10 Lessons the US should learn from Iraq defeat

He's blaming the U.S. for the actions of the insurgency, so I'm blaming Saddam for the actions of the U.S. and therefore the actions of the insurgency.

 

You just answered your own question.

The word "democracy" does not describe a semantic process. It describes a state of things. If the people are in control (meaning their votes actually count toward selecting a leader they want) then it is a democracy. Otherwise, it is not.

A democracy is where the masses are in control of their own government. That was clearly not the case with Saddam. He used violence and coercion to override their collective will.

Are the people allowed to choose who they want to represent them? And does that elected leader have actual power over the government?

If the answer is yes, then it is a democracy. I do believe that they are legally allowed to select their own representatives, and that those representatives are indeed in control of the government.

The laws have nothing to do with whether it is a democracy or not. If the majority actually want stupid or oppressive laws, then they should have them. All democracy describes is who hold the ultimate power within the government. There is no rule that states that a democracy must be warm and fuzzy.

Iraq has universal suffrage...meaning everyone of age can vote. Even EMOs. The fact that the majority overrules them is not evidence that their system is not a democracy.

Technically, yes. A democracy is just majority rule.

But how many democracies have done that so far? Why have the Shiites not already done this if they are really a majority and want to do it? What is stopping them?

 

A trillion dollars and 5,000 dead. I'd insert pyrrhic before your word "victory."

 

Yep, I know what you were doing. The buck stops with the official enemy, we get that.

 

I paid aboaut $3.85 a gallon yesterday. The oil went missing some where too it seems.

What did Gen Powell say? "China shop rules apply. You break it, you buy it."

 

Yes, but ever since many leaders of the post war Iraq had their own militias to intimidate and murder their opponents. So the use of violence was never banned with the regime change.

And that was one of my questions, can one talk about a working democracy if people are terrorized, even murdered when they want to go to the elections or being elected?

According to the letters of the law they were also allowed to vote under Saddam Hussein, as far as I know, as in many de facto dictatorships people are officially allowed to vote according to written laws or constitutions.

If nothing like a constitution exists, which clearly defines responsibilities and limits of the ruling leader, it is very simple to transform a democracy into a dictatorship. I suppose you would label Adolf Hitler as a dictator although his NSDAP got 43% of the votes, formed a government with other parties which represented a majority of the voters.

If you do not accept a framework like a constitution defining the checks and balances as a limit for the representative voted, you could label even Hitler as a democrat.

I did not write about overruling, but killing according to the advice of the ministry of interior. A huge difference and a good way to reduce voters whose votes you don't like.

I used the conjunctive, I don't think you can get a majority with such a plan at least not, if you propose this openly.

The question is, if a democracy can include all this, what would be the difference to a cruel dictatorship?

 

...and an enemy permanently gone and another democracy beachhead in the Middle east.

It is a victory regardless of whether or not you personally think it cost us too much. We did get what we wanted. That = victory.

That would make the statement inaccurate. That is why I did not insert that word.

 

If murder is illegal, it just means that criminals are getting away with stuff. It does not mean the government is not a democracy. I have seen no evidence that government officials are executing people based on ideology.

If someone tries to coerce me not to vote and the police cant get to them to stop or punish them, that does not mean the US ceases to be a democracy. The government is still a democracy.

That term is arbitrary. Exactly how many people need to be "not intimidated' for it to qualify? 100%? No nation meets that standard.

Saddam could overrule them. The letters therefore are irrelevant. The government was not under the control of the masses.

Look at the actual definition:

Did Iraq fit that definition under Saddam? Which of those definitions apply to Saddam's Iraq?

Which is why all democracies have a constitution or something like it. But it isn't a requirement. 50.0001% majority rule and 99.9% majority rule are both democracies.

The Constitution in the US can and has been altered. It is still majority rule. All that changes is HOW MUCH of a majority.

At the time he was elected, yeah. The Germans made a decision to dissolve their democracy. They chose to do that.

If he could not be removed, then his government was not democratic.

Exactly...which was my point. Obvioulsy there is no universal agreement on this, even among Shiites. A lot of them obviously do not want to exterminate the competition.

The fact that it can change. And the fact that democracies rarely if even degenerate into the kind of cruelty that is the norm among dictatorships. The extreme examples you are describe are possible, but never actually happen because of the way democracies work.

Even in your example, the Shiites could change their mind later, and change the laws with it. That cant happen to a dictator. They do not answer to anyone.

 

Yes, of course, if some criminals terrorize you and the police is unable to stop them. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a government which itself initiates violent campaigns to stop selectively some people from voting.

As I said above, it depends on the involvement of the government in these kind of actions. If a bunch of White or Black supremacists intimidates some voters successfully, but the police is hunting them for that or at least would if the victims reported it, it is of course a democracy, fighting some undemocratic elements.

If the government tries to prevent certain voters from going to the election by violent campaigns it is not a democracy.

