MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-17-2005, 08:34 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


China has adopted American-style capitalism? Are you kidding? Tariffs in the region of 10 percent, restrictions on internal migration and trade between provinces, the contribution made by TVEs to economic growth, bailing out SOEs with state-owned banks, the virtual absence of a fully functioning legal system - China is not a capitalist country. Depending on your perspective, China may be converging with western models of capitalism or following a different path entirely, but the fact remains that describing the country today as capitalist is wrong.

And as for your claim about the standard of living improving - in many areas China's standard of living has declined since 1978. In the Maoist era you saw an increase in life expectancy from c. 40 years in 1949 up to c. 69 years in 1976 -- the improvement has stagnated (and by some accounts, actually been reversed) since 1978. Millions of people, particularly in rural areas, no longer have access to healthcare as governments in the reform era have abandoned the policy of providing low-cost healthcare to the masses. Millions of children (particularly girls) no longer receive an education because families cannot afford the school fees introduced in the reform era. Standard of living cannot be determined on the basis of GDP data (or any opulence indicators) alone -- you also need to consider whether a country's increased wealth has been put to good use in terms of improving the population's quality of life.
That China is a country moving towards western style capitalism is a fact that is generally accepted worldwide by experts, academics, government officials and most of all corporations. Most would describe China today as a country with a capitalist economy as opposed to a Soviet Style Command economy.

As for standard of living, China in 1975 had a standard of living that was less than Zimbabwe. Today China's overall standard of living is close to Turkey's or The Philippines. Standard of living as determined by the human development index is NOT determined by GDP data alone! Average Life Expectancy in China is now 71, the highest it has ever been in the countries history. China is still a developing country, but its clear that the move toward a more market oriented economy has benifited the country as a whole greatly. Most people in China would be horrified if you suggested a return to the Maoist era.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:43 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
BAH!

Do you think America will ever view whats happening "outside" of their own fence as important as inside?

Do I care that a soldier, who went willingly to Iraq to invade a country, who was trained to withstand warfare, who (along with his family) have at least SOME expectation he could die as he was FIGHTING IN A WAR died "in the line of duty"
Well truth be told not really. I feel for his family, but when you sign up to be a soldier, you are accepting death as a part of your job and for that, your country is thankful.

What i feel sorry for is a country of innocent people who's lives have been SHATTERED beyond compare, in which nearly every inhabidant knows someone who has been killed because of this senseless war, in which the usa "smart bombs" still can land over a km from their target onto a residential part, or a school or something equally as naiive, not realisng that this day would be their last.

All this hoohaa over some woman who lost her soldier son in a war they shouldn't have gone too in the first place. He had a choice, he could have disagreed with it and not going and faced whatever consequences there are. The iraqi's didn't have one.

I wonder what its like, to be sleeping in bed and suddenly you're whole world goes quiet because you've been left deaf from the sounds of explosions raining down around you. Did they know they were going to be invaded, are they happy not having any water, electricity, safety, schools to go to, work to go to, but at least saddam isn't there torturing them anymoe! *rolls eyes*
Its this that keeps me up at night. While everyone fights semantics from their comftoable chairs around a plush boardroom, or from the cosy comfort of their computer room, innocent men women and children are dying at the hands of a clumsy, under trained hard ass militia of scary groups opposed to the invasion and the us army. Who both act exactly the same, giving the people or Iraq no where to turn.

pathetic.
If you take a look at the history of Iraqi people under Saddam prior to the coalition invasion of 2003, you'll find they were not living in a paradise. Guess how many Iraqi's were killed in the Iran/Iraq War? Guess how many Iraqi's were murdered by one of Saddam's 12 different security agencies? Thats right, 12 different security agencies, more than even Hitler had. There are Iraqi's who were opposed to the coalition removal of Saddam along with the anti-war left around the world. These Iraqi's were apart of Saddam's regime or were Saddam loyalist and they form the corp of the resistence force that continues to attack Americans and Iraqi's in four of its eighteen provinces.

On January 30, 2005, 8 million Iraqi's got up that morning and voted in the first free election in decades. Such an event would not have been possible if Saddam was still in power. Such an event showed that the people of Iraq strongly support the coalition and its efforts to build a brighter future in Iraq even if others do not.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:51 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
Hey, A_Wanderer: Do you feel compassion for the millions of innocent victims still living under dictators just as bad or even worse than Saddam's, but have not had the benefit of our enlightning troops?

