Clear as Mud

[Plane]

<<There is no such thing as a minority right to rule the majority.>>

I did not say that there was.  But there are various other ways to govern a country  and if a substantial minority does not wish to submit to the will of the majority, a democracy cannot and will not work.  As you can plainly see right before your eyes.

There is significant evil in he notion that the majority should submit to a minority that is determined to subjugate it.

Have you any real complaint against Natzis , if you don't agree with this?

[Michael Tee]

<<There is significant evil in he notion that the majority should submit to a minority that is determined to subjugate it.>>

You're reading a lot into my post that just isn't there.  I didn't argue that the Sunni should be allowed to "subjugate" the majority Shi'a.  But they don't necessarily have to submit to the "tyranny of the majority" either.  That's for THEM to decide, not the U.S.  There are numerous alternatives - - secession being one of them, federalism with resource-sharing guarantees being another.  This is something for the parties to negotiate, not for the U.S. to decide by decreeing that first there will be "elections" (in which the U.S. gets to vet all the candidates in advance.)

<<Have you any real complaint against Natzis , if you don't agree with this?>>

I don't understand you.  The Nazis were a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority.

[domer]

Stripped of your abhorrence for the initiation of this war (which for me is a mistake that we must now live with) and stripped even more profoundly of your utter detestation of the United States (which I don't share), your characterization loses all force, if it ever had any. The US was bound by every respectable precept of political or military philosophy to help rehabilitate Iraq after the disintegration of its government upon the tyrants fall. This had to be a joint endeavor unless you favor anarchy and a violent free-for-all. The consequent coming together of Iraqi self-governance, if it can be achieved, is a process comprised of many steps, big, small and backward. Yet, I have little doubt that the US authorities charged with managing this matter are proceeding largely in good faith if often ineffectively or otherwise frustratingly.

The whole enterprise very well may fall to overriding tensions in that country that create a dynamic of bloodletting, it seems, instead of reconciliation. But the US was the catalyst for these feelings to come out, not the creator. Whether and to what extent we continue to "help" is a matter of Iraqi cooperation coupled with a sober assessment of our self-interest, conjured while in a accentuated trance of reality, something that's been missing.

[Michael Tee]

<<This had to be a joint endeavor unless you favor anarchy and a violent free-for-all. >>

Isn't that more or less what happened after the fall of the Shah of Iran, anarchy and a violent free-for-all?  And what happened then?  With a tiny fraction of the bloodshed in Iraq, a more or less stable society evolved, with real elections, although there are many brakes on the elected officials and the election candidates themselves are arbitrarily vetted.  A government true to Iranian ideals and priorities, providing some kind of arena for the conflicting elements of the society to joust and resolve their differences.  Not a made-in-America solution, not even the best possible solution, but their solution, their Iranian solution.

I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Iraqi problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive.  Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last.  Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly.  What they build cannot and should not last.


<<Yet, I have little doubt that the US authorities charged with managing this matter are proceeding largely in good faith  . . .  >>

domer, honest to God, I really thought you were smarter than that.  To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith.  That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy.  Well, how have they manifested this great altruism, their concern for the freedom and dignity of other men?  Did they, for example, participate in any of the great Civil Rights battles of the 1960s, as Freedom Riders, for example, as marchers, as workers in CORE or SNCC or the NAACP, or even as writers of letters to the editor?  Did they take part in any of the anti-apartheid actions in protest of the racist South African regime?  Did they, perhaps, protest the overthrow of Salvador Allende or the human-rights abuses of the Argentine junta?  Where, exactly, at any point in their lives prior to invading Iraq did they manifest a single glimmer of pro-democracy, pro-freedom activity?  And how do they reconcile this love of freedom and democracy with their support for the worst dictators of the Middle East or their failure to protest the 39-year-old military occupation of the West Bank?  What signs of altruism did Bush or Cheney ever manifest in a lifetime spent lining their own pockets, in Bush's case with varying degrees of legality?

It's nonsense to believe there's an ounce of sincerity in the administration's stated goal of bringing democracy to Iraq.  From this administration in particular.  And if that was their intention, how come it was never mentioned (at least never prominently mentioned, always as a "side benefit" or value-added feature of the main event, the invasion as a means of safeguarding America from WMD?)

Oil may or may not be the main reason for the invasion.  Other respected commentators (Gwynn Dyer, for one) have suggested it was just a crude and misguided attempt to recoup the tremendous amount of prestige that the "mighty" America lost in that terrible slap in the face suffered on Sept. 11.  But whatever the ultimate rationale behind the invasion of Iraq, it should be clear from both the nature and history of the instigators and the changing reasons given for the aggression, as well as the gross and flagrant inconsistency between their professed committment to and love for the democratic process and their actual friends and supporters in the Middle East today, that love of democracy and a committment to build it in Iraq are not any part of that rationale.

[sirs]

To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith.  That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy. 

BINGO.  Wake us when you actually have FACTS/EVIDENCE to the contrary, and not just your Tee-leave non-existent dot connection

[Plane]

I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Iraqi problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive.  Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last.  Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly.  What they build cannot and should not last.

