Democracy, US style!

You dumb Iraqians! You don't know what democracy is, so stop complaining!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...

Occupation Forces Halt Elections Throughout Iraq

SAMARRA, Iraq -- U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders.

The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein...(etc)

Please Ulairi, defend this as the right way to spread democracy in Iraq.

Hate to say I told you so, but, no wait I dont mind it at all.

What would you expect from an occupation force led by an Administration that took the democratic process out of the hands of the American people?

Ok, in order to not turn this thread into juvenille raspberries, heres a quote

""I''m not opposed to it, but I want to do it a way that takes care of our concerns. . . . Elections that are held too early can be destructive. It''s got to be done very carefully.""

This is exactly what I was saying all along. Iraqi''s can rule themselves, at our behest. They can control thier own government, unless we don''t like it then we make sure our interests are met. That is not democracy, that is not freedom, it is a satellite government. How does this make them want democracy?

It is obvious that none of you care about creating a true Liberal Democracy. Just allowing people to hold elections doesn''t ensure democracy. We were in Japan for years before the Japanese got their ways. We need to create democratic institutions.

So, you all are wrong. You cannot say ""I told you so"" because you aren''t right. Before they start to govern them selves they need to know how they are going to govern them selves. That means we need a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.

Keep trying.

Ah, so are you saying that we don''t value freedom? Tough talk from the group who has consitently limited the freedom of its own people over the past two years while proclaiming that it was going around the world to establish it.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Ah, so are you saying that we don''t value freedom? Tough talk from the group who has consitently limited the freedom of its own people over the past two years while proclaiming that it was going around the world to establish it.

I think you are so quick to be anti-Bush that it clouds your judgement. I''m not a fan of asscroft but do not compare how your freedoms are limited to how the Iraqi peoples was. We have a free press, free democratic-elections, and civil rights. The Patriod Act has three more years on it and will be changed then.

If you go back and look at things in a historical context, your freedoms haven''t been touched.

If you go back and look at things in a historical context, your freedoms haven''t been touched.

Do you think if you were Arab American you''d be singing the same tune?

Really? Then why isn''t there any press about the now-confirmed erroneousness of the ""Trailers of Death"" in Iraq? Why is there monitors on all Internet traffic for ""key words""? Why is the right to question your accusers in court abridged if you happen to be an accused terrorist? Why is there a ""no-fly"" list for airlines? Why are good, honest people being questioned, harrassed, and imprisoned for no reason other than the color of their skin and which god they swear faith to? If you go back and look at recent history, your basic freedoms are in jeopardy. Oh wait, you believe that just because you have the right to accuse people of being Communists, your freedom is secure.

Elysium beat me to it, and more succintly, I might add.

Do you think if you were Arab American you''d be singing the same tune?

I really don''t care. If I was an Arab American, I would say that we still have more freedom than any Muslim country. We are at war with Muslims. More to the point: Young male Muslims. That means if you''re a young male Muslim, you should expect it. Does it suck? Yes. Will it go on forever? No. Is it worth it in the short term? Yes.

Wow. All you''d have to say is that you can tell you''re sitting next to a terrorist by their smell and you''d be a pretty close facimile of Ann Coulter.

Damn, Ulairi. Welcome to the radical fringe. Have a smoke and grab a gun.

"Rat Boy" wrote:
Wow. All you''d have to say is that you can tell you''re sitting next to a terrorist by their smell and you''d be a pretty close facimile of Ann Coulter.

Now you''re calling me a racsit. I''m done with you. You are ignorant and base everything from the ""I hate Republicans/Bush"" backwards thinking.

"Elysium" wrote:
Damn, Ulairi. Welcome to the radical fringe. Have a smoke and grab a gun.

I''m not on the radical fringe. I''m just not on the PC fringe. Bill Mhar, and many other leftys are on this fringe.

From here:

""The problem from the point of view of the Iraqis is that whatever limited authority they thought they were getting is being pulled back. Their sense is that things are going backward rather than forward,"" said Corbin.

Corbin recommended the U.S. authority in Iraq should hand over as many government functions as possible to Iraqis.

