Encouraging news from Iraq

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:33 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton

As for Jimmy's comment, sorry for saying middle east. What I mean is if successful democracy in Iraq leads to successful democracy elsewhere in the Arab world, it would be a remarkable achievement. If that happens, who do you think is going to receive the lion's share of credit for putting his neck on the line and going against international opinion?

IF Iraq can transform into a democracy, it will not even be for some time. Bush may not even be in office. just because he is the president that started an invasion of the country doesn't make him one of the greats or responsible for the final out come. Heck, wouldn't Blair, who has supported us 100% and now has no political future in England, be given half the credit to begin with?

I am sorry, taking a dictator out of power adn installing new governments has been done over and over, this is not something that turns any president into 'one of the greats.'

by **Chacal** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:40 pm

Has someone hacked into Ralph Wiggum's account? He's usually very clear, but now I can't understand what this post tries to say or where it comes from.

by **LeVar Burton** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:44 pm

Blair given half the credit? Get real Jimmy... Bush was basically given a blank check after 9/11 and he used that check for the Iraq war. Any person capable of thinking objectively in the future will attribute the start of democracy in the region to this action. If I'm not mistaken, I think elections are scheduled for December? Maybe I'm naive, but I like Iraq's chances.

When you say installing new governments, I'm assuming you mean some of our actions during the Cold War. At that point our goal wasn't to spread democracy if democracy meant communism. You can debate all you want about whether that was right or wrong, but containment was the goal.

The fact is it is in our best interests for democracy to succeed around the globe because for whatever reason democracies seem to have a reluctance to go to war with eachother.

by **LeVar Burton** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:47 pm

Chacal, I think he was referring to your comment about the need for social evolution. People said that the Japanese were incapable of having a democracy. Personally, I think the idea that people in the Arab world are incapable of democracy is a myth perpetuated by the people in power that benefit. Which is also probably the group you refer to as "them."

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:52 pm

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
And to paraphrase a JT quote from way back, communism has never been actually put in to practice anywhere [implying that it could still work]. You are seriously out of touch Jimmy Tango, unless you are talking about Israel.

Excuse me, you might want to do some reasearch instead of getting your opinions on the middle east from the news.

There are smaller countries that are run just like England, which is quasi-democracic, like Bahrain. Israel and Turkey are both democracies, and jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen are quasi-democratic.

by **LeVar Burton** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:04 pm

His point was that in the past you said that no nation has actually been fully communist, yet you claim that democracy exists in the middle east. Now you've changed to "quasi-democracy." Comparisons to England mean little if anything, because we all know that the monarchy part of constitutional monarchy is negligable in the UK, whereas Bahrain is a "constitutional hereditary monarchy," and I can assure you the monarchs weild more power in these countries.

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:16 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
His point was that in the past you said that no nation has actually been fully communist, yet you claim that democracy exists in the middle east.

No natian has even been communist, ever. Each and every nation coined communism has been nothing more than a dictatorship.

Originally posted by LeVar Burton

Now you've changed to "quasi-democracy." Comparisons to England mean little if anything, because we all know that the monarchy part of constitutional monarchy is negligable in the UK, whereas Bahrain is a "constitutional hereditary monarchy," and I can assure you the monarchs weild more power in these countries.

I point out true democracies, then add in the rest. In no way are they the basis. Bahrain broke from the UK in the 70's. It's newest constitution which was adobted in late 2000 calls for a partially elected legislature, a constitutional monarchy, and an independent judiciary. The kicker, is their legal system is based on Islamic law and English common law. English common law? Kinda like that country with 50 states....

by **cavalierlwt** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:26 pm

Jimmy Tango, you split hairs over the usage of the words 'Middle East' than lump Democracy in with quasi-democracy, then decide that Russia and China aren't communist because they are dictatorships? You play it loose when it suits you, tight when it suits you!
BTW, Communism is an economic system, Dictatorship is a political system, they are not linked.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:55 pm

their legal system is based on Islamic law and English common law. English common law? Kinda like that country with 50 states....

Which is decended from Norse tribal law. Who can blame them for thinking the Vikings (The people, not the football team!) were cool?:P

But seriously Jimmy, you should look beyond your preconcieved political notions when thinking about legacies. Clinton was a butthead but he was president during great economic times due to the internet bubble and he will be remembered well for the good economic times, regardless of the things he did wrong, and to the chagrin of many conservatives.

