Would I want an Invading force to come liberate my country from a Dictator who was bad for my country. Hell yes, but chances are I wouldnt say a word about, I might even say I dont want them there, just to avoid being shot/tourture/jailed/hung or put my family in jepordy. I might not even say I was glad after the invasion in fear that I might further enrage the suicidal insurgents that still remain in my country just to die from a bomb at the local market. I know I wouldnt be seeing pro-invasion propaganda on my television, run by those who benefitted from the earlier oppressing Dictator who paid them well to make him look good to everyone who actually had a TV.
All I truely know about Iraq and this particular discussion is what I have observed from my Iraqi friend. She was taken to the U.S. before she was old enough to remember by her father and mother. Why did they come to the U.S? Because her father's brother, her uncle, was dragged out into the streets and shot in the head, and her aunt, taken away to prison never to be seen again, even to this day. Why did this happen? Because an anti-sadam fly was found in the neighborhood and they needed to make an example out of someone, guess whos door they knocked on. The day it was announced that we were invading Iraq, she burst into tears of joy and pain, and she cried everytime I saw her for over a week. Why? because her people were finally being freed. I can honestly and thankfully say I have never come close to ever experience anything even similar to what it was like to live in Iraq, and however screwed up the U.S. and its "hidden agenda" may be, it will be better than what was going on with Sadam. If nothing else, its a step, no matter how small, in the right direction for Iraq.
As much anti-american setiments as we see, think about it this way. Would you publically support it if you feared for your life? Would you publically support it if you benefitted and had a good life before, and feared you were loosing it? If you lived your entire life hating the governing body of your country and fearing it, wouldnt you also be fearful and doubtful of any new presence? As much as I would want an invading force to liberate my country and my people, had I suffered and be conditioned to such circumstance, I would find myself suspicious/angry/doubtful and even perhaps slightly resisting any new power short of my very own people, and even then perhaps.
It basically comes down to the fact that regardless its a bad situation. If your in a horrible situation, moving to a bad one is still better.
Frankly, I would love an invasion that would bring me a food, healthcare, freedom of speech, and stuff like that. There are, however, several items that shouold be taken into account.
1) The military capacity of the dictator. If the dictator would have weapons of mass destruction, I would seriously oppose an invasion. Not only would he be able to attack foreign cities, he might even use those weapons on advancing armies, thus killing lots of my countrymen.
2) The military capacity of the invader. It would be nice if the invasion succeeded. If they have a serious chance of losing, they should not try.
3) The current human rights and economic situation in the country.
4) The alternative options. If there is a reasonable chance that the international community might find a way to free my country without an invasion, I would oppose it. And whether overthrowing the regime has a chance.
5) The probability of a civil war following the invasion.
6) Whether the country is fit for a democracy.
7) What methods the invading army will use. Is it likely that they might use lots of landmines (when invading <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->) or clusterbombs.
Thats the thing, iraqi's dont trust americans one bit...
Most 90+% of iraqi's believe that when america invaded iraq, encouraged iraqis to resist saddam, then pulled out and let saddam slaughter everyone that resisted him. They believed the US did this on purpose so that saddam can see and kill everyone that resisted against him, just to squash out every possible pocket of resistence.
For this reason, till today, iraqis do not trust the american presence, and maybe the reason why some iraqi's are resisting.
I'll have to argue mine and Arcadius' 'revolution' view, in that MonsE's original question was would you want to be invaded if your country was a dictator ship such as Iraq. Not Iraq specifically.
First I would try a revolution (if things were bad), and if it wouldn't work, and I don't get killed, then I'd be all for an invasion (if it's a country I trust at least a moderate amount).
"Rule of the Rapists Britain and the US said War on Afghanistan would Liberate Women. We are Still Waiting
by Mariam Rawi
When the US began bombing Afghanistan on October 7 2001, the oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification for overthrowing the Taliban regime. Five weeks later America's first lady, Laura Bush, stated triumphantly: "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
However, Amnesty International paints a rather different picture: "Two years after the ending of the Taliban regime, the international community and the Afghan transitional administration, led by President Hamid Karzai, have proved unable to protect women. The risk of rape and sexual violence by members of armed factions and former combatants is still high. Forced marriage, particularly of girl children, and violence against women in the family are widespread in many areas of the country."
In truth, the situation of women in Afghanistan remains appalling. Though girls and women in Kabul, and some other cities, are free to go to school and have jobs, this is not the case in most parts of the country. In the western province of Herat, the warlord Ismail Khan imposes Taliban-like decrees. Many women have no access to education and are banned from working in foreign NGOs or UN offices, and there are hardly any women in government offices. Women cannot take a taxi or walk unless accompanied by a close male relative. If seen with men who are not close relatives, women can be arrested by the "special police" and forced to undergo a hospital examination to see if they have recently had sexual intercourse. Because of this continued oppression, every month a large number of girls commit suicide - many more than under the Taliban.
Women's rights fare no better in northern and southern Afghanistan, which are under the control of the Northern Alliance. One international NGO worker told Amnesty International: "During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed an inch of flesh she would have been flogged; now she's raped."
Even in Kabul, where thousands of foreign troops are present, Afghan women do not feel safe, and many continue to wear the burka for protection. In some areas where girls' education does exist, parents are afraid to allow their daughters to take advantage of it following the burning down of several girls' schools. Girls have been abducted on the way to school and sexual assaults on children of both sexes are now commonplace, according to Human Rights Watch.
In spite of its rhetoric, the Karzai government actively pursues policies that are anti-women. Women cannot find jobs, and girls' schools often lack the most basic materials, such as books and chairs. There is no legal protection for women, and the older legal systems prohibit them from getting help when they need it. Female singers are not allowed on Kabul television, and women's songs are not played, while scenes in films of women not wearing the hijab are censored.
The Karzai government has established a women's ministry just to throw dust in the eyes of the international community. In reality, this ministry has done nothing for women. There are complaints that money given to the women's ministry by foreign NGOs has been taken by powerful warlords in the Karzai cabinet.
The "war on terror" toppled the Taliban regime, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism, which is the main cause of misery for Afghan women. In fact, by bringing the warlords back to power, the US has replaced one misogynist fundamentalist regime with another.
