Iraq's New Government

[dsm]

Boy, you're really reaching here to make a point! And I haven't really been disagreeing with you...

The interesting thing is that I do not have a judgement as to what is best for the Iraqis other than I believe what President George W Bush promised the world - namely that they should choose their system of government and their leaders for themselves.

Timeframe?

If the US (possibly with UN help) installs a democratic government with constitutional guarantees (along the lines of the US constitution) and the Iraqis later choose to go a different route (say, theocratic), have the following been accomplished?

• A government that allows the Iraqis to choose has been created.
• Checks and balances are there to make sure that that choice is well thought out and not a simple, emotional response.
• Ultimately, the ability to tear down the democracy and go with a monarchy or a theocracy is possible through constitutional amendment and the like.

Is this bad?

If that turns out to be a system where the son of a past president gets help from judges appointed by his father and where his brother runs a state which was crucial in determing if he got to be president in a dodgy - don't count the votes - type of way then so be it.

Careful. This is where you're really pushing the analogy.

The difference between putting W into the presidency and (say) making him "leader for life" is that:

1. While many questioned his ability, it was obvious that nearly half the electorate thought he would be a reasonable president.
2. Worse comes to worse, we always knew that we could throw him out in 4 years (as opposed to a "leader for life").

That makes a difference.

Why keep repeating failures.

There have been many failures all around. For instance, the election of the Ayatollah Khomeini to "leader for life" would likely be viewed by a majority of Iranians as failure, but they can do little about it now as he (and his successors) is the "leader for life". That was something that went against the wishes of the US (they would've preferred the Shah stay), but they bowed to the will of the people (they had little choice).

Now that the USA is there (and let us not keep forgetting the so-called coalition) I believe that because of the tainted nature of the USA's meddling in Iraq in the past and their support for the undemocratic terrorist Saddam Hussein the only way forwards is to let the UN supervise the transition to the new regime including awarding work to repair the destruction in an open and fair process. Yes the UN is tainted to various degrees also but unless there is true world involvement in post invasion Iraq with the Iraqi peple truly choosing their form of govenment and leaders then we will have a dangeous farce and a country that will actually be a danger to the world in the future and the USA will decide to invade it again...........

This is where I mostly agree with you. No matter which way you go at this point, though, some (major) group is not going to like the results. Removing the US from the process is probably not possible as the UN is viewed as a puppet of the US by many and likely the US would still be doing much of the groundwork. Even if the UN could remove the US from the process, then the question of fairness to US companies would come up in the issue of repair work. And the US reputation, damaged as it is, might be further damaged in ways that affect world stability.

It's not a good time in the world...

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

So we can't take his words at face value then?

So now you take my words out of context too?

This has been refuted.

Ignoring my refutation does not change this fact.

Taking a statement out of context or to ridiculous extremes does not mean you took it at face value.

So it goes without saying that the Iraqi people might not be able to select what they might want then.

If they want a theocracy, then yes.

Seems you don't believe President George W Bush's own words. Why did he also say

We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003

http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_032003.htm Is that also not to be trusted?

How is allowing a theocracy to establish restoring control to the people?

Again you ignore context too, he likely means restoring control similiar to what we have in a western democracy.

And where are these assumptions stated.

They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions.

In the air? In your imagination?

In our ability to recieve and interpretation.

President George W Bush gave a simple promise to the world. If I am taking it out of context why did he also promise

Again I've already answered this.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it was refuted.

Is that also taken out of context?

Obviously Bush is assuming they will not institute a regime as brutal or more brutal then Saddam's.

Are you claiming that he didn't.

I said "IF" and even emphasized it later. Are you incapable of paying attention?

Are you saying that we cannot trust the words of President George W Bush?

Many people I know make promises, and then break them as new realizations or new situations arise, that mean I stop trusting them altogether?

If so, then I literally cannot trust anybody.

Just because someone is fallible or changes his mind, doesn't mean you stop trusting him or her altogether. If you mean "does that mean we can't ever expect Bush to change his mind or make an infallible statement" by "trust" then I'll anser: yes.

We shouldn't put blind trust in our president.