If things work out great in Iraq (not saying they will but just if they do) people in the future are going to hold George in high regard, much to the chagrin of liberals. Nobody is saying you have to like it. You'll be chomping your teeth much like conservatives do when people talk good about Bill.

And BTW Turkey has been an Arab democracy since when, the 1920's? Nothing Quasi- about it. LeVar may very well be right in stating:

Personally, I think the idea that people in the Arab world are incapable of democracy is a myth perpetuated by the people in power that benefit. Which is also probably the group you refer to as "them."

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:59 pm

It is simple people: in communism there is no single leader that is in charge. Name one 'communist' country that is like that.

And now for the second time, I had TWO democracies pointed out in the middle east, then add the quasi. The quasi governments are NOT the main point, but do show that other governments are not terrorist run or dictatorships. I can not stress that enough. If you do not understand that the quasi are not the main point after this post, you have a learning disability.

by **JimmyTango** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:07 pm

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus

And BTW Turkey has been an Arab democracy since when, the 1920's? Nothing Quasi- about it.

I know, I think you misread, the quasi democracies were listed after the two 'true' democracies.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:08 pm

Cool. thanks for the clarification.

by **LeVar Burton** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:25 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think Turks identified themselves as Arabs. I would also say Turkey is more European than anything else.

by **Ralph Wiggum** » Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:30 am

My point Chacal, is that you seem willing to consign most non-whites in the world to dictatorship because they're not ready for it; that sounds slightly racist. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but if I were to tell you I didn't think Canada needed immigrants from Ghana because they weren't mature enough to handle all the elections, I think you would call me a racist. I brought up Japan as an example of a country once thought unsuitable which appears to be thriving. I could add South Korea and at least a handful of other countries in Asia.

Your statement that we are forcing democracy on them so that we can do business with them is ridiculous in my opinion. First, we could easily trade with whoever had their money under Saddam, just like many other countries were doing even as late as the spring of 2003. Second, how much trade do you realistically expect Iraq to account for? Why in the world would we spend billions of dollars and hundreds of lives to break into that market? (And Bush is evi is not an acceptable answer.) I know you'll say it's for oil, but see point number one. Moreover, we could have told the UN to drop the sanctions at any time and let the oil start flowing. Do you want to argue that we wouldn't have had access to their oil because they wouldn't have sold it to us? If so, I would point out that oil is what we call a commodity - that means it's fungible. As long as it makes it to the market, the price of oil will go down. And we could have done that with a phone call to Kofi Annan. Is the argument that now Exxon will make the money instead of Total? If so that is a pretty lame argument in light of the fact that these unevolved people will at least be benefiting from the removal of a police state.

Or does this theory rest on the assumption that once Iraq started trading with us, its economy would flourish and then we'd be talking about real money? If so, I will be more than happy to take the blame for removing Saddam Hussein and raising the Iraqi standard of living. The fact that you are anti-free trade shouldn't be a reason for supporting a dictatorship.

By Kyoto, I was referring of course to the Kyoto Protocol which is apparently something that lefties worry about, even though it's effects on the environment would have been negligible in that it would have exempted India and China from most of its regulations. My point was that if these people are so immature they can't govern themselves, why the hell should they have any say in governing my country?

Turks aren't Arabs, but that is a side issue. I am no Turkish scholar but I don't think that most of their democracy has been anything to be particularly proud of. The government has essentially been propped up by, if not run by, their military for years (I believe the armed forces have some sort of veto power over the civilian government built into their constitution; I'll leave it for someone else to look it up). It does seem like they are making strides now though, so Jimmy does have a point about there being democracies in the middle east. Bahrain sounds more like a limited democracy at best, whether they use English common law or not. Also, it apparently has about 650,000 people total, so I don't think it's too influential. Israel can't be counted for obvious reasons. But arguing over whether any country in the region is technically a democracy is not really the issue. Several other countries might count too, at least under the prevailing "one man, one vote, one time" theory of governance applied in the region. Along those lines, I'm surprised no one pointed out that Saddam was elected - I think he got 100% of the vote last time.

The great accomplishment would be a robust, functioning, democratically-elected government in the middle of all the backwardness that is the middle east. That will take years, but it will be worth it if it works. At the end of the day, such an outcome would probably elevate Bush in the history books, whatever that counts for.

The phrase "Wretched of the Earth" is a Frantz Fanon reference for those of you scoring at home.

Encouraging news from Iraq

Who is online