Anti War Protestors

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by AlwaysUp TimPoet, for me, your arguments hold more merit than Paul's "no solution to suggest, only critisizm and inaction". Sorry to disagree with you, Paul. I won't argue some points cause you have a strong belief, obviously. I will however remain unable to understand your conclusions.

Just because I dislike the actions others have chosen doesn't mean I want the US to take no actions. But I think there's all too often a mindset in America to blame the results and not the causes. People blame movies, guns, music, etc. for violence, but these aren't the causes of violence. People can blame Saddam for the problems in Iraq, but his actions are only a symptom of a deeper underlying problem, and one that's not so easy to deal with. Getting Saddam out of power will be the easiest of many challenges that await us, now that we've chosen to deal with Iraq.

I am by no means an advocate of inaction, but treating the symptoms and ignoring the underlying problem is the most foolish of approaches.

Iraq's problems are deeper than just having one dictator, Iraq's problems won't be solved by simply putting a democracy into place. I've often noticed people seem to like to look at any situation only long enough to find the most obvious problem, without even trying to understand how the problem was created in the first place. The problem is far older than this one regime, and unless we can solve the underlying problems which caused this regime to be like it was, we cannot prevent another regime just like it from existing. Without solving the root problems we'll trade one dictator for another, and there are people who would be even worse rulers than Saddam.

I do think there is a solution, and the only one that I can think of that might work: Put the interim government of Iraq under the control of the Arab League. Neither the US nor the UN could control Iraq without generating a ton of hatred towards the western world, and the Iraqis will not be ready for self-governance for many years, if not decades. Allow the US and UN to act as advisors and financiers but not overseers, set specific goals and let the League meet them. Allow the food-for-oil program to continue, have the US contribute financially to the reconstruction, and let the League do the hard part of trying to reconcile the ethnic problems. No outsider is going to be able to bridge the gulf between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. The Arab League can at least bridge the gulf between Sunni and Shia, although the Kurds might dislike it.

Then, the US can't be credited with imperialist motives, and people are going to accept the foreign rule more if it's done by people closer in culture to them. The food-for-oil program could be administered by the UN, with proceeds used to feed the Iraqis and rebuild the infrastructure.

It's true, I think the war was a bad idea simply because there is such terrible potential to have this thing blow into total genocide; Iraq is highly volative politically, and creating a power vacccum in such a climate is like lighting a match while sitting on a poweder keg. But that's done, and the rest should be damage control. So that is my proposal, lest you think I bring only problems and no solutions to the table. Although the lack of detailed information on the exact political structure of Iraq, both present and historical, makes coming up with a lot of solutions difficult.

[AlwaysUp]

Very compelling argument Paul. I would however differ upon one point you make.

"I do think there is a solution, and the only one that I can think of that might work: Put the interim government of Iraq under the control of the Arab League. Neither the US nor the UN could control Iraq without generating a ton of hatred towards the western world, and the Iraqis will not be ready for self-governance for many years, if not decades. "


I think that while I suspect your judgement is clouded by your misgivings about us entering into this endeavour in the first place, your crystal ball may not be giving much credit for any forethought having been given to what challenges we will face after the regime is removed. I have tremendous faith that we have given mountains of thought about this. And reports and commentary have addressed our fervent desire to FACILITATE more moderate and ethnically balanced IRAQI elements to assume governance ASAPractical. I emphasize PRACTICAL. Unpopular as the idea is to the Islamic world, I can see no benefit to plop control to Arab nations that have little control over their own individual ethnic, religious, and economic problems and expect a satisfactory outcome. I do respect allot of what your last post brings to the discussion. You are articulate and empassioned and I respect that.

[Paul Victorey]

The biggest problem I have with the US proposals is that, yet so far, US officials have been talking mainly with the Sunni, a little with the Kurds, and almost never with the Shia. It makes it seem like the US is against a Shi'ite Iraq, even though the Shia are 65% or so of Iraq's population. Alienating two-thirds of a nation is not a way to bring them to the table.

