Is Invading Iraq "Sharon's War"?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Paradox
Off the topic but definitely related to this thread is that certain ppl always seem to post the same threads with "the same" or what could be construed as anti-israeli,anti-semitic or anti-US based. At the very least questions most certainly aimed to illicit highly emotive responses more than a decent discussion.

IMO many posts are not trying to ask valid questions or ellicit responses, but seemingly subtley trying to "have a go" or "prodding" as supposed/alleged israeli/US prejudice/alliances against the "East".

Now once in a while this would be fine, but if one looks at the posters they always seem to be the same ( in general), always on the arab-israeli-US-ME question and almost 100% stated in such a way that israel-US are the defendents/oppressors and the East-muslim regimes the accusers/oppressed!

I personally question the "real" desire to discuss as opposed to "have a go"....

Perhaps its time someone posted something like "IF Saddam apologised to the US and its peoples on national TV would we forgive him?" Comeon! Get real thats hardly a question which could be discussed...its just pure lunacy!

Just my views and observations

Actually, I think the ME discussions of late have improved their tone considerably. We seem to be reaching a consensus of views between the two sides.

I haven't been following what Novak has had to say on Iraq. I just do not like what he had to say or how he said it. Perhaps Novak is going the way of that other ex-Republican lunatic newsman that ran for president on the independent ticket. What was his name?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So when you don't agree with someone you call them a lunatic. Wonderful... perhaps Godwin's Law can be expanded for you as well .

Of course you know nothing about the person, so calling names is the best alternative, right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by monkspider
Imran - I am in full agreement with Gegap here. The United States has never been concerned with spreading Democracy throughout the world before, why should they start now? In fact, i doubt there is a country that has done more to stunt the spread of democracy. Of course Bush would publically say that he wants to see a democratic regime in Iraq, do you think the public is going to support the war if he was honest and said that he wanted a regime friendly to american economic interests, whether it was democractic or not is irrelevent? The war already has a very slim support, do you really think that Bush could say anything else? You're a pretty bright guy Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly. If you're serious that is, I have a bit of a hunch that you're actually just yanking our chain on this one.

The whole point of fighting communism in the first place was to preserve democracy. We were, however, continually frustrated by chaos caused by communist subversion - so much so that we supported military governments that were intent on suppressing the communists and restoring order. It was our experience that once communists took over, they stayed in power through force and essentially became part of Soviet block. However, once communism was suppressed, it was our experience that the military would restore democratic institutions.

The struggle for power between the USSR and the USA was really a war - a cold war. It was a struggle based solely on ideology - communisim vs. democracy. Both sides did their best to win it. In the end, the US won.

The suggestion, monkspider, that the US had no ideological motivation for fighting the cold war is pure revisionist crap.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So when you don't agree with someone you call them a lunatic. Wonderful... perhaps Godwin's Law can be expanded for you as well .

Of course you know nothing about the person, so calling names is the best alternative, right?

Imran, why are the extremes of both right and left known as the "lunatic" fringe? I personally am afraid of extremists from both sides of the political spectrum. One the left we have communists. On the right we have racist fascists, brutal dictators and Messianic prophets.

Extremists are lunatics, IMHO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Novak is as far from a extremist as you could possibly be.

Like I said, you know nothing about the person, so you call him names.

[Ned]

Oh, his name is Pat Buchannan.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ned


The whole point of fighting communism in the first place was to preserve democracy. We were, however, continually frustrated by chaos caused by communist subversion - so much so that we supported military governments that were intent on suppressing the communists and restoring order. It was our experience that once communists took over, they stayed in power through force and essentially became part of Soviet block. However, once communism was suppressed, it was our experience that the military would restore democratic institutions.

The struggle for power between the USSR and the USA was really a war - a cold war. It was a struggle based solely on ideology - communisim vs. democracy. Both sides did their best to win it. In the end, the US won.

The suggestion, monkspider, that the US had no ideological motivation for fighting the cold war is pure revisionist crap.

