rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message

> > Iraq will have its free elections, bet on it, but it takes time to
> > prepare a nation that lived too long under dictatorships. No one
> > wants Iraq to have one election and then no more.
> >
> > After World War II, it took seven years before west Germany and Japan
> > had their first elections. I doubt it will take that long in Iraq,
> > but we should do all the groundwork necessary first.
> >
> > No two democracies went to war with each other in the entire 20th
> > century. That, and the costly battle to liberate Iraq, are strong
> > incentives to make sure democracy works there.


> How many democracies in the 21st century invaded other countries in
> the absence of imminent threat to themselves?


How many democracies in the 21st century have done nothing about a
totalitarian dictator who started a war of aggression, saved his own
sorry ass by agreeing to a truce that required he not mistreat his
people, and then violated the terms of the truce?

How many democracies in the 21st century, absent an imminent threat to
themselves, have cared enough about others to remove a totalitarian
dictator who was torturing and murdering people the liberators didn't
even know?

How many democracies in the 21st century are so selfishly parochial
that they would have allowed that totalitarian dictator to continue
torturing and murdering forever, as long as he was torturing and
murdering only his own people?

Frank Warner

wakingup@ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote in message news:<c4cba10b.0306232353.4404e550@posting.google. com>...
> rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message
>
> > > Iraq will have its free elections, bet on it, but it takes time to
> > > prepare a nation that lived too long under dictatorships. No one
> > > wants Iraq to have one election and then no more.
> > >
> > > After World War II, it took seven years before west Germany and Japan
> > > had their first elections. I doubt it will take that long in Iraq,
> > > but we should do all the groundwork necessary first.
> > >
> > > No two democracies went to war with each other in the entire 20th
> > > century. That, and the costly battle to liberate Iraq, are strong
> > > incentives to make sure democracy works there.
>
>
> > How many democracies in the 21st century invaded other countries in
> > the absence of imminent threat to themselves?
>
>
> How many democracies in the 21st century have done nothing about a
> totalitarian dictator who started a war of aggression, saved his own
> sorry ass by agreeing to a truce that required he not mistreat his
> people, and then violated the terms of the truce?
>
> How many democracies in the 21st century, absent an imminent threat to
> themselves, have cared enough about others to remove a totalitarian
> dictator who was torturing and murdering people the liberators didn't
> even know?
>
> How many democracies in the 21st century are so selfishly parochial
> that they would have allowed that totalitarian dictator to continue
> torturing and murdering forever, as long as he was torturing and
> murdering only his own people?
>
> Frank Warner

Please answer the question: "How many democracies in the 21st century
invaded other countries in the absence of imminent threat to
themselves?"

rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message news:<7e483417.0306241124.2870f49a@posting.google. com>...

> > How many democracies in the 21st century have done nothing about a
> > totalitarian dictator who started a war of aggression, saved his own
> > sorry ass by agreeing to a truce that required he not mistreat his
> > people, and then violated the terms of the truce?
> >
> > How many democracies in the 21st century, absent an imminent threat to
> > themselves, have cared enough about others to remove a totalitarian
> > dictator who was torturing and murdering people the liberators didn't
> > even know?
> >
> > How many democracies in the 21st century are so selfishly parochial
> > that they would have allowed that totalitarian dictator to continue
> > torturing and murdering forever, as long as he was torturing and
> > murdering only his own people?
> >
> > Frank Warner
>
> Please answer the question: "How many democracies in the 21st century
> invaded other countries in the absence of imminent threat to
> themselves?"


He can't/won't because he refuses to see the gross hypocracy in his
argument. Freeing Iraq from dictatorship under Saddam and replacing it
with dictatorship under Chalabi or whoever we impose isn't an
improvement. That list of countries the US has bombed was missing a
few points - how many countries has the US removed its democratic
government and replaced it with a dictator? To how many countries has
the US sent mecrcenaries to overthrow its democratically elected
government?

If the US wanted democracy in Iraq it would hold elections as the
people are demanding. You can wait 5 years or 50 years - the majority
view in Iraq will still be shia muslim. These people are deeply
religious and want an Islamic state, and you'll never persuade them
that they don't want one. The US doesn't want another Islamic
republic, as despite Iran being a democracy its still "evil" - as the
people of Iran vote in its governments I take it that the entire
Iranian populace is also "evil"?