But then the US never did fight the Taliban to save Afghan women. As recently as 2000 the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43m as a reward for reducing the opium harvest. Now the US supports the Northern Alliance, which was responsible for killing more than 50,000 civilians during its bloody rule in the 1990s. Those in power today - men such as Karim Khalili, Rabbani, Sayyaf, Fahim, Yunus Qanooni, Mohaqiq and Abdullah - were those who imposed anti-women restrictions as soon as they took control in 1992 and started a reign of terror throughout Afghanistan. Thousands of women and girls were systematically raped by armed thugs, and many committed suicide to avoid being sexually assaulted by them.
But lack of women's rights is not the only problem facing Afghanistan today. Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism and terrorism have been uprooted. There is no peace, stability or security. President Karzai is a prisoner within his own government, the nominal head of a regime in which former Northern Alliance commanders hold the real power. In such a climate, the results of the forthcoming elections in June can easily be predicted: the Northern Alliance will once again hijack the results to give legitimacy to its bloody rule.
In November 2001 Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, said: "The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable." But the women of Afghanistan have felt with their whole bodies the dishonesty of such statements from US and British leaders - we know that they have already negotiated away women's rights in Afghanistan by imposing the most treacherous warlords on the people. Their pretty speeches are made out of political expediency rather than genuine concern.
From 1992 to 2001 Afghan women were treated as cattle by all brands of fundamentalists, from jihadis to the Taliban. Some western writers have tried to suggest that this oppression has its roots in Afghan traditions and that it is disrespectful of "cultural difference" to criticize it. Yet Afghan women themselves are not silent victims. There is resistance, but you have to look for it, as any serious anti-fundamentalist group has to work semi-underground. The Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (Rawa), which was outlawed under the Taliban, still can't open an office in Kabul. We still can't distribute our magazine Payam-e-Zan (Women's Message) openly. Shopkeepers are still threatened with death for stocking our publications, and Rawa supporters have been tortured and imprisoned for distributing them. People who are caught reading our literature are still in danger.
Feminism does not need to be imported; it has already taken root in Afghanistan. Long before the US bombing, progressive organizations were trying to establish freedom, democracy, secularism and women's rights. Then, western governments and media showed little interest in the plight of Afghan women. When, before September 11 2001, Rawa gave footage of the execution of its leader, Zarmeena, to the BBC, CNN, ABC and others, it was told that the footage was too shocking to broadcast. However, after September 11 these same media organizations aired the footage repeatedly. Similarly, some of Rawa's photographs documenting the Taliban's abuses of women were also used - without our permission. They were reproduced as flyers and dropped by American warplanes as they flew over Afghanistan.
Mariam Rawi, a member of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan, is writing under a pseudonym.
<!--QuoteBegin-AsterOids+Feb 13 2004, 09:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 13 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If i had to be invaded, i wouldnt want it to be by americas "liberating forces of freedom" or some GIjoe crap like that...
Look at what happened to afghanistan when the US army was done with it: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean the Afghanistan operation which is run by the <a href='http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/' target='_blank'>United Nations ISAF</a> and is currently headed up by a <b>Canadian</b>, Lt General Rick Hillier, and previously by a <b>German</b>, Lt General Götz Gliemeroth ? GG research.
"You mean the Afghanistan operation which is run by the United Nations ISAF and is currently headed up by a Canadian, Lt General Rick Hillier, and previously by a German, Lt General Götz Gliemeroth ? GG research. "
And come on Monse... are you so self-deceived that you forget on whose initiative the invasion of afghanistan was started?
Yes those countries contribute to this whole mess, but they would not be there if it wasnt for america bombing and invading in the first place. Their leaders followed americas leaders like the disgusting boot lickers they are sometimes.
EDIT: I have to add that i am not an america basher! If my country (Canada) was the military colossus attacking countries once every 2 year, i would be picking on Canada. Even then, i was in the streets of Montreal in february and March 2003 with 99,999 other people to put pressure on the canadian governement so that it would not go along with americas "march towards infinite justice".
I understand that america is not at it alone in its military adventures, but it is the main driving force. Just like the Serbia bombing of 1999, or afghanistan in 1998, other countries helped but at the initiative of the US.
Can you imagine the Canadian army alone rolling towards Kabul in its tanks? Can ya? I giggle at the thought of that.
<!--QuoteBegin-AsterOids+Feb 13 2004, 09:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 13 2004, 09:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Keyword: currently <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You quoted an article from yesterday. The UN take over of this operation was 2 years ago. Try again.
And if you're saying the invasion of Afghanistan was justified as bringing women's rights, you need your head examined. It was invaded to remove the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Period. Just about every country on earth agreed with it, and your own runs the operation. Saying it's all America's fault or whatever is blame shifting and ridiculous sour grapes Everything else is gravy. You are trying to revise history, and failing.
<!--QuoteBegin-AsterOids+Feb 13 2004, 11:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AsterOids @ Feb 13 2004, 11:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah and i am guessing that the things shes talking about in the article happened yesterday too right? right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That just makes your point even more incorrect. Did you even read your own article? It talks about the current situation at great length.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And i think its vain to try to make you admit that other countries would not be in afghanistan if it wasnt for the US invading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No one would be in Afghanistan if it wasn't for them being a terrorist harbor. I would certainly hope that if someone had flown a plane into the Canadian Parliament building, and all the attackers were based in Afghanistan, that Canada would have attacked back and asked us to come with them.
I can't even talk about this with you anymore, as you're beyond fringe, in my opinion. Maybe someone else will, I'm too sickened.
"And if you're saying the invasion of Afghanistan was justified as bringing women's rights, you need your head examined. It was invaded to remove the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Period. Just about every country on earth agreed with it, and your own runs the operation. Saying it's all America's fault or whatever is blame shifting and ridiculous sour grapes Everything else is gravy. You are trying to revise history, and failing."
"Community Rules - - Any form of direct or indirect personal attack or harassment is prohibited. "
I will not comment or your not-so subtle claim that i need my head examined. Please refrain from personal attacks, youre supposed to set the example here.
