No it's an enfeebled theocracy.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

But Iran has elections. How do you define democracy, then?

A lot of places have gratuitous elections that are not democracies. I'll agree that they could transition to a democratic state a lot more easily than Iraq, but if you think they are an open free democracy you need to do a little of this "research" boorite seems to be so found of.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

MaKK, you have no idea what a free democracy is. Democracy isn't doing whatever the hell you want in a country. Democracy is everyone having a say in the government. This has not been the case for many, many years, and all you have to do is take a good look at the electoral college. You are misinformed and opinionated, to the detriment of many.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Florida, for example.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

America having a close election shows just how democratic we are. I agree that we need to modify how we deal with close-calls but that doesn't mean we are undemocratic. You are just complaining because the party you were rooting for lost.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Florida, for example.

Still... laughing.... HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH.... Ohhhh, shit.. whoo! Oh, man.... My sides hurt. You bastard.

: )

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

Who is complaining that their party lost? Nobody knows who actually won the election. And don't give me that bullshit about it being proven in court. Coincidence is too liberal of a word to describe the fact that Katherine Harris was rewarded by the Bush administration after certifying him the winner of the election. Lest we forget...

The fact that thousands of minorities were denied voting because of felony charges on their records is amazing. People convicted of felonies are not allowed to vote, which is a practice held for years. The problem with this particular case is that thousands of these minorities had felony convictions dating back to...2007? Wait, isn't that year in the FUTURE? The election was an even greater sham than usual, and anyone who thinks otherwise has none of the facts.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I am sure that if Gore won in the exact same circumstances you would have a different opinion, bunner.

By the way check out the economy! Thanks Bush! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Jesus Christ, MaKK, you are as capitalist as they come. The economy is up because American companies are making money with Iraqi contracts. I can't wait until we have a McIraq. Then it'll probably be on to McSyria, and hopefully we'll have a McWorld. Yay! Isn't modern capitalism great? What the fuck gives us the right to tell anyone how to govern their country?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Why don't you study a little bit about the modern history of Syria then ask that question again!

;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You fucking idiot, I was referring to the U.S. mulling over whether or not it wanted to invade Syria during the whole Iraqi conflict. You know nothing.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

This comic is hosted on workingforchange.com

---
“It is only with the heart that one sees rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” - The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1945)

Nothing, but Saddam had no right to be in power either. What the fuck gave the Allies the right to tell the Germans how to govern their country in WW2?

It's amusing to me that most people in this country silently put up with everything the government did for five years but can't forgive it for its part in destroying Saddam.

[Click to view comic: 'At the focus group']

Yes, the following is propoganda but he raises a good question.

"If this had happened to Clinton when he was in the White House, do you think the story would have been covered non-stop on FOX, CNN and the right-wing talk shows?"

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I'm sorry I came in late to this now...

So we are permitted, even required, to invade any country with a dictator and overthrow the government. So why don't we start by not giving the likes of Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, etc. any more goddamned weapons to use on their own people. If exporting terror were cause to invade and overthrow a government, good Lord, you'd be calling for the violent overthrow of the US government.

Why bring this up? We weren't discussing Colombia, Turkey or Indonesia. Sure, the US does a lot of bad things, but this debate concerns the rights and wrongs of taking over Iraq.

MaKK-baiters: other than war, how could Saddam have been removed? Sanctions had been tried, coups had been tried...what other possibility remains?

quote:

---

Why bring this up? We weren't discussing Colombia, Turkey or Indonesia. Sure, the US does a lot of bad things, but this debate concerns the rights and wrongs of taking over Iraq.

MaKK-baiters: other than war, how could Saddam have been removed? Sanctions had been tried, coups had been tried...what other possibility remains?

---

Ah, so the overriding problem with the war was that the powers-that-be lied about its motive. As long as you're honest about it, you can kill whoever you want. It'd be safe to surmise that you have no beef with Osama, then? He's pretty honest about his intent, after all.

I don't believe that people who are suffering care whether that suffering is removed under real or false pretenses. Their only concern is that it is removed.

Governments rarely go to war for the professed reasons. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to remember a single case.

Yep, World War II was just an excuse for everyone to bomb the fuck out of France.

---
Dad was flammable

quote:

---

Ah, so the overriding problem with the war was that the powers-that-be lied about its motive. As long as you're honest about it, you can kill whoever you want. It'd be safe to surmise that you have no beef with Osama, then? He's pretty honest about his intent, after all.

I don't believe that people who are suffering care whether that suffering is removed under real or false pretenses. Their only concern is that it is removed.

Governments rarely go to war for the professed reasons. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to remember a single case.

---

First off, Dougan, most people in this country have nothing to do with me. I have never been silent about any of the unnecessary wars that this country has been a part of, especially since I have been politically conscious. THis is not just about Iraq. This is about peace and war, evil and good. Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter. Wrong is wrong. The thing is that there was no reason for us to remove Saddam from Iraq in the first place. No verified threat of attack, no proof other than hearsay of WMDs, and absolutely no connection whatsoever to Al-Qaeda. None. Why even bother pondering ways to remove Saddam? We had no reason to meddle in Iraqi affairs at all, unless you count our funding and backing of him in the first place. I guess if we put him there, we should have the right to remove him, huh? All you fucking right-wingers are so fond of saying, especially to fuckhole Democrats like Ted Kennedy, "You made your bed, now lie in it." The same goes for this shit. Saddam was the U.S. government's little project, and now he's not their puppet anymore, so they're mad at him. And we backed him during his most heinous crimes. Saddam may not have a right to power in Iraq, but the Reagan administration certainly disagreed. They thought he had every right to power, so they supported him. And a bit off the subject, the worst thing is that under the Patriot Act, what I have just said is cause to subpoena my telephone records, internet records, and any other information the FBI deems possible material of dissent. Also, we should remember that sonofabitch Osama Bin Laden was actually our brainchild, too! I bet not very many people know that he was trained by the U.S. with thousands of other Afghani insurgents to fight against the Russians. It wasn't widely reported, which kind of blows that whole 'liberal media' bullshit people like to swing around, too. A liberal media would not hold back information from citizens. It's really sad that you people keep asking the same questions when you have to ask yourself if those are the right questions to ask in the first place.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Okay, so maybe it wasn't your main gripe with the war, but it seems to have been one of them. In a situation like this, all that matters is the outcome. The intent is neither here nor there - except when it can affect the outcome. Which brings us onto...

