Define conservatism

[Lilly Marlene]

Thank you, palerider, glad to meet you.

I have some friends who like to discuss politics who might also join us soon.
Let me come back and attend to the content of your post late tonight when the house is quiet.

 

[nakimera]

Welcome. I am new myself. I am hoping that things pick up soon. It is a bit slow here for my taste.

I don't believe that there is really a split within conservativism. Conservatives believe what they have always believed. The rush of liberals seeking to distance themselves from the term liberal has increased the moderate ranks and those less moderate among them have been, by default, called conservatives.

With regard to the war. I would argue that the war in Iraq is a defensive war. We entered that war when Iraq attacked Kuwait, an ally which we were obligated to defend. That war never ended. A saddam agreed to the terms of a cease fire. Over the next 14 years, he blatantly disregarded the terms of that cease fire and offered grudging cooperation with inspectors only under threat of force. He undermined the terms of the food for oil program by the willing corruption of our european "allies".

The iraqi regime showed a willingness to not only attack its own people with both conventional arms and WMD, but its neighbors as well. And those who would suggest that Iraq was not a direct threat to us should take a closer look at what history should have taught them. Prior to 9/11, very few indeed would have thought that Afghanistan, a poor backwater with no air force, no navy, and an army that amounted to little more than ragged militias, could have been considered even a vague threat to us, much less a threat that could strike at the very heart of our financial center.

There was a time when a nation could afford to wait for the uniformed enemy to fire the proverbial first shot before entering into a war and making the claim that it was a defensive war. Even if intelligence showed the enemy was on the move and mounting an offensive and forces were moved and deployed in answer to that enemy movement and all was poised simply waiting for that "first shot". It could still be called "defensive" even though the war had begun in answer to the enemy's first movements. The war had been engaged by both sides long before the first shot was ever fired and that first shot became nothing more than a formality.

Today, however, that first shot could realistically take the form of a suitcase nuclear weapon, or a vial of one of a dozen or so biological agents, or easily transportable cylinders of nerve gas. Can one reasonably be expected to wait for that "first shot" if that first shot could end a million lives?

Radical islam has fired the "fist shot" over and over. There have been dozens and dozens of serious attacks on Americans and America's interests going back to the late 1950's. Do we really need to wait until they manage an attack that would make 9/11 pale by comparison before we get the message that they are charged by their interpretation of their religion to either subdue us totally or kill us?

The president of Iran believes it is his destiny to bring about armageddon. Do you really want to wait to wait for someone like that to fire the first shot just so you can claim formally that your war was defensive in nature?

If someone tells you that they are going to punch you in the nose and advances on you fist drawn, do you really wait until your nose is bleeding before you take "defensive" action?

I'm new too...and I was going to quote a line or two, but I couldn't.

Just wanted to say I agree with EVERYTHING.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Oh goody, I am finally going to get to argue with naki (who is known to me from another site) !

See you two later,
Lilly

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Palerider -

Just a couple of the points because everything is rushed now ...

There is indeed a genuine split in the ranks of conservatives at this time; the split is between globalist neocons and the more traditional (think Russel Kirk, Pat Buchanan, Agrarians] type of conservatives.

You are correct about the fact that Saddam did not honor the treaty which ended the Gulf War. But that Gulf War was likewise not a defensive war and we shouldn't have been there then either.

A truly conservative stance is to "avoid foreign entanglements" as the founders of this country warned us.

If the first shot will likely be from a suitcase weapon or some biological agent, then it is really not of much utility for us to be there fighting as we are now ...unless the plan is to slaughter every single one of the more Wahabbist-influenced Muslims.

Thanks for your reply, and more later as I wrote above,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

Palerider -

Just a couple of the points because everything is rushed now ...

There is indeed a genuine split in the ranks of conservatives at this time; the split is between globalist neocons and the more traditional (think Russel Kirk, Pat Buchanan, Agrarians] type of conservatives.

Neocons aren't really conservatives. They are people who have recently abandoned liberalism but aren't, by definition conservatives. Neocon is a word coined by the left to identify the "traitors".

You are correct about the fact that Saddam did not honor the treaty which ended the Gulf War. But that Gulf War was likewise not a defensive war and we shouldn't have been there then either.

The treaty was not to end the war. The treaty was to maintain a cease fire.

When our allies are attacked, we are attacked. We had a treaty with Kuwait and were required by law to come to their aid.

A truly conservative stance is to "avoid foreign entanglements" as the founders of this country warned us.