I am not saying that the original motive of invasion was to put democracy up, i am saying that the puppets the US placed there are dictators, so i would not want the US to invade my country to "save" it. Id rather have a local dictator than a foreign imposed one. All of my posts in this thread are meant to put to light that reasoning about if i want to have my country to be invaded or not by a 3rd party depends on which country we are talking about. And given the US record, if we are talking about the US invading my country to "save" it, thats a definite no.
I apologize, you are correct in that I shouldn't have said that.
Feel free to tell me how their new <a href='http://www.constitution-afg.com/' target='_blank'>constitution</a> is a step backwards from the taliban, or how a UN-run operation (without even a US commander in charge for over 2 years) is the US putting in a dictatorship. Stop ignoring the points that conflict with your world view and simply examine them as facts. My guess is you were not even aware of the UN power structure before I pointed it out, as you had not done the necessary research ahead of time. Am I wrong?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And given the US record, if we are talking about the US invading my country to "save" it, thats a definite no. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because our record in Germany, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere certainly agrees with that, right?
Common you two, stay on topic, answer the question and say why. I did but I will again.
1.)No, because there are other solutions first. Some times the risk of invasion is greater than a power hungry tyrant.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Invasion is for a good reason I am sure it wouldn't be a pleasent experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 13 2004, 12:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 13 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1.)No, because there are other solutions first. Some times the risk of invasion is greater than a power hungry tyrant.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Invasion is for a good reason I am sure it wouldn't be a pleasent experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, what other solutions would be acceptable to you, CWAG? Use the Iraq example if possible.
If you were living in a dictatorship such as Iraq, and you were an average citizen, would you welcome an invasion that removed Saddam or not? In either case, try to explain why. This is not an invitation for you to make analogies or 'yes buts', just give an honest answer about yourself. Would you rather live in a dictatorship, or have your country invaded with a promise of democracy? Assume the same amount of damage and casualties occurs as did earlier this year (aka don't use the USSR as your invading army).
I'm less concerned about your logic than seeing if people can actually consider two sides of a debate; call it an experiment in the overall worth of this forum... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think people are getting a little derailed from the original intent of your post MonsE. This is about a dictatorship similar to IRAQ, not a what if, or could be situation. Yes, dicators can be good for a country, but the question here was one like Sadam, and being an average citizen.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 13 2004, 01:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 13 2004, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 13 2004, 12:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 13 2004, 12:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1.)No, because there are other solutions first. Some times the risk of invasion is greater than a power hungry tyrant.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Invasion is for a good reason I am sure it wouldn't be a pleasent experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, what other solutions would be acceptable to you, CWAG? Use the Iraq example if possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Revolution first. A country can only be helped if it wants to help itself. I also don't see why democracy is such a must, either. That comes of as "Sure we will help, if you agree to our terms and do it our way otherwise blammo.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 13 2004, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 13 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Revolution first. A country can only be helped if it wants to help itself. I also don't see why democracy is such a must, either. That comes of as "Sure we will help, if you agree to our terms and do it our way otherwise blammo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If we adhere to the scenario of a country like Iraq, you'd know that revolution has already failed.... Multiple times.
As for the new government being democratic... That's a very general term. We generally just say that the people must be represented. The people are the government. Which, admittedly is very similar if not mimicing our own form of government.... But what is so wrong with the people being represented and the people being the government? If we go in and remove an evil dictator, what form of government should we try to install? A religious one? A secular one? Another dictatorship? A monarchy? A socialist? A communist? If we're doing the invading, adn we're the main ones helping with rebuilding, of course we're going to say what form would be best to start out with. It almost makes sense that the best form to start out with would be a democratic government.... Otherwise you're almost asking for a civil war ( or wars ). We're going to help with what we know best, and democracy is what we know best.
So what exactly is your problem with democracy anyways? It seems nothing else works nearly as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 14 2004, 12:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 14 2004, 12:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what exactly is your problem with democracy anyways? It seems nothing else works nearly as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I was going to stay out of this but I'll just have to slip my opinion in here, thxk <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If democracy works for us, it doesn't mean it works for others. Some countries just need a ruler that keeps all the different(often religious, even radical) segments of the country together. It's the only way to keep the country running. I'm not saying Iraq absolutely is a place like this, but if it is, this democracy experiment will fall and we'll see a new Saddam sliding in. And then we should learn from it, democracy works for most people, but we have a lot of cultural differencies. It doesn't work for everyone.
Then again, I'm not an Iraqi-culture professor with diplomas on socio-political behaviour so I'm probably talking out of my arse <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-othell+Feb 13 2004, 05:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Feb 13 2004, 05:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 13 2004, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 13 2004, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Revolution first. A country can only be helped if it wants to help itself. I also don't see why democracy is such a must, either. That comes of as "Sure we will help, if you agree to our terms and do it our way otherwise blammo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If we adhere to the scenario of a country like Iraq, you'd know that revolution has already failed.... Multiple times.
As for the new government being democratic... That's a very general term. We generally just say that the people must be represented. The people are the government. Which, admittedly is very similar if not mimicing our own form of government.... But what is so wrong with the people being represented and the people being the government? If we go in and remove an evil dictator, what form of government should we try to install? A religious one? A secular one? Another dictatorship? A monarchy? A socialist? A communist? If we're doing the invading, adn we're the main ones helping with rebuilding, of course we're going to say what form would be best to start out with. It almost makes sense that the best form to start out with would be a democratic government.... Otherwise you're almost asking for a civil war ( or wars ). We're going to help with what we know best, and democracy is what we know best.
So what exactly is your problem with democracy anyways? It seems nothing else works nearly as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My problem with democracy is, its a lot like a pair of jeans. It dosen't fit everyone. Ask people in Russia, or China, they prefer a totalitarian leadership, they have had it that way since their existance and to them, it works. Working shouldn't mean "living up the the standards of the US"
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 13 2004, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 13 2004, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> My problem with democracy is, its a lot like a pair of jeans. It dosen't fit everyone. Ask people in Russia, or China, they prefer a totalitarian leadership, they have had it that way since their existance and to them, it works. Working shouldn't mean "living up the the standards of the US" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Guess those Russian elections aren't democratic... And I guess my understanding how freedom and choice in China is different than yours.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dread+Feb 13 2004, 05:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Feb 13 2004, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If democracy works for us, it doesn't mean it works for others. Some countries just need a ruler that keeps all the different(often religious, even radical) segments of the country together. It's the only way to keep the country running. I'm not saying Iraq absolutely is a place like this, but if it is, this democracy experiment will fall and we'll see a new Saddam sliding in. And then we should learn from it, democracy works for most people, but we have a lot of cultural differencies. It doesn't work for everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How do we know it won't work if we don't try? I think the idea that democracy doesn't work for everyone is a complete cop-out. It can work for everyone... Well, everyone that isn't in power that is.
