OCCOM BILL wrote:Setanta wrote:Such as the single biased side which suggests that a "democratic" government in Iraq not be dominated by the Shi'ites, who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population. So much for bringing "democracy" to the middle east . . .
That would be a bit silly wouldn't it?
It is silly in the extreme to attempt to make the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs and the Shi'ites live together. Prior to Great War, the Turks were certainly never stupid enough to make the attempt. It was Balfour and Churchill, and in particular, Churchill, who envisioned a "Mesopotamia," the result of which was to give England control of Arabia and "Mesopotamia," and thereby, what would one day prove to be the greatest and the next greatest proven reserves of petroleum on earth. The English suffered very badly from the "Iraqi" insurrections which resulted in the 1920s. I'm not going into the detail again--i've warned about this since before the venal theives in this administration began their dirty little war, and i frankly could care less if you never bothered to read, or failed to retain the information--it's freely available in any decent library, or with an online search which isn't simply intended to prove ludicrous contentions such as Iraqi womd or an Iraqi connection to al Qaeda.
What was idiotic, criminally idiotic, murderously idiotic, was the asinine contention that we were going to "bring democracy to the middle east." A claim which was, significantly, not advanced until the womd failed to materialize, and the administration was constantly embarrassed by the question "What are you going to do now?" After all, the PNAC program just calls for seizing Iraq and erecting permanent military bases, it is mute on the subject of how to deal with restless natives--but then, we already have ample evidence that this pack of idiots never think things through before they act.
Quote:Opining one way or another is hardly out of line, however.
Strawman--i never claimed it was. Neither is it out of line to point out that someone is indulging fantasies, nor is to point out that democracy means the rule of the majority, and that the turds on Pennsylvania avenue were ranting on about bringing democracy to the middle east. That claim was not advanced until after the womd failed to materialize, after no evidence was found of links to al Qaeda, and the clowns came up with their "saving Iraq from a brutal dictator" horseshit, which was never mentioned before the invasion. Once again, the idiots started something for which they were not prepared, and upon which they were uninformed--because they would otherwise have realized that a democracy means a Shi'ite dominated Iraq.
Quote:Our vested stake in their forming a viable permanent government for themselves should be quite evident.
What vested stake do you allege the United States has in the particular form of the government of that abortion of a nation? If you're going to trot out you tedious argument about the threat of womd or of terrorism, then you just make the case i made, and you argued against, in the thread on Iran, to the effect that the only way to assure that there will never be womd or a terrorist haven is permanent military occupation.
No, nothing of the kind is evident, nor is there any basis for your inferential contention that there cannot be a "viable" government which is not Shi'ite dominated. Upon what basis are you prepared to contend that a Shi'ite dominated government would not be viable?
Quote:Here in the U.S. we have a government dominated by the "Whites", who are merely the overwhelming majority of the population.
Actually, the most significant demographic in the country is that the majority of adults are women--but women do not dominate the government. Do you suggest with that tripe that "non-whites" should be assured the right to veto any appointments, to topple any government formed here which they consider will not take sufficient account of their interests? Because that is what you are suggesting the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in Iraq should be able to do--that is, if you are discussing the same topic i was when i responded to McG, and from which response you selected a portion, which you then edited, in order to reply to me. If you're attempting to discuss anything different, then your entire response is a strawman, as that is what
i was discussing.
Quote:I think it's still fair to call us a "democracy".
Which reflects how on the government Iraq? Iraq is a nation of 26,000,000, which is less than the population of California. Their nation is divided into administrative districts known as provinces, rather than states which, initially at least, freely associated their democratically elected (more or less, if one ignores that non-whites and women were not allowed to vote) governments to form the nation. At the lowest levels, it is roughly true to say that we have a democratic system, it is less true at the national level because of the issue of state sovereignty. But so what? You are making my argument. If your simple-minded thesis is that the government here is dominated by "whites," and yet we are still a "democracy" (i haven't the least notion of why you felt compelled to put that word in quote marks), then it is completely reasonable to suggest that a Shi'ite-dominated government in Iraq can be democratic, even though giving no special consideration to the Sunni Arabs or the Kurds. You badly need to work on the logic of what you post.
Quote:Were we to elect a clansman . . .
Why would there be anything unusual about electing a Scotsman to the Presidency, so long as he were born here? Oh . . . maybe this lame-brained little excursion refers to a Klansman--a member of the Ku Klux Klan, no?
Quote: . . . to the top office; I think the world would have something to say about it.
Leaving aside the idiotic suggestion that an avowed member of the Ku Klux Klan could ever get elected, and leaving aside the hilarious fantasy of "the world" having "something to say" about our electoral politics--just what precisely do you suggest the outcome might be? That we would be militarily threatened. Leaving aside the equally hilarious consideration of how "the world" would cross one or the other of two vast oceans, unhindered, with sufficient military force to effect "regime change"--upon precisely what basis to you suggest that it would be justified? International law? No, nothing in international law authorizes the invasion of a sovereign state in order to interfer in their internal political arrangements--despite the example of our own government's lawlessness. United Nations intervention? Do you suggest the rest of the world use United Nations authority, in a regularly pursued manner, against us, as the Shrub refused to do when it looked like not getting his way in Iraq?
For your edification, Article 2 of Chapter One of the United Nations charter reads, in full:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. (emphasis has been added)
The above referenced Chapter VII reads, in full:
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 43
1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
1. There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
2. The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
3. The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
4. The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
Article 50
If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
I thought it best to post that in full, as nothing could have been learned about the United Nations, domestic politics and a rush to war by observing the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad in action.
Not only do you have no case--you contradict yourself.