SADDAM HUSSEIN CAUGHT! - Page 4

"If this was a question of Some Pro-Christian Alliance war to convert Iraq to Christianity, would you be OK with it? "
No I wouldn't be ok with it.

"Then why is it OK for you to war upon other nations over economics, etc. . . . what chose this is what we want you to be , this is our standard to which you must adhere!"
Because what you don't seem to understand is that the Iraqis will be choosing their government. That also means, foreign policy, domestic policies, economic policies.
Bush may pressure the Iraqi government to go free-market capitalist, but ultimately, it is the Iraqi government (and hence, Iraqi people) who will decide to go capitalist, modern socialist or (now this would be strange) communist.

"Authoritarian governments, like Marco's of the Phillipines or the shaw (sp) of Iran? "
Yes, if they're ignorant, it is most likely because they do not have access to varied news sourves and are affected by propaganda.

"No I am not a capitalist, Thank GOD. At least that is one blessing!"
At the risk of going off-topic, what are you?

" It is hypochritical to claim that a Christian crusade is wrong yet a democratic one isn't. "
Well I'm sorry if I believe people should choose their own government. Its called self determination and I think it is sickening that you believe it is more righteous to let armed, oppressive minorities rule upon the majority of foreign nations.
I again assert, has Saddam been an age old form of traditional government for the Iraqis, you would have a point.
As that is not the case, it is only moral to smash the oppressive minority and let the majority choose its own destiny.

"Any involvement by the US in Iraq's supposed democracy will be for its own benefit, which indicates that it will not be a democracy. Any push by an outside force to drive the politics in a certain direction negates the possibility of democracy."
That is utter gibberish, nonesense and it ignores past history completely.
Germany,Japan, Italy and South Korea were all democratized. The US fought a righteous "democratic crusade", if we must use your vocabulary, during WW1 and 2. The US with its allies won and installed thriving democracies in Italy, Germany and Japan. These democracies were entirely in the interest of the united states, they stopped powerful nations from falling into the Soviet orbit.
Thus, it benefitted the US. However these democracies were also true democracies (unless you'd like to contest the fact that Germany and Japan are democracies).
Thus the US has in the past has pushed for democracy in other nations, has served itself in doing so and helped those receiving nations turn into thriving nations.

It has worked in the past, and so long as the US and UN have the will to build Iraqi infrastructure and raise living standards, then there is every reason to believe Iraq will work.

quote:

---

"Authoritarian governments, like Marco's of the Phillipines or the shaw (sp) of Iran? "
Yes, if they're ignorant, it is most likely because they do not have access to varied news sourves and are affected by propaganda.

---

Hmm, I think you mayhave missed the point of these statements? In Iran the USA, held a terrible dictator in power because he was a good lackey (puppet leadership) for Capitalism , not to be confused with democracy.
In the Phillipines well what can be said . . . I spent some time there and it is terrible what has become of the people.
So suddenly after supporting dictators and represive regimes, we desided to support democracy for Iraq? For some reason I just don't believe it! What sis they repent the lies , deciet, and murders that they promoted with our puppet?
Strange but true, when I was in these foreign countries I liked to get away from the cities & spent a lot of time in rural areas. May it be that the spirit was with me but I didn't run into any evil commies out there, I just found good hearted people living their lives. In fact the greatest dangers I faced were in the cities where American values prevailed? Just lucky or lacking the usual arrogance of our society?

quote:

---

"No I am not a capitalist, Thank GOD. At least that is one blessing!" At the risk of going off-topic, what are you?

---

Hmm, assuming my past comments some would think that I am Christian? Others might think I am a communist or some other evil?

Well, My understand Christian teaching has borne fruit in that I know Jesus spoke (taught) the truth. That man is the liar, who put his waywardness (love of money) before that Truth.
Therefore I don't have much to do with it, afterall I didn't overcome the 'Power of Mammon' to be enslaved by it's social values and I don't particularly want to play GOD in the World.