The only reason we chose this particular country for "democratization" (read: colonization) was the oil reserves. Why else are we spending hundereds of billions of dollars we don't have? When has the USA ever volunteered to bankrupt its treasury in pursuit of an ideal? (The American Revolution, Lincoln bankrupting the Federal Treasury to keep the Union together doesn't count. WWII doesn't count either, since we didn't enter that war until we were attacked.)
Well, insuring the security of the energy reserves insures that there will be a future in which the world will be able to help dismantle other repressive dictatorships or governments through out the world. Seizure or Sabotage of the planets main energy reserves would create a global economic disaster that would insure that the planets wealthiest countries would be unable to help the third world in any way.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-17-2005, 08:56 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
When I say "doesn't count" I am strictly giving acadmic examples. In the Revolution, we weren't a country yet, just a scattering of loosely held together provinces. We weren't "America" yet. And if you've ever done some serious reading about the Revolution and its aftermath, it was a long, tedious, messy business, with lots of warring factions and the Founding Fathers doubting the whole thing would ever work. We don't like to focus on 1783, it;s far easier to talk about the easy stuff in 1776. Revolutions are alwys exciting, but it's the aftermath that's more important,

No, I am talking about Realpolitik, which is the way nations conduct business. Barring extrordinary circumstances like civil wars or being attacked by foreign powers, the bulk of US policy is done in terms of self-interest. Like other countries. Even the US commitment to Israel would not be such if the State Dept didn't see some practical benfit from the relationship. They don't just see it Biblical terms. I am not naieve enough to believe that. And before you say anything, the "being attacked by foreign powers" argument doesn't work as regards Iraq and 9/11, b/c of course we were NOT attacked by Iraq on 9/11. We were attacked by upper-middle class anti-Royal Family Saudis who are using America to carry on a fued with the current ruling branch of the al-Saud family. Namely, al-Queda.

Has anybody started a "Constitution Watch" type thread in the War area? Shoukd I keep it in the War forum or should I do it here? I'm reading a lot on the American Revolution and its aftermath right now and would like to have a discussion on the birth of democracy vis a vis Iraq. Of course, we are not attempting to start a democracy in Iraq, but a colony; nor do we really want democracy in the ME...but that's for another thread....
Were attempting to start a colony in Iraq? Do you consider Germany, Japan, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo to be American colonies?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 12:56 AM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
That China is a country moving towards western style capitalism is a fact that is generally accepted worldwide by experts, academics, government officials and most of all corporations. Most would describe China today as a country with a capitalist economy as opposed to a Soviet Style Command economy.
Can you not accept that there is something between an economy under full central planning (ie the USSR, China between approximately 1958 and 1978) and capitalism? No academic would seriously argue that China remains a planned economy, but many argue that China today is far from a western-style capitalist economy and its economic growth is not attributable to convergence with capitalist economies - I'm thinking of academics like Barry Naughton, Peter Nolan, Thomas Rawski.

You didn't address any of the specific points I raised about ways in which China is not a capitalist country -- how do you account for the contribution made by TVEs if China is purely capitalist? What about the absence of a fully-functioning legaly system - many academics take it as axiomatic that the development of a legal system is necessarily prior to the adoption of capitalism. Wht about the high tariffs? What about the lack of an integrated national market as provinces restrict internal trade?


Quote:
As for standard of living, China in 1975 had a standard of living that was less than Zimbabwe. Today China's overall standard of living is close to Turkey's or The Philippines. Standard of living as determined by the human development index is NOT determined by GDP data alone! Average Life Expectancy in China is now 71, the highest it has ever been in the countries history. China is still a developing country, but its clear that the move toward a more market oriented economy has benifited the country as a whole greatly. Most people in China would be horrified if you suggested a return to the Maoist era.
Firstly, can you cite your source for the statistics about standard of living. What is ignored in your comment about life expectancy in China is that the bulk of improvement in life expectancy took place during the Maoist era -- there are undoubtedly reasons to criticise the Maoist era, but we should also recognise its successes and a huge increase in life expectancy is one of those successes.

And as I said above -- China's economic reform has had clear benefits, economic growth of c. 9% per year being one of them. But you completely ignore the costs of reform -- abandoning the policy of barefoot doctors has left millions without healthcare, introducing fees for schools has denied millions an education, the retreat of the state has led to the resurgence of phenomena such as prostitution and criminal gangs, the one-child policy has led to the kidnapping of girls to be sold as wives to men unable to find a wife...I could go on, but those are just a few examples to illustrate the problem.