Remains to be seen. The most glaring impediment to democratic reform in Iraq is now gone. Obviously, if the country ends up in as bad or worse shape than it was before the war, everyone who opposed it will be vindicated.

Ah, we're agreed on that one, then.

I never accused you of being silent about anything.

You and I know that. I was just curious about why this particular event has had so much adverse publicity, when even the worst you can say about it isn't as bad as the best you can say about, for example, Indonesia.

At least two hundred thousand reasons spring to mind.

I don't know about the "right" to do it, but some have argued that the US has a duty to remove him because of their former support. Like cleaning up your own mess, you know? I don't reckon that follows in a case like this, though.

Everyone here knows all this. You left out that W would be pals with Saddam if he was still making with the oil. So? What's your point? It's not Rumsfeld and company who'd have to lie in this particular bed: it's Iraqis.

The last bit wasn't?

Unfortunately, the current equivalent of the Attorney General over here also has a totalitarian bent, so we may be staring down the barrels of our very own PATRIOT Act. No more comics for me when that happens!

Maybe I move in the wrong circles, but I think that's quite well known. I'm certain everyone who reads this thread knew that, anyway.

As I understand the term, "liberal" in this context refers not to the media being particularly forthcoming and transparent, but to an anti-GOP bias. I don't see very much evidence of either, though I'm not a regular reader of US newspapers.

And it's getting a little old to hear "you people" recite the same anecdotes about assorted "left-wing" bugbears like the PATRIOT Act and the "liberal media" which have nothing to do with anything.

Anyway, I assume the question you refer to was the one about what should have been done about Saddam. Your answer was: nothing, because he wasn't dangerous to anyone except his own citizens. That's a consistent libertarian position, I guess, though it'd be more edifying if you'd stop framing it as a humanitarian argument.

First off, Andy, I want to seriously thank you for answering me in an intelligent, thought-provoking manner. A lot of what you said made sense, although you can not assume that people anywhere already know something. I am sorry to hear that your Attorney General equivolent is of a totalitarian ilk. It is really a shame that power gnaws its way into peoples brains so fast. I'm sure all of us have worked for a demagogual boss who got a 'manager' title and acted like a foaming-at-the-mouth Napoleon. As for 'cleaning up our own mess', I would agree with you, completely, but the point is that it is not well-known. I like the question that you asked about how if we knew the real reasons, would war still be okay? It is a good, valid question. No, war still would not be okay. But the United Nations was taking a very active role in the governing of Iraq when we decided to go to war against their wishes, and now we want to enforce their sanctions there. Instead of sitting down with the U.N. and saying, "Look, we fucked up. We put this maniac over there, and now he is out of control. We need your help.", we said, "We want his ass, and here is a tape of an officer telling his inferior to 'hide the stuff'. Now we're gonna kick their asses, and you HAVE to support us!" War is never, ever a good thing, and it should be avoided. The United States, Britain, Spain, and a handful of other formerly Imperial countries are the reasons that there is so much strife everywhere. Phillipines? Spain. South America? Spain, France, U.S., Britain... The list goes on. All this crap that is happening is just the peripheral effects of centuries of imperial behavior. The U.S. simply got smart and made its moves a lot more clandestine and less overt. Instead of shunning the International Community and then pretending we care about them afterwards, this country needs to work with the rest of the world. As the most powerful nation in the world, it's not our responsibility to police it. It's our responsibility to be the example and work with it.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I'd like to address Dougan's point about how would one have gotten Saddam's regime out of Iraq short of war. While I am loathe to use the existence of the war to support the war, if the people who are attacking the international effort in Iraq are indeed largely Saddam / Bathist loyalists I think that says a lot about their tenacity. If they are still resisting being ousted with Abrahams tanks running over their old strongholds, imagine what good sanctions (ripe with loopholes) and so forth would have done. (And indeed what good had they done up to that point?)

Again this argument is contigent on at least some of the enemy being Saddam regime loyalists; I don't think anyone knows for sure whether or not this is the case.

and to Spankling:

quote:

---

Yes, the following is propoganda but he raises a good question.

"If this had happened to Clinton when he was in the White House, do you think the story would have been covered non-stop on FOX, CNN and the right-wing talk shows?"

---

quote:

---

and to Spankling:

quote:

---

Yes, the following is propoganda but he raises a good question.

"If this had happened to Clinton when he was in the White House, do you think the story would have been covered non-stop on FOX, CNN and the right-wing talk shows?"

---

That smacks of a lot of conspiracy stories that crept up about Clinton that didn't get covered. I can think of a lot but I'm sure you've heard them. With Clinton there's a difference between what smear stories against him got a lot of coverage and which ones didn't. The Clinton scandal just reached such critical mass all the small stories seemed to have more gravity in the end.

---