Don''t act suprised if the baby throws a tantrum if you pull the candy away while they''re licking it.

No, you are not rascist, but your statement was radical and in a way racist. Fighting terrorism does not mean fighting Islam, it means fighting radicals no matter what ideology they have. And in order to win against terrorism from the middle east we have to integrate the Islam as we integrated christianity. Anything else will just stir up more people against us. And assuming all young male muslims are potential terrorists is contraproductive reaching that goal and it brings up some really bad memories for me.

Just accept that there is no clear ""Them vs Us"" anymore.

If you allow I''ll take a nap now, work starts in 5 hours. I hope I find the time to write more tomorrow at work.


We are at war with Muslims. More to the point: Young male Muslims.

Why stop there? Lets qualify it further. We can add angry, zealous and judgemental.

So it now states: Ulairi and the current administration are at war with young male Muslims because they are all angry, zealous, judgemental and have not respect for western authority.


You are ignorant and base everything from the ""I hate Republicans/Bush"" backwards thinking.

And you base your point of view from reading online summaries of ""National Review"" articles. You base all your arguments on the fact that anyone who disagrees with you hates Republicans and Bush.

Okay, first off, if youve read to this point, take a deep breath and relax. Its almost getting to the point of namecalling.

*ohm* *ohm* *ohm*

Now that said, Ulairi, I can understand that we need to teach them how to be democratic. However, what is mainly causing resent here is two things. First, the people being put in charge are Iraqi officers in the military. The same military we just defeated. This would be okay if the people respected them but they don''t, so it doesn''t help the common Iraqi respect thier government. Second, the people were actually preparing for elections already. They know how a democratic government works, and wanted to try one. The US stopped them, not because they weren''t ready but because they needed to make sure thier interests were met. Thier words, not mine. If the US had said, let us get a Bill of Rights drafted, and teach you about civil rights, then you can hold elections it would be different, but they are saying no such thing, so how can we infer that''s what they''re trying to do?

Gee, other than 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, 9/11, the attack on the U.S. Cole, the attempted shoe bombing, the achille laurel, the bombing of the embassies in Saudia Arabia, Kenya and Tanzania, the Lockerbie bombing, the attack at the Bali nightclub and the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, what have young male muslims ever done to us?

And who can blame them? What have we done for them? We ended the Bosnia Serbia War, assisted the Afghans against Russia, and then liberated the country from the Taliban, pushed Saddam out of Kuwait, and actively campaigned to bring peace between Palestine and Isreal at great expense to American lives making us the foil of Osama and company.

Take a look at these pictures.

http://www.earchive.net/muslims.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...

This is what we''re dealing with. A religion based on rage and violence. Whatever the Muslim religion once stood for, peace love equality, etc., it has been hijacked by radical fundamentalists that are at war with the U.S., which is why we are at war with them. Victory in this war is not the destruction of the enemy, but peace in the middle east and freedom from weapons of mass destruction. Sorry, I could resist.

It will take sometime before they are ready for self government. The Iraquis can piss and moan all they want. The ironic thing is under their new freedom they are allowed to piss and moan without getting their tongue cut out. I''m sure that''s missed on them. As far as Iraqui military in charge, I''m sure that''s likely. We certainly didn''t purge Germany of all Nazis. And who should be running the military? Chefs?

I''m not saying it is impossible, but consider what the middle east would be like if all the countries were like Kuwait. They''ve got a damn multiplex in Kuwait! To watch Terminator 3!

Which is no different when fundamentalists hijacked Catholicism and started the Crusades...

Lawyeron, belitteling religion because it has created radical branches, isnt wise. I see the problem in your sources of information. Ask yourself - where do you get information about Islam? Answer is - sources covering mostly bloodsheds, isnt it? I mean - if it bleeds, its news.
Its not attack on your specific sources, its more targeted at any news media here - they cover one riot but ignore three charity fundraisings (which Islam is famous for - charity), oh, except for the charity channels with shady nature.

Imagine how would Christianity look from alien perspective, if in any news, covering corruption, murders and riots happening in Europe or US, talking head would add that wrongdoers were Christians.