Finally, when did I say China should return to the Maoist era? I said we need to recognise the achievements of Maoism, which in many cases have served as a base for post-1978 reform. Beyond that, all I've argued is it is misleading to claim China has adopted capitalism and fail to consider the continued existence of non-capitalist institutions, and the way in which China's development since 1978 has taken a path very different to the one frequently expected from planned economies in a transition to a capitalist economy.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 05:58 PM   #126
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 01:05 AM
No, STING 2, those countries are not, because the first 2 attacked us, the third has no oil, the fourth was "invaded" by the United Nations (like Iraq sould have been), the fifth was a purely humanitarian mssion to stop the whole province form losing its entire population within 10 days, and ditto, it had no oil. A colony is a place that we one day decide to wake up and invade, and exploit, alone and without anyone else's help, for ecomonic purposes.

Kiddies: I've started a historical thread for the Iraq Constitution..but I told them there and I'l tell you here...EVRYONE..Go watch the DVD of "Lwrence of Arabia'" this wknd..Iraq is rightout of the headlines from that film....
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 09:45 PM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Can you not accept that there is something between an economy under full central planning (ie the USSR, China between approximately 1958 and 1978) and capitalism? No academic would seriously argue that China remains a planned economy, but many argue that China today is far from a western-style capitalist economy and its economic growth is not attributable to convergence with capitalist economies - I'm thinking of academics like Barry Naughton, Peter Nolan, Thomas Rawski.

You didn't address any of the specific points I raised about ways in which China is not a capitalist country -- how do you account for the contribution made by TVEs if China is purely capitalist? What about the absence of a fully-functioning legaly system - many academics take it as axiomatic that the development of a legal system is necessarily prior to the adoption of capitalism. Wht about the high tariffs? What about the lack of an integrated national market as provinces restrict internal trade?




Firstly, can you cite your source for the statistics about standard of living. What is ignored in your comment about life expectancy in China is that the bulk of improvement in life expectancy took place during the Maoist era -- there are undoubtedly reasons to criticise the Maoist era, but we should also recognise its successes and a huge increase in life expectancy is one of those successes.

And as I said above -- China's economic reform has had clear benefits, economic growth of c. 9% per year being one of them. But you completely ignore the costs of reform -- abandoning the policy of barefoot doctors has left millions without healthcare, introducing fees for schools has denied millions an education, the retreat of the state has led to the resurgence of phenomena such as prostitution and criminal gangs, the one-child policy has led to the kidnapping of girls to be sold as wives to men unable to find a wife...I could go on, but those are just a few examples to illustrate the problem.

Finally, when did I say China should return to the Maoist era? I said we need to recognise the achievements of Maoism, which in many cases have served as a base for post-1978 reform. Beyond that, all I've argued is it is misleading to claim China has adopted capitalism and fail to consider the continued existence of non-capitalist institutions, and the way in which China's development since 1978 has taken a path very different to the one frequently expected from planned economies in a transition to a capitalist economy.
I never said that China was purely a capitalist economy, but it is more of a capitalist economy than a Soviet command economy. China is a developing country that still has strong state involvement in the economy, but this is gradually being decreased.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/...indicators.cfm

The above link is the source for my statistics about standard of living. Many would attribute the increase in life expectancy during the Maosist era to be primarily because of the absence of war. Undoubtedly, the effects of 20 years of brutal war in which millions of Chinese people were killed had an enormous negative effect on life expectancy and it was only natural that there would be a sharp rise in life expectancy following the end of such a long period of brutal conflict.

Every country has problems, even a country with the highest standard of living in the world, Norway. But everyone knows that China's moves towards western style capitalism have been a net positive rather than a net negative for the country as a whole. It will take years or decades to fix or absorb the current problems, but by continuing on the path towards a market oriented economy like that found in the west will help to continue the improvement in the overall standard of living of the people, just has it has been doing for the past 25 years.

If Maoism was the success you claim it is, China would not have needed to pursue the major reforms it has instituted over the past 25 years. I just recently saw a documentary that showed Chinese students and newly employed young people in their 20s, life during the Maoist era and the people were stunned at how different life was in China only 30 years ago before it began its move towards capitalism.