Ian

ianbailey@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in message news:<984a2ef1.0306242306.58da8a72@posting.google. com>...
> rbbomber@netzero.com (rbbomber) wrote in message news:<7e483417.0306241124.2870f49a@posting.google. com>...
>
> > > How many democracies in the 21st century have done nothing about a
> > > totalitarian dictator who started a war of aggression, saved his own
> > > sorry ass by agreeing to a truce that required he not mistreat his
> > > people, and then violated the terms of the truce?
> > >
> > > How many democracies in the 21st century, absent an imminent threat to
> > > themselves, have cared enough about others to remove a totalitarian
> > > dictator who was torturing and murdering people the liberators didn't
> > > even know?
> > >
> > > How many democracies in the 21st century are so selfishly parochial
> > > that they would have allowed that totalitarian dictator to continue
> > > torturing and murdering forever, as long as he was torturing and
> > > murdering only his own people?
> > >
> > > Frank Warner
> >
> > Please answer the question: "How many democracies in the 21st century
> > invaded other countries in the absence of imminent threat to
> > themselves?"
>
>
> He can't/won't because he refuses to see the gross hypocracy in his
> argument.

I answered the question in my own question. If by "imminent threat"
you mean Saddam could have attacked the United States within the next
week, then he wasn't an imminent threat. But by that measure, I
suppose Hitler's Germany wasn't an imminent threat in 1942 either.

But it doesn't matter. Saddam was an imminent threat to his own
people. He was torturing and killing them on a weekly basis. Sorry,
but if you have the means, that requires immediate action, unless you
think the Iraqi people somehow deserved to be tortured and murdered
forever.

Beyond that, this was a war Saddam started in 1990. He invaded
Kuwait, the United States kicked him out and had every right to depose
him then, except that Saddam saved his sorry ass by agreeing to a
truce in which he promised to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors
and to stop mistreating his people. He violated the truce, and the
hostilities eventually resumed, bringing his fascist regime to an end.

> Freeing Iraq from dictatorship under Saddam and replacing it
> with dictatorship under Chalabi or whoever we impose isn't an
> improvement.

Iraq will not be a dictatorship when the U.S.-guided democratization
process is over, probably within five years, no more than 10. The
Iraqis will have a working democracy. If they wish, they will be able
to vote in Islamic clerics. But unlike the system in Iran, the Iraqis
will have regular elections, allowing them freely to rethink and think
again who their leaders should be. If Islamic clerics are voted in,
Iraqis will have the right later to vote them out.

> That list of countries the US has bombed was missing a
> few points - how many countries has the US removed its democratic
> government and replaced it with a dictator? To how many countries has
> the US sent mecrcenaries to overthrow its democratically elected
> government?

The U.S. may have encouraged the overthrow of a few democratically
elected governments, primarily because the leaders were backed by the
totalitarian Soviets and were too likely never to allow a second
election.

I totally disagreed with the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile.
But the U.S. never invaded another country to destroy a democracy. In
the cases you are talking about, enough local people were suspicious
of their leaders' ties to the Soviet Union that they gladly overthrew
them to preserve their chances for freedom.

You pretend there was no other side to the Cold War. The Soviet Union
was establishing totalitarian police states in nation after nation.
The U.S. was trying to hold back the Soviet spread of oppression.

How many nations did the Soviet Union turn into free democracies
immediately after World War II? In how many nations did the Soviet
Union encourage free elections throughout the entire Cold War?

Was Eastern Europe freer than Western Europe? Is North Korea freer
than South Korea? Is Vietnam freer than Japan? Is Communist China
freer than Taiwan? Is Cuba freer than Grenada?

> If the US wanted democracy in Iraq it would hold elections as the
> people are demanding. You can wait 5 years or 50 years - the majority
> view in Iraq will still be shia muslim. These people are deeply
> religious and want an Islamic state, and you'll never persuade them
> that they don't want one.

You are sadly mistaken, and I guess that explains why you didn't care
if Saddam tortured and murdered Iraqis forever. You think the Iraqis
don't want to be free.

What you fail to see is that all people want to be free. More
importantly, it's every person's right to be free, and a crime to deny
that right.

> The US doesn't want another Islamic
> republic, as despite Iran being a democracy its still "evil" - as the
> people of Iran vote in its governments I take it that the entire
> Iranian populace is also "evil"?
> Ian

Iran is not a democracy. A democracy is governed by rulers who are
regularly elected by and accountable to the people. A democracy
includes free elections, freedom of the press, free opposition
political parties, independent courts and freedom of speech. When it
comes to its real government, Iran has none of this.

Frank Warner

wakingup@ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote in message news:<c4cba10b.0306252029.2454da56@posting.google. com>...
>
> You pretend there was no other side to the Cold War. The Soviet Union
> was establishing totalitarian police states in nation after nation.
> The U.S. was trying to hold back the Soviet spread of oppression.

