Power to the Purple Finger.

[Relbeek Einre]

Well at any rate, the PNAC's policies drive this administration.

[vaulos]

Maybe, but it still doesn't have shite to do with my comments. You are talking about reasons for doing an action. I'm talking about what those actions are intended to cause on the ground. Not the indirect aims of say getting oil, but rather the direct aims of altering ideology in the region.

[Relbeek Einre]

I disagree with you by the way. You can't impose democracy on people. They'll simply resent it, and it's definitely made us less safe in the short term, and is likely to in the long term as well.

[vaulos]

And there I think is an interesting question. Do people (who aren't in power) generally NOT seek/want to live in democracy?

It certainly seems that people in Palastine, Iraq, and Afghanistan wanted it and sought it when it was presented to them (even at great personal risk). You also hear rumblings of popular pro-democracy movements in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, and Pakistan. And often, the autocratic rulers of these areas take great pains to suppress these movements. The Russians and Chinese are said to be the most 'non-democratic-type' cultures in the world, and yet pro-democratic movements are/were popular in both places.

But perhaps this isn't your point. Perhaps you are meaning to imply that these people will reject democracy, simply because of how it is presented (even that it is presented)? Do you really think people that fickle?

[Relbeek Einre]

I submit to you Vietnam as proof that they are.

Forcing democracy on a people is like fucking someone to make her keep her virginity. It's anathema to the whole process.

It certainly seems that people in Palastine, Iraq, and Afghanistan wanted it and sought it when it was presented to them (even at great personal risk).

25 people in the whole of the country died in attacks that day. More people died in the US on their way to vote in car wrecks. Great personal risk big deal.

People vote because generally speaking people will go along with the government in whatever form. But people cling to their cultural identity tenaciously and resist efforts by outside forces to make them change. I believe democratic reform, if it is the natural progress of all cultures to achieve, cannot be forced from without. It must come from within.

[vaulos]

Ahh, but Vietnam was guised (Communist-propaganda wise) as a fight between two forms of "power to the people". Communism as it is formulated to the masses has always been democratic in appearace (though not in actual). And even in Communist countries, you see a gradual weakening of governments in response to pro-democratic tendencies (this is a HUGE concern right now in China). Communism, if anything, is/was only a bandaid which allows oligarchy regimes to remain in power for a little longer.

(Also, Vietnam is a bad example because they didn't have a democratic government- we bought thier government. It as more of a choice between a Puppet Government and Communism.)

Your example, if anything, proves my point. The people in the Middle East are NOT being pulled between Communism and Capitalist-Democracy, they are being asked to choose between Democracy of whatever form they desire or autocracy.

You are also suggesting that Democracy is counter to culturally significant identifies which these people possess. I think that is frighteningly silly reasoning. I would agree that people resist being told 'how' to form thier own governments, but they do not resist the idea democracy (i.e., power ultimately in the hands of the people).

[Relbeek Einre]

(Also, Vietnam is a bad example because they didn't have a democratic government- we bought thier government. It as more of a choice between a Puppet Government and Communism.)

And you think Iraq is different?

Your example, if anything, proves my point. The people in the Middle East are NOT being pulled between Communism and Capitalist-Democracy, they are being asked to choose between Democracy of whatever form they desire or autocracy.

You're removing religious authority from the equation. Big flaw.

You are also suggesting that Democracy is counter to culturally significant identifies which these people possess. I think that is frighteningly silly reasoning. I would agree that people resist being told 'how' to form thier own governments, but they do not resist the idea democracy (i.e., power ultimately in the hands of the people).

I think in Iraq, enough of them do to make it difficult. Both the Kurds and the Sunni have much to fear from democracy.

[vaulos]

Yes, I think Iraq is different. Mainly because of the transparency of the elections (rubber stamped by the UN) and the support of many religious figures (at least Shit'te and Kurdish). And eventually, I think proving that point to the few doubters will come down to the US being asked to leave at some point.

No, I'm not forgetting about religious-autocracy. That is percisely the choice which they are facing. But, they are not being given the choice between US-style-democracy and religious-autocracy. They are being given the choice between Iraqi-style-democracy and religious-autocracy. The former could either take the form of a religiously-dominated elected-body, or a more liberal form (all signs point to a more liberal form). In any case, religion in this case is a red-herring.

No, I don't think the Sunni and the Kurds have more reason to ignore democracy. Mainly because they do not have the resources/manpower to overcome the Shi'ite in some kind of civil war. Also, the Sunni are likely to be wary of the threat of Iran coming to the Shi'ites aid. Similarly, the Kurds are likely wary of Turkey's threat to intervene should they attempt to break away. Thier best option is to try and influence the process, oddly enough, away from ethnic and religious grounds and towards a more secular all-encompassing government body.