The fact is I'd rather have a president that was flexible then one that stubbornly adhered to promises, even at the cost of great suffering.

In this way my view of trust is situational and flexible, whereas yours is simplistic and absolute.

When did he change his mind?

Maybe when the matter of theocracy rose up. I really don't know though. Why does this matter?

Like father like son then - making promises and reneging on them.
I seem to remember someone saying 'No new taxes' during a presidential election. I wonder what happened to him?

False analogy. This statement 1) Does not have the rationale behind it. 2) This is a domestic policy. Sticking to his word here would have likely not created a totalitarian/authoritarian state.

How can you trust someone who keeps changing his promises if that is what he has done?

He *may* have changed one for damn good reason. You have to look at the situation my friend, not absolute moral rules.

And the greater good for whom exactly - Halliburton?

Proximately: the Iraqi people. More ultimately: the US and mankind in general.

Then why didn't he say so in any of the quotes I've posted.

Again: I said assume he implied limits.

Meaning, as you obviously don't seem to get it: he doesn't say it explicitly.

I mean why didn't the founding fathers say "Freedom of speech save when someone yells fire in a theater?"

Gee I guess we can't trust them or the constitution either now. They said they'd allow for freedom and the pursuit of happiness, but they didn't say explicitly "save in cases involving criminals or sociopaths."

Are you saying that the Iraqi people and the world believing President George W Bush is the same as buying slaves?

Nope. Establishing a theocracy would actually be worse.

Please show where I have exaggerated any of the promises President George W Bush made. I have posted them verbatim .

Verbatim still requires interpretation.

You put too much stress on the word anything, interpreting it as meaning: absolutely no limits whatsoever. When a more rational interpretation would be: anything within the limitations of democratic sanity.

Are you saying that he exagerated when he made his simple promises to the world numerous times? Interesting.

No, I mean you are exagerating the scope of his promise.

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Either reasonable is a value judgement or it is not and if it is who is to make it.

It's not and your question is not applicable. This is because your very question presumes it is a matter of preference on the onset. A better one is"how do we determine it?"

Well ask yourself, do you think Bush had totalitarianism or theocracy in mind when he made the promise?

Is that compatible with the goal to free, liberate and reconstruct Iraq?

Is that compatible with the goal of making the world a better place for US interests?

If asked after the meeting "Bush by anything, did you mean ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, including electing a mad man autocracy who's stated goal was "the destruction of the US"?"

Would Bush say "Yes."?

You or the Iraqi people? I get the impression you have no intention of allowing the Iraqi people to decide for themselves unlike your President George W Bush.

Nope, I don't if it means theocracy. And neither does president Bush.

Are you saying that we can believe absolutely everything that Bush says without interpretation?

Quite the opposite.

Donald Rumsfeld aided the supply of WOMD to an acknowledged dictator and gave that same dictator a wam handshake while the world knew Hussein was terrorising his own people. Why should the world trust anything Rumsfeld says about international terrorism ever again when he dealt with a major terrorist and known mass murderer?

Saddam was helped by the US in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and fear of Iran conquering the region. In this Rumsfeld made a mistake, now if your an absolutist you lynch him for this.

"Wrong is wrong."

But if you are not an absolutist you do not necssarily. Ever occur to you Rumsfeld now realizes his mistake? That a leader can make a mistake without losing all trust?

Of course there are limits to this.

Just as there are all moral norms and rules.

Also you've failed to establish how this is relevant to Bush's "promise".

Still a red herring.

So it seems that the so-called coalition was exactly that, a so-called coalition.

Biggest say-not all the say.

I repeat the simple words of President George W Bush. Let me give you some context then.

And ignore context.

Not done yet he also said

The form and leadership of that government is for the Iraqi people to choose. Anything they choose will be better than the misery and torture and murder they have known under Saddam Hussein.

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference March 6, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_030703.htm

Yes basically the same thing your quoted earlier. Explained above.

Still not done he also said

We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

President Bush Speech, March 19, 2003
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_spe...eech_032003.htm
How much context do you need?

Also you already quoted that before in this post and I have responded. Your argument now is getting redundant.

Please note the repeated promise without qualification.

