing in the corner with a clipboard and an trained killer in an M1 tank parked outside the polling station.

I mean gosh: there were plenty of Russian "observers" on hand for the first 2003 Ukranian presidential election...

......so if they tank was painted white it would be alright?

Not really: there are but 35 UN workers in Iraq to assist in the election.

The security situaton (remember the UN HQ getting blown to bits last year?) is so bad that the UN is unwilling to risk involvement. Ialso suspect there's some politics at play here to. Perhaps (and I'm speculating) the UN doesn't want to give legitimacy to an Iraqi government that is not likely to adequately represent Iraqis.

What would make you believe that?

The United Nations already supports the current, United States installed government.........why wouldn't they support a elected government?

Resolution 1511

I think your suspicions are unfounded.

Indeed it is. It's sad that American invasion and subsequent bungling has created a no-win situation for Iraqis. But the point remains that the Iraqi people and indeed people everywhere deserve the right to control their own destiny. Let them choose where they want their country to go and not make arbitray decisions on who shall be free or not.

Again, according to the United Nations, the current Iraqi government does control it's own sovereignty......I've seen no evidence to suggest the UN doesn't think the first elected Iraqi government will fail in this also......

I'm content to see the results of the election on Sunday, followed by the UN's responce.

Think about it: the U..S has spent over $300 billion on Iraq. Do you think for second that, even if some Iraqi politician emerges with the balls to say "Thanks guys, we'll take it from here", that they'll simply walk away?

Is the positioning of ex-CIA asset Iyad Allawi as Prime Minister and frontrunner in the election merely a big co-inky-dink?

What about the fact that many Iraqi groups wanted free elections right after the fall of Saddam Hussein (before the insurgency got under way), but were rebuffed? The very fact that an election is taking place when it is is an American decision.

How much money did America spend on the Second world war? What would that be translated into today's dollars?

Are the German and Japenese people self governing?

[Black Dog]

Is Japan, Germany and to a lesser extenent South Korea failures since they were all Democracies born out of (American) violence?

Well, South Korea didn't become a democracy until the 1980s, when civil unrest overthrew the U.S.-backed military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee.

Japan and Germany were also products of New Deal-style politics and a different worldview than wherein democracies were considered necessary to hold off the communiust threat. These experiments also had the blessing of a world which knew that the conflict that led to the Axis' defeat was a just one.

Contrast this with Iraq where U.S.'s de facto unilateralism was oppossed by most of the world, and where idealogical considerations regarding free markets trumped sensible policy and where corrupt figures (remember Chalabi?) used the U.S. intervention to settle scores and line their pockets.

......so if they tank was painted white it would be alright?

And if it was manned by someone else other than the people who set up the "new" Iraq in their image in the first place, yeah, that would be an improvement. The issue is credibility.

Again, according to the United Nations, the current Iraqi government does control it's own sovereignty......I've seen no evidence to suggest the UN doesn't think the first elected Iraqi government will fail in this also......

Iraq's "soverignty" is a joke.

How soverign can a country be when:

*US military bases remain, with more being built.

*Some 160,000 troops of the United States and its allies remain, the Americans for at least two more years.

*US military commanders will continue to exercise final authority over not only these troops, but also all Iraqi police, security and army units.

*Immunity from Iraqi criminal charges for US military and contractor personnel continues.

*A giant American embassy is being built (in Saddam's old palace, no less), to hold a thousand employees.

*The new government has very limited power to change the laws and regulations decreed by the CPA and subsequently enshrined in the interim constitution (including massive privatization).

How much money did America spend on the Second world war? What would that be translated into today's dollars?

Are the German and Japenese people self governing?

*sigh*

Do you even bother looking into any of the resources I provide? If not, let me know and I won't bother.

Germany and Japan in 1945 are not Iraq in 2005. Different cultures. Different times. Different wars. Different players involved. Different geopolitical forces at work.

Other than the difference in cultures, one difference that sticks out is the lack of any post-war resistance in Germany and Japan as well as the retention of key elements of pre-war society, which helped ease the transition, unlike the U.S.'s failed "de-Ba'athification".

[Stoker]

Well, South Korea didn't become a democracy until the 1980s, when civil unrest overthrew the U.S.-backed military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee.

Japan and Germany were also products of New Deal-style politics and a different worldview than wherein democracies were considered necessary to hold off the communiust threat. These experiments also had the blessing of a world which knew that the conflict that led to the Axis' defeat was a just one.