[Relbeek Einre]

I think you're hopelessly optimistic, Vaulos, but for their sake I hope you're right.

[Ddrak]

Vaulos' argument is akin to a false dichotomy.

He conflates pro-democratic with pro-free trade and economic reform in China. He asserts freedom as a single ideal when it means many things to many people. He seems to believe that the US government is free from religion when the religious right is such a huge driving force in US politics.

Like I've said before - people tend to greed and selfishness. This means when they say they want "freedom" what they really want is the government not interfering too much in their small circle of influence. It means they want the most they possibly can get from the government without having to give anything back. It means that they don't really have a thirst for national freedom at all, just something non-totalitarian enough that they no longer notice it in their day to day lives. That's all.

The people who talk most about freedom are those who don't have it. Once they attain a nominal amount of personal freedom it becomes vastly less important and as we've seen over the last 3 years in the US (and mirrored in many nations everywhere), people will happily give away fundamental freedoms if promised a temporary measure of safety.

To cry that people seek freedom in Democracies (neocon thinking) is the exact same naivety that communists have when they cry that people seek freedom in their ideologies. It denounces human nature and is doomed to failure. Libertarians have it mostly right - assume people are greedy evil bastards that will vote themselves cash at the expense of others and work from there.

Dd

[Viyre]

I still dont give a fuck about democracy in other countries , but i do give a fuck about american soldiers lives. There is absolutly no reason why american soldiers should die to try and make another country democratic. Those soldiers that lost their lives had families that cared about them, and now thanks to Bush they will never see there loved ones again. Call it harsh but its the fucking truth! I have had countless discussions with Bush lovers and not one of them has convinced me that those lives lost in Iraq are worth it to the United States. Simply no excuse to send americans to die in Iraq.

For those of yall that think its gonna make the US a safer place, you better wake the fuck up and start thinking for yourselves. We are hated much more all over the world thanks to good-ol GW.

V

[Eidolon Faer]

Ddrak,

First of all, I'm somewhat bemused by your objections to my use of the term leftist while you yourself blithely toss the word neocon around.

Secondly, I hope we can agree that, while the belief that if ANY good comes from the events in Iraq then our actions were justified is a fallacious argument, the belief that if ANY ill comes from those same events then we are unjustified or unjustifiable is equally fallacious.

Thirdly, we seem to be in agreement that the ultimate outcome of the Iraqi people creating a government for themselves and then having to live under it is not yet predictable. An evaluation of the ultimate results of our action is years or decades away. Why then are you accusing me of being a polyanna, overly-optimistic shill when I point out that your gloomy scenario has not yet come to pass, any more than the optimistic scenario the neocons hope for has?

Fourthly, not a single one of the Bush-haters on this board has even made a passing acknowledgement that the elections were carried off far more smoothly and with a far greater turnout than any estimates had predicted. Instead, the sour grapes has only become more entrenched. One might almost suspect you were hoping for bloodshed, carnage, and leather-clad mutants prowling a radioactive wasteland just for an opportunity to tell Bush "I told you so." On what basis do you criticize me for observing that the election going more smoothly than anyone had dared hope is an encouraging sign? Would you have preferred flying body parts and lamentations?

In fact, the very smoothness of the election and the enthusiastic voter turnout also gives the lie to the theories that Iraqis don't want Democracy and are having it crammed down their throats. This is not another Vietnam. Not yet and hopefully not ever. Despite the Leftists' hopes and...dare I say...prayers.

Vaulos has pointed out several scenarios, mostly based on predator pressure, that would tend to prevent a schism with either the Kurds, the Sunni, or both attempting to break away and result in civil war. But if it happens, it happens. It's their country and they have to make it work. My only interest is that none of the groups are blowing up US citizens and that in the long run they come up with a livable solution.

And that leads me to my fifth point: you are correct in observing that isolationism is historically a conservative phenomenon. What you are forgetting, however, is that 9-11 provided very convincing evidence to sensible isolationists that the world was not going to leave us alone unless we did a little bit of housekeeping. Think of it as "enlightened isolationism", in much the same sense as "enlightened self-interest."

While it is possible for two enlightened isolationists to disagree on the specific terms of the housekeeping required, neither is going to argue that completely relaxing our guard and forgetting what we learned at the World Trade Center is anything other than foolhardy.

[Ddrak]

Eid,

First, "neocon" is an accurate description of the US government - they accept and enshrine their neoconservative status. Leftist is not an accurate description of traditional conservatism in any sense of the word.

Second, absolutely. Whichever way it turns out the invasion was premature. I think I can live with that given it's been my position all along and is a matter of public record if you've kept board archives back since late 2002. I also think whichever way it turns out, America would have been better off not invading in March '03 and that alternate history would have resulted in less of your and my tax dollars being sunk into the welfare of foreigners.