Is it really reasonable to expect anyone to make a promise without qualification? Can you do so?

As I have demonstrated repeated unqualified promises supply all the context the rest of the world needs. Either we can believe Bush's simple, repeated and unqualified promises or we cannot. It really is that simple.

The absolutist either/or's. With the irony here being I bet your not even a declared absolutist.

You're just absolutist in method and expectations when conveniant.

Either we can take the simple promises of President George W Bush at face value or we cannot. Is there some third way?

Or we recognize its better if *some*(meaning: NOT ALL...hope I don't have to repeat this) are broken.

Also I have also stated: removing a statement from underlying assumptions is not taking it at face value.

Was that free Iraq as in free them to choose what you want?

Again the false dillemas(that's about 3 of them so far).

And btw nope, they can choose what they want within democratic/reasonable limits.

Are you saying that we cannot trust his simple and repeated promises on this matter.

More question begging.

I also note that Bush has also failed to substantiate his other claims about WOMD to date yet he stymied the UN inspectors from doing ther job in his rush to war and give companies who funded his party contracts in a farce of a 'bidding' process.

The UN was not given the time for other reasons and you know it. (Or should know it, as with you I can't be too sure.)

Oi vey you are now saying that Bush's promises are silly?

Yes:rolleeyes:, if I say one promise may be silly.....that means I believe ALL Bush's promises ARE silly.

And if you mean "Do you think if Bush promised ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS, that was a silly promise?" Then yes, that (meaning that one promise not all promises) was a silly promise.

So we can't take his promises at face value then.

Why must I beat this poor dead horse that you keep trying to ressurect?

We have to add what you consider to be reasonable.

Yes I know, I don't think Bush meant "theocratic autocracy" how far fetched.

Why should your views of what is reasonable be any better than the Iraqi peoples view of what is reasonable.

Expecting the US to let them establish a theocracy is not reasonable.

Don't you trust the Iraqi people to be 'reasonable'? Seems not when you have such a low opinion of what they might do.

If they are reasonable then they shouldn't care if we place certain reasonable limits in them: they should welcome them.

Either we can take his words at face value or we can't. It really is that simple.

Not when you have such an extreme view of what taking a word at face value is.

Given that I have not changed a single word in his repeated promises it seems that you really have a problem with President George W Bush's simple promises to the Iraqi peple and the rest of the world.

This is ridiculous. You don't have to literally mutate and edit his speech to mutate his words, you merely have to promote a ridiculous interpretation.

Yeah I know. I presume he didn't mean totalitrian government, far fetched huh?

You are telling us that we cannot take his words at face value. Perhaps you can tell us exactly what was on his mind?

Again I've gone over your silly face value statement. Yes you can repeat yourself, but doing so doesn't make it true.

BTW I can tell you, or at least make a very probable guess on some things that were *not* on Bush's mind: Theocracy or any other form of totalitarianism.

What probably *was* on his mind, was democratically elected offcials within a constitutional framework.

Interesting. I call your argument ad hominid mixed with false analogy.

I have accurately reported what President George W Bush promised.

QUestion begging.

You are the one claiming that he apparently meant something else than what he repeatedly stated. It appears that you find his simple statements somehow incomplete.

Every statement has underlying assumptions and must be interpreted.

You apparently refuse to accep this and keep arguing in circles. i.e. it was the correct, face value interpretation because it was.

Are you saying once again that they are not allowed to choose their own form of government and that they have to choose what you want. That is not what President George W Bush promised numerous times. Either we can believe him or we cannot it. It really is that simple.

For a simple mind it may be that simple.

For those that recognize context and complexities in this issue though it is not.

(Notice also how your claim goes from something paticular to something general with absolutely no justifcation for the transition.)

I have posted President George W Bush's comments verbatim. If you want to think they are ridiculous that is up to you.

Verbatim statements does not make your interpretation of such statements correct.

Whose reasonable limits? Yours? Or theirs? I somehow get the impression that your do not trust the Iraqi people to choose to do what you want and as such you wouldn't let them choose their own form of government and rulers as President George W Bush promised.

Bush's, mine, mankinds, the UN's and America's. In this sense a government totally undemocratic or authoritarian, like theocracy, is not reasonable to expect.