So although I have great distaste for Capitalism. As it is written that it would come to such . . . such is the right & responsiblity of free-will (not the lie man puts forth in the World but the GOD given right). So you see I believe in democracy and I certainly pray that the people (Iraq) will come desire to form such a ruling (self-governing) body. Not the waywardness that we (capitalism) substituted for the Truth but to do that they will have to break the yoke of oppression for themselves. They will have to overcome the 'worship of mammon' with which we seek to yoke them.
So, No the USA did nothing for these people other than put greater hardship upon them.

Thanks Decius for your heart rendering support of the facist government overthrown by the colition forces. We love Sadham also (NOT)! You wimps in Canada need to start defending (and paying for) your own defense. I'm an American first, a Democrat second. I do not believe President Bush had any clue about what was going to happen on 9/11. If he knew didn't President Clinton know about the imminent threat? I don't believe President Clinton knew either! It happened. That's reality! There are cave dwellers out there that hate modern civilization. They will kill you or me, my family, your family. They hate your civilized ass! We need to deal with facts, not conspiracy theories. Wonder if these cavemen ignited a "dirty" bomb in Montreal or Mexico City? That is the threat! You appeasers make the world more unsafe! The United States would back your ass up. Where the HELL are you and your country?
Eldred

"how can you compare WW2 and this? It is hilarious that you compare a defensive war like WW2 to an imperialistic one like this. Germany, Japan and Italy instigated the war, and the US was defending itself."
The nature of the war does not change the fact that in both cases the US has interests it must take from the target country AND democratizes the target country.
Besides that, Bush cannot allow himself to fuckup now, there will be a democratic gov in Iraq or everyone and their grandma will be voting for a democrat. Unlike Afganistan, this rebuilding will be publicized to the extreme, he can make no mistakes.

"Hmm, I think you mayhave missed the point of these statements? In Iran the USA, held a terrible dictator in power because he was a good lackey (puppet leadership) for Capitalism , not to be confused with democracy."
That wasn't capitalism, it was against communism. The US used extreme and unnecessary measures against communism. True capitalism as described by Adam Smith has been the cause for more development then anything else, except perhaps industrialization, which is closely linked.


"Hmm, assuming my past comments some would think that I am Christian? Others might think I am a communist or some other evil?"
Communism isn't evil, certainly not the theory anyway.
I mean what economic system do you believe in?

"DumbTeen, you have a very limited view of the war and WW2 if you think they were in any way similar.
Imperialistic wars != Isolationalist wars"
They are not similar, however the nature of the war has absolutely no bearing on your incorrect statement. You have completely misunderstood my statement, I never said they were similar, stop shoving words in my mouth. I said the war-type is irrelevent.

In reaction to this statement, I don't see how the nature of the war affects it at all.
" Any push by an outside force to drive the politics in a certain direction negates the possibility of democracy. "
Regardless of the nature of the war, German Democracy and Iraqi democracy both obviously ulterior had and have other motives in their making.
The US didn't install a stable democracy in Germany for the sake of doing so, it installed it so that West Germany would not fall into Soviet orbit.
Hence the US drove politics into a certain direction (anti-communist) at the time, and yet today, Germany is a full-fledged democracy.
The nature of the war is irrelevant, your own statement makes no mention of war type, the only thing that matters is whether or not the democracy installers have ulterior motives (which they ALWAYS DO), and they did have ulterior motives after world war2 as they do today.
Post WW2, they wanted Germany and Japan to escape soviet orbit, post Gulf War II, they want a stable, non-religious, non-racist, US-friendly government.
The fact they need this push initially does not change the fact that Germany and Japan are democracies today.

I've already answered you statement that the wars were different. I agreed with you, and yet you persist in telling my that they are different. I agree with you.
I contend that the war-type is irellevent, because regardless of war type, during both Germany's intallment of democracy and present day Iraq's there is a "push by an outside force to drive the politics in a certain direction". This fact is not influenced by war type, it is fact the US post-WW2 nudged Italy and Germany into non-communist governments.
So by YOUR OWN STATEMENT, " Any push by an outside force to drive the politics in a certain direction negates the possibility of democracy. ", Germany, Italy and Japan should not be democracies.

Had you attacked my statement that the war type is irrelevant, and argued why you believe war-type is relevant (and then altered your statement), then I would continue to debate with you.
Yet you persist in telling my the same thing over and over, as if I was disagreeing with you on that point. You clearly are not paying any good attention to my posts or addressing any of my points, only fictive ones you seem to seeing, so I don't have the courage to continue this debate.