The founders of this nation accepted help from several nations, france being the principal to support their efforts to become free from the king. When we sign treatys, we become entangled in foriegn affairs, and the founders certainly signed treaties with foriegn powers. I am a conservative's conservative and I find nothing within the philosophy that would prohibit me from supporting a war against a hostile government.

If the first shot will likely be from a suitcase weapon or some biological agent, then it is really not of much utility for us to be there fighting as we are now ...unless the plan is to slaughter every single one of the more Wahabbist-influenced Muslims.

The plan is to introduce them to freedom. Free people generally don't threaten their neighbors and free people generally don't tolerate violent factions operating within their sphere of influence. A free iraq will no more tolerate radical islamists operating openly than we would. And there is every reson to expect a domino effect through the reigon if iraq becomes a free nation. The populations of islamic countries are ripe to get out from under the repressive thumbs of their keepers and it is to our advantage to help them whenever possible.

We are dealing with a group of people who have a 15th century mindset and unless we bring them (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 20th century, they will continue to be agressors in exactly the same manner they were when they started the war that became the crusades.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Neocons aren't really conservatives. They are people who have recently abandoned liberalism but aren't, by definition conservatives. Neocon is a word coined by the left to identify the "traitors".

It may have been coined by the Left but it now enjoys currency among both the Left and the various offspring of the aptly-termed "Old Right"; neocons are as much traitors to them - for hijacking their name - as they are to liberals.

The treaty was not to end the war. The treaty was to maintain a cease fire.

I was referring to the treaty requiring Iraq to subject itself to routine weapons inspections.

When our allies are attacked, we are attacked. We had a treaty with Kuwait and were required by law to come to their aid.

WHY did we have that particular treaty with Kuwait ? When you answer that question, you will be face to face with the root of most US 'interventions' for the past fifty or so years.

The founders of this nation accepted help from several nations, france being the principal to support their efforts to become free from the king. When we sign treatys, we become entangled in foriegn affairs, and the founders certainly signed treaties with foriegn powers.

And they did so under protest with grave reservations from the Continental Congress - and only on the grounds that not to do so would render them unable to become independent of the British.
Please,
let's acknowledge that the founders of this nation were quite ill-disposed towards foreign entanglements.

Recall:

George Washington [in the Farewell Address]:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
***********************

Thomas Jefferson in his March 4, 1801 Inaugural Address:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
************************

James Monroe in the Monroe Doctrine:

"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
*************************

The plan is to introduce them to freedom. .. The populations of islamic countries are ripe to get out from under the repressive thumbs of their keepers and it is to our advantage to help them whenever possible.

We are dealing with a group of people who have a 15th century mindset and unless we bring them (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 20th century, they will continue to be agressors in exactly the same manner they were when they started the war that became the crusades.

Well it is an abysmal strategy.
In the first place, freedom cannot be imposed upon [kicking and screaming] people.

If they are 'ripe for it' as you believe, then they will have to bring it in themselves, just as America did.
But they are NOT 'ripe for it'.
As a matter of fact, the ordinary folk in many of those countries are even more obstinately poised against modern principles of freedom than their rulers are ...

For instance, when the government of Saudi Arabia planned to begin allowing women to drive, the people put up such a massive protest that their rulers finally abandoned the notion.

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.
Unfortunately what we have been trying to 'bring them into' is far from a good situation for most of the people in these countries.
We have installed rulers like the Shah of Iran, and Pinochet in Chile, men who would let US corporations have their way with the resources in these countries.
And we have "stablized" the areas, which translates into violently muffling protest from most of the people who would have preferred the resources to be nationalized.
In other words,
The only reason the US government wants to 'bring freedom' is to benefit corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

 

[Archangelwolf]

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.
The only reason the US government wants to do it is as a favor to corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

It has been going on longer than that. Think Hawaii, the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras......and you are right, it was for Corporate interests. Shoot, the quest to build the Panama Canal could stand alone as an example. (You should read "Overthrow," by Stephen Kinzer.) But I digress.....

I agree that it is none of our business. As illustrated in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html), our presence in Iraq has only strengthened al-Qaeda and the insurgency.

Add to that the fact that almost two thousand troops were discharged as Chapter 11's in 2006, comparing with only a little more than 1500 between 2002 and 2005, our own military is starting to desert this war. These numbers do not even reflect the number of actual deserters.

We need a President who is a leader. We really have not had one since Reagan. As a Democrat, I am starting to watch Rudy Guiliani, yes a Republican candidate, with great interest. Right now, I want to vote for him so bad; it hurts. Yet I have to wait another year and a half?

