Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote: What is there about the forthcoming election specifically that is as unfair as an absolute dictatorship in which you vote for who you're told to or something awful happens to you?
Watch the election (if it is ever held) and you'll see the answer to your question in what happens.
Are you unable to answer this question?
No. I am unwilling to do so...mostly because I see a bias that would prevent you from understanding.
In any case, I did suggest a way you could get your information.
Just wait and take a look at how the election (!!!) goes.
So, in a political debate, you say, "I could back up my assertion that the election is unfair, but I choose not to back it up because you would not agree with me." This is odd debating technique. The more normal approach is to explain what your assertions mean when asked. A more likely explanation is just that you can't.
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:If, however, the United States is actually interested in a free election...why not hold it now?
I do not know the fine details of the Iraqi election planning, but I do know this. Unless you have order you can't have democracy. It would seem more reasonable to me to try to get things in order, get basic civil institutions functioning with Iraqis, and then hold an election than to hold one instantly and run. I believe that the honorable thing to do is to try to get their democracy running reasonably well, not to do it is rapidly as possible so that we can get out immediately.
Well, Brandon, you seem to think that "democracy" is something that can be imposed. But if it is imposed...it is not democracy.
In any case, if you are asking for "order"...there is not nearly as much "order" right now than there was under Saddam Hussein.
In the aftermath of an invasion in which an old government was removed, it is our responsibility to rebuild and leave the people we have fought with some kind of functioning institutions. This is what America always does in the aftermath of war. Since we as a country believe in democracy, naturally that is what we try to leave them with. If we schedule elections and say, "Vote for whomever you want, we will set up the mechanism of elections, but not interefere," and afterwards we will leave, except to the extent any goverment wishes us to assist, there is no reason why it couldn't work. We are giving them a chance to have something better than the very brutal dictatorship they had for decades and would probably have continued to have. I hasten to point out that this was not our motive for invasion.
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:Is the dictatorship of fundamentalist Islam...one more likely to be a friend to the likes of Ussama Bin Laden...less a concern for you than a secular dictator like Saddam Hussein who hated Bin Laden? Why?
Any dictatorship with ties to terrorists that attempts to develop WMD is a danger to the west.
1) You really didn't answer the question.
2) I doubt they are anywhere near as equivalent as you suggested in your non-answer.
3) I'm sure you included the comments "ties to terrorists" -- and "attempts to develop WMD" as a joke...intending to inject a bit of humor into this discussion. I thank you for that consideration.
We had to invade for reasons connected to WMD. Hussein's dictatorship was already there, the other is negotiable. My reference to WMD is actually far from being a joke, the crux of my argument. Rather than engage in name calling, generally regarded as a very low form of debate, why don't you simply explain why you disagree with the statement "Any dictatorship with ties to terrorists that attempts to develop WMD is a danger to the west." Do you think that such an entity is not a danger to the west?
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:COMMENT: We'd better collectively hope "the majority" does not hold sway in Iraq...or we will have something even worse than the old Iraq to deal contend with.
Not much is worse for the world than a dictator building and developing WMD. Although there are some Iraqi governments we would prefer over others, it's none of our business who they vote in, unless the new governemnt seems to be building WMD and likely to use them or give them to terrorists.
1) See responses above.
2) How very easy it is to say some of the things you say. Nothing requires a poster to make sense here in A2K...and respectfully as possible, Brandon, you are not making sense.
It is not very helpful to the discussion to say that I am not making sense without saying specifically what doesn't make sense and why, but it is an easy way to evade really responding to my statements.
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon9000 wrote: What is there about it that will prevent an Iraqi from voting for whomever he chooses?
Right now, mostly the military might of the United States!
Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?
It's a secret ballot. They can vote for whom they choose. We invaded because we had to for our own safety, we removed a terrible dictator, and now we are setting up elections. Our actions are ethical and correct.
We did not invade because we "had to"...we invaded because George Dumbya Bush and his handlers are out of control and have no respect for precedents set up in this Republic over its 200+ years of being.
We invaded because Bush, I, and many others believed there was a substantial probability that Iraq had not yet destroyed its WMD and/or WMD programs, and that should this be true, there might be a finite window of opportunity before something awful happened with the WMD. Thus, we believe that we invaded because we had to. What is this long American precedent you refer to exactly? That the US never goes to war?
Frank Apisa wrote:Our actions are most assuredly, Brandon, neither ethical nor correct.
But you certainly are entitled to rationalize if you choose.
Even if only on the basis of enforcing Iraq's surrender agreement, invasion was justified, much less our primary reason which was to keep WMD out of the hands of a monster like Hussein.
Frank Apisa wrote:But since you see no problems with the way things are...why didn't you respond to the little scenario I offered. "Tell me, Brandon, how comfortable would you be with fully armed, willing to use those arms, Chinese mainland troops all over this country during our next election?"
Not very, but I would still vote for the candidates I favored. The fact is that we
are in Iraq, and it would not help them to leave immediately. We are attempting to help them build functioning institutions before we leave, such as an elected government. We are not attempting to annex the country. Having conquered it, we are rebuilding with the intention of leaving, as we traditionally do after wars. It seemed to work for us after WW 2.
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:Frank Apisa wrote:Brandon900 wrote: Please estimate for me the expense of a bioweapon attack on San Francisco that kills half a million people.
Beats the piss out of me, Brandon.
But you might consider the fact that it is almost certain that organizations likely Al Qieda are more numerous now...and that they are more easily able to recruit people willing to undertake such missions...
...as a result of the incredible incompetence of this administration.
Why do you ask?
Because it might make the $200 billion expense you referred to seem miniscule by comparison. We invaded Iraq to prevent such an event from occurring a few years down the road.
Oh really. So you think making the world a LESS safe place...and helping terrorist organizations to increace recruitments...and alienating allies all over the world....
...will somehow help "prevent such an event from occurring?"
Is any of the stuff you are smoking for sale?
First of all, I am saying that a situation in which a particularly brutal dictator with ties to terrorism is building WMD is a very serious threat, because it raises the specter of massive loss of life down the road if one of those WMD is used in a city. The expense of dealing with the aftermath of such an event would likely be far greater than the expense of preventing the event.
Your general argument seems to be that when faced with a serious enemy who thinks nothing of using violence against you, any attempt to use force to defeat him will inevitably result in you losing in the end because you are making him angry, which you regard as something to be avoided at all costs. I disagree. I think that when faced with a violent enemy intent on replacing your culture with his, it is very reasonable to use force to defeat him, and that thinking in terms of winning by not making him angry is essentially appeasement and will not work.