I'm not saying that the democracy should be setup like we have it in the US.... There are numerous forms of democracy. But saying that democracy won't work for everyone is a statement that says others are better served under a dictatorship or some other form of government where the people do not have the freedom that we so cherish.
How do we know democracy won't work for everone until it has been tried properly?
The Iraqi people deserved to have the chance to decide on their own... And if I had experienced what they have been through for the past 30 years, I too would love the chance to decide.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Guess those Russian elections aren't democratic... And I guess my understanding how freedom and choice in China is different than yours. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia's elections are rapidly becoming less democratic. And need I remind you that the communist regime in China came to power with the support of most of the populace.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do we know it won't work if we don't try?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia is currently trying it....and it's been an abject failure. The country is a complete wreck and a lot of people there are advocating a return to the old days. China also tried it back in the 1910's and 1920's when the country was a democracy...and once again it was a complete failure. The nation fell apart; rival warlords controlled the country and the democratic process was buried under corruption.
Why is it so hard to understand that for many of the world's people, order and control is preferable to chaos and freedom? What works for one nation and people doesn't always work for the other.
Russia tried communism for 70 years - it was an abject failure. Russia tried monarchies for a few hundred years - they were abject failures. Everything Russia tries is an abject failure, so let's please leave them out of the equation. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
China is one of being under the thumb of foreign invaders - it has very little history of internal rule at all. This last stretch of 50 years is just a blip on the radar in such an ancient culture, and as we can see they have gotten far more democratic and open every year for the past decade. These things don't happen over night (especially in an asian culture).
The point is, there might be lots of people here that would prefer to live under a dictatorship or a strong centralised government, but very few people would want to live in a totalitarian police state. You need to make the distinction (which I did in the original post, if you go back and look) - we're not talking about so-called benevolent dictators, we're talking about a crushing jackboot of something like the Nazi Party, Gestapo, Baathists, Politburo, etc. If you really think you want to live under that and not have anyone come to your rescue you are a very odd person indeed...
And required reading for everyone here should be: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060007761/104-9520196-7423122?v=glance' target='_blank'>The Gulag Archipelago</a>, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Hopefully it's required reading in your colleges like it was in mine, but if not, do yourself a favor and grab it at the library. You can even read part of the first chapter <a href='http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060007761/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-9520196-7423122#reader-link' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is, there might be lots of people here that would prefer to live under a dictatorship or a strong centralised government, but very few people would want to live in a totalitarian police state. You need to make the distinction (which I did in the original post, if you go back and look) - we're not talking about so-called benevolent dictators, we're talking about a crushing jackboot of something like the Nazi Party, Gestapo, Baathists, Politburo, etc. If you really think you want to live under that and not have anyone come to your rescue you are a very odd person indeed... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, granted, but as I tried to point out in my earlier post, circumstances can have a large effect on the opinions of people. The desire for order (so strongly part of Chinese culture for example) may override a person's distaste for living in a police state. Citizens might truely believe that the people being arrested by the police (such as Jews in Nazi Germany, Kurds in Baathist Iraq) are threats to order and stability (though their thoughts on this may be shaped by poor education and propaganda). If we can imagine a person is unwilling to live under a totalitarian police state, is it so hard to imagine a person unwilling to live under a democratic state?
Do we have the right to go in and make this decision for people?
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 14 2004, 12:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 14 2004, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm, granted, but as I tried to point out in my earlier post, circumstances can have a large effect on the opinions of people. The desire for order (so strongly part of Chinese culture for example) may override a person's distaste for living in a police state. Citizens might truely believe that the people being arrested by the police (such as Jews in Nazi Germany, Kurds in Baathist Iraq) are threats to order and stability (though their thoughts on this may be shaped by poor education and propaganda). If we can imagine a person is unwilling to live under a totalitarian police state, is it so hard to imagine a person unwilling to live under a democratic state?
Do we have the right to go in and make this decision for people? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, yes... It is extremely difficult to understand how someone would not want to live under a democratic government. There's a lot more freedom... choice... rights... Its really just better all around. Now, democracies are not perfect... But I dare you to find something better.
But apparently you think its ok for them to want to be under a totalitarian police state as long as they're ignorant ( or stupid ).
We have more of a right to give the people the option for democracy than the dictator has to oppress, murder, maim, rape, torture, etc... Now, the question is... Would we stick to it if the vast majority of the people did not want us there? That is one question I do not have an answer for... But since that does not apply here since the vast majority of Iraqis actually do want us to stay ( until they are ready to govern on their own ), the question is moot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is extremely difficult to understand how someone would not want to live under a democratic government. There's a lot more freedom... choice... rights... Its really just better all around. Now, democracies are not perfect... But I dare you to find something better. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because we think our way is better, we should force others to think the same way? The Nazis thought their way was better as well; should we have let them force everyone else to think the same way?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But apparently you think its ok for them to want to be under a totalitarian police state as long as they're ignorant <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's none of my business. How they run their country and what their leaders do to their citizens neither affects me nor inspires me to assist them. I honestly couldn't care less about the average Iraqi; I'd much rather see the taxes I pay going into helping Australians. Regardless, I don't think we have any right (or obligation) to go over there and oust a dictator purely on the grounds that it frees some people.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ryo-Ohki+Feb 14 2004, 05:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 14 2004, 05:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is extremely difficult to understand how someone would not want to live under a democratic government. There's a lot more freedom... choice... rights... Its really just better all around. Now, democracies are not perfect... But I dare you to find something better. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because we think our way is better, we should force others to think the same way? The Nazis thought their way was better as well; should we have let them force everyone else to think the same way? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can say, "Well just because we think our way is the best doesn't mean it is the best, neyh neyh," but this is really a weak argument, democracies have been ruling the entire world for the past 100 years and it doesn't look to change either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So because we think our way is better, we should force others to think the same way? The Nazis thought their way was better as well; should we have let them force everyone else to think the same way? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think there are some very important distinctions that you fail to make between the Nazis and what is happening in Iraq right now. Such important distinctions that your argument is far below your usual standards. There is extremely little correllation between the Nazis and what is happening now.