So Democracies were thought good tools to hold off the threat of communism?

Contrast this with Iraq where U.S.'s de facto unilateralism was oppossed by most of the world, and where idealogical considerations regarding free markets trumped sensible policy and where corrupt figures (remember Chalabi?) used the U.S. intervention to settle scores and line their pockets.

Explain why Democracies are not good for holding off the threat of international terrorism and extreme Islam?

Whats the difference between the two senarios?

It seems as if your apparent hatred for the Bush adminisration is clouding your judgement.........

And if it was manned by someone else other than the people who set up the "new" Iraq in their image in the first place, yeah, that would be an improvement. The issue is credibility.

Who's the issue of credibility with though? Does it mater?

The United Nations deems the intermim Iraqi government to have credibility?

Is this another issue of blind hatred?

Iraq's "soverignty" is a joke.

Perhaps in your eyes........but not in those of the three parties concerned.......namely the Iraqi government, the American government and the United Nations.

*US military bases remain, with more being built.

Every country with an American base is not soverign?

That list includeds Germany, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar (I sure I'm missing some more)

*Some 160,000 troops of the United States and its allies remain, the Americans for at least two more years.

The Americans maintaned close to that number of troops in Germany for more than 50 years.......and to a lesser extent Japan and South Korea

Are they not soverign?

*US military commanders will continue to exercise final authority over not only these troops, but also all Iraqi police, security and army units.

No foregein commanders can command American troops.......I beleive it's a law.

As for the Iraqi forces, thats only until the election of a Iraqi government........How long did Japan and Germeny have to wait after the war ended, to regain control of their armed forces......

I think this comes in under the "Duh" section

*Immunity from Iraqi criminal charges for US military and contractor personnel continues.

Don't most nations government personnal receive diplomatic immunity, in any country they travel?

*A giant American embassy is being built (in Saddam's old palace, no less), to hold a thousand employees.

So? Where would you have built the embassy? I've never been to Baghdad, but I'd guess like most large cities, space is at a premuim.......so wouldn't it make sense to use space that wasn't critical to the cities infastruture?

*The new government has very limited power to change the laws and regulations decreed by the CPA and subsequently enshrined in the interim constitution (including massive privatization).

I'd be intrested to know, if this will also change (like the control of military) once a government is elected.

Do you even bother looking into any of the resources I provide? If not, let me know and I won't bother.

Germany and Japan in 1945 are not Iraq in 2005. Different cultures. Different times. Different wars. Different players involved. Different geopolitical forces at work.

Other than the difference in cultures, one difference that sticks out is the lack of any post-war resistance in Germany and Japan as well as the retention of key elements of pre-war society, which helped ease the transition, unlike the U.S.'s failed "de-Ba'athification".

And you have failed to answer why and what those differences are and how those differences are relavent in a discussion over Democracy in Iraq.

Why won't Democracy work in Iraq?

[anticlimates]

You speak with such finality on the mater, which forces me to ask you to explain post-war Japan.........

Why would you ask him to explain post-war Japan? Iraq and Japan are completely different...as was Germany also.

A parrallel is drawn only by koolaid drinking Bush apologists.

Here's a source of information for you, read it and gain a little knowledge on the matter:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/0...ratization.html

Of note are the facts that the occupation in Japan was seen as legitimate. There was a formal surrender.

Also important.... there were no hostile political or religious factions within the country.

I quote:

the occupation and reconstruction had been endorsed by Emperor Hirohito. Except for the military, the Japanese government remained intact at all levels, and the Japanese had a tradition of democracy and civil society on which to draw.

After the war, Japan was relatively stable and secure.

Why do rightwingers continue to push these falsehoods?

Any straw to defend Bush and his failed policy is not only grasped at, it is held onto tightly in spite of repetative debunking.

[anticlimates]

The blind hatred of Bush by those on the extreme left is so intense they want to kill him.

Another example of rightwing lying. I said I'd like to see him dead, big difference from saying I want to kill him.

talk yourselves into believing that we really are uneducated and ignorant.

Either uneducated and ignorant, or dishonest.

Take for example the constant comparisons of Iraq to Germany and Japan. What is that? A dishonest representation of history to bolster Bush policy, or simple ignorance?

