"In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
I'd just want to point out that this approach to seeing democracy as nothing but "free elections" is really stupid.

If anything, it is now clear that there is a deep reactionary force in Iraq's society. There are only two ways to avoid a non-reactionary government:
- west-friendly dictatorship
- letting the Iraqis evolve and see how crap fundamentalism is.

The latter (which is the only valid way in the long run) can only be achieved if there are free elections, and if the Iraqis get to throw the rascals out by themselves.

[Patroklos]

JIM LEHRER: So was it clear to you and your inspectors and clear to others that you talked to at the time that there probably were no weapons of mass destruction there to be found?

HANS BLIX: No, that is going too far. I mean we...there were lots of question marks. You see, there were lots of things that were unaccounted for. We knew that they had had quantities of mustard gas and anthrax and other things, and they could not tell us with any evidence of where it had gone. Therefore, it was labeled unaccounted for. However, there was a tendency on both the U.S. side and the U.K. side to equate unaccounted for with existing. And that was an error.

HANS BLIX: I think something changed importantly at the time when they had gone in, in April and May; and that was that the U.S. forces then were able to interrogate military people and scientists. And when we were interrogating them and interviewing them, they might have been scared of any consequences from the terrorist regime that Saddam Hussein was the head of.

At the time of the occupation we could not have said, excluded that there still were weapons of mass destruction; it was only a little later I think that that conclusion, I think, was clear.

Goodnight, sweet dreams

[Gibsie]

If only we all had your remarkably low standards there, Patroklos

[Patroklos]

Animated Avatars

Read it as you will, but it is false that Blix said there were no weapons of mass destruction, and true Iraq was being less than forthcoming.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Sava
How do you bring democracy to a culture that believes women should be covered up head to toe... and stones them to death if any man who is not a family member touches them in public?

You have to bomb them forward to the middle ages first

[Ted Striker]

Hmmm...should I invest my judgment into Hans Blix's opinion or Patroklos ?

I don't know it's such a tossup.


Now you're trying to debate Hans Blix that's funny.

[Az]

If anything, it is now clear that there is a deep reactionary force in Iraq's society. There are only two ways to avoid a non-reactionary government:
- west-friendly dictatorship
- letting the Iraqis evolve and see how crap fundamentalism is.

The latter (which is the only valid way in the long run) can only be achieved if there are free elections, and if the Iraqis get to throw the rascals out by themselves.

No, this isn't the case. the West can also force a constitution, like it was done after WWII.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
No, this isn't the case. the West can also force a constitution, like it was done after WWII.

And after Gulf War II too

Admittedly, the West gave some of leeway to the Iraqi convention, but the constituion couldn't stray too far from the key elements in any case.

Here, we have ungood elected people, within the frame of a yesgood constitution. The question is whether the constitution will be upheld or not. If yes, then there will be room for the Iraqi society too evolve, and for its regime to evolve along with it.

If not, Iraq will end up stuck with a regime that doesn't match its society.

[Az]

Admittedly, the West gave some of leeway to the Iraqi convention, but the constituion couldn't stray too far from the key elements in any case.

puh-lease. Read into religion and society, and look if the USA puts its feet down about it. If the USA doesn't really uphold it, it's as if it hasn't forced no constitution- and this is the real issue- The USA needs to crack hard on militants, and anyone else who is against the constitution. HARD. It should play an extreme stick-carrot game, and it should be on the offense. always. It should train much more Iraqis, it should train them better, and it should train them abroad, if possible.

It's all a question of that vs. the new Pentagon toy that will really really really ensure aerial superiority, like the oh-so-important F22.

Does the US have the brains as well as the balls? these days, it seems they have neither.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see how democracy and Muslim States are mutually exclusive.

Sure, it won't be a democracy in the meaning of the Anglo-liberal tradition (with broad individual freedoms and a protection from the state), but you can very well have a Muslim regime that rests on the population's support, and where there is the rule of (Ilsamic) law.

IMO, the democratic rise to power of the fundies is not so much a bad thing, if they are serious with continuing free elections in the long run. For decades now, the Arab world had been plagued with leaders who could do nothing but blame the western devils on the problems of the land.

I see Muslim fundamentalism as a reactionary movement, obviously, but it is also a movement that is trying to look for the Arab's inner strength. Some time of Muslim fundamentalism can well be what the Arabs need to change their minds, and believe that they are the only ones who can lift themselves over their poverty and irrelevance.

That would pave the way of actual progressism, once fundamentalism's abysmal failure is consumed.

I was thinking about african states even more than arabic states, but was thinking arbic ones could be included as well.

JM

[Patroklos]

Now you're trying to debate Hans Blix that's funny.

No, I am quoting him straight from the article you posted but aparently failed to read.

So more accuratly, YOU are argueing with Blix, as well as putting words in his mouth.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No, I am quoting him straight from the article you posted but aparently failed to read.

So more accuratly, YOU are argueing with Blix, as well as putting words in his mouth.

So Blix refused to rule out the possibility that Iraq had WMD, though he had no evidence that such weapons existed.

Bush stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD.

Do you get the difference?

If I say "I can't rule out the possibility that Patroklos is a knee-jerk dittohead, though I have no evidence that he is," and Ted sayd "Patroklos is a knee-jerk dittohead," are we saying the same thing?

[Patroklos]

No, where did I mention Bush in any of this since Arrian said Blix confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq, then picked up by Ted for another ill fated crusade?

Arrian

Except, no, we sent in more inspectors... Blix. Who concluded we were wrong.

Blix

At the time of the occupation we could not have said, excluded that there still were weapons of mass destruction; it was only a little later I think that that conclusion, I think, was clear.

At which Arrian, having the ability to read and reason responded with...

Yet, aside from us & the UK, they didn't feel that Saddam's obstruction was worth going to war over.

I'm not saying he was a nice boy who played by the rules. But Blix, although he didn't get complete access, wasn't pro-war either, IIRC.

Which is true (it is Blix's own damn words).

Not sure what Ted reads, if he does. However he is very intentionally hacking Blix's words, when he is not simply ignoring them.

[Ted Striker]

What's funny is all I did is post a link but somehow you extrapolated an entire.


Ted: "I bought a new Honda today."

Patroklos: " So what you're really saying is that you support pro American tarriffs only when it supports your cause yet you will turn your back on the American economy when you need something that benefits you personally. Besides look it says the seats were made in Tennesee anyway."

Your logic is beyond flawd and you seem to just make up conclusions as you go along to justify your logic gaps (which are many and wide).

Hilarious.

[Patroklos]

Ted

from the most renowned expert in the entire world on the situation

Okay, and Blix says....

At the time of the occupation we could not have said, excluded that there still were weapons of mass destruction; it was only a little later I think that that conclusion, I think, was clear.

Ted = L.O.S.E.R