The Arab worlds all have ethnic problems, yes, but that might be a benefit in this case -- all these nations have had to deal with the same problems as Iraq, and many have come up with satisfactory solutions. The US is so different, our culture and history so alien, that our solutions may not work very well over there. I think even the best of thinkers in the US can't truly understand the problems, because the people involved are coming from a background that is so different from our own, we are simply out of touch with how the Arabs think. The Arab nations realize the complexities of the problems Iraq faces, they come from a similar background, and these nations may be better equipped to deal with the issues.

Plus, the Arab League as a whole is diverse enough that it should help represent all viewpoints, and not allow any one to dominate. Again, this is imperfect, as the Kurds, not being Arabs, will not feel represented, but at least it could solve many of the problems, and maybe it could even help the Kurds if it was done right.

The Arab league could be given some financial incentive, in the form of the US/UN giving grants to the League Nations for their work. Make the financial grants small enough to not be a huge burden, but large enough to appeal to the nations, and have the money be tied to goals defined with measurable parameters.

And the last major issue is that the US, to much of the Arab world, is an outsider who imposes its will upon Arabs. No matter how fantastic the US plans for reconstruction are, we are still outsiders. I think even a slightly inferior plan, administered by the Arab world in general, would be much better received than even the most superb of plans, delivered by the US. Further, if we start working with the Arab League, we can help dispel the beliefs that we don't care about the opinions of the Arabs, and we can try to build a meaningful relationship with the Middle East in general.

I think the US is most certainly a superpower, but we're not omnipotent, nor are we always the nation that can solve a given problem best. We have military and economic might, but we're not necessarily the right nation for this job, and I think the UN might not be either; the UN is still seen as an outsider in the Arab world, even though they have UN delegations.

[AlwaysUp]

It occurs to me that a fragmented society is always plagued with more complex problems than a united society. A strong argument for all Americans to not forget that we are blessed with many freedoms not accorded to other nations due to their governments. It is equally apparent to me that after stating our minds by voice, either for or against; we must put our backs to the task of presenting the "United" part of our nations' title.

[Paul Victorey]

I agree, although I think the complex problems cause the fragmentation more than fragmentation causes complex problems. And yes, we are united, and I don't want this nation to be otherwise, but I also think it's fully patriotic to disagree with Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan, or whomever may be in power. Loving a nation doesn't mean you can't disagree with policies.

I truly hope you're right, BTW, and this all works out well for the US. I'd very much like it to, although I also very much fear it won't.

[icallmedan]

Man, this is a crazy thread....I love the action, just absorbing!!!

[TimPoet]

Turning Iraq over to the Arab League would be throwing the baby into a bath of sulphuric acid. The other Arab nations are the worst of dictatorships which are largely responsible for the squalid conditions that breed these types of homicide bombing terrorists we are at war with.
Freedom is the issue here. The Arab nations need freedom and that small oligarchy of kissing cousins who are in control of the Arab nations fear that freedom. They'd rather see all of New York go up in a mushroom cloud than let their people go.
We will not let that happen even if we have to nuke a city or two. We've done it before and horrid as it would be, we'd do it again to prevent a nuclear September 11.

[Paul Victorey]

Actually, most of the Arab nations are both peaceful and stable. Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, and Tunisia are all reasonably good governments. Lebabnon is improving, as is Yemen, and each is doing pretty well considering they are post-civil war. Most of the Arab nations have a combination of a monarchy and elected officials, which seems to work pretty well. There are some issues in some nations, but the majority are rather decent.

Further, democracy is not a cure-all solution for problems, and democracy is not the best form of government in all cases. In some situations, democracy can be the worst possible government. Giving power to the populace is a terrible idea unless you have reason to believe the populace will use it responsibly.

Democracy is a good system, but like any system, it's a tool to accomplish the goal of running a nation, and it is not always the correct tool to use. A hammer works great if you're driving nails, but it's useless to turn a screw. Democracy works fantastic if it's applied to certain kinds of societies, but it blows up in your face to apply it to other kinds of societies.