Here is to hoping that our troops can keep the terrorists at bay until then. God help us if they do not.

Arch.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

It has been going on longer than that. Think Hawaii, the Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras......and you are right, it was for Corporate interests. Shoot, the quest to build the Panama Canal could stand alone as an example. (You should read "Overthrow," by Stephen Kinzer.) But I digress.....

Yes indeed, there are multiple examples ...still that was a "bright line" in the Middle East, when the US govt. overthrew the duly elected man and positioned Pahlavi in '53.
Our actions vis a vis the Phillipines could be called the first example of US colonialism.

I agree that it is none of our business. As illustrated in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html), our presence in Iraq has only strengthened al-Qaeda and the insurgency...

Thanks for the link.

We need a President who is a leader. We really have not had one since Reagan. As a Democrat, I am starting to watch Rudy Guiliani, yes a Republican candidate, with great interest. Right now, I want to vote for him so bad; it hurts. Yet I have to wait another year and a half?

Soon I hope to point out a candidate whom I feel to be the optimal one. I shouldn't tonight though, too sleepy.
Good night - Arch and everyone,
Lilly

 

[palerider]

It may have been coined by the Left but it now enjoys currency among both the Left and the various offspring of the aptly-termed "Old Right"; neocons are as much traitors to them - for hijacking their name - as they are to liberals.

Global warming enjoys currency today as well even though the global mean temperature has been decreasing since 1998. The fact that people use words, or terms, does not guarantee that they are using it properly. Since this thread is really about what conservativism is and isn't, I am going to spend more time on this than quibbling about Iraq. If you understand what conservativism is and what it isn't, then you will (maybe) understand why conservatives tend to support the war in Iraq.

There are a couple of sorts of conservative. Only one sort, however is actually conservative for the reason conservativism came into existence as classical liberalism so long ago.

A substantive conservative is what might be called a true conservative. The substantive conservative believes there are truths that a society needs, that can't scientifically be demonstrated to be true or even articulated in a way that can be fully understood. The substantive conservative is attached to his conservative tradition primarily because he sees those truths embodied in it.

The other sort of "conservative" is the proceedural conservative. A procedural conservative is conservative primarily because he likes his change to be slow and deliberate. This is a characteristic of substantive conservatives as well, but not the primary reason they are conservatives. If change is slow it is likely to be more intelligent and less disruptive, and relative stability makes it easier for people to organize their lives productively. On ultimate standards, however, a procedural conservative is a relativist. Procedural conservatism fits modern ways of thinking better because it can find within its way of thinking, room for an abstract, mandated equality -- in fact, in that vein, it is entirely consistent with liberalism--so respectable well-connected institutional conservatism tends in that direction. Neocons are normally procedural conservatives. That is, they are really modern liberals in conservative clothing.

As long asthe US could be understood as a basically religious and traditionally moral society the distinction between procedural conservatives and substantive conservatives could be overlooked between themselves. The Clinton years made it difficult to understand America that way, and so put the two groups decisively at odds with each other. As a result, substantive conservatives see proceedural conservatives as turncoats, while procedural conservatives see substantive conservatives as provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic or fanatical. Not unsurprisingly, provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic, and fanatical are the very terms modern liberals use to describe conservatives.

I was referring to the treaty requiring Iraq to subject itself to routine weapons inspections.

That was a subsection of the cease fire treaty and a subject of one of the UN resolutions as well. It was disregarded in all cases.

WHY did we have that particular treaty with Kuwait ? When you answer that question, you will be face to face with the root of most US 'interventions' for the past fifty or so years.

Why? I couldn't say. We have had a treaty with them for quite some time. Long before oil was a source of wealth for them. I am not exactly sure of the date we signed a treaty with them, but most of europe allied with them in the very late 1800's and very early 1900's.

Well it is an abysmal strategy.
In the first place, freedom cannot be imposed upon [kicking and screaming] people.

Is it? It worked quite well in the case of the Japanese. Other examples can be cited as well.

If they are 'ripe for it' as you believe, then they will have to bring it in themselves, just as America did.
But they are NOT 'ripe for it'.

A large percentage of the colonists here were opposed to independence from the king and we would not have been able to gaine it for ourselves without outside help. The growth of commerse in iraq in spite of the conditions there is ample evidence that the people were ready to be out from under saddam's thumb.

As a matter of fact, the ordinary folk in many of those countries are even more obstinately poised against modern principles of freedom than their rulers are ...