Look at the claims by ALL on this rightwing administration before this war. Was it dishonest representation of intelligence information, or simple ignorance?

Take your pick.

[Stoker]

Why would you ask him to explain post-war Japan? Iraq and Japan are completely different...as was Germany also.

A parrallel is drawn only by koolaid drinking Bush apologists.

I'll offer you the challange than........explain thoses differences and why thoses differences do and do not have relevance to the situation with Iraq.

Here's a source of information for you, read it and gain a little knowledge on the matter:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/0...ratization.html

Of note are the facts that the occupation in Japan was seen as legitimate. There was a formal surrender.

Also important.... there were no hostile political or religious factions within the country.

I quote:

the occupation and reconstruction had been endorsed by Emperor Hirohito. Except for the military, the Japanese government remained intact at all levels, and the Japanese had a tradition of democracy and civil society on which to draw.

After the war, Japan was relatively stable and secure.

Why do rightwingers continue to push these falsehoods?

Any straw to defend Bush and his failed policy is not only grasped at, it is held onto tightly in spite of repetative debunking.

So bascially the difference is that Iraq is not in as bad of shape and Japan and Germany.............

So why is that going to make it harder for Iraq to succed?

Read the third from last paragragh from your page:

Bellin's prognostications were not all negative, however. She pointed out that Iraq, with its huge oil reserves, may be economically better off than Japan and Germany, which did not take off economically until the late 1940s or early 1950s. And while Iraq does not have any national figures with the prestige of the Japanese emperor to authorize reconstruction efforts, it is possible that someone like the Shiite leader Ali Sistani may emerge as a unifying force.

So why won't democracy succed again?

[anticlimates]

I'll offer you the challange than........explain thoses differences and why thoses differences do and do not have relevance to the situation with Iraq.

Um, I did. I provided a link and listed the main ones.

If you don't get it, I can't help you.

I'll try once more, although I don't hold out much hope for ya.

To keep it simple, I'll just deal mainly with Japan, although Germany shares in these points and more.

- Japan was stable and secure during the occupation, with virtually no violence.

- Occupation planning had begun 2 years earlier.

- No email, internet, TV. America was able to maintain control over information.

- there was a tradition of democracy and civil society on which to draw.

It's pretty obvious that Japan (and Germany) are wholly different than Iraq. Drawing the parrallel to suggest Iraq can quite possible develop as Japan and Germany did is pure tripe. It's partisan, blind Bush-lovin' tripe.

My #1 difference between Japan/Germany and Iraq? OK, #1 and #2....

#1. Iraq is now a breading ground for terrorism (not a magnet) an incubator for new terrorists.

#2. The Iraq war continues. It ain't over, and it won't be over for a LONG time.

[Stoker]

Um, I did. I provided a link and listed the main ones.

If you don't get it, I can't help you.

I'll try once more, although I don't hold out much hope for ya.

To keep it simple, I'll just deal mainly with Japan, although Germany shares in these points and more.

And the site you provide makes no sense what-so-ever.

It assumes that the reason Germany and Japan succeded with democracy, is becasue they had it really bad off..............worse than the Iraqis.

You talk about drinking Kool aid

And even with the factors you mentioned, how will any of those prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq?

Have not democratic nations been born out of violence?

[anticlimates]

And the site you provide makes no sense what-so-ever.

It assumes that the reason Germany and Japan succeded with democracy, is becasue they had it really bad off..............worse than the Iraqis.

Yes, I saw that factor. You describe it very poorly though. You've misrepresented the article. Maybe quote what you think represents what you're trying to say.

And even with the factors you mentioned, how will any of those prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq?

They are clear differences with Iraq that obviously gave a nation like Japan a major advantage in attaining democratic success. They highlight the stupidity of expecting a similar result from Iraq simply because it's another nation that America is trying to instill democracy in.

The evidence is strong that conditions were ripe for success in Japan and Germany after the war. The failed Bush policy which has resulted in this bloody ongoing war in Iraq has done it's very best to hamstring any conditions for success.

I don't hate Bush, I'm just being truthful about the reality in Iraq. Talk about all the new schools you wish, the reality is violence is rampant there, religious and cultural divides are huge, and terrorists are being born out of the despair and resentment. BushCo. can talk about "foreign terrorists" all they want, and they will. They know that strokes the conscience of America. The reality is that less than 5% of those fighting the US in Iraq are "foreign terrorists".