So we have to interpret his words rather than being able to take them at face value?

Face value requires interpretation.

I have posted President George W Bush's repeated promises verbatim. If you consider it to be ridiculously extreme to take them at face value then so be it.

Posting verbatim, again, does not make your interpretation the face value one.

Either they can choose their own government and rulers as promised by President George W Bush or they cannot. Is it democray to force the Iraqi people to do what you want?

Again more false dillemas demonstrating your simplistic reasoning.

By that reasoning either the US is a democracy or it isn't. I guess we have a bill of rights that cannot be voted out, and a Supreme Court not elected, so we are not a democracy.

Nor is any other nation on earth. They have have a constitution Or a monarch figurehead.


So democracy is merely an illusion by your standards.

There are obviously more options then you hold out there anyways. Included democracy of limited majority rule.

And in case you didn't know, democracy is more then a matter of majority rule. It is about a government of the people, who serves the people.

When the majority is thus wrong, and votes in a way that undermimes its own freedoms, and mankin'd deepest values: then the majority must be superseded by the constitution and those who enforce it.

In this case, the constitution is yet to be written, but basically known, and the enforcers are the coalition forces.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Dancing David]

So you are saying that when the president promised the Iraqi people freedom, that there word freedom was subjuect to interpretation?

When the president stood up and made those speechs he knew exactly what he said. He knew at that point that he would want to set limits on Iraqi freedom , while he stood there and went on about how the war was for 'the freedom of the Iraqi people'.

And now everybody wants to spin straw into gold.

The truth is that when GWB said freedom for the Iraqi people he didn't mean 'freedom' as we define the word in conventional speech. The fact that people have to spend page after page redifining freedom and why the president meant a certain kind of freedom just proves the point.

that was the point of this post.

GWB was just engaging in political hyperbole to stir up support for his cause, he knew what he was doing too.

As I said before I would have given him points for honesty if he had said "I am going to kick Saddam's ass, when I am done kicking then I am going to set up a government that I want.". then he would get points for honesty.

Instead he gets points for irony.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So now you take my words out of context too?

I note that quoting your words is taking them out of context in your opinion. You claimed

Yeah and I'm reminding you that certain reasonable assumoptions provide the context for such words.

You need something else called 'reasonable assumptions', as yet undefined, before you can understand the meaning of the words Bush used. Rather than refuting my words you are simply confirming them.

If they want a theocracy, then yes.

In other words there are some things the Iraqi peple cannot choose. Is ther a simple list of what these are?

How is allowing a theocracy to establish restoring control to the people?

Again you ignore context too, he likely means restoring control similiar to what we have in a western democracy.

If the people want to choose a theocracy then that is their choice surely. You might not like it and I might not like it but it would be their choice. Saddam Hussein would not allow them to choose what they wanted. If the USA will not allow them to choose what they want I believe that will unfortunately result in trouble in future.

They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions.

So you believe that assumptions are not written down? Luckily Congress and USA company law do not agree with you. When a budgetry analysis is prepared a list of the assumptions used in producing it is always presented otherwise the budget would be unintelligible. Even in a highly regulated arena such as company annual reports the inherent assumptions cannot be taken for granted or deduced by interpretation or belief. They all have to be explicitly stated and are absolutely fundamental to the correct interpretation of the budget and reports and the avoidance of doubt. If you however want to create doubt and confusion you do not list the assumptions. That is the arena of the politician and why many people distrust them.

In our ability to recieve and interpretation.

Perhaps by telekinesis or mind reading?

Again I've already answered this.

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it was refuted.

Yes. I understand now that according to you we cannot take Bush's words at face value because there is something else required. Namely unwritten assumptions whci I have demonstrated are fundamental before a true picture can emerge. It is claer that you consider the Iraqi peple are not free to choose the form of government they might want. It has to agree with what you want.

Obviously Bush is assuming they will not institute a regime as brutal or more brutal then Saddam's.

Are they able to choose what they want?

I said "IF" and even emphasized it later. Are you incapable of paying attention?

