Democratic Convention

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Funny what difference an "H" makes. As in George H. W. Bush, who did an outstanding job of getting international support and commitment to deal with Saddam the first time.
.

And didnt John F. Kerry vote against that?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That probably explains thier reluctance to even commit that much is the way of resources.

Or Georgie telling them what they're expected to do as lackeys, er, um, allies.

[MrFun]

Kerry is a much better choice than Bush. I lost count how many times Bush has lied to us, and deceived us on so many different issues (Iraq being one of them).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



And didnt John F. Kerry vote against that?

IIRC all those votes occurred after I was already busy counting grains of sand while playing speedbump.

Given that we had one low-rent nasty thug replacing another, and we'd (the Reagan-Bush admins) thought we could do business with Saddam, I don't think in retrospect it was all that huge of a difference either way, but we did get to check out a lot of our equipment under realistic field conditions.

[Ramo]

LOTM - yes it exists, in the circumstances Iraq faces thats a good thing, and it will be difficult to abuse, since the emergency automatically expires after 60 days, and needs approval of the Pres and both VPs to be extended. In any case i doubt any other Iraqi PM would have requested anything less, so its not evidence of Allawis dictatorial tendencies.

Except there is evidence that it will be abused; note, as I mentioned earlier, our raid on the interior ministry's prisoners and the widespread abuse that we saw.

A rumour spreading around, laden with symbolism redolant to the local Iraqis.

There are eye-witnesses. I don't see why it ought to be considered a rumor.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html?oneclick=true

So it would have been MORE democratic to go ahead and hold it with the other parties excluded???

Actually, it would've been more democratic to actually have one-person one-vote elections, and not give power exclusively to the elites. Frankly, I think it's great that there are parties that resist power to take a stand for democracy, and I think this gov't's attempt at co-option is shameless.

Look, its an imperfect process - as was the loya jirga in afghanistan,

Karzai didn't have 150,000 soldiers backing up his words. If he did, and didn't have a more democratic process, I would've called him on it.

But the act of postponement, at UN suggestion, is again NOT an indication of dictatorial tendencies.

I simply am not convinced of that, considering his background.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


IIRC all those votes occurred after I was already busy counting grains of sand while playing speedbump.

Given that we had one low-rent nasty thug replacing another, and we'd (the Reagan-Bush admins) thought we could do business with Saddam, I don't think in retrospect it was all that huge of a difference either way, but we did get to check out a lot of our equipment under realistic field conditions.

]
Does John Kerry say today that it would have been a good idea to leave Saddam in Kuwait with a definite WMD program, and with lots more oil, and with his troops at the throat of KSA?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

]
Does John Kerry say today that it would have been a good idea to leave Saddam in Kuwait with a definite WMD program, and with lots more oil, and with his troops at the throat of KSA?

Considering it's a 12 year old done deal and the Iraqi dispute (despite propaganda) was with the Emir of Kuwait, not Saudi Arabia, I don't think Kerry bothers with alternative history exercises.

In any event, look at a map - if Saddam had intended to go down to Dhahran and west to Riyadh, he would have been there before we reacted.

If you want to play alternative history, had Saddam stayed piled up on the Kuwaiti border, "negotiated" billions in payments from the Kuwaitis through the Arab League (as we thought were his intentions), he still would have had lots more cash, active WMD programs, and been at the throat of Saudi Arabia, and we would have not only been fine with it, we would still be trying to rebuild our relationship with him after the disclosure of the Iran-Contra fiasco showed conclusively we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

LOTM - yes it exists, in the circumstances Iraq faces thats a good thing, and it will be difficult to abuse, since the emergency automatically expires after 60 days, and needs approval of the Pres and both VPs to be extended. In any case i doubt any other Iraqi PM would have requested anything less, so its not evidence of Allawis dictatorial tendencies.

Except there is evidence that it will be abused; note, as I mentioned earlier, our raid on the interior ministry's prisoners and the widespread abuse that we saw.

Cite for the raid?

A rumour spreading around, laden with symbolism redolant to the local Iraqis.

There are eye-witnesses. I don't see why it ought to be considered a rumor.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/16/1089694568757.html?oneclick=true

Herald guy found two anonymous sources who had the same version of the urban rumour.

What the hell is the point of killing them with his own hands. Unless you ARE going to make it public to show what a tough hombre you are. Or unless hes crazy, like Saddam, which no ones claimed.

So it would have been MORE democratic to go ahead and hold it with the other parties excluded???

Actually, it would've been more democratic to actually have one-person one-vote elections, and not give power exclusively to the elites. Frankly, I think it's great that there are parties that resist power to take a stand for democracy, and I think this gov't's attempt at co-option is shameless.

But weve discussed why elections arent being held yet. Hes following the schedule laid down by the CPA and accepted by the UNSC. Again, its not what you want, but its not proof hes a dictator.

Look, its an imperfect process - as was the loya jirga in afghanistan,

Karzai didn't have 150,000 soldiers backing up his words. If he did, and didn't have a more democratic process, I would've called him on it.


He had thousands of Northern Alliance troops backing up his words. I fail to see that this process is less democratic than that one was.