[Stoker]

Yes, I saw that factor. You describe it very poorly though. You've misrepresented the article. Maybe quote what you think represents what you're trying to say.

Since I think the entire article portrayed that notion, and since we have rules on coypright infringment at this site, I'll refrain from posting the entire story and just recommend anybody intrested read the entire story.

They are clear differences with Iraq that obviously gave a nation like Japan a major advantage in attaining democratic success. They highlight the stupidity of expecting a similar result from Iraq simply because it's another nation that America is trying to instill democracy in.

So do you disregard the fact that Iraq, finacially, is light years better of than post war Japan or Germany?

Is this not one check in the side of Iraqi democracy?

Or what about the notion that the majority of the violince in Iraq is happening within the "Sunni Triangle" and that under 25% of the population leaves within this area?

Wouldn't that suggest that the rest of Iraq is in better standing of accepting Democracy?

What about the Kurds in the North? They have had multi-party democracies since shortly after the first gulf war

Wouldn't that suggest that Northern Iraq is in better standing of accepting Democracy?

What about the "fatwa" issued by Ayatollah Sistani that urged Sh'ia Iraqis (which make-up over 60% of Iraq) to vote?

Don't any of these factors play into the equation of Iraqi democracy?

[Black Dog]

So Democracies were thought good tools to hold off the threat of communism?

At the time, yes. And that's why the rebuilders put such effort into ensuring that the postwar democracies in those countries would succeed. Given the way things have gone in Iraq, there's only two possible conclusions:

1) The U.S wanted to bring democracy, but are so grossly incompetent that they utterly botched the job from the word go.

2) Democracy in Iraq was, at best, a secondary goal of the invasion.

xplain why Democracies are not good for holding off the threat of international terrorism and extreme Islam?

Whats the difference between the two senarios?

*sigh* The problem with this analysis is that it completely disregards the (and I hate this expression) "facts on the ground", which point away from democracy as being the goal in Iraq.

You're basically saying "George Bush says that they are bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy is good. What's the problem?"

I'm not saying a democracy in Iraq wouldn't be a good thing. What I am saying is nothing Bush and company have done have coninced me that's the goal.

Who's the issue of credibility with though? Does it mater?

Iraqis. And yes it matters. I can't believe you're unable to grasp why the U.S. military would be precieved to be unimpartial.

Perhaps in your eyes........but not in those of the three parties concerned.......namely the Iraqi government, the American government and the United Nations.

So the United Nations is suddent "relevant again"? I'm having a hard time keeping up.

As for the rest, well, let's see: the U.S. controls Iraq's soverignty through th emilitary occuipation, the current Iraqi government was established by the occupiers and doesn't really have any say on the amtter.

Every country with an American base is not soverign?

Didn't say that.

The Americans maintaned close to that number of troops in Germany for more than 50 years.......and to a lesser extent Japan and South Korea

Are they not soverign?

Germany and Japan also maintained their own civil institutions. Whereas the civil structure in Iraq was totally dismantled.

No foregein commanders can command American troops.......I beleive it's a law.

As for the Iraqi forces, thats only until the election of a Iraqi government........How long did Japan and Germeny have to wait after the war ended, to regain control of their armed forces......

Which kinda illustrates my point that Iraq is not truly soverign so long as the U.S. is the one calling the shots where it matters.

Don't most nations government personnal receive diplomatic immunity, in any country they travel?

Read it again:

Immunity from Iraqi criminal charges for US military and contractor personnel continues.

That means U.S. troops and contractors/mercenaries can commit war crimes and not face prosecution by anyone other than their own system.

So? Where would you have built the embassy? I've never been to Baghdad, but I'd guess like most large cities, space is at a premuim.......so wouldn't it make sense to use space that wasn't critical to the cities infastruture?

I guess the symbolism completely escapes you.

I'd be intrested to know, if this will also change (like the control of military) once a government is elected.

IIRC, those particular changes require a constitutional amendment.

And you have failed to answer why and what those differences are and how those differences are relavent in a discussion over Democracy in Iraq.

Why won't Democracy work in Iraq?

I [posted at leats two articles discussing those differences and why the situations are differnt. If yoy can't be bothered to follow up, that's not my problem.

Nor did I say democracy wouldn't work in Iraq. That presumes democracy is the objective.