The ordinary folk of iraq are growing businesses at a rate that we haven't seen for a hundred years. The entrepeneural spirit is alive and thriving there.

For instance, when the government of Saudi Arabia planned to begin allowing women to drive, the people put up such a massive protest that their rulers finally abandoned the notion.

The people? Or a few clerics and their followers enhanced by friendly press coverage?

Democracy cannot be imposed upon people, and even if it could - it's none of our business to be doing that.

Hopefully we are not in the business of imposing democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And one need only look about the world to see that freedom can be brought to people who were unable to achieve it for themselves.

Unfortunately what we have been trying to 'bring them into' is far from a good situation for most of the people in these countries.

You prefer that they be left to languish and die in their millions at the whim of brutal dictators?

In other words,
The only reason the US government wants to 'bring freedom' is to benefit corporate interests in these regions, and that has been the case all along since our first "intervention" in Iran in 1953.

So. The people who are no longer living (or dying) at the whim of a tyrant are no better off than they were?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

...our own military is starting to desert this war.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Look at re-enlistment numbers. Virtually all of the troops that I have talked to believe in this war; we believe we are fighting for a noble cause in the name of a noble nation. You'll always have the "yellow cowards" as Patton called them in every war, but they do not reflect how the majority of us on the ground feel.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Global warming enjoys currency today as well even though the global mean temperature has been decreasing since 1998. The fact that people use words, or terms, does not guarantee that they are using it properly. Since this thread is really about what conservativism is and isn't, I am going to spend more time on this than quibbling about Iraq. If you understand what conservativism is and what it isn't, then you will (maybe) understand why conservatives tend to support the war in Iraq.

Only neoconservatives (or whatever term you may prefer for those people) support the war in Iraq.

There are a couple of sorts of conservative. Only one sort, however is actually conservative for the reason conservativism came into existence as classical liberalism so long ago.

A substantive conservative is what might be called a true conservative. The substantive conservative believes there are truths that a society needs, that can't scientifically be demonstrated to be true or even articulated in a way that can be fully understood. The substantive conservative is attached to his conservative tradition primarily because he sees those truths embodied in it.

That is the sort I consider myself to be - to the extent that I am conservative.

The other sort of "conservative" is the proceedural conservative. A procedural conservative is conservative primarily because he likes his change to be slow and deliberate. This is a characteristic of substantive conservatives as well, but not the primary reason they are conservatives. If change is slow it is likely to be more intelligent and less disruptive, and relative stability makes it easier for people to organize their lives productively. On ultimate standards, however, a procedural conservative is a relativist. Procedural conservatism fits modern ways of thinking better because it can find within its way of thinking, room for an abstract, mandated equality -- in fact, in that vein, it is entirely consistent with liberalism--so respectable well-connected institutional conservatism tends in that direction. Neocons are normally procedural conservatives. That is, they are really modern liberals in conservative clothing.

Except that now they have departed from the "slow and deliberate" standard for change. Planning to remake the Middle East through shock and awe tactics is scarcely a slow and deliberate change.

As long as the US could be understood as a basically religious and traditionally moral society the distinction between procedural conservatives and substantive conservatives could be overlooked between themselves. The Clinton years made it difficult to understand America that way, and so put the two groups decisively at odds with each other. As a result, substantive conservatives see proceedural conservatives as turncoats, while procedural conservatives see substantive conservatives as provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic or fanatical. Not unsurprisingly, provincial, out-of-date, unrealistic, and fanatical are the very terms modern liberals use to describe conservatives.

I have no argument with any of that, except to disagree about its being a consequence of the Clinton years.

...We have had a treaty with them [Kuwaite] for quite some time. Long before oil was a source of wealth for them. I am not exactly sure of the date we signed a treaty with them, but most of europe allied with them in the very late 1800's and very early 1900's.

Would you like to make this a matter of research for the two of us, subject to time limitations ? Because I am willing to bet that if oil was not the issue, then some other resource - or possibly geopolitical strategy based on location - was.

Is it? It worked quite well in the case of the Japanese. Other examples can be cited as well.

Can you show me that the Japanese were dragged kicking and screaming to it ? Because that was the attitude you stipulated in your earlier post.

A large percentage of the colonists here were opposed to independence from the king and we would not have been able to gaine it for ourselves without outside help.

Indeed, and as I remarked last night, that is the sole reason why we accepted the foreign help ...as you see from the quotes I furnished, such entanglements are entirely contrary to the philosphy of those who founded this nation. And in the subsequent one hundred or so years, one sees the United States keeping clear of any foreign entanglements whatsoever.