You could get a lot of cheering going if you were to give this speech at a meeting of the KKK.

The invader cannot impose his morality on the majority of the region , cannot possibly be setting those in bondage free from sheer altruism!

I can't imagine you cheering over the deaths of the freedom riders that gave their lives for the sake of the freedom of others , but if that speech were shouted at a KKK meeting just before the klling of Medgar Evers hardly a jot would need to change!

Observe---
I maintain that an American military involvement in what is by any objective standard a purely Southern problelm of governance is not only arrogant but counter-productive.  Any solution that bears the stamp of the invader and occupier is tainted irredeemably and will not last.  Those who have collaborated with the invader will be marked for death, indelibly.  What they build cannot and should not last.


   The hope of mankinds future is not bound up in any kind of tyrany .

[Michael Tee]

That was a good point about the KKK, but it ignores good and evil.  My point was that collaborators and traitors will be executed, but I mis-stated it as "should" be executed because I wasn't thinking of other situations besides Iraq.

If the local population is basically evil, as in the U.S. South, then they will still execute what they consider to be traitors and collaborators, but in that case it is the local population which must be subdued at all costs because of their evil nature.  The "traitors and collaborators" must be protected because they are fighting for justice and right (which is why the local population hates them so much.)  This would apply in either Nazi Germany or the U.S. South.

If the local population is basically resisting a foreign occupation because it wants to remain master of its own house and keep its own natural resources and wealth for itself, there is nothing basically evil about the nature of the struggle, and the collaborators and traitors clearly deserve to die.  This would apply, for example ,  in occupied Europe during WWII.

What complicates Iraq is that there are various strains of Resistance fighters, some of whom are not very nice people.  However since the invaders are uniformly imperialist colonizers, they are on the whole more objectionable than the Resistance and therefore we should not interfere with the struggle but let them fight it out their own way and may the best man win.

[Xavier_Onassis]

To believe that they are acting in good faith, you'd have to believe that Bush and Cheney are and were acting in good faith.  That they (Bush and Cheney) are altruists, men who are very concerned about others, particularly others who lack the "blessings" of freedom and democracy.
=====================================================================================
I fail to see any evidence whatever that Juniorbush and Puppetmeister Cheney have ever acted in good faith. They were WRONG about the threat posed by Saddam (there were, need we remind you once more NO WMDs) and clearly WRONG about how to proceed with the occupation and restoration of a government in Iraq. They are allies of Big Oil and always have been, ever since their days of lackeyhood.

What possible evidence can anyone present that these two have started a war in good faith?
Indeed, is is ever possible to start an unnecessary war in good faith at all?

No one believes this in Iraq, and only the most squishy-minded ratwingers believe it here.

If you have proof, Oh Great Slurs, please present it.

Plop it right down.

[Amianthus]

If the local population is basically evil, as in the U.S. South,

Just wanted to highlight this section.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I hardly think that the local population in the South is "evil". At one time, a majority of the White population was certainly against any voting rights for the Black population, but this has changed.

I have seen no signs of racist evil perpetrated here where I live, though there certainly has been a lot of corruption which has benefited a few of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

==============================================

It is also entirely true that even if the South WERE Evil Incarnate, that would not make Juniorbush and Puppetmeister Cheney
 pure of motive and  kind of heart.

Let's see some actual proof of their Great Democratic desires.

Please remember that these two clowns would never have attained office had a majority of the people favored them.
I am sure President Goreand VP Lieberman would have served us far better than either of these two criminals.

[Michael Tee]

<<I hardly think that the local population in the South is "evil". At one time, a majority of the White population was certainly against any voting rights for the Black population, but this has changed.>>

It might have changed, but both plane and I were speaking of the bad old days when white supremacy and Jim Crow ruled.

[Amianthus]

It might have changed, but both plane and I were speaking of the bad old days when white supremacy and Jim Crow ruled.

He said that the speech would go over well at a KKK meeting. There are still KKK meetings.

And they're not all in the south. New Jersey and New York had rapidly growing KKK memberships when I last lived there.

Besides, even 40 years ago, the KKK was not the majority of the population in the south.

[Michael Tee]

He was talking about the Freedom Riders and the assassination of Medgar Evers, clearly a reference to the 1960s.  The White Citizens Councils, the KKK, Strom Thurmond's glory days, Bull Connor's glory days, Lester Maddox' glory days  - - clearly the majority of the population of the South were a bunch of evil bastards who deserved no mercy from the forces of law and order.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I fail to see whether any hypothetical statement would go over well or poorly at an equally hypothetical KKK meeting is anything more than Guilt by Association.

I imagine that the KKK would be in favor of realy tasty BBQ sauce, clean restrooms and neatly pressed bedsheets, but that has nothing to do with Iraq, either.

[Amianthus]

He was talking about the Freedom Riders and the assassination of Medgar Evers, clearly a reference to the 1960s.

He also said that it would be valid today.

You could get a lot of cheering going if you were to give this speech at a meeting of the KKK.