So... What is better than a democracy? Is there even an answer to that that is realistic? You assume that democracy comes first and then freedom, but you have it backwards. The freedom comes first and then the democracy naturally follows. Why? Because the people now have the freedom to choose... Something they so lacked under a dictator such as Saddam.
Thus far it doesn't seem like we've really forced anything on them... Except if you count the invasion which got rid of Saddam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's none of my business. How they run their country and what their leaders do to their citizens neither affects me nor inspires me to assist them. I honestly couldn't care less about the average Iraqi; I'd much rather see the taxes I pay going into helping Australians. Regardless, I don't think we have any right (or obligation) to go over there and oust a dictator purely on the grounds that it frees some people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There does not have to exist a right or obligation. It can be done just because it is the right thing to be done. Iraq is a special case. It was the right thing to do, and it will lead toward a more stable Middle East ( for lots of reasons that have been mentioned time and time again and thus do not need to be mentioned once more ). You make light of the situation when you say it frees "some people". In this case "some people" refers to millions of oppressed Iraqis... Millions of Iraqis that now know what freedom really is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You can say, "Well just because we think our way is the best doesn't mean it is the best, neyh neyh," but this is really a weak argument, democracies have been ruling the entire world for the past 100 years and it doesn't look to change either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And dictatorships ruled the world for 4,900 years. Just because democracies have been around for a bit doesn't make them inherintly better.
By bringing up the Nazism example, I simply wished to try and show that opinions and views are very much shaped by location and time. We, the citizens of western democratic nations, naturally think our way is best. But who's to say that we are the best, or that our way is right? Neither of you answered that question; you started off with the viewpoint that we are the best so everyone else naturally should agree with us. What's better than democracy you ask? Whatever you want. Democracy, just like every other governing system, is neither better or worse than any others.
And as a side note we have forced democracy upon the Iraqi people by telling them that they have to live under a US style democratic government. What if they actually want a theocracy ruled by Islamic clerics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There does not have to exist a right or obligation. It can be done just because it is the right thing to be done. Iraq is a special case. It was the right thing to do, and it will lead toward a more stable Middle East ( for lots of reasons that have been mentioned time and time again and thus do not need to be mentioned once more ). You make light of the situation when you say it frees "some people". In this case "some people" refers to millions of oppressed Iraqis... Millions of Iraqis that now know what freedom really is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should probably carry on this dicussion in the other thread that I started: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62803' target='_blank'>Click</a>
Comments
All I truely know about Iraq and this particular discussion is what I have observed from my Iraqi friend. She was taken to the U.S. before she was old enough to remember by her father and mother. Why did they come to the U.S? Because her father's brother, her uncle, was dragged out into the streets and shot in the head, and her aunt, taken away to prison never to be seen again, even to this day. Why did this happen? Because an anti-sadam fly was found in the neighborhood and they needed to make an example out of someone, guess whos door they knocked on. The day it was announced that we were invading Iraq, she burst into tears of joy and pain, and she cried everytime I saw her for over a week. Why? because her people were finally being freed. I can honestly and thankfully say I have never come close to ever experience anything even similar to what it was like to live in Iraq, and however screwed up the U.S. and its "hidden agenda" may be, it will be better than what was going on with Sadam. If nothing else, its a step, no matter how small, in the right direction for Iraq.
As much anti-american setiments as we see, think about it this way. Would you publically support it if you feared for your life? Would you publically support it if you benefitted and had a good life before, and feared you were loosing it? If you lived your entire life hating the governing body of your country and fearing it, wouldnt you also be fearful and doubtful of any new presence? As much as I would want an invading force to liberate my country and my people, had I suffered and be conditioned to such circumstance, I would find myself suspicious/angry/doubtful and even perhaps slightly resisting any new power short of my very own people, and even then perhaps.
It basically comes down to the fact that regardless its a bad situation. If your in a horrible situation, moving to a bad one is still better.
1) The military capacity of the dictator. If the dictator would have weapons of mass destruction, I would seriously oppose an invasion. Not only would he be able to attack foreign cities, he might even use those weapons on advancing armies, thus killing lots of my countrymen.
2) The military capacity of the invader. It would be nice if the invasion succeeded. If they have a serious chance of losing, they should not try.
3) The current human rights and economic situation in the country.
4) The alternative options. If there is a reasonable chance that the international community might find a way to free my country without an invasion, I would oppose it. And whether overthrowing the regime has a chance.
5) The probability of a civil war following the invasion.
6) Whether the country is fit for a democracy.
7) What methods the invading army will use. Is it likely that they might use lots of landmines (when invading <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->) or clusterbombs.
That's about it.
Most 90+% of iraqi's believe that when america invaded iraq, encouraged iraqis to resist saddam, then pulled out and let saddam slaughter everyone that resisted him. They believed the US did this on purpose so that saddam can see and kill everyone that resisted against him, just to squash out every possible pocket of resistence.
For this reason, till today, iraqis do not trust the american presence, and maybe the reason why some iraqi's are resisting.
First I would try a revolution (if things were bad), and if it wouldn't work, and I don't get killed, then I'd be all for an invasion (if it's a country I trust at least a moderate amount).
Look at what happened to afghanistan when the US army was done with it:
<a href='http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0212-10.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0212-10.htm</a>
"Rule of the Rapists
Britain and the US said War on Afghanistan would Liberate Women. We are Still Waiting
by Mariam Rawi
When the US began bombing Afghanistan on October 7 2001, the oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification for overthrowing the Taliban regime. Five weeks later America's first lady, Laura Bush, stated triumphantly: "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
However, Amnesty International paints a rather different picture: "Two years after the ending of the Taliban regime, the international community and the Afghan transitional administration, led by President Hamid Karzai, have proved unable to protect women. The risk of rape and sexual violence by members of armed factions and former combatants is still high. Forced marriage, particularly of girl children, and violence against women in the family are widespread in many areas of the country."