The growth of commerse in iraq in spite of the conditions there is ample evidence that the people were ready to be out from under saddam's thumb.

The ordinary folk of iraq are growing businesses at a rate that we haven't seen for a hundred years. The entrepeneural spirit is alive and thriving there.

What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

The people? Or a few clerics and their followers enhanced by friendly press coverage?

The people. Please see the account of that exact incident, in a book by Sam Harris titled The End of Faith.
The people of the Middle East are even more loathe to adopt certain modern ideas of freedom than their reactionary rulers are.

Hopefully we are not in the business of imposing democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And one need only look about the world to see that freedom can be brought to people who were unable to achieve it for themselves.

Where about the world should I be looking for that ? Please show me an example of any people who now enjoys authentic freedom and obtained it primarily through the agency of another country.

You prefer that they be left to languish and die in their millions at the whim of brutal dictators?
...So. The people who are no longer living (or dying) at the whim of a tyrant are no better off than they were?

They are seriously quite worse off than they were. Saddam at the very least kept life functioning somewhat predictably for them and sectarian violence was not running amock on every street corner.
We have not helped the Iraqis...
just as we did not help the people of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, or any of the other people on whose behalf we told ourselves we were intervening.

Please understand that since WWII, the US has played the part of a bully.
Maybe you think I enjoy saying that -
I don't.
I love my country.
But since WWII, the strategy of our government has been to go in to many countries in which a person has been elected by the people, and tell that person how it has to be ...this happens predominantly in the so-called "developing nations" which have desirable natural resources
If he cooperates, he becomes very wealthy and has lots of bodyguards (which he will require).
If he does not go along, he becomes a target.

I believe that sometimes people's focus is narrowed, in these discussions, to whether or not a country has nationalized its resources (?)
If so, they may view such nationalization as being inherently wrong or evil.
But it is not always wrong. Sometimes it is the optimal thing for a particular country at a given time.

 

[palerider]

Only neoconservatives (or whatever term you may prefer for those people) support the war in Iraq.

Hardly the case. It is certainly the picture that the press paints for you to see, but conservatives support this action. The republicans who the press highlights as deserting the war effort are RINO's and are republicans only because they couldn't get elected in thier districts as democrats.

That is the sort I consider myself to be - to the extent that I am conservative.

The other sort are more accurately called moderates than neo cons.

Except that now they have departed from the "slow and deliberate" standard for change. Planning to remake the Middle East through shock and awe tactics is scarcely a slow and deliberate change.

You talk as if you believe bush is a true conservative. Is that the impression that you are under? Aside from that, war tactics shouldn't be confused with societal change. How many would saddam have killed following the slow and deliberate standard?

I have no argument with any of that, except to disagree about its being a consequence of the Clinton years.

I didn't say it was a consequence, I simply said that the differences became obvious for the first time during the clinton years.

Would you like to make this a matter of research for the two of us, subject to time limitations ? Because I am willing to bet that if oil was not the issue, then some other resource - or possibly geopolitical strategy based on location - was.

There is always some motive for treaties. My point was that in the case of Kuwait, it wasn't oil because at the time the treaties were enacted, Kuwait was not a wealthy nation.

Can you show me that the Japanese were dragged kicking and screaming to it ? Because that was the attitude you stipulated in your earlier post.

Actually they weren't kicking and screaming. Two nuclear weapons had knocked the kick and the scream out of them. They became what we told them to become because they didn't want a third dropped on them. That qualifies as kicking and screaming.

Indeed, and as I remarked last night, that is the sole reason why we accepted the foreign help ...as you see from the quotes I furnished, such entanglements are entirely contrary to the philosphy of those who founded this nation. And in the subsequent one hundred or so years, one sees the United States keeping clear of any foreign entanglements whatsoever.

For that 100 years, it was relatively easy to avoid foriegn entanglements. That is not the case today. We have foriegn interests and if we don't see to them, we can find ourselves in very serious trouble. Isolationism is simply no longer a viable policy.

What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

To date, there are over 30 thousand new businesses in iraq and sadly, the picture of doom and gloom that you paint hardly matches the reality. 98% of Iraqi children have been vacinated for polio. That is a result of new clinics and staff hired on to run them. 4500 schools have been rebuilt. That required an army of construction workers and having been finished, they required teachers and have been restocked with over 8 million textbooks that required printers, academics, warehousing, delivery, etc. etc, etc. Over 150 newspapers have been started with associated staff, TV shows, theater, radio. The per capita income for the average joe in iraq has increased 30% over the very best economy that saddam ever reported. The people there are doing the same sorts of work that we do here and the poor infrastructure that you mention is almost entirely within a 50 mile radius of Baghdad because that is where 90+% of the violence is happening. Most of the country is rebuilding and moving on.