Right. So every time a socialist government received a popular mandate
you assumed it must be communist and plotted/implemented its removal.
Britain elected a socialist government in 1945. It nationalised most
industries and put centralised control of the economy into practice.
Had Atillee gone too far, the US had a plan to have him ousted......

>
> How many nations did the Soviet Union turn into free democracies
> immediately after World War II? In how many nations did the Soviet
> Union encourage free elections throughout the entire Cold War?
>
None - that wasn't the Soviet system.
>
> > If the US wanted democracy in Iraq it would hold elections as the
> > people are demanding. You can wait 5 years or 50 years - the majority
> > view in Iraq will still be shia muslim. These people are deeply
> > religious and want an Islamic state, and you'll never persuade them
> > that they don't want one.
>
> You are sadly mistaken, and I guess that explains why you didn't care
> if Saddam tortured and murdered Iraqis forever. You think the Iraqis
> don't want to be free.
>
> What you fail to see is that all people want to be free. More
> importantly, it's every person's right to be free, and a crime to deny
> that right.
>

Define "free". Iraqis shia majority want to be free to practice Islam
as they see fit and elect leaders as they see fit. Those leaders will
be religious leaders. If they are to be "free" surely they must have
free choice. By insisting that they have a liberal democracy "freedom"
you deny what you proclaim to uphold.

> > The US doesn't want another Islamic
> > republic, as despite Iran being a democracy its still "evil" - as the
> > people of Iran vote in its governments I take it that the entire
> > Iranian populace is also "evil"?
> > Ian
>
> Iran is not a democracy. A democracy is governed by rulers who are
> regularly elected by and accountable to the people. A democracy
> includes free elections, freedom of the press, free opposition
> political parties, independent courts and freedom of speech. When it
> comes to its real government, Iran has none of this.

Wrong. From the CIA world factbook-

EXECUTIVE BRANCH
chief of state: Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali
Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
elections: leader of the Islamic Revolution appointed for life by the
Assembly of Experts; president elected by popular vote for a four-year
term; election last held 8 June 2001 (next to be held NA 2005)
election results: (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani reelected president;
percent of vote - (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani 77%
cabinet: Council of Ministers selected by the president with
legislative approval
head of government: President (Ali) Mohammad KHATAMI-Ardakani (since 3
August 1997); First Vice President Dr. Mohammad Reza AREF-YAZDI (since
26 August 2001)

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
unicameral Islamic Consultative Assembly or Majles-e-Shura-ye-Eslami
(290 seats, note - changed from 270 seats with the 18 February 2000
election; members elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: last held 18 February-NA April 2000 (next to be held NA
2004)
election results: percent of vote - NA%; seats by party - reformers
170, conservatives 45, and independents 10, 65 seats up for runoff;
note - election on 5 May 2000 (reformers 52, conservatives 10,
independents 3)

Iran has an elected president AND an elected Parliament. It also has a
religious leader elected for life. The elected president and
parliament are the reformers, rolling back the excesses of the 1980s.
In what way is this not a democracy? In Britain our head of State is
the Queen - unelected and possessing extensive powers (to declare war,
remove the government etc). Unlike in Iran these powers are used
rarely, but they are used, and its the same system. Is Britain not a
democracy?

ianbailey@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in message news:<984a2ef1.0306291218.d24fc6e@posting.google.c om>...
> Frank - Iran isn't a "liberal" democracy - you're right. But I find
> your comments about its arrangements disquieting. You dismiss their
> system of government as being irrelevant because they have an
> unelected head of state. Iran is NOT a dictatorship.

Ask the Iranians if Iran has a dictatorship. Of course it's a
dictatorship when a leader-for-life can overrule anything elected
officials approve. The 80 clerics of the "Assembly of Experts" pick
an all-powerful ayatollah, and the dictatorship goes on until he dies.

> If you follow news stories from the country you will find that their
> parliament runs a stong reformist line which is popular with the
> general public but opposed by the clerics. To say that the elected
> parliament and elected president are not important is like saying that
> you want the place run by the clerics, as the democracy you decry is
> the main thing opposing their will.

Iran's elected parliament should be important, but the fact is, as the
clerics set things up in the chaos of the 1979 "revolution," the
parliament is elected to give the Iranians a hint of democracy, but
then that parliament has no real power.

And by the way, the Iranian public is getting a little tired of how
willingly the parliament bows to the dictator ayatollah. I'm sure the
parliament and president are trying to reform the system from within,
but so far they're only window dressing for a regime that allows no
dissent against the dictatorship.