I am quite capable of paying attention - that is why I asked the question - in order to clarify your position. If you don't want to clarify your position then you don't have to.

In this way my view of trust is situational and flexible, whereas yours is simplistic and absolute.

I happen to believe that when a President goes to war he should be as clear and honest as he can about the true reasons for going to war and we should not have to guess what the assumptions are for simple understanding of his intentions. If the Iraqi people will not be free to choose certain types of government then he should have made that case clearly and unambiguously. If he was going to award contracts to companies who fund the Republican Party in a frankly dodgy process then we might have been told so that the rest of the world could have fairly judged exactly what the invasion was to be used for beforehand.

Maybe when the matter of theocracy rose up. I really don't know though. Why does this matter?

Because of the matter of trust.

False analogy. This statement 1) Does not have the rationale behind it. 2) This is a domestic policy. Sticking to his word here would have likely not created a totalitarian/authoritarian state.

I think the point is an important and relevant one as it strikes at the very heart of the relationship between politicians and the public, whether the matter is for domestic consumption only or on an international matter. This includes conveying the true reasons for starting a war and of all the assumptions behind it. Not making people guess what is behind the words or to allow weasel words to obscure the true position at a later date. For clarity. The world audience has to decide if we can take a politician's word or if there are whole host of assumptions to be taken into account that are not written down and that we therefore have to find somewhere.

He *may* have changed one for damn good reason. You have to look at the situation my friend, not absolute moral rules.

The annual reports of small American companies require the assumptions to be written down. It apears the muti billion pound wars don't.

Proximately: the Iraqi people. More ultimately: the US and mankind in general.

I think you may have touched upon an important matter. It seems that many in the USA believe that what is good for the USA is good for the rest of the world by definition. Many in the rest of the world take a different view for good historical reasons such as USA arranging for the supply of WOMD to a murderous dictator who was known to be terrorising his people when the weapons were supplied. The people in South America who were killed by murderous dictators supported by the USA might also take a different view. And possibly the child labourers in the Far East etc.

Nope. Establishing a theocracy would actually be worse.

You are clearly very frightened of a theocracy. Can you tell us why? What about democracies which supply weapons to murderous dictators who terrorise their own people.

Verbatim still requires interpretation.

So I see. I did not misquote a single word then. Unlike you I just don't have a list of all the imbedded assumptions to take into account.

You put too much stress on the word anything, interpreting it as meaning: absolutely no limits whatsoever. When a more rational interpretation would be: anything within the limitations of democratic sanity.

Surely the correct intepretation is - anything the USA wants. That is my point. If the Iraqis choose something the USA does not want their view will be discarded. The war was therefore fought not to give them freedom of choice but freedom to choose what the USA wants.

Saddam was helped by the US in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and fear of Iran conquering the region. In this Rumsfeld made a mistake, now if your an absolutist you lynch him for this.

No. Wrong again. I have no intention of lynching anybody. Merely making sure what the man has done before is properly taken into account before we engage in wars on the basis of his concern for a people he helped Saddam Hussein terrorise. He was concerned merely with American strategic self interest. In my opinion the position remains the same and that the Twin Towers atrocity was an excuse to attack an oil rich country of strategic interest to the USA. By his actions Rumsfeld had already shown that the people of Iraq were of little interest to him.
My fear is that if the USA and the UK etc disregard international norms won't other countries such as China, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan etc feel free to do the same?

No, I mean you are exagerating the scope of his promise.

I posted his words verbaim. You say certain assumptions need to be taken into account which are not written down. I hope the Iraqi peple know where to find these assumptions so they do the decent thing and choose a form of government the USA likes.

It's not and your question is not applicable.

I am afraid that I simply cannot agree that what constitutes reasonable assumptions is not a value judgement. Is a fundamentalist Christian preachers defintion of reasonable going to be the same as a liberal who favours abortion. I think not yet the will both consider themselves reasonable.

This is because your very question presumes it is a matter of preference on the onset. A better one is"how do we determine it?"

