Targeting militias

[Amianthus]

14th amendment had EVERYTHING to do with slavery.  It prevented discrimination against former slaves.  That was the whole point of it.

I thought that the 13th Amendment was a little more to the point on abolishing slavery:

Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Plane]

<<The Iriqui Resistance is very likely to inlude as a goal the imposition of Shria law.
They do not forbid any form of slavery.>>

Well why wait for the Resistance to bring Sharia to Iraq?  We know for a fact it's already in Saudi Arabia.  I guess the U.S. should be invading Saudi Arabia now to stop slavery and Sharia.  I know how concerned they must be about it.

No ,we will not do that.

You will have to settle for our anti - slavery work to proceed against a few nations at a time, the least threatening last.
I know that there is slavery in Saudi Araba , but their government is not advocateing and paying fo mericans to be killed , so why not work first on the ones that do advocate and pay for Americans to be killed?

We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.

[Michael Tee]

<<We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>

Yeah?  You wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia?  Like what, specifically?

[Plane]

<<We have wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia , where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>

Yeah?  You wrought a lot of change in Saudi Arabia?  Like what, specifically?

They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.

There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.


Meanwhile they are busy trying to change us too, have you noticed that just about every American town has a nice Mosque in it?

Thank you Royal Family.

[Michael Tee]

<<They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.

<<There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.>>

First you said the U.S. "wrought a lot of changes" in Saudi Arabia, here you are giving some piddling examples and admitting that progress is slow and there's a long way to go.

So which is it?  A lot of changes, or some minimal changes leaving 90% or more of the necessary changes to the future?

[Plane]

<<They are starting to have elections for a few offices that they used to appoint a prince to, if they evolve a Royal democracy like Englands we should be satisfied that it happen peacfully reguardless of how slow.

<<There is a long way to go ,but just that they have greater literacy and access to press than they used to is very encouraging.>>

First you said the U.S. "wrought a lot of changes" in Saudi Arabia, here you are giving some piddling examples and admitting that progress is slow and there's a long way to go.

So which is it?  A lot of changes, or some minimal changes leaving 90% or more of the necessary changes to the future?

You caught me  , it was wrong for me to say "a lot" when it is so far to go , we are a positive influence I think , but our influence is just barely tolerated by the traditionalists.

In China we are also wrecking change with influence and indirect means , the Chinese have been much more adaptable and accepting but they still do not meet our standards for human rights even nearly .

I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .

[Michael Tee]

<<I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .>>

Here is my point.  You use persuasion when you don't really give a shit, and you use force when you really, really NEED to have it your way.

"Democracy" is a don't-give-a-shit issue.  If all you really wanted was democracy in Iraq, you'd do what you do in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, etc.  No more, no less.  You'd try to persuade them and you wouldn't push too hard.    One thing you would NEVER do, and that is invade them, guns blazing, "Alright you bastards we TOLD you to be more democratic and now by God we're going to force you even if it means war.  Even if thousands of us and hundreds of thousands of you have to die for it."  THAT'S never happened and it never will happen.

My conclusion:  the extent of your effort and the cost of it in Iraq is totally inconsistent with the way you've "spread democracy" everywhere else in the world.  (I'm not counting WWII, becausae that's a case where you yourselves were attacked by undemocratic alliances and had a leadership in the persona of FDR and his associates who were clear-sighted enough to see the absolute menace posed to the world by fascism.)   You "spread democracy" whenever you choose to do so, in a very low-key, low-cost way, and are satisfied with minimal to nonexistent rates of progress.

Therefore:  whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.

[BT]

Therefore:  whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.

The object of the invasion was regime change.

The reason to stay is a stable and democratic Iraq.

Try not to confuse the two

[Plane]

<<I suppose you have a point then , that we are using suasion in some country's and force in others .>>

Here is my point.  You use persuasion when you don't really give a shit, and you use force when you really, really NEED to have it your way.

"Democracy" is a don't-give-a-shit issue.  If all you really wanted was democracy in Iraq, you'd do what you do in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, etc.  No more, no less.  You'd try to persuade them and you wouldn't push too hard.    One thing you would NEVER do, and that is invade them, guns blazing, "Alright you bastards we TOLD you to be more democratic and now by God we're going to force you even if it means war.  Even if thousands of us and hundreds of thousands of you have to die for it."  THAT'S never happened and it never will happen.

My conclusion:  the extent of your effort and the cost of it in Iraq is totally inconsistent with the way you've "spread democracy" everywhere else in the world.  (I'm not counting WWII, becausae that's a case where you yourselves were attacked by undemocratic alliances and had a leadership in the persona of FDR and his associates who were clear-sighted enough to see the absolute menace posed to the world by fascism.)   You "spread democracy" whenever you choose to do so, in a very low-key, low-cost way, and are satisfied with minimal to nonexistent rates of progress.

Therefore:  whatever your objects in Iraq may be, they are definitely NOT connected to "spreading democracy" except in the most marginal and coincidental way.

<<, where gentle methods work , they should be preferred.>>

[Michael Tee]

<<The object of the invasion was regime change. >>

Only as incidental to the control of the country and its resources.

<<The reason to stay is a stable and democratic Iraq. >>

No, a puppet government that can be called "stable and democratic"

<<Try not to confuse the two >>

Why would I confuse them?  The exact same thing that motivated the invasion motivates the occupation.

[BT]

Why would I confuse them?  The exact same thing that motivated the invasion motivates the occupation.

How many battalions do we have stationed at the oil fields?

How about along the pipelines?

[Michael Tee]

<<How many battalions do we have stationed at the oil fields?

<<How about along the pipelines?>>

No idea. What's your point?

[BT]

No idea. What's your point?

If control of the country and its resources (read oil) was the point of the invasion and still the point of the occupation, then wouldn't it make sense to protect those assets?

[Michael Tee]

<<If control of the country and its resources (read oil) was the point of the invasion and still the point of the occupation, then wouldn't it make sense to protect those assets?>>

Who says they're not protected?  Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?

[Amianthus]

Who says they're not protected?  Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?

One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.