In truth, the situation of women in Afghanistan remains appalling. Though girls and women in Kabul, and some other cities, are free to go to school and have jobs, this is not the case in most parts of the country. In the western province of Herat, the warlord Ismail Khan imposes Taliban-like decrees. Many women have no access to education and are banned from working in foreign NGOs or UN offices, and there are hardly any women in government offices. Women cannot take a taxi or walk unless accompanied by a close male relative. If seen with men who are not close relatives, women can be arrested by the "special police" and forced to undergo a hospital examination to see if they have recently had sexual intercourse. Because of this continued oppression, every month a large number of girls commit suicide - many more than under the Taliban.
Women's rights fare no better in northern and southern Afghanistan, which are under the control of the Northern Alliance. One international NGO worker told Amnesty International: "During the Taliban era, if a woman went to market and showed an inch of flesh she would have been flogged; now she's raped."
Even in Kabul, where thousands of foreign troops are present, Afghan women do not feel safe, and many continue to wear the burka for protection. In some areas where girls' education does exist, parents are afraid to allow their daughters to take advantage of it following the burning down of several girls' schools. Girls have been abducted on the way to school and sexual assaults on children of both sexes are now commonplace, according to Human Rights Watch.
In spite of its rhetoric, the Karzai government actively pursues policies that are anti-women. Women cannot find jobs, and girls' schools often lack the most basic materials, such as books and chairs. There is no legal protection for women, and the older legal systems prohibit them from getting help when they need it. Female singers are not allowed on Kabul television, and women's songs are not played, while scenes in films of women not wearing the hijab are censored.
The Karzai government has established a women's ministry just to throw dust in the eyes of the international community. In reality, this ministry has done nothing for women. There are complaints that money given to the women's ministry by foreign NGOs has been taken by powerful warlords in the Karzai cabinet.
The "war on terror" toppled the Taliban regime, but it has not removed religious fundamentalism, which is the main cause of misery for Afghan women. In fact, by bringing the warlords back to power, the US has replaced one misogynist fundamentalist regime with another.
But then the US never did fight the Taliban to save Afghan women. As recently as 2000 the Bush administration gave the Taliban $43m as a reward for reducing the opium harvest. Now the US supports the Northern Alliance, which was responsible for killing more than 50,000 civilians during its bloody rule in the 1990s. Those in power today - men such as Karim Khalili, Rabbani, Sayyaf, Fahim, Yunus Qanooni, Mohaqiq and Abdullah - were those who imposed anti-women restrictions as soon as they took control in 1992 and started a reign of terror throughout Afghanistan. Thousands of women and girls were systematically raped by armed thugs, and many committed suicide to avoid being sexually assaulted by them.
But lack of women's rights is not the only problem facing Afghanistan today. Neither opium cultivation nor warlordism and terrorism have been uprooted. There is no peace, stability or security. President Karzai is a prisoner within his own government, the nominal head of a regime in which former Northern Alliance commanders hold the real power. In such a climate, the results of the forthcoming elections in June can easily be predicted: the Northern Alliance will once again hijack the results to give legitimacy to its bloody rule.
In November 2001 Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, said: "The rights of women in Afghanistan will not be negotiable." But the women of Afghanistan have felt with their whole bodies the dishonesty of such statements from US and British leaders - we know that they have already negotiated away women's rights in Afghanistan by imposing the most treacherous warlords on the people. Their pretty speeches are made out of political expediency rather than genuine concern.
From 1992 to 2001 Afghan women were treated as cattle by all brands of fundamentalists, from jihadis to the Taliban. Some western writers have tried to suggest that this oppression has its roots in Afghan traditions and that it is disrespectful of "cultural difference" to criticize it. Yet Afghan women themselves are not silent victims. There is resistance, but you have to look for it, as any serious anti-fundamentalist group has to work semi-underground. The Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (Rawa), which was outlawed under the Taliban, still can't open an office in Kabul. We still can't distribute our magazine Payam-e-Zan (Women's Message) openly. Shopkeepers are still threatened with death for stocking our publications, and Rawa supporters have been tortured and imprisoned for distributing them. People who are caught reading our literature are still in danger.
Feminism does not need to be imported; it has already taken root in Afghanistan. Long before the US bombing, progressive organizations were trying to establish freedom, democracy, secularism and women's rights. Then, western governments and media showed little interest in the plight of Afghan women. When, before September 11 2001, Rawa gave footage of the execution of its leader, Zarmeena, to the BBC, CNN, ABC and others, it was told that the footage was too shocking to broadcast. However, after September 11 these same media organizations aired the footage repeatedly. Similarly, some of Rawa's photographs documenting the Taliban's abuses of women were also used - without our permission. They were reproduced as flyers and dropped by American warplanes as they flew over Afghanistan.
Mariam Rawi, a member of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan, is writing under a pseudonym.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
###
"
Look at what happened to afghanistan when the US army was done with it: <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the Afghanistan operation which is run by the <a href='http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/' target='_blank'>United Nations ISAF</a> and is currently headed up by a <b>Canadian</b>, Lt General Rick Hillier, and previously by a <b>German</b>, Lt General Götz Gliemeroth ? GG research.
Keyword: currently
Yes those countries contribute to this whole mess, but they would not be there if it wasnt for america bombing and invading in the first place. Their leaders followed americas leaders like the disgusting boot lickers they are sometimes.
EDIT: I have to add that i am not an america basher! If my country (Canada) was the military colossus attacking countries once every 2 year, i would be picking on Canada. Even then, i was in the streets of Montreal in february and March 2003 with 99,999 other people to put pressure on the canadian governement so that
it would not go along with americas "march towards infinite justice".
I understand that america is not at it alone in its military adventures, but it is the main driving force. Just like the Serbia bombing of 1999, or afghanistan in 1998, other countries helped but at the initiative of the US.
Can you imagine the Canadian army alone rolling towards Kabul in its tanks? Can ya? I giggle at the thought of that.
You quoted an article from yesterday. The UN take over of this operation was 2 years ago. Try again.
And if you're saying the invasion of Afghanistan was justified as bringing women's rights, you need your head examined. It was invaded to remove the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Period. Just about every country on earth agreed with it, and your own runs the operation. Saying it's all America's fault or whatever is blame shifting and ridiculous sour grapes Everything else is gravy. You are trying to revise history, and failing.