If you believe that there are limits on what Bush promised then why not simply list all those things that are outside the pale. In other words why not tell the world what you believe those limits to be like even small USA companies have to do by law. It might be a surprise to the Iraqis what they can and cannot do. Reasonable is a value judgement. If it wasn't why do the lawyers spend so much time debating its meaning in the courts of the USA. And that is within a single country. If you try and impose what your idea of reasonable is on another country with completely different history and traditions then you run the risk of inflaming the situation and by the way what is good for the USA is not by definition what is good for the rest of the world. Look at the efforts to stop possible atrocities committed by American soldiers being properly tried internationally or the impact America is having on non-renewable energy resources etc.

Nope, I don't if it means theocracy. And neither does president Bush.

I am glad we got that straight. The war was fought for USA interests and not for the Iraqis if they choose to do something the USA doesn't like. I just hope they don't want to choose something the colonial power doesn't like.

Quite the opposite.

Good. I will remember not to take any of his words at face value in future. That is unless I have my unwritten book of assumptions with me.

But if you are not an absolutist you do not necssarily. Ever occur to you Rumsfeld now realizes his mistake?

I am not sure what you are saying here but no I do not get any sense at all that Rumsfeld accepts that he made a mistake. In fact on a recent interview on British TV he was widely laughed at for apparently having difficulty acknowledging his part in the supply of anthrax to Iraq. I do not believe that he has any interest in the welfare the Iraqi people at all but will take that back if you can show me anywhere he apologised for his actions.

Also you've failed to establish how this is relevant to Bush's "promise".

Either we can trust Bush and his administration or we cannot. The veracity and actions of Rumsfeld is very pertinent in this matter.

Biggest say-not all the say.

I call it a so-caled coalition because their views have been ignored on certain issues.For example the British wanted the Iraqi people who ran Um Qsar perfectly well before the war (in an area the British fought for and controlled) to be allowed to run the port. Their views were ignored and an American company given a contract to do that work.

And ignore context.

You fail to provide all the unwritten assumptions that guide your thesis yet rebuke me for a lack of context. Interesting.

Yes basically the same thing your quoted earlier. Explained above.

Do you have a complete list of assumptions or do these only become clear in a gradual process - perhaps evolving with time as the situation requires?

Is it really reasonable to expect anyone to make a promise without qualification? Can you do so?

Probaly not but I have not started a war for reasons that hev not yet been verified. Before going to war I do believe it is important not to mislead by ommission. You have made it clearr that in your opinion the words of Bush cannot be taken at face value because there are a list of unwritten and unspecified assumptions that have to be taken into account. If Bust tried to publish a budget report without specifying the assumptions used in draughting the report then Congress would throw it out. Is the world not entitled to ask what the assumptions are that have to be taken into account here? From your responses I get the feeling either that they are not or that somehow, like you, they should already know.

The absolutist either/or's. With the irony here being I bet your not even a declared absolutist.

You're just absolutist in method and expectations when conveniant.
.

Perhaps you can help me. What is the other way here?

Or we recognize its better if *some*(meaning: NOT ALL...hope I don't have to repeat this) are broken.

Also I have also stated: removing a statement from underlying assumptions is not taking it at face value.
.

So the third way is where he breaks some of his promises. Wow. What a great get out. I recommend that to all politicians.

Again the false dillemas(that's about 3 of them so far).

And btw nope, they can choose what they want within democratic/reasonable limits.

THe whole crux of this is very simple. What you are saying is that the Iraqi peple will not be allowed to choose what they want if it in some way disagrees with what the USA wants and that this is to be guided by a list of reasonable assumptions. I have got that message loud and clear however there is not a full and clear list of the assumptions available on which Bush's promises are based.

Yes:rolleeyes:, if I say one promise may be silly.....that means I believe ALL Bush's promises ARE silly.

Note question mark at end of question.

Expecting the US to let them establish a theocracy is not reasonable

It is clear that the Iraqi people will not be allowed to choose the form of governmnet they want if it disagrees with what you want. I hiope they have a list of the reasonable assumptions.

If they are reasonable then they shouldn't care if we place certain reasonable limits in them: they should welcome them.