Why can't it be a true Democracy?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/13/sprj.nirq.bremer/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/13/sprj.nirq.gov/index.html

The Iraqi government should be elected in 2005. At which if you read down more you will also find that the people wish for us to leave, and that will be negotiated soon after the election.

Though some of it is completly 100% fair, you really can't blame them since they have to figure out the plan in 1 year whether it is good or not so revision isn't 100%.

But there will be an election in 2005 and after the election there will be an Iraqi constitutional convention. And all this will be under the watchful eye of the U.N.(even though we didn't listen to them the first time, atleast we will attempt now )

So I am guessing that in 1-3 years there should no longer be an American occupation and there should be some form of a democratic system.

America isn't even a "pure" democracy, so I think they can survive without it being a "pure" democracy for a couple of years.

And yes they can promote a candidate but they can't force them onto the Iraqi people. The U.N. is now onboard so it is also the U.N.'s ass on the line. So anything we do reflects onto everyone. So I doubt we can form a big conspiracy to make a profit off the Iraqi people.

And what other forms of government can Iraq have, you know no one will go for anything other than democracy and/or republic.

And even if this election isn't a "perfect"one. Their government gets to make a constitution and maybe by the time of the next election they can atleast make it better and/or fairer.

You can't expect the perfect government for the Iraq people right off the bat. They have to go through their trial and error just like the Americans did back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. And that is something the U.S. can't help, because even if they give advice that would be hurting them because not every country should have the same government as we do.

quote:

---

"Not everyone believes in his teachings or his messianic qualities."
I don't believe in him either, but regardless, his life is exemplary of a moral one.
" So serving yourself is inherantly immoral and doing something outside yourself is inherantly moral?"
That's not what I said I defined morality : helping another at your own cost is moral.
If you want immorality : helping yourself at the cost of others is immoral.

---

What if the armed forces belong to some other nation who goes to war with a country and then institutes changes which are in their own best interest, not those whom they have supposedly liberated?

quote:

---

" It is hypochritical to claim that a Christian crusade is wrong yet a democratic one isn't. "
Well I'm sorry if I believe people should choose their own government. Its called self determination and I think it is sickening that you believe it is more righteous to let armed, oppressive minorities rule upon the majority of foreign nations.
I again assert, has Saddam been an age old form of traditional government for the Iraqis, you would have a point.
As that is not the case, it is only moral to smash the oppressive minority and let the majority choose its own destiny.

---

Isn't that as absurd as a nation calling itself "Christian" but isn't ruled by Christ?
Or a nation calling itself a 'democracy' when it is ruled by wealth and political power structures, rather than the will of the people?

"What if the armed forces belong to some other nation who goes to war with a country and then institutes changes which are in their own best interest, not those whom they have supposedly liberated?"
The changes in Iraq are in the best interest of the US, and in the interest of Iraq. Just as it was with Germany and Japan. Don't let the nature of the war fool you, the US didn't put democracies in Japan and Germany out of benevolence. They did it to have strong allies against the Soviet Bloc.

"Isn't that as absurd as a nation calling itself "Christian" but isn't ruled by Christ?
Or a nation calling itself a 'democracy' when it is ruled by wealth and political power structures, rather than the will of the people?"
There is no such thing as true democracy. However, yes, the US isn't as democratic as it could be, however that's not the issue of this debate. The US is democratic enough so that the people have a major influence on politics.

quote:

---

There is no such thing as true democracy. However, yes, the US isn't as democratic as it could be, however that's not the issue of this debate. The US is democratic enough so that the people have a major influence on politics.

---

Ah, we have at last find something to which we can agree?
There is no such thing as true democracy. However, the US isn't as democratic as it should be! Which is at issue, that the US not being a democracy but rather ruled by economicly elite will in fact strive to promote that form.
Which comes to another question, what if the Iraq people through the democratic format choose not to form the supposedly democratic form of government.Or even more of an embarassment "what if they wrote in Saddam as their First President? Now, wouldn't that be a hoot!

"what if they wrote in Saddam as their First President? Now, wouldn't that be a hoot!"
Well that certainly would be a real shocker.