Thirdly, characterising my scenario as gloomy is bullshit. Gloomy would be me saying that there'll be endless civil war. Gloomy would be me suggesting other countries getting involved and the situation escalating to a regional conflict. Far as I can see, I'm avoiding the pessimistic result and the overly optimistic result and simply stating facts. The Sunni population is not yet invested in the US strategy by anyone's argument. Any discussion of "the Iraqi people" is fatally flawed by definition because they are not one people but three. Any talk of rampant success without discussion of the absence of the very people supporting the insurgency is just blinkered and biased.

Fourthly, I'll easily acknowledge (and have acknowledged many times) the Shia and Kurdish people turned out in huge numbers and it was a successful Shia/Kurdish election. Strangely that was exactly as I predicted (which is why I acknowledge it). I also predicted publicly that there would be much less bloodshed than anyone expected so your stupid innuendo and Rush-esque characterizations of me desiring mayhem and carnage are just so far off base that there's a stronger chance you'd be caught with a stained blue dress of Hillary Clinton's than be correct on that characterization of my position.

I criticize your analysis of the elections because they are superficial and ignore the fundamental divisions in Iraq. I say they are flawed because you are taking a prejudiced stance of assuming a united Iraq in your analysis and using it to prove a united Iraq. When you show me the Sunni voter turnout comparable to the other ethnic factors then you can claim success for a democratic process but not until that point. Democratic systems require a well informed and uniformly participating electorate - neither of which was true in Iraq.

Vietnam is an interesting analogy seeing YOU are the one to bring it up in this discussion with me. Something you're worried about there? Weren't there elections in South Vietnam before the North won? What about the South Vietnamese "thirst for freedom", or are they some exception to your communistic belief in everyone working for some greater good rather than their own personal welfare? I don't think Vietnam is a good analogy though but I'm glad you brought it up because it makes an interesting tool for comparison and avoidance of the same mistakes even though it's a wildly disparite situation.

None of the Iraqi groups was blowing up US citizens under Saddam's rule. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. What on earth made you bring that up? Last I looked it was the Saudis that were blowing up Americans and, well, aren't they an oppressive dictatorship too?

And your fifth point is just historically ignorant. Do you recall how Al Qaeda was created? Oh yeah - US foreign intervention in the Russian/Afghanistan war. Do you recall what triggered Osama's hatred and desire to bomb America? Oh yeah - US troops in his homeland of Saudi Arabia. Do you recall what fuels radical Islam's hatred of America? Oh yeah - US intervention against the Caliphate in WW1. So perhaps your "lesson" of 9/11 has the fatal flaw that all the forces that drew together to attack America can be sourced back to past US foreign intervention. Maybe your lessons, as your analysis of the elections, is simply superficial and prejudiced. You've decided the answer and then molded the facts to fit it.

Before you start rampantly saying that I'm suggesting the US is at fault for 9/11 - absolutely not. Intervention in WW1 was for the greater good without question. I've said multiple times that the 1991 action in Iraq was justified also. CIA action in Afghanistan is decidedly more dodgy, but best left for another debate. It's undeniable however that the ripple effects from US foreign intervention whether good or bad contributed to the perfect storm that was 9/11.

So, Eidolon, your idea "enlightened isolationism" forcing the war in Iraq in March '03 isn't really very enlightened at all, especially if you look at the lessons of 9/11 and where foreign intervention can cause ripples. I was never against invading Iraq, much as you'd put those words in my mouth. I was always for getting better information, trying more and more forceful methods of protecting America before committing the full military and blowing hundreds of billions of dollars. I've always taken the position that the war was premature, not completely unnecessary.

Therefore, I suggest to you that I'm actually squarely in your definiton of "enlightened isolationist" and the current neoconservative government has, by their own publications dating back to 1997, abandoned the conservative value of isolationism completely for a far more imperialistic expansion. It's all there in black and white on PNAC if you care to read it. It's a valid ideology, just in my opinion, true right wing conservatism/libertarianism is and has proven superior every step of the way.

Dd

[vaulos]

Ddrak- Usually your posts are quite good, but lately you seem to have fallen off. I made no such conflation about China. Nor did I suggest that the US government is free from the influence of religion. Have you been mixing my posts up with someone else's?

Vivyre- If you care about our soldiers, you should give a fuck about democracies in other countries. After all, in this day and age, it is no mistake that we don't ever find ourselves arrayed against democracies, militarily.

[Ddrak]

Vaulos,

This is the statement I was referring to on China:

And even in Communist countries, you see a gradual weakening of governments in response to pro-democratic tendencies (this is a HUGE concern right now in China).

I believe the gradual weakening is not in a response to pro-democratic tendancies, but rather in a response to economic factors. "Democratic" tendancies are a secondary issue that can be ignored or suppressed much more readily than market forces.