Yeah and i am guessing that the things shes talking about in the article happened yesterday too right? right.
And i think its vain to try to make you admit that other countries would not be in afghanistan if it wasnt for the US invading.
That just makes your point even more incorrect. Did you even read your own article? It talks about the current situation at great length.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And i think its vain to try to make you admit that other countries would not be in afghanistan if it wasnt for the US invading.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one would be in Afghanistan if it wasn't for them being a terrorist harbor. I would certainly hope that if someone had flown a plane into the Canadian Parliament building, and all the attackers were based in Afghanistan, that Canada would have attacked back and asked us to come with them.
I can't even talk about this with you anymore, as you're beyond fringe, in my opinion. Maybe someone else will, I'm too sickened.
"Community Rules - - Any form of direct or indirect personal attack or harassment is prohibited. "
I will not comment or your not-so subtle claim that i need my head examined.
Please refrain from personal attacks, youre supposed to set the example here.
I am not saying that the original motive of invasion was to put democracy up, i am saying that the puppets the US placed there are dictators, so i would not want the US to invade my country to "save" it. Id rather have a local dictator than a foreign imposed one. All of my posts in this thread are meant to put to light that reasoning about if i want to have my country to be invaded or not by a 3rd party depends on which country we are talking about. And given the US record, if we are talking about the US invading my country to "save" it, thats a definite no.
Feel free to tell me how their new <a href='http://www.constitution-afg.com/' target='_blank'>constitution</a> is a step backwards from the taliban, or how a UN-run operation (without even a US commander in charge for over 2 years) is the US putting in a dictatorship. Stop ignoring the points that conflict with your world view and simply examine them as facts. My guess is you were not even aware of the UN power structure before I pointed it out, as you had not done the necessary research ahead of time. Am I wrong?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And given the US record, if we are talking about the US invading my country to "save" it, thats a definite no.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because our record in Germany, Japan, Italy, and elsewhere certainly agrees with that, right?
1.)No, because there are other solutions first. Some times the risk of invasion is greater than a power hungry tyrant.<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if the Invasion is for a good reason I am sure it wouldn't be a pleasent experience.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, what other solutions would be acceptable to you, CWAG? Use the Iraq example if possible.
If you were living in a dictatorship such as Iraq, and you were an average citizen, would you welcome an invasion that removed Saddam or not? In either case, try to explain why. This is not an invitation for you to make analogies or 'yes buts', just give an honest answer about yourself. Would you rather live in a dictatorship, or have your country invaded with a promise of democracy? Assume the same amount of damage and casualties occurs as did earlier this year (aka don't use the USSR as your invading army).
I'm less concerned about your logic than seeing if people can actually consider two sides of a debate; call it an experiment in the overall worth of this forum... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people are getting a little derailed from the original intent of your post MonsE. This is about a dictatorship similar to IRAQ, not a what if, or could be situation. Yes, dicators can be good for a country, but the question here was one like Sadam, and being an average citizen.
Ok, what other solutions would be acceptable to you, CWAG? Use the Iraq example if possible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Revolution first. A country can only be helped if it wants to help itself. I also don't see why democracy is such a must, either. That comes of as "Sure we will help, if you agree to our terms and do it our way otherwise blammo.
If we adhere to the scenario of a country like Iraq, you'd know that revolution has already failed.... Multiple times.
As for the new government being democratic... That's a very general term. We generally just say that the people must be represented. The people are the government. Which, admittedly is very similar if not mimicing our own form of government.... But what is so wrong with the people being represented and the people being the government? If we go in and remove an evil dictator, what form of government should we try to install? A religious one? A secular one? Another dictatorship? A monarchy? A socialist? A communist? If we're doing the invading, adn we're the main ones helping with rebuilding, of course we're going to say what form would be best to start out with. It almost makes sense that the best form to start out with would be a democratic government.... Otherwise you're almost asking for a civil war ( or wars ). We're going to help with what we know best, and democracy is what we know best.
So what exactly is your problem with democracy anyways? It seems nothing else works nearly as well.
I was going to stay out of this but I'll just have to slip my opinion in here, thxk <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If democracy works for us, it doesn't mean it works for others. Some countries just need a ruler that keeps all the different(often religious, even radical) segments of the country together. It's the only way to keep the country running. I'm not saying Iraq absolutely is a place like this, but if it is, this democracy experiment will fall and we'll see a new Saddam sliding in. And then we should learn from it, democracy works for most people, but we have a lot of cultural differencies. It doesn't work for everyone.
Then again, I'm not an Iraqi-culture professor with diplomas on socio-political behaviour so I'm probably talking out of my arse <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If we adhere to the scenario of a country like Iraq, you'd know that revolution has already failed.... Multiple times.
As for the new government being democratic... That's a very general term. We generally just say that the people must be represented. The people are the government. Which, admittedly is very similar if not mimicing our own form of government.... But what is so wrong with the people being represented and the people being the government? If we go in and remove an evil dictator, what form of government should we try to install? A religious one? A secular one? Another dictatorship? A monarchy? A socialist? A communist? If we're doing the invading, adn we're the main ones helping with rebuilding, of course we're going to say what form would be best to start out with. It almost makes sense that the best form to start out with would be a democratic government.... Otherwise you're almost asking for a civil war ( or wars ). We're going to help with what we know best, and democracy is what we know best.
So what exactly is your problem with democracy anyways? It seems nothing else works nearly as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My problem with democracy is, its a lot like a pair of jeans. It dosen't fit everyone. Ask people in Russia, or China, they prefer a totalitarian leadership, they have had it that way since their existance and to them, it works. Working shouldn't mean "living up the the standards of the US"
Guess those Russian elections aren't democratic... And I guess my understanding how freedom and choice in China is different than yours.
How do we know it won't work if we don't try? I think the idea that democracy doesn't work for everyone is a complete cop-out. It can work for everyone... Well, everyone that isn't in power that is.
I'm not saying that the democracy should be setup like we have it in the US.... There are numerous forms of democracy. But saying that democracy won't work for everyone is a statement that says others are better served under a dictatorship or some other form of government where the people do not have the freedom that we so cherish.
How do we know democracy won't work for everone until it has been tried properly?