It didn't even work all that well in the USA -- there was a hundred years where blacks were owned as property, a bloody civil war, and another hundred years where blacks were second-class citizens. So it took ~200 years and somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 deaths to get to where we are today, and we started from a much more favorable position than many nations.

[penetrecion]

Well said Paul!

I like your ideas on the situation. I too, believe that Democracy will not work for Iraq and putting an American in charge would be the worst idea of yet! Is this true that we want to place an American in charge for a minimum of 2 years in Iraq? That is absurd! The poplace would uprise against it! The immenence of assassination would be great! The Arab world does not truly appreciate what Americans try to do, in fact, most resent our medling in their affairs...

Like I said once before, they want burgers and fries but if Democracy is on the menu... no one will buy.

[jessho]

It didn't even work all that well in the USA -- there was a hundred years where blacks were owned as property, a bloody civil war, and another hundred years where blacks were second-class citizens. So it took ~200 years and somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 deaths to get to where we are today, and we started from a much more favorable position than many nations.

First, the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is mob rule. The U.S. form of government demands certain rights are never abridged regardless what the mob thinks. It works very well and has since the conception of this country. You need to read the Federalist Papers and the U.S. Constitution.

Your analogy of slavery as a sign the U.S. government didn't work up to the end of slavery is wrong. The government worked, the country decided slavery was wrong, ended it and went on as strong or stronger. The country didn't fall and the basic rights were amended to include everyone.

I don't know where anyone has come up with the idea that the U.S. is putting a U.S. citizen in charge of Iraq. The only thing the U.S. will do is prevent the current regime and followers to reassume power. The U.S. will also help the infrastructure of Iraq with money and technology. I don't know what anyone thinks of Iraq, but if there is enough resources to keep an army of the size of the army of Iraq in a country the size of California, there must be tremendous wealth. The outcome of this war will be the ability of Iraq to use this wealth to create a world class economy and social structure.

[Paul Victorey]

But the mob can remove even those "unabridgable" rights, because enough of a majority could rewrite the constitution. For example, if at least 2/3 of the states agreed tomorrow to remove, say, the right to a free press, they legally could do so by constitutional amendment. There are never unabridgable rights, under any kind of government, because there is always a means to rewrite the very rules which define the government itself.

And I do think slavery is a sign that the US was not a good government. It was functional, but so is any government apart from anarchy. Hitler's government worked, insofar as it governef the people, it was just a very evil government. Any form of government can be made to work, but not all are equally good. And which form of government is *best* depends on the situation and the people involved.

The military governor idea was first quoted in the NY times, on Oct. 11, 2002.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...A90994DA404482

It would be consistent with history, we had military governors of Germany, Japan, Korea, and other conquered territories in the past.

[TimPoet]

As sinful as slavery was you cannot use it to negate the good of the first 100 years of American history. We went from the almagation of 13 colonies to a fledgling world power in that time. Many, many things worked successfully in the nation. The fact that we were among the first of the nations to end slavery attests to the good of the freedom the Constitution gave us. The Arab nations deserve such freedom.
Your argument on slavery falls very, very short of the mark it reaches for. There is a broom in your hand and there needs to be a paintbrush in it.

[Paul Victorey]

We weren't truly a world power until the end of WW1. And yes, many things did work well, but I use the slavery to show that there were still tremendous problems in the USA, and that democracy itself will not solve all problems.

Further, we weren't the first or even nearly the first nation to outlaw slavery. France outlawed it first (1791) although it had never been practiced in France. Napoleon reinstated it in France in 1801. Spain was the first nation to outlaw it and keep it outlawed (1821) followed by Chile (1823), all of Central America (1824), Great Britain (1827 & 1838), Mexico (1829), Bolivia (1831), France again (1848), Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana and the Danish West Indies (also 1848), Venezuela (1854), Dutch Colonies (1863). Then the US abolished slavery, in 1865. The only nations to have significant slavery and abolish after the US were Puerto Rico (1873), Cuba (1880), and Brazil (1886).