I am not claiming that Saddam's government was in the slightest democratic, I simply would state the same for the post war Iraq.

Can you change every aspect and every paragraph of the constitution? E.g. can the government abolish the bill of rights?

The Nazis nevertheless were accused in Nuremberg to have violated the constitution of the Republic of Weimar and judged for that, which was from the point of view from the law without a doubt correct. As soon as you leave the ground of the basic principles which were the democratic confirmed rules of the game, you cannot argue to be democratically legitimated.

If I vote for Merkel, I'll give her my vote to lead a government as described in the Grundgesetz. If she brings in a law which passes by overruling the opposition she will be democratically motivated. If she starts to kill political rival, she won't be. Even if she initiates a referendum afterwards, if it was correct or not, she was not democratically legitimated.

According to your point of view you stated above, you are inconsequent. The voters gave him enough to form a government together with some other parties. The Ermächtigungsgesetz passed the Reichstag, so he was democratically legitimated according to your statements here.

As said above not according to the law as he broke the constitution, according to your point of view that the majority of the voters gives you the right to do everything you want, he would have been a democratic leader.

This was just an example, I did not want to assume that Shiites would agree with such a lunatic plan. A theoretical example, replace Shiites by group A and Sunnis with group B, it is just an example to discuss an edge case.

At least democratic elections can lead into tyranny under instable circumstances or a clima of violence. There are enough examples like Germany 1933 or Iran 1979.

Of course a dictator can change his mind later as well and I don't see the point in that anyway.

There is a framwork for a democracy, every citizen must have the right to vote regardless of his religion, ethnicity or political opinion. If you find a majority to take away these right (or even more elementar rights) from certain groups or simply undermine it and do so, you are nor democratically legitimated.

 

All advanced technology is born in America only, All are using this technology now

 

All? There's lovely!

 

Well, it's a lot less than we pay, and we've been interfering in Iraq's internal affairs immensely longer, so that is probably right. Perhaps, though, the thieving attempts just drove world prices up, like the threats to Iran and all the rest of the imperialist hype.

 

Islam wants to spread the faith by the sword. Communism wanted to spread by the sword. Now America should spread "Democracy" by the sword??
I'll tell you what you necons (You are Jewish aren't you?) accomplished. You had American Goyem boys die by the thousands to take out a regime that pounded Israel with missiles during the first Iraq war.
And your Jewish victory may be temporary. You are again likely to have a regime opposed to Israel in twentiy years.
The best Israel can hope for is corrupt Arab regimes want the Jewish state to continue to exist. Like all elites they need a permanent foreign enemy to distract the wrath of their people from their own corrupt systems.
But as angry as I am about Jewish plots to drag America into their wars, this war has been a blessing to America. It has exposed the amount of control of this country by Jewish interest.
To steal a phrase from Churchill, "American foreign policy is a mystery, wraped in an riddle, hidden inside and enigma. But perhaps there is a key. Jewish National Interest."
Anybody who doubts Jewish control in this country ask yourself, who is it you can't critisize? The answer is those who rule.
You want further proof? Why is it NO ONE on this thread that I've noticed stated the obvious connection between Jewish interest and America attacking Iraq? NO ONE!
If that doesn't convince you read the Jewish Dissidents, Goldbergs "Jewish Power"
Norman Finkelstein "The Holocaust Indutry", Prelutsky's "The Jewish Grinch Who Stole Christmas", Israel Shahak "Jewish Religion Jewish History"
Or Zelkins "The Jewish Century".
One neocon on line was complaining about all the "self hating" Jews out there.
Well buddy, if there are that many dissidents among your own people it should give you a clue that THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH JEWISH CULTURE!
1940 = 2012
Germans = Jews
Nazi's = Zionist
Poland = America
Blitzkrieg = Open Borders.

I'm sorry for the Iraqi people, but I thank God for this war. It has woke up enough, just enough, of the American people to Zionist control and destruction of my people.

 

Correct. Assimilation is the only way to permanently remove threats to us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

Our only other option is to exterminate our enemies, which is not always possible, and which our morals will not allow us to do anyway.

LOL, no. Not even close. Most modern Neocons are not Jews.

It is not just Jews that have a boner for Israel. Have you seen the polls? I can post several here if you like.

The regime was a threat to us as well as Israel. Non-democracies are inherently oppressive anyway, and have no right to exist.

"Jewish victory" LOL

Even if that were true, we would still have been correct to try. The alternatives were worse. We now have two beachheads in the Middle East instead of one.

This kind of delusion is exactly why you people have fallen out of power and now exist on the fringe. You are completely out of touch with the American People.

Please post your evidence that there are ethic groups that Americans are legally not allowed to criticize.

Obviously it is not the Jews...you are criticizing them right now. I've seen people like you criticize them in public many times. The fact that the majority mocks you for your retarded belief system or even ignores you altogether is not evidence that you are oppressed or forbidden to criticize anyone.