Ned, if our goal was spreading democracy, then why have we violently overthrown more democracies than any other nation since World War II? Why has the United States propped up so many dictatorships? The statement that the United States is a philanthopic force spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world is a nice one but it just doesn't gibe with the facts.

In regards to the statement that I don't think the United States had any ideological reasons for fighting the Cold War, and that I'm some loony revisionist. Well I do happen to believe the United States had plenty of ideological motives behind their Cold War diplomacy, it's just that that ideology wasn't democracy. If you look at the record of the United States actions, the United States has almost never stood up for democracy anywhere, ever. It has, however, always been quick to defend it's economic interests whenever they were slightly threatend. This the United States is quite reliable about. If perhaps a Democracy or two sprouted up here and there as a result of America's campaign to protect her buisness interests, well great, but it's irrelevent. To America's credit, it doesn't really mind if another country is democratic or not, so long as it's loyal to the interests of American buisness, if not though, a loyal dictatorship is preferable. So there is a clear ideology that prevails throughout America's actions, and it's a pro-American capitalism. Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not.

Then tell me monkspider. How many democracies have we overthrown since the END of the Cold War?

Oh right... that number is ZERO!

Thank you, you've proven my point.

Ned is right on this. The US went to fight for Western values. One of them being democracy. However, it was foolish to have democracy if as soon as it popped up, Communist influence subverted the 'democracy'. So, instead it was better to back military dictators that would turn to democracy once the communist threat was defeated.

[Joseph]

Without reading the whole thread, I sure hope not.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Democracy is actually the enemy of this ideology, more times than not.

Then tell me monkspider. How many democracies have we overthrown since the END of the Cold War?

Oh right... that number is ZERO!

Thank you, you've proven my point.

.

Immers- Actually, you prove my point. The United States hasn't needed to overthrow any democracies since the end of the Cold War because it's now achieved it's goal of being boss of the world. As I said earlier, the United States doesn't mind democracy, as long as it's conveinant, but the United States will prefer a loyal despot to a possibly meddlesome democracy any day. Have the Democracies the United States overthrown during the Cold War been restored? Nope, not a single one that I'm aware of. If a legitimate threat were ever posed by any democracy, and it was within the US's ability to crush it, I'm sure that no time would be wasted in doing so. In the meantime, the United States continues to prop up dozens of despotic autocrats, and remains the world's greatest roadblock to greater democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Have the Democracies the United States overthrown during the Cold War been restored? Nope, not a single one that I'm aware of.

Are you daft?!

Indonesia? South Korea? Chile? Nicaragua? Hell, just about all of Latin America?!

Are you merely talking out of your ass on this one?

And many of those Latin American democracies have gone left (Chile, Brazil just did) and you don't see the Marines going in, do you?

It is absolutely silly and ludicrous to say that no democracy that was overthrown during the Cold War has returned to democracy. Just about every democracy that was overthrown has returned to democracy.

In fact the shift to democracy (and the push for democracy in countries like Pakistan when Musharraf took power) shows that the hypothesis that the US supported dictators only for the short run against communism, to be replaced by democracies later is TRUE!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, I am beginning to think that CNN really believes that a vast Jewish conspiracy runs the United States.

CNN has plenty of Jewish people on their payroll. Novak is a highly respected Republican journalist, who simply believes Israel is wrong.

Novak is a Democrat. A very conservative Democrat as I was until the 98 election. My son was the campaign manager for the Rep. candidate in 1st dist. of Calif. for the US Congress. Just think if he would have won, I would now have an inside track in Washington.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Novak was a Democrat?!

Since the beginning of Crossfire, Novak was always 'From the Right' and supported Republicans. Didn't sound like much of a Demcrat to me now or then!

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
Oh, his name is Pat Buchannan.

Pat has stated many time NO WAR with Iraq. Even in 91 he was apposed to the war.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Novak was a Democrat?!

Since the beginning of Crossfire, Novak was always 'From the Right' and supported Republicans. Didn't sound like much of a Demcrat to me now or then!

You are correct on the right as a conservative, but still a register Democrate. They, he has said so a few times to my suprise some year ago. I watch crossfire every single day and have my VCR set to record if I'm not home.