The Iraqi people deserved to have the chance to decide on their own... And if I had experienced what they have been through for the past 30 years, I too would love the chance to decide.
Russia's elections are rapidly becoming less democratic. And need I remind you that the communist regime in China came to power with the support of most of the populace.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do we know it won't work if we don't try?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Russia is currently trying it....and it's been an abject failure. The country is a complete wreck and a lot of people there are advocating a return to the old days. China also tried it back in the 1910's and 1920's when the country was a democracy...and once again it was a complete failure. The nation fell apart; rival warlords controlled the country and the democratic process was buried under corruption.
Why is it so hard to understand that for many of the world's people, order and control is preferable to chaos and freedom? What works for one nation and people doesn't always work for the other.
China is one of being under the thumb of foreign invaders - it has very little history of internal rule at all. This last stretch of 50 years is just a blip on the radar in such an ancient culture, and as we can see they have gotten far more democratic and open every year for the past decade. These things don't happen over night (especially in an asian culture).
The point is, there might be lots of people here that would prefer to live under a dictatorship or a strong centralised government, but very few people would want to live in a totalitarian police state. You need to make the distinction (which I did in the original post, if you go back and look) - we're not talking about so-called benevolent dictators, we're talking about a crushing jackboot of something like the Nazi Party, Gestapo, Baathists, Politburo, etc. If you really think you want to live under that and not have anyone come to your rescue you are a very odd person indeed...
And required reading for everyone here should be: <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060007761/104-9520196-7423122?v=glance' target='_blank'>The Gulag Archipelago</a>, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Hopefully it's required reading in your colleges like it was in mine, but if not, do yourself a favor and grab it at the library. You can even read part of the first chapter <a href='http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060007761/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-9520196-7423122#reader-link' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, granted, but as I tried to point out in my earlier post, circumstances can have a large effect on the opinions of people. The desire for order (so strongly part of Chinese culture for example) may override a person's distaste for living in a police state. Citizens might truely believe that the people being arrested by the police (such as Jews in Nazi Germany, Kurds in Baathist Iraq) are threats to order and stability (though their thoughts on this may be shaped by poor education and propaganda). If we can imagine a person is unwilling to live under a totalitarian police state, is it so hard to imagine a person unwilling to live under a democratic state?
Do we have the right to go in and make this decision for people?
Do we have the right to go in and make this decision for people? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, yes... It is extremely difficult to understand how someone would not want to live under a democratic government. There's a lot more freedom... choice... rights... Its really just better all around. Now, democracies are not perfect... But I dare you to find something better.
But apparently you think its ok for them to want to be under a totalitarian police state as long as they're ignorant ( or stupid ).
We have more of a right to give the people the option for democracy than the dictator has to oppress, murder, maim, rape, torture, etc... Now, the question is... Would we stick to it if the vast majority of the people did not want us there? That is one question I do not have an answer for... But since that does not apply here since the vast majority of Iraqis actually do want us to stay ( until they are ready to govern on their own ), the question is moot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because we think our way is better, we should force others to think the same way? The Nazis thought their way was better as well; should we have let them force everyone else to think the same way?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But apparently you think its ok for them to want to be under a totalitarian police state as long as they're ignorant <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's none of my business. How they run their country and what their leaders do to their citizens neither affects me nor inspires me to assist them. I honestly couldn't care less about the average Iraqi; I'd much rather see the taxes I pay going into helping Australians. Regardless, I don't think we have any right (or obligation) to go over there and oust a dictator purely on the grounds that it frees some people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because we think our way is better, we should force others to think the same way? The Nazis thought their way was better as well; should we have let them force everyone else to think the same way? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can say, "Well just because we think our way is the best doesn't mean it is the best, neyh neyh," but this is really a weak argument, democracies have been ruling the entire world for the past 100 years and it doesn't look to change either.
I think there are some very important distinctions that you fail to make between the Nazis and what is happening in Iraq right now. Such important distinctions that your argument is far below your usual standards. There is extremely little correllation between the Nazis and what is happening now.
So... What is better than a democracy? Is there even an answer to that that is realistic? You assume that democracy comes first and then freedom, but you have it backwards. The freedom comes first and then the democracy naturally follows. Why? Because the people now have the freedom to choose... Something they so lacked under a dictator such as Saddam.
Thus far it doesn't seem like we've really forced anything on them... Except if you count the invasion which got rid of Saddam.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's none of my business. How they run their country and what their leaders do to their citizens neither affects me nor inspires me to assist them. I honestly couldn't care less about the average Iraqi; I'd much rather see the taxes I pay going into helping Australians. Regardless, I don't think we have any right (or obligation) to go over there and oust a dictator purely on the grounds that it frees some people.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There does not have to exist a right or obligation. It can be done just because it is the right thing to be done. Iraq is a special case. It was the right thing to do, and it will lead toward a more stable Middle East ( for lots of reasons that have been mentioned time and time again and thus do not need to be mentioned once more ). You make light of the situation when you say it frees "some people". In this case "some people" refers to millions of oppressed Iraqis... Millions of Iraqis that now know what freedom really is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And dictatorships ruled the world for 4,900 years. Just because democracies have been around for a bit doesn't make them inherintly better.
By bringing up the Nazism example, I simply wished to try and show that opinions and views are very much shaped by location and time. We, the citizens of western democratic nations, naturally think our way is best. But who's to say that we are the best, or that our way is right? Neither of you answered that question; you started off with the viewpoint that we are the best so everyone else naturally should agree with us. What's better than democracy you ask? Whatever you want. Democracy, just like every other governing system, is neither better or worse than any others.
And as a side note we have forced democracy upon the Iraqi people by telling them that they have to live under a US style democratic government. What if they actually want a theocracy ruled by Islamic clerics?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There does not have to exist a right or obligation. It can be done just because it is the right thing to be done. Iraq is a special case. It was the right thing to do, and it will lead toward a more stable Middle East ( for lots of reasons that have been mentioned time and time again and thus do not need to be mentioned once more ). You make light of the situation when you say it frees "some people". In this case "some people" refers to millions of oppressed Iraqis... Millions of Iraqis that now know what freedom really is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should probably carry on this dicussion in the other thread that I started: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62803' target='_blank'>Click</a>