But the act of postponement, at UN suggestion, is again NOT an indication of dictatorial tendencies.

I simply am not convinced of that, considering his background.

His background is irrelevant.

Look, i didnt say he doesnt have dictatorial tendencies. I said the delay isnt evidence of it.

I may have a history of ignoring certain posters. If Ming comes and tells me to ignore poster X, and I then ignore poster X, the fact that im ignoring poster X is NOT evidence that im still inclined to ignore people.

Oerdin may have a history of traveling in deserts. If the US govt sends him to Iraq, the fact that hes in Iraq is NOT evidence that he still wants to travel in deserts.

What part of this logic are you having trouble with?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Considering it's a 12 year old done deal and the Iraqi dispute (despite propaganda) was with the Emir of Kuwait, not Saudi Arabia, I don't think Kerry bothers with alternative history exercises.

In any event, look at a map - if Saddam had intended to go down to Dhahran and west to Riyadh, he would have been there before we reacted.

If you want to play alternative history, had Saddam stayed piled up on the Kuwaiti border, "negotiated" billions in payments from the Kuwaitis through the Arab League (as we thought were his intentions), he still would have had lots more cash, active WMD programs, and been at the throat of Saudi Arabia, and we would have not only been fine with it, we would still be trying to rebuild our relationship with him after the disclosure of the Iran-Contra fiasco showed conclusively we were playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.

Look MtG, Im not going to play AH right now. I must remind you that it was YOU, not me, who raised '91 as relevant to the current situation.

I dont suppose that Kerry wants to play what if, cause it raises questions about his "Strength" theme. All the allies whose judgement and respect Kerry now thinks are so important thought that Saddam had to be removed from Kuwait, and at the time Kerry did not. And btw, all the "realists" Kerry now identifies with did so as well. Now IF i had a clear statement of Kerrys FP vision, WHICH I DO NOT, I might overlook that. But if Kerry is going to avoid putting forth such a vision, then im going to have to look at his past behavior.

[Ramo]

Cite for the raid?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1250526,00.html

Herald guy found two anonymous sources who had the same version of the urban rumour.

He says that they were eye-witnesses.

As for why he did it, maybe he wanted to inspire some fear in the detainees or the Iraqi people without giving external forces anything to complain aobut.

But weve discussed why elections arent being held yet. Hes following the schedule laid down by the CPA and accepted by the UNSC. Again, its not what you want, but its not proof hes a dictator.

I'm not claiming that he necessarily aspires to be a dictator, merely that he doesn't care very much for democracy. That he organized a highly undemocratic process is hardly because he's following Bremer's orders.

He had thousands of Northern Alliance troops backing up his words. I fail to see that this process is less democratic than that one was.

The point is that the Northern Alliance troops wasn't loyal to him, or to the Afghan people. They were loyal to the warlords. He could hardly break down the power of the warlords using these troops. That's why he's trying to train a national army.

And both processes are anti-democratic, it's just that there's a somewhat acceptable reason for the Afghani process to be anti-democratic.

Oerdin may have a history of traveling in deserts. If the US govt sends him to Iraq, the fact that hes in Iraq is NOT evidence that he still wants to travel in deserts.

What part of this logic are you having trouble with?

It was a suggestion. If the US suggests, rather than orders, Oerdin to go to Iraq, he probably has his own reasons to do so.

[Ramo]

Anyways, what were your favorite speeches? I'll go with:

1. Obama (possibly the best political speech I've ever seen)
.
.
.
2. Clinton
3. Kerry
4. Sharpton
5. Gore
6. Edwards
7. Clark
8. Carter
9. Heinz Kerry
10. Granholm

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Who are your alternatives to Kerry?

Ted Striker

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Look MtG, Im not going to play AH right now. I must remind you that it was YOU, not me, who raised '91 as relevant to the current situation.

I dont suppose that Kerry wants to play what if, cause it raises questions about his "Strength" theme.

Or the question of voting for something that already happened over a decade ago is a red herring from the main issue of defining Kerry's current positions to the extent any politician actually hard and fast defines positions prior to an election.

All the allies whose judgement and respect Kerry now thinks are so important thought that Saddam had to be removed from Kuwait, and at the time Kerry did not.

And how many of those allies independently pushed the issue, as opposed to agreeing to follow the lead of the first Bush administration? Without the diplomatic efforts and skill of the first Bush team, nobody really would have given a ****, at least enough to do something about it.

And btw, all the "realists" Kerry now identifies with did so as well. Now IF i had a clear statement of Kerrys FP vision, WHICH I DO NOT, I might overlook that. But if Kerry is going to avoid putting forth such a vision, then im going to have to look at his past behavior.

And that assessment came as a result of a lot of lobbying and a lot of assumption (which in many cases was apparently inaccurate, or at least the certainty of the assumptions was not clear) about Saddam's future intentions and motives. I don't consider Kerry's Senate vote at the time to be that big of an issue.

[MrFun]

If John Kerry can save a hamster's life, he is certainly competent to become our next president.

[MrFun]

. . . . . seems like the hamsters had their own Democratic convetion to rally support for Kerry