[Stoker]

At the time, yes. And that's why the rebuilders put such effort into ensuring that the postwar democracies in those countries would succeed. Given the way things have gone in Iraq, there's only two possible conclusions:

1) The U.S wanted to bring democracy, but are so grossly incompetent that they utterly botched the job from the word go.

2) Democracy in Iraq was, at best, a secondary goal of the invasion.

I've no doubt in my mind that Democracy was a secondary goal for Iraq.........just the same as Nazi Germany and Japan.

With the first goal being the defeat of a preceived threat to the United States.

As for Iraq itself, sure, major mistakes had been made......I would never have disbanded the Republican Guard......Personally, I would have rearmed them and sent them into Iran with Coalition troops...what better way to unify the Iraqi people, then with a war against Iran(but thats another debate i guess)

*sigh* The problem with this analysis is that it completely disregards the (and I hate this expression) "facts on the ground", which point away from democracy as being the goal in Iraq.

You're basically saying "George Bush says that they are bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy is good. What's the problem?"

I'm not saying a democracy in Iraq wouldn't be a good thing. What I am saying is nothing Bush and company have done have coninced me that's the goal.

Why wouldn't Bush and co. want Democracy in the heart of the middle east?

Democracy are tend to be stable countries right? Why would a country that depends on middle east oil, not want a stable nation in the heart of the gulf? (Followed by Iran I'm sure)

[Black Dog]

I've no doubt in my mind that Democracy was a secondary goal for Iraq.........just the same as Nazi Germany and Japan.

With the first goal being the defeat of a preceived threat to the United States.

Ah, but Japan and Germany started World War 2, so their were not only genuine threats, but their defeat was a necessary first step. Once that was accomplished, the work turned to making sure they were viable, pluralistic democracies.

In this conflict, the U.S. was the aggressor. "Regime change" was one of the main reasons behind the invasion (along with the phantom WMD).

This is another key difference in the two situations.

Why wouldn't Bush and co. want Democracy in the heart of the middle east?

Democracy are tend to be stable countries right? Why would a country that depends on middle east oil, not want a stable nation in the heart of the gulf?

For Iraq to be a true democracy, it would require full control over important decisions, like the fate of its oil industry. Yet one of the first decisions the CPA made was to liquify all state assets and can 500,000 state workers. Basically the U.S. completely destroyed and rebuilt Iraq's civil and economic structure in its own image before handing nominal power over to the U.S. appointed council.

These changes (changes which Iraqis had no say in) will be difficult, if not impossible to roll back. And even if an Iarqi government decided to re-nationalize key industries, do you think the U.S. would allow such a thing to happen?

My point is that the U.S. has hamstrung the latent Iraqi democracy and, while "soverignty-lite" may guarantee stability, it means the new Iraq cannot be a democracy in the true sense of the word.

See, real democracies can also be unpredictable. People in democracies have a tendency to look out for their own interests over those of foreign governments or corporations. So, when you're trying to buikld a country in as strategically valuable location as Iraq, you're gonna make damn sure that country stays cozy with you, no mater who's in charge.

And, if history has shown us anything, the U.S. is not the slightest bit squeamish about helping to crush democracy when it threatens their interests.

[Stoker]

Ah, but Japan and Germany started World War 2, so their were not only genuine threats, but their defeat was a necessary first step. Once that was accomplished, the work turned to making sure they were viable, pluralistic democracies.

In this conflict, the U.S. was the aggressor. "Regime change" was one of the main reasons behind the invasion (along with the phantom WMD).

This is another key difference in the two situations.

It's a mater of persepctive..........Who invaded Kuwait?

In that sense, one could look at Iraq as being the aggressor since 1990, with the United States responding to Iraq's failure to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire.

For Iraq to be a true democracy, it would require full control over important decisions, like the fate of its oil industry. Yet one of the first decisions the CPA made was to liquify all state assets and can 500,000 state workers. Basically the U.S. completely destroyed and rebuilt Iraq's civil and economic structure in its own image before handing nominal power over to the U.S. appointed council.

These changes (changes which Iraqis had no say in) will be difficult, if not impossible to roll back. And even if an Iarqi government decided to re-nationalize key industries, do you think the U.S. would allow such a thing to happen?

Has there been any indications that these items will not be "given" over to Iraqis after the election of a democratic Iraqi government?