One more thing, if Hong Kong is taken by itself, it has the 3rd highest life expectancy on the planet with only Japan and Sweden ahead of it. No matter what you have to say about the Maoist era, it clearly was not responsible for that. That fact of course has not gone unoticed by the Chinese government.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-18-2005, 10:17 PM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
No, STING 2, those countries are not, because the first 2 attacked us, the third has no oil, the fourth was "invaded" by the United Nations (like Iraq sould have been), the fifth was a purely humanitarian mssion to stop the whole province form losing its entire population within 10 days, and ditto, it had no oil. A colony is a place that we one day decide to wake up and invade, and exploit, alone and without anyone else's help, for ecomonic purposes.

Kiddies: I've started a historical thread for the Iraq Constitution..but I told them there and I'l tell you here...EVRYONE..Go watch the DVD of "Lwrence of Arabia'" this wknd..Iraq is rightout of the headlines from that film....
Japan attacked the United States on December 7, 1941 , on what date did Germany attack the United States? So the #1 requirement in being a colony is having oil? How much oil did the 13 colonies have?

Bosnia was not invaded by the United Nations. As a matter of fact, there was not even a UN resolution authorizing military action in Bosnia. Once again in Kosovo, no UN resolution authorizing the use of force there.

But in Iraq, there were THREE UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of military force, resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. In addition, since the start of the occupation in May of 2003, there has been THREE more UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the occupation starting with resolution 1483!

Iraq is no more a colony of the United States than Germany and Japan were in the 1940s and 1950s or Bosnia and Kosovo are today.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 05:09 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 08:05 PM
She had to leave Texas because her Mother had a stroke, she seems to be having so much trouble so I just wish the best for her.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 05:41 AM   #130
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Many would attribute the increase in life expectancy during the Maosist era to be primarily because of the absence of war. Undoubtedly, the effects of 20 years of brutal war in which millions of Chinese people were killed had an enormous negative effect on life expectancy and it was only natural that there would be a sharp rise in life expectancy following the end of such a long period of brutal conflict.
But what this fails to take into account is the fact that China's life expectancy was extremely low (according to some sources as low as the mid-twenties) at the turn of the twentieth century. Certainly there was some unrest in China in the nineteenth century (the Taiping rebellion, for instance) but there was no widespread disorder until after the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911/1912. Even after that, the country wasn't embroiled in civil war (despite some fighting between warlords and the KMT) and the beginning of the Sino-Japanese war is normally regarded as 1937.

Attributing the increase in life expectancy purely to the absence of war also raises the question of why there was no corresponding increase in life expectancy in countries at a similar level of development - India, for example, where life expectancy hovered around the mid-fifties while Chinese life expectancy had reached almost seventy years.

Quote:
It will take years or decades to fix or absorb the current problems, but by continuing on the path towards a market oriented economy like that found in the west will help to continue the improvement in the overall standard of living of the people, just has it has been doing for the past 25 years.
Why are you disregarding the examples I gave of a decline in the standard of living in some areas? Access to healthcare in rural areas has been reduced. Access to education, particularly for girls, has decreased. There has been a resurgence of problems such as prostitution and criminal gangs.

No, this doesn't necessarily mean China's reform policies have been unsuccessful, but it does raise questions about whether it's acceptable to sacrifice such things as healthcare or education in order to pursue high economic growth.

Quote:
If Maoism was the success you claim it is, China would not have needed to pursue the major reforms it has instituted over the past 25 years. I just recently saw a documentary that showed Chinese students and newly employed young people in their 20s, life during the Maoist era and the people were stunned at how different life was in China only 30 years ago before it began its move towards capitalism.
I don't think Maoism was a huge success overall, and in fact problems like inefficient SOEs, a lack of incentives, and the almost inevitable problems with centrally planned economies were some of the reasons for the CCP's decision to adopt a policy of economic reform (although we also need to understand the decision to adopt reformist policies in the context of political developments in the mid-1970s - ie the death of Mao, the end of the Cultural Revolution, etc). I do, however, think that the Maoist era witnessed some remarkable achievements - life expectancy shot up, infant mortality decreased, access to healthcare and education was expanded, illiteracy decreased, Many of those achievements have served as a base for post-1978 China's remarkable economic growth and we should recognise that. It's very easy for people to reject off-hand the idea that Maoism was in anyway successful simply because they're uncomfortable with the idea that socialist policies can be beneficial, but we should focus on the facts instead of hiding behind ideology and the fact remains that Maoism did have some successes which should be recognised.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 05:42 AM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
She had to leave Texas because her Mother had a stroke, she seems to be having so much trouble so I just wish the best for her.
I would hope everyone, whether they agree with her opinions and actions or not, can agree with this.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-19-2005, 05:52 AM   #132
Acrobat
 
Ft. Worth Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 390
Local Time: 08:05 PM
Andrew Johnson was the one who was impeached-due in part to Radical Republicans in Congress.