> And yes, our Queen has a whole shitload of powers. We have no written
> constitution in Britain, so it is only by convention that the powers
> of the crown are held mainly by the Prime Minister. Even so, the Queen
> declares war, dissolves parliament, passes legistlation, decides on
> who the government will be, and she has her own court of advisers
> called the Privy Council, made up of current and former senior
> politicians.

> The Queen rarely uses these powers because she is unelected and tries
> to stay put of politics. But she is briefed by the Prime Minister
> every single week, and does have the legal power to dismiss him,
> refuse to sign acts of Parliament to make them law, or pretty much
> anything else she wants. On occasion she does - in February 1974 a
> close general election left Ted Heath's Conservative government with
> the largest share of the vote but no majority in Parliament. When
> Heath was unable to find coalition partners the Queen called on the
> opposition leader Harold Wilson to form a government.
>
> Whilst the two act differently, the heads of state of both the UK and
> Iran have very wide-ranging powers. Only conventions stop the queen
> from using them - nothing legal. I'm not sure the public would be to
> happy about it if she refused to sign a bill or fired the Prime
> Minister, but legal noone can stop her.
> Ian

If the queen of England claimed one-one-hundredth of the power Iran's
head ayatollah wields, the British people would shoot her. And the
British people should do away with that royally anti-democratic
in-breeding experiment anyway.

There's no comparison between the queen and the ayatollah. One is a
pointless figurehead. The other is an all-powerful oppressor.

Frank Warner

"Frank Warner" <wakingup@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:c4cba10b.0307021354.451872cc@posting.google.c om...
> ianbailey@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in message
news:<984a2ef1.0306291218.d24fc6e@posting.google.c om>...
>
> Ask the Iranians if Iran has a dictatorship. Of course it's a
> dictatorship when a leader-for-life can overrule anything elected
> officials approve. The 80 clerics of the "Assembly of Experts" pick
> an all-powerful ayatollah, and the dictatorship goes on until he dies.

It's interesting that you, who support the Electoral College, are now trying
to say that because Iran isn't a pure Democracy, it's a dictatorship. It's
all the more interesting because you, being a follower of Bush, are
VIOLENTLY opposed to Democratic principles.

It's as if you don't really care about Democracy, or liberty or any of the
other Socialist values - but are simply using them to drum up support for
the murder of non-white, non-christian, non-europeans.

> And by the way, the Iranian public is getting a little tired of how
> willingly the parliament bows to the dictator ayatollah. I'm sure the
> parliament and president are trying to reform the system from within,
> but so far they're only window dressing for a regime that allows no
> dissent against the dictatorship.

You speak as if you have some mystical (Christian?) insight into the
culture, customs and values of the Iranian people... as if Americans should
destroy their civilization, too - just in case someday they're capable of
making war on the US.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:36:05 GMT, "Bucky Kaufman" <usenet@kaufman.net>
wrote:

>"Frank Warner" <wakingup@ptd.net> wrote in message
>news:c4cba10b.0307021354.451872cc@posting.google. com...
>> ianbailey@orange.net (Ian Bailey) wrote in message
>news:<984a2ef1.0306291218.d24fc6e@posting.google. com>...
>>
>> Ask the Iranians if Iran has a dictatorship. Of course it's a
>> dictatorship when a leader-for-life can overrule anything elected
>> officials approve. The 80 clerics of the "Assembly of Experts" pick
>> an all-powerful ayatollah, and the dictatorship goes on until he dies.
>
>It's interesting that you, who support the Electoral College, are now trying
>to say that because Iran isn't a pure Democracy, it's a dictatorship. It's
>all the more interesting because you, being a follower of Bush, are
>VIOLENTLY opposed to Democratic principles.
>
>It's as if you don't really care about Democracy, or liberty or any of the
>other Socialist values - but are simply using them to drum up support for
>the murder of non-white, non-christian, non-europeans.
>
>> And by the way, the Iranian public is getting a little tired of how
>> willingly the parliament bows to the dictator ayatollah. I'm sure the
>> parliament and president are trying to reform the system from within,
>> but so far they're only window dressing for a regime that allows no
>> dissent against the dictatorship.
>
>You speak as if you have some mystical (Christian?) insight into the
>culture, customs and values of the Iranian people... as if Americans should
>destroy their civilization, too - just in case someday they're capable of
>making war on the US.
>
almost..they want to destroy their country BEFORE they are capable of
DEFENDING themselves from the US.
no point attacking them when they are able to defend themselves is
there ?