My point is that the U.S. has hamstrung the latent Iraqi democracy and, while "soverignty-lite" may guarantee stability, it means the new Iraq cannot be a democracy in the true sense of the word.

See, real democracies can also be unpredictable. People in democracies have a tendency to look out for their own interests over those of foreign governments or corporations. So, when you're trying to buikld a country in as strategically valuable location as Iraq, you're gonna make damn sure that country stays cozy with you, no mater who's in charge.

And, if history has shown us anything, the U.S. is not the slightest bit squeamish about helping to crush democracy when it threatens their interests.

Again, has there been any indications that once an elected government is in place, these functions won't be handed over to the Iraqi people/government?

[Black Dog]

It's a mater of persepctive..........Who invaded Kuwait?

In that sense, one could look at Iraq as being the aggressor since 1990, with the United States responding to Iraq's failure to comply with the conditions of the ceasefire.

That's a tenuous interpretation at best.

Resolution 678 only covered Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Resolution 687 set out the terms of the ceasefire. but contained no provision of to link Iraq's obligation to destroy all weapons of mass destruction to the authorisation to use force set out in resolution 678. The final paragraph of resolution 687 gives the Security Council the power to decide "such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area", implying further Security Council consideration would be required before any action is to be taken by its members.

In other words, any action undertaken as a response to a breach of the 1991 ceasefire would have required the consent of all member states. 1441 did not represent the necessary consent. France, China and Russia stated they voted for 1441 precisely because it contained no "automaticity" in the use of force. This interpretation was reflected in the United States's and Britain's formal explanation of their votes.

So, in other words, none of the resolutions in question gave any individual UNSC member the right to respond to violations of the 1991 ceasefire .

Has there been any indications that these items will not be "given" over to Iraqis after the election of a democratic Iraqi government?

Article 26.

(A) Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30 June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law.

-Iraqi Constitution

So a new Iraqi government can change the laws decreed by the CPA. But will they?

Again, has there been any indications that once an elected government is in place, these functions won't be handed over to the Iraqi people/government?

I happen to have a hard time beliving that G.W. and his corporate cronies are going to spend $300 billion on this war (not to mention thousands of lives), only to walk away when Iraqis elect a new government.

Considering Iraq's sizeable debt and the cost of reconstruction, I expect that post-election Iraq will be subject to the same reforms as countless other developing countries, reforms that demand unrestricted access for foreign investment and ownership.

[Stoker]

So, in other words, none of the resolutions in question gave any individual UNSC member the right to respond to violations of the 1991 ceasefire .

Are you saying that the second gulf war was illegal?

If it was, why didn't any of the other members of the serurity council draw up a resoultion agaisnt the United States?

So a new Iraqi government can change the laws decreed by the CPA. But will they?

I don't know.........but once the government is elected and established, they have the option to.

I happen to have a hard time beliving that G.W. and his corporate cronies are going to spend $300 billion on this war (not to mention thousands of lives), only to walk away when Iraqis elect a new government.

Considering Iraq's sizeable debt and the cost of reconstruction, I expect that post-election Iraq will be subject to the same reforms as countless other developing countries, reforms that demand unrestricted access for foreign investment and ownership.

I guess it depends on what the Bush administration thinks a stable Persian Gulf region is worth.....in dollar terms.

[anticlimates]

Yes, I saw that factor. You describe it very poorly though. You've misrepresented the article. Maybe quote what you think represents what you're trying to say.

Since I think the entire article portrayed that notion, and since we have rules on coypright infringment at this site, I'll refrain from posting the entire story and just recommend anybody intrested read the entire story.

That is the most pathetic excuse to avoid dedbate I've every seen!

You claim the whole article portrayed your previously stated notion, which was that

"It assumes that the reason Germany and Japan succeded with democracy, is becasue they had it really bad off"

This is a bizarre claim which makes me wonder if you've been into the cheer a bit.

I've quoted and restated MANY examples from the article which explain why Germany and Japan both had great advantages over Iraq to succeed in democracy and stability, and none of them had anything to do with your claim.

Your EXCUSE for not backing up this dishonest and time-wasting claim that the whole article backs you up, is that there's "copyright infringement" rules!!!

Go ahead Einstein, quote a few examples from the article that back up your ramblings, there's no rules against that! You can't post the whole thing. Post 25% of it then! Or just provide the jist of each paragraph!

So pathetic.

