0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 05:28 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Two way communication? Wink
Unfortunately, the reference I gave won't provide that until you read all 886 pages (includes the index) 13 times. There is another approach, however. You can simply resort to a wiseass form of acknowledgment of a Lincoln quote. Or try this, say Abe, do you still think America is mankind's last best hope for freedom?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 08:39 pm
Quote:
Otherwise, we'll just kick the whole lot of them out and start over.
This is getting funny. How do you know that we'll do that?


Cyclops wrote the first sentence. Ican replied with the second.

My reply to ican would be:

Just like the last time. With Shock and Awe.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 08:35 am
The Iraqis themselves can legally "kick out" the current national assembly if they do not like the constitution that is drafted.

If the constitution is not approved by a majority of Iraqi voters in the October referendum, the current national assembly will be dissolved and elections will be held in December for a new temporary national assembly.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 09:23 am
How many people honestly believe that if (I am not saying that it going to turn out that way but if) Iraq turns into a full blown Iranian style country with the majority of the countries approval, that sometime during the next twenty years we won't be treating them the same as we do Iran, Syria...even though we had a big hand in setting it up. It is not as though it is completely un-heard of. After all at one time we were cosy with both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 12:00 pm
Good point, revel. Our government has been wishy-washy and inconsistent too often to believe we will change in the future.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 12:43 pm
Kara wrote:
Quote:
Otherwise, we'll just kick the whole lot of them out and start over.
This is getting funny. How do you know that we'll do that?

Cyclops wrote the first sentence. Ican replied with the second.
My reply to ican would be:
Just like the last time. With Shock and Awe.

I infer you think that the Iraqis will probably design a democracy that establishes another Saddam Hussein regime. I infer that because the US would probably replace that kind of government too in its own self-defense.

The problem with that thinking, if it is your thinking, is that a democractic Saddam Hussein Regime is an oxymoron.

These are the facts of Iraq:

1. The Iraqi people risked their lives to establish a democracy of their own design;

2. The Iraqi people want the US to help end Iraqi dependence on US troops for securing Iraqi democracy;

3. The US is eager for the Iraqi government to ask the US to remove its troops from Iraq;

4. When the Iraqi government tells the US to remove its troops from Iraq, the US will remove its troops from Iraq.

The Iraqi people will establish a democratic government that:

1. Is the Iraqis' own design;

2. Doesn't murder civilians in Iraq;

3. Prevents murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 01:11 pm
my comments are in blue
revel wrote:
How many people honestly believe that if (I am not saying that it going to turn out that way but if) Iraq turns into a full blown Iranian style country with the majority of the countries approval,

Iran does not possess a government "with the majority of the countr[y's] approval." Iran (and Syria as well) does not possess a government that:

1. Is the Iranian's (and Syrian's) own design;

2. Doesn't murder civilians in Iran (and in Syria);

3. Prevents murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iran (and in Syria).


that sometime during the next twenty years we won't be treating them the same as we do Iran, Syria...even though we had a big hand in setting it up.

Regardless of the US's past blunders in aiding the set up of the current Syrian and Iranian governments, the US is obliged to rectify the messes it has made in both countries.

It is not as though it is completely un-heard of. After all at one time we were cosy with both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien.

It is none-the-less improbable if the Iraqi people establish a democratic government that:

1. Is the Iraqis' own design;

2. Doesn't murder civilians in Iraq;

3. Prevents murderers of civilians in other countries from locating in Iraq.

There is a huge difference between what is possible and what is improbable. For example, it is possible that the sun will cease to function within the next century, but it is highly improbable: that is, the probability of the sun becoming inoperative within the next century is so close to zero as to make genuine concern for that possibility stupid.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 01:41 pm
It is not as improbable as you imagine that the Iraqi's will chose to govern themselves after the Iranians and that sometime down the road we would be unhappy about it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 02:18 pm
revel wrote:
It is not as improbable as you imagine that the Iraqi's will chose to govern themselves after the Iranians and that sometime down the road we would be unhappy about it.

We disagree. I think it highly improbable that the Iraqi people will choose to design a tyranical governent to rule over them. The Iranian people did not design/choose their present tyrannical government that murders its own civilians, and that permits murderers of civilians in other countries to be located in Iran.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 02:24 pm
Ican writes
Quote:
I think it highly improbable that the Iraqi people will choose to design a tyranical governent to rule over them. The Iranian people did not design/choose their present tyrannical government that murders its own civilians, and that permits murderers of civilians in other countries to be located in Iran.