The people. Please see the account of that exact incident, in a book by Sam Harris titled The End of Faith.
The people of the Middle East are even more loathe to adopt certain modern ideas of freedom than their reactionary rulers are.

The people of the middle east is painting with a very broad brush. Are you aware that 25% of the elected in their parlement are women? Women in iraq are driving and teaching, and working.

Where about the world should I be looking for that ? Please show me an example of any people who now enjoys authentic freedom and obtained it primarily through the agency of another country.

Japan, the Philipines, Most of eastern Europe.

They are seriously quite worse off than they were. Saddam at the very least kept life functioning somewhat predictably for them and sectarian violence was not running amock on every street corner.

Over 90% of the violence in iraq is within 50 miles of baghdad. Examine the press reports of the bombings and kilings etc. Very few reports are in areas far from baghdad.

We have not helped the Iraqis...
just as we did not help the people of Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, or any of the other people on whose behalf we told ourselves we were intervening.

The people of Iraq are far better off now than they ever were under saddam's rule. And we can thank the democrat party for not funding the attempts at freedom in South America in exactly the same way we can thank the democrats for withdrawing support and subsequently letting millions die in vietnam, cambodia, and laos when we cut and run on them.

Please understand that since WWII, the US has played the part of a bully.
Maybe you think I enjoy saying that -
I don't.

Of course you do. I don't believe you grasp what a bully is. Saddam was a bully. He had the power and used it to terrorize his own people and his neighbors. Kicking the crap out of a bully doesn't make one a bully. If you see people being repressed and you have the power to do something, but you don't. You are no better than the one who is doing the repressing.

I love my country.

Easy to say.

But since WWII, the strategy of our government has been to go in to many countries in which a person has been elected by the people, and tell that person how it has to be ...this happens predominantly in the so-called "developing nations" which have desirable natural resources
If he cooperates, he becomes very wealthy and has lots of bodyguards (which he will require).
If he does not go along, he becomes a target.

Nice rhetoric, but not accurate.

I believe that sometimes people's focus is narrowed, in these discussions, to whether or not a country has nationalized its resources (?)
If so, they may view such nationalization as being inherently wrong or evil.
But it is not always wrong. Sometimes it is the optimal thing for a particular country at a given time.

Nationalizing the means of production is always wrong and always leads to the repression of the people.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

What kinds of enterprise are we discussing here ? Perhaps people willing to carry human waste to the river for money, now that their infrastructure is almost entirely dismantled ?
Please tell me that you don't consider Iraq to be better off today than before we "intervened".

http://131.84.1.90/iraq/rebuilding.html

-Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

-Over 400,000 kids have up to date immunizations.

-Over 1500 schools have been renovated and ridded of the weapons that were stored there so education can occur.

-The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off loaded from ships faster.

-School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

-The country had it's first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

-The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

-100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed compared to 35% before the war.

-Elections are taking place in every major city and city councils are in place.

-Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

-Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

-Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

-Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

-Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

-Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

-An interim constitution has been signed.

-Girls are allowed to attend school for the first time ever in Iraq.

-Text books that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

 

[Archangelwolf]

The success of a functional democracy can not be measured in just 6 years. It was not until the election of 1800, when political parties changed hands without violence, that our country realized that it could survive as a democracy. That was 24 years after the Declaration of Independance, and 17 years after the battle of Yorktown. Are we going to occupy Iraq that long? I hope not.

The American occupation in Iraq is going to have to convince the Iraqi people that, regardless of the tenets of Islam and its assertions about judgment in the afterlife, there is more pleasure in being a democracy than pain. The last few years have not shown that to the Iraqi people. Having electricity and schools is not worth having your family blown to bits on a daily basis.

Even I can agree with that assessment.

Arch.

 

[palerider]

The success of a functional democracy can not be measured in just 6 years. It was not until the election of 1800, when political parties changed hands without violence, that our country realized that it could survive as a democracy. That was 24 years after the Declaration of Independance, and 17 years after the battle of Yorktown. Are we going to occupy Iraq that long? I hope not.

We are still in Japan and Germany. Still in Kosovo. Still in the Phillipines. Why would you expect this war to go any differently?