Is it only reasonable if you alone think it is reasonable? Don't the Iraqi peple get a say in what is reasonable from their perspective. I note that we are getting to the core words now. Limits placed on them by the USA. rather than the coalition. A bit like the taxes the British tried to place on North Americans perhaps. The British thought they were reasonable, some North Americans didn't. Remind me what the North Americans did when they disagreed with the British about how reasonable the taxes were.

Again I've gone over your silly face value statement. Yes you can repeat yourself, but doing so doesn't make it true.

Once again you have failed to list all the unwritten assumptions behind your talk of reasonableness. I note that reasonableness does not apply to the Iraqi people. It appears to be a purely USA concept.

The UN was not given the time for other reasons and you know it. (Or should know it, as with you I can't be too sure.)

I am not clear what you are sayng here. What are your reasons why the UN inspectors were stymied from doing their job? There may be a list of unprinted assumptions I should be taking into account here as well. The issue is also one of veracity.

This is ridiculous. You don't have to literally mutate and edit his speech to mutate his words, you merely have to promote a ridiculous interpretation.

I understand that we can only take Bush's words at face value if we have a list of unspecified assumptions. You stated 'They aren't stated, which is why they are called assumptions.' I note the funny face after that particular bit of wisdom (and the response of Congress if that stunt were to pulled on them with the budget) and that they are available 'In our ability to recieve and interpretation.' whatever that means. Interpretation again. Whose? Yours or the Iraqi peoples? No don't tell me. Let me guess. It's not the Iraqi people's interpretation.

What probably *was* on his mind, was democratically elected offcials within a constitutional framework.

I hope that is also what is on the Iraqi peoples' minds then otherwise they won't apparently be getting what they do want.

For a simple mind it may be that simple.

For those that recognize context and complexities in this issue though it is not.

(Notice also how your claim goes from something paticular to something general with absolutely no justifcation for the transition.)

I accept that it is your argument is that we cannot take Bush's words at face value without an unwritten list of assumptions. Notice how you claim there is an unwritten list of assumptions that are 'reasonable' but do not provide it as though it is immutable and obvious. I do hope the Iraqi people know what these reasonable assumptions are and make the correct 'interpretation'. I hope that when the next USA budget is presented a list of assumptions is attached (as I know they will be).

QUestion begging.

?

Again Your thesis is paradise for politicians. Apparently it matters not what Bush's actual words are because that can only be established by 'our ability to receive and interpretation' certain assumptions.

My point has been to demonstrate the truth of the situation for the Iraq people which is that if they make the error of choosing something the USA does not like the USA (rather than the coalition) will not allow them to have it. Your argument has been that there are 'reasonable assumptions' regarding what Bush will allow them. I have sought to clarify exactly what these are but still do not have a clear picture of what they are. It is however clear that what the Iraqi people might choose has to fit in with what you consider to be reasonable assumptions rather than the other way round. Unfortunately that fills me with dread for good historical reasons. If the USA rather than the coaltion does what it considers in its own self interest in making the Iraq people choose something they might not want then we may end up in a similar position to that which pertained when the North Americans deemed what the British were doing was not reasonable. Reasonble is a value judgement. Assumptions need to be listed and the world and the Iraqis need to be told what Bush means when he promises something.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by DSMTimeframe?

If the US (possibly with UN help) installs a democratic government with constitutional guarantees (along the lines of the US constitution) and the Iraqis later choose to go a different route (say, theocratic), have the following been accomplished?




A government that allows the Iraqis to choose has been created.

Checks and balances are there to make sure that that choice is well thought out and not a simple, emotional response.

Ultimately, the ability to tear down the democracy and go with a monarchy or a theocracy is possible through constitutional amendment and the like.



Is this bad?

Good question. It depends on how those governments behave and if their legitimacy is accepted by the world.

I believe that it is the UN which should have the mandate to act as a faciltator in achieving what the Iraqi people want in deciding the form and leadership of post Hussein Iraq and believe that it is only through the forum of the UN that the resulting state will receive full international acknowledgement and recognition. To do otherwise I think brings potential dangers because many ordinary people around the world are very concerned and cynical about the motives of the USA. The motives of Tony Blair are however possibly more transparent - namely self-interest of a personal kind.