Teta, there is little or no proof that the US went into Iraq for oil-however, I suppose blind partisanship leads to a somewhat limted vision. Iraq a colony? I'm sorry but nothing points to that at all. Also, the US did not go in there alone.
__________________
Ft. Worth Frog is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 04:57 PM   #133
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 01:05 AM
Of course, Ft Worth Frog, nothing publicly points to that conclusion. Bush has done a VERY good job of diverting public attention from the dubious and questionable activities of such luminaries as Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, from the nation's attention. He has very successfully invented the fabrication of "democratic nation building" as a purpose in invading Iraq. Outwardly, we seem to be trying to do it, and the Iraqi people tragically believe in it too, wait until they learn the truth, when they find they're no freer in the international spere, and still have little rights--Why didn't he initially come out and say, right from Day One, that we are in Iraq to build democracy there? Why the lies about the WMD's? Did he think that we would not love supporting such a noble cause as nation building, esp as we have enthusiastically done so before? Or was it b/c that was never the real intention, and at the time he could think of nothing else that would galvanize our support?

The only public buildings the US has consistently guarded from Day One are the governmental complexes and the Oil Ministry. Such facts as these were much remarke don in 2003 but seemed to get lost in the constant media drumbeat of "democracy, democracy." I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only kind of "democracy" we want to build is a nation with a heavy-handed, pro-American puppet gov't that can keep the lid on its volatile and unpredictable "man in the street" (which generally tends to be anti-American, in the Moslem world--this is why we weren't greeted as heroes) while the US puts in place an apparatus with which to exploit to the maximum its natural rescources. Namely, its oil. When we speak of "which party gets to control the oil" with regards to the Constitution, that is a sham. What we really mean is, 'Which party gets the hallowed privalege of staffing and working the wells whose largesse goes not to a strong, independent, Iraq which is the politcal equal of is, but instead mostly to us." The ideal we are striving for is NOT Japan or Germany but a milder version of Saudi Arabia. We were quite happy in the 1950's to let the autocratic and despotic al-Saud family consolidate its power while the employees of U.S. Oil Giant Aramco lived in isolated luxurious compounds and carried out their work while the not giving a damn about the local population. That was the way BOTH parties wanted and continue to want it. Bush's and Cheney's cronies live in the same type luxurious walled compounds. And the American employees of these companies get 10 times better health care and benefits than their Iraqi staff. Nobody can possibly be as bad as the al-Saud branch of the Royal Family, but we want an semi-autocratic gov't that will have no real true independent power (if it did, it would have the power to criticize our corporate actions there and limit corporate prescence ands military actions, much as Japan was able to throw out the Portugese Jesuits who controlled the Japanese silk trade in the early 1600's) and would not be able to confront us is, for example, in the future they think we are taking too much oil.

Democracies are fluid, unpredictable things. But they are democracies and equal to us, and when they make decisions we don't like, or say things to us we don't like, there's not a damed thing we can do about it. Except diplomatic protests, maybe a tarriff or two, etc. When France criticized our decision to go to war, did we send in 20,000 troops to make sure Chriac behaved himself, changed his tune, and continued to export the same French products to America in the same volume? ? No. There was media bashing and some boycotts, and that was it.

Tell me: If a"democratic" Iraq turned around 20 yrs from now and decided that the US was getting a bit too much of its oil, ot the amount that was being exported had to be drastically reduced to meet domestic needs, due to pressure from the public, who felt the US was getting too much, and they wanted to pressure us by closing the miltary base on the Euphrates, would we just be content to do some media bashing and light boycotts? Would we accept Iraq as an equal, as we accept France, ("Damn , there' nothing we can do, excoet boycott or slap down some tariffs") OR would we threaten to send in the troops and in fact do it, just to safeguard our continued oil supply, bypassing regualar channels of diplomatic communication like the UN, feeling it was out exclsuive right and privalege, as Iraq's "liberator" , to do so? Would we thus feel it was our right to treat Iraq like a child that must be "disciplined" by its parent, whne it gets "too uppity", and NOT as an adult we are having an argument with, and is therefore "undisciplinable", since it outgrew us long ago, and which we just have to learn to live with?

