quote: I believe it was King George that was amazed that George Washington actually RELINQUISHED power after his presidency. (PLEASE do not take that as a denigration of the English Monarchy)
Yeah, can't actually remember exactly who it was but I think you're right. Although that reflects more on the attitude towards the American rebels than a belief in the necessity of personal rule (George III was a constitutional monarch after all). And please, please, please learn the difference between English and British. I may start refering to all Americans as Texans.
quote: My point is that the U.S. is being accused of imperialism. That we are somehow trying to make Iraq into a part of our "Empire".
Well, yeah. America is an empire. I don't just mean in the sense that the territory which now constitutes the US are imperial gains (they are) but also the exportation of your political system is the essence of liberal imperialism.
Iraq posed no threat to the US. Saddam would undoubtably have liked to have been a threat and was not an especailly nice guy or good ruler, to put it mildly. But the self-defence arguement is simply bollocks. I agree with the removal of Saddam, but think the whole political side has been grossly mishandled.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Well obviously the campaign in Iraq was not primarily for liberation or to stop weapons programs.
Obvious?
Those seem to be two main justifications for the use of military force in Iraq.
Perhaps you could to tell us what you think the preemptive invasion was primarily for then?
And I'd be interested in seeing how your answer jibes with the way the Administration promoted the invasion.
1. There are countries with a more opressed population in Africa (then even Iraqis were) that need to be liberated.
2. North Korea, with an extreamly opressed population, posed a very immediate threat on a timescale of months rathers then years (like Iraq).
This means that North Korea would definely be the immediate target for 'some' type of action.
Iraq was selected, however, so the above two reasons cannot be the primary reasons for invading Iraq.
As for oil, it is likely that the U.S. could get more access to Iraq's oil anyway. The oil was just another (allbeit important) factor in the economic reconstruction. This recontruction has proceed inefficiently in part due to the rewarding of certain companies probably in exchange for election donations.
Also, a successful invasion of Iraq would have ment a signifigant boost in popularity, further increasing Bush's chances in the upcoming election.
posted
Oh, glee - someone on another prop board (a conservative, natch) has just said that the 2000 election was so long ago, it isn't relevant to anything and shouldn't be mentioned in context to the current election or anything else, ever again.
So, by my calculations that's a three and three-quarter-year statute of limitations on recent US history. That means we only have nine months more before 9/11 whingeing has to stop forever. Roll on June 2005! I bet that'll go down well with that lot on that board, Well, if they will discuss politics. . . 8)
[ August 29, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]
"And please, please, please learn the difference between English and British."
Well, if you want to get that particular, shouldn't have have said "British and Irish monarchy"? Or, in this instance, perhaps just "German monarchy, northwestern subsidiary"?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Although Tim is technically correct in that "British" does not include Northern Ireland (the UK being the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), he is still being rather nitpicky, since in general conversation "Great Britain" and "UK" are used interchangably, even by the Irish. Just look at the Olympics as an example.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: My point is that the U.S. is being accused of imperialism. That we are somehow trying to make Iraq into a part of our "Empire"...
posted
Too right. Back of the class for you, Wizzychops. Just because we once had an empire ourselves - and it was a very nice empire, just about the biggest of all time in fact, but all good things come to an end and hey, we're cool with that - doesn't mean we don't get to point out imperialism in others. Just 'cause we got this major beam in our eye it don't mean you ain't got no speck in yours, you dig?
quote: When we leave, I give them less than a decade before some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality.
Depend how long the Coalition stays and what the attitude is towards Iraq after we leave. In my view the Coalition should be prepared to be called upon to assist security forces in Iraq for at least 25 years. This is the problem with the US conception of imperialism. It doesn't involve the taking of any responsibility or any transitional stages between dictatorship and democracy.
That's the rub isint it? The US is not looking to make Iraq a territory: we'd rather have them "democratic" in a west-friendly (and beholden to us, of course)way. THe idea is to (somehow) train the new Iraqi governments' forces to maintain order and THEN LEAVE. Iraqi's don't want us US forces in thir country any longer than out troops want to be there, but most also dont think the US is going to take over either.
As to "some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality", check the news: it's already happening. The presence of US forces is all that's preventing a quick, bloody overthrow of the interim government by Al Sadur's forces for his own personal power.
The Iraqi government needs to eliminate him (figurativly or literally) if there's going to be a democracy in their future.
If that happens, of course, those same people denouncing the US occupation now will blame the US is a dictatorship or theocracy sets up after we leave. Just as they blamed us when they starved while saddam pocketed the money fom the "oil for food" clusterfuck program.
Having Kerry or Bush in office will make no diffrence to these events.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"Perhaps you should learn the difference between Prussia and Germany."
Touch�. Though, actually, Hannover wasn't yet part of Prussia at that time. But, then, it didn't have a monarchy, either.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: If Bush had NOT done ANYTHING to Iraq, the DemoNrats would be calling for his head for taking no action over Sept. 11. They would be crying "where's the justice" or "why haven't we acted".
My general problem with that particular statement is that the United States did act militarily against people more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
It did so in Afghanistan, remember.
Or rather, had the Northern Alliance do so in Afghanistan.
*Edit: I see that Wraith beat me to it.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: I may start refering to all Americans as Texans.
I think I may start referring to the English as Roundheads.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Sounds kooky from the doom-n-gloom of the news but they are.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