I recognise that defining new electoral frameworks is a difficult process to bring to fruition even between men of good intent. Coming from Northern Ireland how could I understand otherwise? It is because I have seen the struggles in Northern Ireland and the attempts to achieve a peace recognised by all sides that I believe that unless the end result (of whatever hue they wish) is selected by the Iraqis themselves then greater turmoil will inevitably result. I am not naive enough to believe that any particular route will be trouble free but I do believe that what the USA wants does not automatically equate with what is good for the Iraqi people or the greater good of the world for historical reasons relating to the country next door etc.

What I have tried to do is to bring the implicit assumptions brought to the table by the USA out into the open because I feel that the USA's own agenda is not yet completely transparent although perhaps we are seeing things materialise through the contract awards and the protection of the Oil Ministry building etc.

If the Iraqis should select a terrorist government then they should have to deal with the consequences properly defined and carried out through the UN. I am not anti-war as such therefore. Merely anti ridiculous and trumped up excuses for going to war and anti styming of agreed UN inspections in the process. The key factor from my perspective is to avoid the USA being seen to or actually imposing their desired solution on Iraq for their own strategic self interest. Avoiding that means the UN shouldbe in charge of the process with US input as part of the UN.

Careful. This is where you're really pushing the analogy

Thanks for the advice but I really don't think that the US constitution is necessarily the best model for the Iraqi people. I am also not sure that any system is entirely free from abuses such as the awarding of contracts to companies that fund the Republican party. The USA has a lot to commend it and amongst other things your attempts at free speech are much better than ours. I believe that your system does not adequately protect the poor and needy and that is what Iraq has in abundance.

The difference between putting W into the presidency and (say) making him "leader for life" is that:




While many questioned his ability, it was obvious that nearly half the electorate thought he would be a reasonable president.

Worse comes to worse, we always knew that we could throw him out in 4 years (as opposed to a "leader for life").



That makes a difference.

Yes you can vote him out. That does make a difference. Unfortunately it also makes a difference how much money the parties have to spend on electioneering and the companies that buy electioneering for the Republican party are now seeing their rewards through massive money spinning contracts in Iraq that may get siphoned back to the Republican party in time for the next election. That demeans democracy. I also trust that all the votes are counted and what happened in Florida doesn't happen again.

There have been many failures all around. For instance, the election of the Ayatollah Khomeini to "leader for life" would likely be viewed by a majority of Iranians as failure, but they can do little about it now as he (and his successors) is the "leader for life". That was something that went against the wishes of the US (they would've preferred the Shah stay), but they bowed to the will of the people (they had little choice).

There have indeed been many failures by the UK amongst others. The USA contributed directly to the rise to power of the Ayatollah in Iran because the USA destabilised a democratic movement in Iran for the benefit of their oil companies andsupported the despotic Shah against the wishes of the people. In short the USA tried to stymie democracy in Iran for its own strategic interests. People there have not totally forgotten what happened although Rumsfeld appears to have done just that. If you try to impose your preferred solution on Iraq or don't allow the Iraqis to really choose what they want then it is possible if not probable that the situation in Iran is likely to arise in Iraq to all our regret.

This is where I mostly agree with you. No matter which way you go at this point, though, some (major) group is not going to like the results. Removing the US from the process is probably not possible as the UN is viewed as a puppet of the US by many and likely the US would still be doing much of the groundwork. Even if the UN could remove the US from the process, then the question of fairness to US companies would come up in the issue of repair work. And the US reputation, damaged as it is, might be further damaged in ways that affect world stability.

I am glad that we can approximate to agreement in this area. The words bag and worms do indeed spring to mind here. You are correct inthat it is unlikely that everyone will be equally happy with any solution but the internaional authority the UN would perhaps bring to the table might carry more weight with aggreived parties and act as a stabilising influence when disputes inevitably arise. I accept that the UN is often seen as the USA's lackey but am not sure how the USA acting itself could be better seen in that regard. It is clear that the UN has little support in the Bush administration and possibly throughout the USA at the moment. I hope that might change but am not holding my breath. With regard to the post wa contracts I understand that the issue of fairness has already come up on Capitol Hill due to the way the contracts were initially awarded. Perhaps the UN would be fairer?