Imagine how would Christianity look from alien perspective

... with Bishops covering for molesting priests and then fleeing an accident saying you thought you hit a dog with a man sized crumple in your windshield.

Think of what the opinnion of Christianity would be if all the news coverage on it was regarding televangelists.

I think we have reached a low point here with not accepting other people''s opinions anymore.

No, I cannot accept each and every statement, I do respect everyones opinion and statements though. The other way round I don''t expect others to accept my opinion, but that they respect them. We are too different to always accept each others view at times, but I don''t see this as a bad thing.

That said, saying it''s ok to prosecute young male muslims, because many terrorists are young male muslims and thus they have to deal with it, is not much different from saying it is ok that young black male get prosecuted because there are young black male drug dealers and murderers out there. You just exchange one fringe group and crime for another. And that has nothing to do with Bush or Republicans.

I agree with chrisg here, saying were at war with young male muslims is rather racist. We''re at war with fundamentals, terrorists but not a religon. Turning this into a religous war is one sure way to make sure we lose.

About the generals being put in charge, you would think those that are good at it would be put in charge. The problem the Iraqi''s in the article have with the new leadership is that they were incompetent before, so why should they respect them now? How does that help the cause of democracy? Why shouldn''t someone else be put in charge? If they don''t want them to be in charge, and they are incompetent, why are they being left in charge?

I''m not saying it is impossible, but consider what the middle east would be like if all the countries were like Kuwait. They''ve got a damn multiplex in Kuwait! To watch Terminator 3!

Assuming Kuwait is the goal, how are the US''s current actions getting us there? By undermining the Iraqi people''s faith in their conquerers? If they were cheering when we arrived, they sure as hell aren''t now. Again, how is that helping? All anyone has said is ""itll take some time for them to be a democracy"", but how long? Why is that not the reason the US is giving for martial law? Why won''t they just say to the people, ""you will be a democracy, but we must setup your government first""?

Kuwait is still a monarchy to boot.

The photos I showed you are Shiite Muslims which make up 60% of the population of Iraq. We didn''t spend 20 billion dollars just to have Iraq turn into another Iran. They''ll get to run their government when it is in our interests for them to do so. We are at war with any young male muslim that believes he will go to heaven if he walks on a bus and blows himself up. There are more than just a few of those in the Middle East. If it doesn''t sound ""fair"", well, in the words of John F. Kennedy, ""Life is unfair"".

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...

I agree with your statement that Islamics are charitable. They were certainly charitable when they raised 55 million for palestinian ""martyrs"".
And it wasn''t ""shady"", everyone knew what the money was for.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/412...

The difference between our government and the government 60% of Iraquis want is that we have a separation of Church and State. And in our country, when religious leaders commit crimes, you can read and hear about it.
Also the proper term is ""if it bleeds it leads"", and Kuwait is a monarchy but they are having parliamentary elections on July 5. Women don''t have the vote. At least they got that right. (ducking)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...

"Koesj" wrote:
I think we have reached a low point here with not accepting other people''s opinions anymore.

Oh, I think we can (and will) go a bit lower.

"Lawyeron" wrote:
We didn''t spend 20 billion dollars just to have Iraq turn into another Iran. They''ll get to run their government when it is in our interests for them to do so.

""Will we liberate or conquer them today?"" ""Who cares.""

It sounds that US taxpayers have Invested Into Iraq. Its called colonization, boy.

"Lawyeron" wrote:
They''ll get to run their government when it is in our interests for them to do so.

You know, if we weren''t discussing a serious subject, I''d point out how disturbingly sinister that statement sounds. IF we weren''t discussing a serious subject.

My quote may sound sinister, but is it not true? Why would we ever do anything that wasn''t in our interests?

"Lawyeron" wrote:
My quote may sound sinister, but is it not true? Why would we ever do anything that wasn''t in our interests?

There are two types of people I cannot agree with. Republicans who think we''re too good for the rest of the world to get involved and Liberals who think we''re too evil to get involved. Rat Boy is one of those.