US abandoning plans to bring democracy to Iraq, say Kurds

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination.

People go on and on about soveriegnty, but it's really about order, security and prosperity.

Iraq will accept our rule for awhile as long as we don't exploit them. Agreed soon they will want their own government.

That was a long time ago. Everything changed with the development of nationalism. For some more recent examples, the Palestineans were better off under the occuation than they are now, and the Chechens were better off in the USSR than they are now. But neither seems to want to go back; they have this strange desire to control their own destiny whatever it costs.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Andrew1999
That was a long time ago. Everything changed with the development of nationalism. For some more recent examples, the Palestineans were better off under the occuation than they are now, and the Chechens were better off in the USSR than they are now. But neither seems to want to go back; they have this strange desire to control their own destiny whatever it costs.

I think you think I'm saying that Iraq will accept permanent rule by the US. No, only temporary.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I think you think I'm saying that Iraq will accept permanent rule by the US. No, only temporary.

I was referring to the part where "all they really want is order, security, and prosperity." I don't think they'll make that kind of cost/benefit analysis of being occupied.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Just one example. The British colonies accepted British rule for a long time. It wasn't until the British raised taxes that the colonists began to demand self-determination.

That's a rather piss-poor comparison, since the colonies were populated by British subjects who had traditional loyalty to the crown. Unless, of course, you're saying the Iraqis would accept American occupation as, say, the Indians accepted British colonial rule, and I sincerely doubt you want to go there...

[DuncanK]

The British were able to rule India for a long time while exploiting them the whole way. Why should the US not be able to rule Iraq for a short time if we don't exploit them?

[GePap]

Because for the most part British rule in India was based on the British ebing the protectors of those local potentates that had ruled India before the English got there, all the Maharajas and princes and so forth. For the Us to follow this example, it would have to leave all the local governors in power and rule through them.

If what you said were true, there would never be such a thing as revolutions, which inherently destroy order to attain some other goal.

[DanS]

As things stand now, all Hussein's neighbors are far better prepared to deal with any Iraqi aggression, and there's no doubt a lot more people would agree that there was a clear casus belli IF Hussein or his successors make military threats against their neighbors, or escalate repression against the Kurds or Shiites.

So you believe that any threat from Hussein wrt weapons of mass destruction over time is de minimis? I don't think I could accept that one, even if the threat is slightly overworked by Bush et al.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap
Because for the most part British rule in India was based on the British ebing the protectors of those local potentates that had ruled India before the English got there, all the Maharajas and princes and so forth. For the Us to follow this example, it would have to leave all the local governors in power and rule through them.

The British kept the local governors unless they thought that those governors would not be loyal, especially after the Sepoy rebellion. It's a matter of governing. You have to choose the right administers. The British did a good job, but eventually the prosperity they created in India was their undoing, as professional Indians wanted more than what they were getting. Still, they were able to rule for a long time.

Originally posted by GePap
If what you said were true, there would never be such a thing as revolutions, which inherently destroy order to attain some other goal.

I don't claim my statement to be a law. At times people will be willing to sacrifice order for more order in the future. It's relative to how well the government acts in their interest. If they have a government that acts in their interest they generally will not cause disorder.

[GePap]

DanS:

the monicker WMD is grossely overdoen when it comes to Iraq: Nukes are the true WMD, and the one thing inspectors have said is that evidence of an ongoing Iraqi nuclear program are hardly there.

As for Biological wepaons: no one has realle figured out how to use them. The Anthrax mailer killed 5 people, he could have kileld a smany mailing bombs. All this talk about weaponized Smallpox and such: can anyone tell me how a sucessful atatck using this could be done?

And as for Chemical weapons: To be very dealy, you need high amounts, and special hardware.

The NYTimes Week in Review last Sunday had a great piece: The CIA stated that 1 TON of Sarin nerve gas could kill up to 8000 people, if delievered perfectly, with all the weather conditions being optimal: that means at night, moonless, warm, no wind. If a breeze kicked up, the number of fatalities drops to 700. Now, can you imagine terrorists having 1 TON of sarin? and the means to deliver them?

The only situation in which Iraq could kill thousand with its WMD is in a war situation, and they would lose that. The Iraqi threat is minimal to the US right now.

[DuncanK]

GePap,

Iraq is a threat because it is researching this things and probably sharing information with other dictators and terrorist groups. It's not just about Iraq itself being able to attack the US. It's about rogue states and terrorist groups working together, sharing information and materials. And I already know that you are going to say there is no proof, but I say it's too important of a matter to require proof.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DuncanK
GePap,

Iraq is a threat because it is researching this things and probably sharing information with other dictators and terrorist groups. It's not just about Iraq itself being able to attack the US. It's about rogue states and terrorist groups working together, sharing information and materials. And I already know that you are going to say there is no proof, but I say it's too important of a matter to require proof.

WHAT!!!!!!!!! WHAT!!!!!!!!!!

War is such an importan thing that it REQUIRES proof. The more important a thing is, the more important it is to make an educated choice, which means having evidence.
Al Qaeda did what it did, which was get 19 men to put their lievs in the line so they could turn a series of airliners into huge and very complex guided missiles, without the aid of any state, save the Taliban regime. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein won't do sh*t to reduce the capabilties of Al Qaeda. At best, such action is Al qaeda neutral, and if it goes badly, will help them.

No one has yet shown any evidence of Al Qaeda getting any weapons from Iraq, of any type, even simple explosives, and as I pointed out above, for all they are worth, unitl someone makes new substances or improves deliery methods, WMD are not worth their trouble in the terrorist world. You could kill just as many , as quikly, and far more cheaply, with good old bombs.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by GePap
unitl someone makes new substances or improves deliery methods, WMD are not worth their trouble in the terrorist world. You could kill just as many , as quikly, and far more cheaply, with good old bombs.

Well, since rogue states and terrorist organizations want WoMD so bad, maybe they know something you don't.

[GePap]

WoMD are a great way fo scaring people, and besides, its always best to have a well rounded arsenal. May I add that non-rogue antions alo seek and stocvkpile WoMD, like ourselves, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russia, China, and so forth. As I said, a state has the hardware to make a worthwhile chemical attack aaginst its enemies: terrorist don't, unless you believe that somehow the terrorist will get thier hands not only on tons of the stuff, and be able to transport tons of it into place, but get their hands on special munitions, specialized aircraft, and have the ability to use them.

May I add one more point; you made statement. you claim to "know" somehow that Iraq and Al Qaeda are connected. How? are you in the CIA? did you have an epiphany? Or perhaps you saw somehting in the media, reports that made this assertion? Well, I have seen many similar reports, and I have found their contents as far as this 'connection' goes sorely lacking and incomplete, full of wild specualtion but few and non-compelling facts. There is 'evidence' out there, and simply put: I find it terribly weak.

[DuncanK]

GePap,

I didn't say that I knew. I was just making an assumption. I think there is a strong possibility. It seems to me that even though people are enemies that they can't help but to cooperate with each other if it will help them defeat a more hated enemy. It's the real world, people compromise.

[Ted Striker]

I am with Duncan on this one. The link is there.

Hell, there are still people that believe Al Queda didn't do 9/11.