The problem is, unless the Iraqi government adopts some form of government akin to Sweden, the preachers of doom and gloom are going to call it a tyrannical theocracy. We just have to hope there are enough educated and reasonable people out there who do understand how governments evolve and that being imperfect is not the same thing as failed.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 02:32 pm
I'm still wondering when Mr Bush's main ally will be held to account for his duplicity:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46240&highlight=#top
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 02:50 pm
Iraq Deaths: Military Deaths by (US) State

2005 Lawmaker Aid to Veterans
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:01 pm
Walter, Interesting to see Bush's home state of Texas provides no benefit to it's vets.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:08 pm
Try this link for the 'non-existent' benefits to Texas veterans:
http://www.tvc.state.tx.us/

or http://www.veterans.texasonline.com/
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The problem is, unless the Iraqi government adopts some form of government akin to Sweden, the preachers of doom and gloom are going to call it a tyrannical theocracy. We just have to hope there are enough educated and reasonable people out there who do understand how governments evolve and that being imperfect is not the same thing as failed.

A governent akin to Sweden's would certainly be a huge improvement in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. I would be relieved if that were accomplished.

I'd be even happier if these countries were to adopt a more free enterprise capitalist government than Sweden's. My worry about democratic socialist countries is that they tend to either eventually evolve into tyrannies as their government becomes corrupted by its growing power over its own people, or they tend to evolve a citizenry that demands more and more for others to be compelled to satisfy all (or almost all) their wants. To accomplish the latter, the citizens subsequently evolve their government into a tyrannical government to service those wants.

A democratic theocracy as opposed to a tyrannical theocracy is also conceivable. But perhaps a democratic theocracy is an oxymoron. That is, unless the theocracy is open to a diversity of views and practices about how humans shall relate to God (but certainly excluding the murder of so-called infidels), a democratic theocracy can easily evolve into a tyrannical theocracy that murders its own civilians.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Try this link for the 'non-existent' benefits to Texas veterans:
http://www.tvc.state.tx.us/

or http://www.veterans.texasonline.com/


Well, so these links really show that the state legislature of Texs has introduced and passed laws to aid military families?

Are more quoted websited updated and trustworthy than the National Conference of State Legislatures
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:29 pm
McTag wrote:
I'm still wondering when Mr Bush's main ally will be held to account for his duplicity

In Britain, is the Prime Minister innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence that he is guilty, or is he guilty by virtue of a preponderance of the gullible that believe he is guilty?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:42 pm
Walter, Texas has a number of programs to aid and benefits its veterans. (Most of my relatives who are or who have been military are from Texas.) I'm just setting the record straight here for the benefit of those who were looking for some other erroneous assumption with which to bash the President.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:42 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Are more quoted websited updated and trustworthy than the National Conference of State Legislatures


Hard to tell! Or is it?

Quote:
About NCSL

The National Conference of State Legislatures was founded in 1975 with the conviction that legislative service is one of democracy's worthiest pursuits. NCSL is a bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the nation's 50 states, its commonwealths and territories. NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues. NCSL is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of state governments before Congress and federal agencies.

We provide the following links to help you learn more about NCSL.

Mission & Governance.The National Conference of State Legislatures is governed by a 60-member Executive Committee, composed of legislators and legislative staff members who are elected annually. Seven officers direct the overall work of the conference.

Services Overview. NCSL helps state policymakers advance their ideas, provides a forum for the exchange of ideas from other states and takes the best ideas from America's state legislatures to Capitol Hill.

How to Get Involved. There are many ways to get involved with NCSL.

NCSL Standing Committees. NCSL Standing Committees allow legislators and staff to benefit from the experiences of other states in shaping public policy, experimenting with new laws, and managing the legislative institutions. They also consider NCSL policy positions and guide NCSL's lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C.

NCSL Foundation. The NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures offers opportunities for businesses, national associations and unions seeking to improve the state legislative process and enhance NCSL's services to all legislatures.

© 2004 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved

Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2005 03:46 pm
ican711nm wrote:

In Britain, is the Prime Minister innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence that he is guilty, or is he guilty by virtue of a preponderance of the gullible that believe he is guilty?


Why do you have doubts about this?

It's still an inquiry: No 10 talks: what Goldsmith told Iraq inquiry
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 06:45:13