My point about the false dichotomy is your previous few posts have been littered with "Iraqi people being given a choice", which like I said to Eid presupposes that Iraq is made up of a single people. They are not being given the choice of splitting into 3 nations if that's what they want. They are not being given the choice of drafting wildly different forms of government that don't involve simultaneous national elections. In essence, they have a "choice" but it's a very tightly controlled one.

The religion thing was mainly just to show that a presupposed choice between "democracy" and "religious autocracy" wasn't as cut and dried as to be as simple as a "choice". There's almost a smooth spectrum of governmental styles between the two poles. Again, almost a false dichotomy.

Dd

[Partha]

But perhaps this isn't your point. Perhaps you are meaning to imply that these people will reject democracy, simply because of how it is presented (even that it is presented)? Do you really think people that fickle?

As an aside, you DO know that one of the more popular saying to arise about Mideastern governments is that it is better to be ruled by a strong tyrant than to have a situation of anarchy, right? The Mideastern culture is at it's base a merchant one, where stabililty is prized very highly.

[vaulos]

Partha- Stability is prized in just about every culture.

Ddrak- My point about the destabalizing of Communist countries was merely to point out that many have gone from Monopolistic-Communism to Capitalist-Democracy (e.g., Russia, pan-Slav, etc). China on the other hand has gone from Monopolistic-Communism to Capitalistic-Democracy (or at least more Capitalistic). The worry in China is that those reforms will ultimately lead to the people being dissatisfied with Communism and push for democratic reforms (which they believe won't work). That was the worry I was referring too. There was no conflation of the two, but rather a referrence to what did happen in the former Soviet Union and a referrence to the growing fear of democracy in China's oligarchy.

I still have no idea where you got the religious bit and/or how it applies to what I said.

You stated: "He [Vaulos] seems to believe that the US government is free from religion when the religious right is such a huge driving force in US politics."

I'm just really not sure where you got that from, or what it has to do with your explanation of it.

As to your statement regarding the choice that these people are being given, you are actually wrong to suggest that they are not "free" to break the country up. Now that they are considered a soverign country (and the US merely guests) they are more than welcome to divide the country up into whatever sections they wish to. That would be completely thier choice. You'll notice that no one is talking in those directions however. And I would suggest that it is NOT because of US pressure, but rather pressure from the Iranians and Turks respectively.

[Partha]

Wait for the Free Kurdistan movement.

[Ddrak]

Vaulos,

Russia went to "Democracy" and lately has started shifting very left again under Putin, with the apparent blessing of the majority of Russians. I believe much of this is from the fear of terrorism, which tends to drive a society towards the more totalitarian model governments (observe the changes in the US since 9/11 and look at the Israeli government). In essence, a hostile force driving fear into a population can quickly panic them into the abandonment of freedoms and into the "security" of totalitarianism.

China isn't a Democracy last I looked. Nothing like it. They have a tightly state controlled economy.

Essentially the force that has driven all these cultures to democratic systems hasn't been a poetic yearning for freedom by the people, but the realities of a free market economy working much better than a state controlled one. When the state abandons its hold on the economy, people decide they want a slice of the action and start demanding the ability to vote themselves money, usually because they've become impoverished by the state controlled system. This isn't a yearning for freedom - it's a yearning for cash and personal wealth.

Hence my statement that you are conflating market pressures with some pressure for freedom. The former is very real. The latter only exists in the minds of idealogues.

I may have been off the mark with the religious bit. Seemed to be what you were saying at the time.

I don't believe I'm wrong at all to suggest they are "free" to break their country up. The US has been quite adamant about keeping a single Iraq. Now they have the tyranny of the majority to deal with - the Shia know that the Sunni have the majority of the oil resources, the US knows the same thing. Neither want those resources to slip from their grasp.

No one is "talking in those terms" because the Sunni aren't even a part of talks. In case you didn't notice, all the major Sunni groups were not a part of the election process and refuse to take part in the government until the occupation ends. In addition, the "roadmap" laid down by the US doesn't even approach the concept of splitting the country - it specifically goes against it with schedules for *national* elections.

While I agree there's pressure from Turkey to prevent creation of an independant Kurdistan, I don't think you'll find many Kurds particularly cowed by that approach. The US won't permit it (they need Turkey as a happy part of NATO) and Turkey wouldn't follow through with anything if they want to be part of the EU. If you think the Kurds are going to put up with Shia rule, I've a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. If you think the Sunni are going to put up with Shia rule then... well... nm.

As for "soverign nation", maybe on Dec 15 if the "national" elections are a truly representative vote (unlike the current ones). Until then, it's still very much an occupied nation with a bunch of political pretensions flying over the top.

Dd

[Burz]

Wait for the Free Kurdistan movement.

100% support.