[anticlimates]

So, in other words, none of the resolutions in question gave any individual UNSC member the right to respond to violations of the 1991 ceasefire .

Are you saying that the second gulf war was illegal?

If it was, why didn't any of the other members of the serurity council draw up a resoultion agaisnt the United States?

You just ain't to bright, is ya?

You gotta quit drinking that stuff.

[Stoker]

Rules are rules anticlimates.

Perhaps you should go read them.......I'd also read ther section on personnal attacks and trolling

[Stoker]

But for the hell off it:

Looking at Germany, Japan, Iraq: A tale of three occupations

During the occupation of Japan, incidents of violence were virtually unknown, Dower said. The source of grief for the Japanese was the death and destruction caused by nearly 15 years of war, whose termination, even if it meant defeat, they were eager to embrace.

"The hardship was extraordinary, as great or greater than Iraq," Dower said

During the war, 54 Japanese cities had been bombed and Tokyo had been reduced nearly to rubble. Three million Japanese had been killed and thousands more died later of malnutrition. Until 1949 the economy was plagued by hyperinflation, and only the black market showed any sign of vitality. And yet during this terrible time, the society remained relatively stable and secure, so much so that by 1950 the United States was able to reduce its occupying force from 450,000 to 150,000.

According to Dower, the intensity and duration of suffering in Japan was an important reason the occupation went so well.

"The Japanese said, 'We were liberated from death.' They were seizing the opportunity to start over, to create a new society."

Ironically, the swiftness with which the United States toppled Saddam's regime and the avoidance of civilian casualties may actually work against the success of the reconstruction, Bellin said. In Germany and Japan the experience of total defeat and devastation broke down old conventions and opened the people to new ideas. The much shorter war in Iraq with relatively little loss of life on the part of the civilian population did not produce this psychological impact, while the sanctions imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 have probably increased resistance.

*If these quotes are too long Greg, feel free to remove them or ask me to and I will*

[Black Dog]

Are you saying that the second gulf war was illegal? 

Yes.

If it was, why didn't any of the other members of the serurity council draw up a resoultion agaisnt the United States?

Beats me. You'd have to ask them. I suspect they didn't want to antagonize the U.S. further, so they opted to get out of the way in hopes that they could still get a piece of the Iraq pie afterwards (especially Russia and France).

I don't know.........but once the government is elected and established, they have the option to.

Wouldn't it have been more consistent with the principles of democracy to wait until there was an Iraqi-chosen government in place and allow them to draft their own constitution?

[Stoker]

QUOTE 

Are you saying that the second gulf war was illegal? 

Yes.

QUOTE 

If it was, why didn't any of the other members of the serurity council draw up a resoultion agaisnt the United States? 

Beats me. You'd have to ask them. I suspect they didn't want to antagonize the U.S. further, so they opted to get out of the way in hopes that they could still get a piece of the Iraq pie afterwards (especially Russia and France).

Ahh, it's all a big conspiracy........I see, should I strap on my tin-foil hat?

QUOTE 

I don't know.........but once the government is elected and established, they have the option to.

Wouldn't it have been more consistent with the principles of democracy to wait until there was an Iraqi-chosen government in place and allow them to draft their own constitution?

Is there anything to suggest that once an elected Iraqi government is in place that they can't change their constitution?

The Japanese have been able to change their constitution, right?

[Black Dog]

Ahh, it's all a big conspiracy........I see, should I strap on my tin-foil hat?

How typically obtuse. Such a scenario isn't far fetched, not does it require any big conspiracy, just a bunch of nations doing what natuions do: allowing self-interest to trump ethical considerations.

Is there anything to suggest that once an elected Iraqi government is in place that they can't change their constitution?

I see where this is going. If I acknowledge that an elected Iraqi government has the means to change their constituition, you wil simpy use it as "evidence that Iraq is democratic. As if what's written on paper and what's occurring in the real world are completely indepenent of one another. I'll just head this of fnow by once again pointing out that, yes, Iraq can amend it's constitution (indeed, the current constitution is a temporary one), but the real question is: is it possible for Iraq to set a course for itself? Suppose (hypothtically) a new Iraqi government came to power and decided it wanted U.S. troops out (including permenant bases), nationalized all major industries (including oil) and declared its neutrality in the war on terror. How would you see such a scenario playing out? What would the reaction be from the country that spent $200 billion and thousands of lives if they won the war but lost Iarq?