I doubt it. I think we will always see Iraq as our child, to do with as we please, regardless of who or what her government is, and regardless of input or advice or action from others. THAT , folks, is my defenition of a colony. To feel we have a right to "control" a place. Which I am sure Bush feels America should have.

As for the "Resolutions"..the first 3 were pre-2003, aftermaths of 1990. They were the loosly cited "precidents" looselt interpreted to got war. Tonkin all over again....The last ones were done by the UN b/c it had no choice. It wasn't "You were right to do this, you have authorization to conquer and occupt Iraq." It wasm "well, we have no choice at this point, sunce you're obviously not getting out." But do resolutions s like this have any real power, are they morally advisable? Say tomorrow China decided to attack Japan to revenge itslef for WWII. After the war goers on 3 months, and the UN reluctantly passes resolutions saying it agrees,since it can't stop it, does it really agree? Does an "After the fact" resolution have legitimacy? we may as well accept the law of the jungle. BUT we still went into Iraq alone, agaisnt the wishes of the entire world. The foreing troops stilwith us are under the command of US officers, NOT their own, and that is a crucial difference. Neither are the under the command of UN personnel, which truly consitutues an "inernational" force. With regards to Bosnia" : "Invaded" was perhpas the worng word. What I meant was that the UNited Nations eventually got involved and passed a globally-supported resolaution authorizung the use of a body UN peacekppers ans troops made up of troops sefing under US commanders, to go in and keep the peace. And Kosovo, yes, had no UN mandate, but you have to remember that this was an extremely rare case when SOMETHING had to be IMMEDIATELY, within days, or a genocidal situation was at hand. Do you remember what happened in Kosovo? Radovan Kadic, Milosovh's chief henchman, decided to continue to try for his "greater Serbia" by literally forcing out the entire Bosnian Moslem population of the province out at gunpoint. They were being force dout fo their towns and herded to the borders, where Serb miltary forced them to surrended their passports and ID, this renoucing clains on land and property. And htis was being done in a real time of DAYS and HOURS. NOT weeks and months, like in Rwanda or Darfur. I remember the news Special Reports on TV. "Peter, how many more people have crossed the border in the last 24 hours?" "Um, unconfimrned reports say another 500,000 since yesterday afternoon.They have no food, no water..." And so on. And Europe was doing not a damed thing. THis initelsf was nothing new but the FANTASTIC SPEED with which events unfolded WAS. Clearly Clinton felt guilty aoubt Rwanda and decided "not again." Bush would have ingnored Rwanda too (hey African ,livces are worth less after all), but he would have ignored Kosovo too....

IN the meantime, while we wait for Cindy's mother to stabilize (strokes are hell, my aunt had two of them....God bless both or them and the family...pray for them, .I hope this will help the Sheehan family to a temporary truce if not some reconcoilation..and if some nutjob even DARES to suggest this is Divine payback to Cindy--I wouldn't pu tit past some wackos out there, I don't mean posters on here..well, I hope they get what they wish on her).

Here are the artickes..which I think shoukd be required reaidng for all following this conflict.

The first one I had a problem linking with. It has been up since August 12 and already shows signs of becoming a classic article. Henry Kissinger weigns in on Iraq. "Lessons For An Exit Strategy." You need to register at the Washingotn Post website ,it;s quick and free, only a couple of bozes to fill in, and you'll find it in the "most Emiled Articles" box. Could domeone PLEASE post the whole thing on here, I don't know how to do this.

KIssinger talks of international solutions. Ha. I'm sure he means the UN. When the UN is borught in to keep the peace, THEN I'll know the US is sincere. But I don't think Bush wants the rest of the world to have any poitical say in dealing with Iraq--like IT will.


The second article's title says it all: "Philadelphia 1789 Vs Baghdad 2005." It's along scholarly contrast in COnstitutional situations. This link does work.
www.Slate.com/id/2124691?nav=wp

I hope someone can print this too. People tend not to comment on linked articles, and these are ome OF THE best american writing on Iraq, IMO.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 07:40 PM   #134
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:05 PM
the noble cause

ayatollah's are dancing under their robes


Quote:
U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law

Sat Aug 20, 2005 01:33 PM ET

By Luke Baker and Michael Georgy

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the," not "a," main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-20-2005, 08:12 PM   #135
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Yes they would be, I would wait for the actual consitution to be ratified before judging it.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com