Your Jew conspiracy theory is completely fabricated and based on nothing. That is why people ignore or mock you. It has nothing to do with control. It has to do with the fact that your ideology is comically inconsistent with the real world experiences of most Americans.

Because it is only "obvious" to people that share your bias. And most Americans (as well as most users on this forum) do not share your bias.

Saddam could have foiled the evil Jew plot by simply cooperating the our inspectors when we demanded it. We gave him almost a DECADE to cooperate..time and again he refused to do so. Were the Jews mind controlling him as well?

I would not know since I am not a part of Jew culture. I'm an atheist, and was catholic before that.

As is evidenced by all the politicians elected into power that agree with you.

Oh, wait a minute...there are none. Nevermind.

 

So far I have not seen evidence that this is occurring in Iraq. I have not seen evidence that there is a systematic campaign in Iraq by the government to deny specific groups of citizens the right to vote.

I would have to see the evidence to determine which it is. I have not seen evidence of what you are describing in Iraq so far.

According to the evidence I have seen Iraq is holding elections and people are actually voting in their leaders. And these leaders do in fact control Iraqi policy and laws.

That fits the definition of democracy.

YES.

We can change every single thing. Nothing at all is forbidden. If we wanted to we could bring back slavery and dissolve the bill of rights. Our system allows us to do that. There is no law we could not change. All democracies are like that (they have to be by definition)...the only difference between them is how hard it is to do.

Obviously that will never happen here. But it is mechanically possible under our system. If enough people wanted it to happen, it would happen.

And how do you objectively determine what those "basic principles" are?

As said above not according to the law as he broke the constitution

The constitution is PART of the democracy. If he really violated the Constitution, then he was not legitimately elected by the majority. Because the majority control the constitution.

I use the qualifier "really" because at some point someone has to interpret the constitution to determine if it was violated. Under our system, that is the function of the judicial branch. I am not sure how it worked with the pre-Nazi-era German government.

Any examples since 1979? 1979 was over 30 years ago.

A dictator is far less likely to change his mind than a group.

 

Actually you're not China's biggest customer, the European Union is.

 

The European union is not one customer...they are a collection of many customers.

The EU is not a nation.

 

What defeat was that? Sorry, must have missed it.

 

Yes, that is why I keep referencing democracy...because it is "code for white genocide". Everything revolves around "white genocide". Everything is about your one issue and nothing else.

 

"Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians and white countries for everyone."

And the media cheers on white elimination by mass immigration/assimilation as
when they report the last blonde (code word for whites) will be born in Finland in 2202.

"The last blonde (or the last blond male), should be born in Finland in 2202."

http://servetus.newsvine.com/_news/...eferred-blondes-mystery-of-evolution-unveiled

When my people are slated to be eleminated by "assimilation" as you would put it, everything else seems a less pressing issue, including the abortion crime I post about here.

You issue seems to be u.s. wars against Islamic/Arab states that just "happen" to be enemies of Israel.

You however aren't alarmed enough about a genocide to even make querries about it.

 

I did not ask if you were Catholic or atheist. I've known Catholic Jews, Lutheran Jews, Presbyterian Jews and Baptist Jews.
For purposes of this discussion I define Jews as people who’s ancestors were ethnic Jews and who feel a strong loyalty for the Jewish ethnic/national group.

 

Most of us are indifferent about race. We see it as trivial and irrelevant. People who focus on race are the minority, at least in America.

It does not appear that this will change, so you should probably learn to get used to it. It will result in a lot less stress for you.

I never made a claim with regards to the white race at all in this context. "Assimilation" was referencing democracies and non-democracies. You chose to project your own meaning onto what I actually said.

Correct.

It is impossible for Genocide to happen if the people are consenting to it. No one is forcing any white people to breed outside of their race if they dont want to.

That is probably the main reason your cause is not getting the sympathy that you seem to feel it deserves. My race does not own me. I owe absolutely nothing to anyone simply because they have the same color skin I do. And this view is very commonplace in the US.

I am not alarmed about it because I am indifferent to it. I only want to see the proliferation of my ideology...whether the people that embrace it are black or white or brown is irrelevant to me. I find the erosion of the "white race' to be amusing only because it pisses off racists so much. It is a good thing only in the sense that the fewer "pure" raced people there are, the fewer racists there will be.

And the fewer racists there are, the better for the world in general.

 

I offered the information anyway because I am such a nice guy, and because you seemed interested in my religion by asking if I was a Jew.

Well, I am not a hyphenated Jew-anything. I hope that clarified my religious status for you.

Not that I have anything against Jews. I generally like Jews. They are a lot less pushy than Christians or Muslims in my experience.

Then in the future you should probably qualify such questions by adding "ethnic" to the word "Jew" to remove confusion. And no, I'm not an ethnic Jew either.