Anyhow, arguments on slavery notwithstanding, we've seen time and again that democracy is not a cure-all for societal problems, and in many cases, it makes them worse, by allowing one group the ability to carry out ethnic cleansing agendas upon other groups. Democracy is no guarantee of a moral government, as I'm sure you'll agree, and an immoral government will not protect its citizens.

Sure, at some point I think the entire world would benefit from democracy, but not until they're at the point where they're ready for it. Applying democracy too early would be a fatal flaw, as we've seen in many nations. Rwanda again is a good example -- people left to govern themselves before they are ready. The people elect a fanatical government, and the fanatics in the government commit the worst act of genocide in the past 20 years.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Democracy is not the same as freedom.

There can be freedom without democracy. And freedom can be suppresed by democratic governments.

[TimPoet]

Kudos, Paul. I stand completely corrected on the statement I made that the US was among the first nation to abolish slavery. I am delighted that you concede that many things did work well in the US prior to slavery's demise.
I never said democracy was the answer. Freedom is the answer. Freedom as our Founding Fathers setup in a Constitutional government. They created a republic, not a democracy, majorities can be tyrannical. The Iraqi people deserve such freedom and they will get it according to our plan. A republic is much more stable than you predict. If indeed a republic is what you criticize.
Socrates told us centuries ago of the weakness and implausibility of a democratic government.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Yes. He compared it to a ship.

His analogy being this one: "Who will command the ship better: the captain alone or all the sailors at the same time?"

[Paul Victorey]

I agree they need more freedoms than they now have, but freedom is not binary, it's not that you have freedom or you don't. It's a matter of how much freedom you have, and which particular freedoms you have. All freedom has limits, and the optimal amount of freedom that people should have may not be the same from nation to nation; it's highly dependant on the particulars of the nation. For example, I am glad people have the right to bear arms, but I am equally glad people can't buy rocket propelled grenade launchers, nuclear warheads, etc. at the local gun store.

I also feel that all possible forms of government have both the possiblity for greatness as well as for tyranny. I think there's a prevailing attitude in the US that we've found the only viable government, when other governments not patterned on ours can do quite well, and governments that are exactly patterned on ours can fail miserably. In real life, there are plenty of right answers and just as many wrong ones, and it's not always cut and dried which choice of governments is always best.

[morriswindgate]

Nuclear Krusader:
I have to agree with you statements. In the preceeding 35 years where the legislative branch of the Federal government and many state ones were controlled by the Democrat party we have seen the total tax burden (all taxes including sales taxes) increase to around 70%. At the same time we have seen a breakdown in education to the point that these are no longer learning institutions, but indoctrination camps. Infastructure is falling apart as money is diverted to the causes of radical special intrest groups that serve to further repress freedom under the guise of public health and safety. Manufacturing is restricted by various regulations which are not based in science, which in turn has displaced American workers by sending production out of the country.
My problem is that the organizers of these protest are the ones promoting the above agendas. What is really amazing is that some of the most potentailly brutal and repressive ideas of government exists in these groups.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by morriswindgate Nuclear Krusader: I have to agree with you statements. In the preceeding 35 years where the legislative branch of the Federal government and many state ones were controlled by the Democrat party we have seen the total tax burden (all taxes including sales taxes) increase to around 70%. At the same time we have seen a breakdown in education to the point that these are no longer learning institutions, but indoctrination camps. Infastructure is falling apart as money is diverted to the causes of radical special intrest groups that serve to further repress freedom under the guise of public health and safety. Manufacturing is restricted by various regulations which are not based in science, which in turn has displaced American workers by sending production out of the country. My problem is that the organizers of these protest are the ones promoting the above agendas. What is really amazing is that some of the most potentailly brutal and repressive ideas of government exists in these groups.

Now that is something to consider!