THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

I'm not the one who necessarily gives up on the idea of democracy in Iraq, when, after all, democracy in Iraq means the Shi'ites prevail--they outnumber the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs combined. If the situation is truly democratic, then who gives a rat's ass whether or not a Shi'ite appointee is acceptable to the minority? Unless, of course, the object is not to really create democracy so much as it is to create a puppet government accpetable to the PNAC.

de·moc·ra·cy (dĭ-mŏk'rə-sē) n., pl. -cies.

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

You always seem to fall back on the idea that Iraq is being formed as a pure Democracy rather than a representative one. Unless all 3 sides can come to agreement on many issues, a government will not form. The Shia have the majority, yet they can not deny the Sunni and Kurds a voice in the government. So, I suppose the Sunni's and Kurd's give a rat's ass as it's their country too. Being Democratic does not mean the majority decides everything as you well know, so why play the games you do?

You always seem to fall back on the idea that Iraq is being formed as a pure Democracy rather than a representative one. Unless all 3 sides can come to agreement on many issues, a government will not form. The Shia have the majority, yet they can not deny the Sunni and Kurds a voice in the government. So, I suppose the Sunni's and Kurd's give a rat's ass as it's their country too. Being Democratic does not mean the majority decides everything as you well know, so why play the games you do?

There is no game at all. I will assume that you do not refer to the Democratic Party. The object has been trumpeted literally for years to form a democracy. No one said anything about a "representative democracy." However, had that been the case, then it would still be a Shi'ite dominated state, as a the representatives would represent the majority of the people, who are Shi'ite. Yes, being a democracy does mean the majority decides everything, so you are the one attempting to play games. As usual, you don't play very well and have a spoil-sport's attitude.

The problem, as is the case with so much of the stumble-bum behavior of this administration, is that they knew squat about the situation before they went in. Otherwise, it ought to have been obvious from the outset that a democracy means a Shi'ite dominated state.

Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari says he is willing to withdraw his nomination to lead the new government if the Iraqi people want him to do so.

"If my people ask me to step aside I will do this," Mr Jaafari said, shortly after attending the much-delayed inaugural session of Iraq's parliament.

The Shias' nomination of Mr Jaafari has been a major sticking point in forming a government as he lacks wider support.

He has been criticised for not doing more to curb Iraq's violence.

Growing sectarian violence in the country has prompted predictions that Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

george wrote:
Others felt the same way about Clinton's lies and equivocations.

Why do you need to keep bringing up Clinton? His impeachment has been dismissed by the Senate. This discussion centers around this administration and their intentions to go to war with Iraq much earlier than Bush's "war is the last option" rhetoric we've heard so often. Evidence now shows all their suppositions about Saddam's WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda were lies and innuendos.

These same lies ended up killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, and our country sacrificed the lives of over 2,300 of our military men and women, and costing some one billion dollars every week.

Can't you see the difference between a personal sexual weakness vs lies that ended up costing so much in lives and treasure?

and spend 4 BILLION dollars....

Quote:

and spend 4 BILLION dollars....

You forgot the words per half month.

Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari says he is willing to withdraw his nomination to lead the new government if the Iraqi people want him to do so.

"If my people ask me to step aside I will do this," Mr Jaafari said, shortly after attending the much-delayed inaugural session of Iraq's parliament.

Ican, the 9/11 report that you quoted does not address the issue at all. It merely reports, according to Bush and his crew, what happened after 9/11.
If things did in fact happen the way they were described to have happened by "Bush and his crew" to the 9/11 Commission, then the charge or charges that Bush decided to attack Iraq before he was elected -- or before 9/11, or before Congress's 10/16/2002 resolution -- would be false." So the question comes down to: Did "Bush and his crew" lie to the 9/11 Commission? I have encountered zero evidence that "Bush and his crew" lied to the 9/11 Commission. However, I have personally encountered a great deal of evidence that what the 9/11 Commission said Bush had said, Bush did in fact say to the public and Congress. I heard him say it.

As for PNAC, we do in fact know who they are, what they wanted and when they wanted it. I have encountered zero evidence that Bush agreed to give the PNAC people what they wanted done to Iraq as a condition for PNAC's support for his presidential candidacy. For that matter, I have encountered zero evidence that Bush agreed to give the PNAC people what they wanted done to Iraq.

I have encountered solid evidence that we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, because we knew al-Qaeda was allowed sanctuary there by the then Afghanistan government. I have also encountered solid evidence, in addition to the evidence published by the 9/11 Commission, that 17 months after we invaded Afghanistan we invaded Iraq because we discovered that al-Qaeda was allowed sanctuary there by the then Iraq government.

The fact that PNAC publicly declared they wanted us to invade Iraq before Iraq was found to be an al-Qaeda sanctuary is at worst an interesting coincidence and at absolute best awe inspiring evidence of PNAC's prescience.
...
The problem is that they lied, continuously, to you and I and the American public and the world. Attacking Iraq had little to nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
As I have repeatedly indicated and provided evidence, I think al-Qaeda had a great deal to do with our invading Iraq. I think the plethora of opinions otherwise are just that, opinions and not evidence.

We would have attacked Iran or Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia) if we really wanted to go after nations hiding and collabarating with Al Qaeda, because they are far more guilty than Iraq was of doing so.
Yes all these nations harbored al-Qaeda until we demanded they stop harboring al-Qaeda, and begin to search, kill or imprison them. Unlike the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, the governments of Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agreed to our demand. However, only subsequent to our invasion of Iraq, did it become clear to us that the government of Iran had decided to break that agreement.

I don't appreciate being lied to; and you, because the lies matched up with your preferred course of action, namely, war, don't seem to mind too much. But it is my bet that voters and others do mind being lied to; and the overall War on Terror will be harmed by the waste that we are seeing now, both of our forces, our time, our money, and our political captial worldwide.
I think your believing you were lied to provides, you with a justification for not preferring the course of action taken. Absent any evidence to the contrary, we must rationally and honestly conclude "Bush and his crew" believed the falsities as well as the truths they stated at the times they stated them. They did not lie.

Cycloptichorn