Another reason economists are dorks!

Mark Hickey wrote:

So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
worth?

To know that, first you gotta have a democracy there. We don't even
have a functioning democracy _here_. I think it's implausible that
the US govt has any intention to set up a democratic system for some
brown folks whom they only ever intended to economically exploit.

The fear that "Islamists" will come to power is the fear of democratic
rule in Iraq. When the people get to vote freely for the leadership
they want, and their votes are properly counted, and the results
honored, that's representative democracy. That's what the US govt is
presently trying to prevent from happening, here and there both.

And that is why the US regime has handpicked the "democratic" Iraqi
governing body without the consent of the Iraqi people.

What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
oppresive regime?

--and substituting a worse one, that shoots innocent folks in the
streets without warning and can't even keep the lights on? Not much.

Chalo Colina

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:18:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst
wrote:


Nah. Twelve years was more than enough time for diplomacy.

And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.

And all that was asked was that he show proof of such.

Pete

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote


Nice way to ignore the deaths of innocent civilians like 11-year-old
children
blown to bits by UXO cluster bombs. Far more innocents are dying than
"thugs."
I'm sure the Iraqis would much rather have us either live up to the
promise of
putting them in charge of their own lives or get the hell out.

Give it time. Pulling out now would put the country back under the rule of
the Ba'athists. Maybe Saddam himself. Is this a a good thing?


But, let's talk about those mass graves for a minute. Who were they and
when
were they killed? IIRC, they were Shi'ites killed after the first Gulf
War. Bush
I had urged them to rise up against Saddam and promised support. They did
just
that, but the U.S. abandoned them. Schwarzkopf calls that the worst
decision he
made in that war -- allowing Saddam to fly armed helicopter gunships into
the
region to put down the Shi'ite rebellion. So, who bears part
responsibility for
those graves?

So...

After ODS, we left, and that is bad.
After OIF, we stay, and that is bad.

Which is it Kevan? Can't have it both ways.

Pete

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:24:25 GMT, Mark Hickey from
Habanero
Cycles wrote:

Yet that all seems to be GWB's fault all the sudden?

Let's just say right out front what GWB is at fault for:

1) Lying to the American public about the threat Iraq posed America. As it
turns
out, Iraq was no threat to the U.S. There were -- and are -- no WMD there.

No. There were. The UN knew it, Saddam knew it, you and I knew it.

Where they are now is the question. Did Saddam get rid of all that stuff?
Maybe, maybe not. But if he did....he merely had to provide proof of that.
As was required by the terms of the cease fire agreement.

Instead, we get obfuscation and runaround for 12 years.

Pete

Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

I don't think that would happen if we left. The country would erupt in civil
war, most likely, but I don't see the Baathists regaining power against both
a
Kurd and a Shi'a opposition. Frankly, before we get out of Iraq, which we
should
do ASAP, there should be some sort of UN force there to keep the peace.

Finally Kevan has said it plainly. He's perfectly willing to let Iraq slide
into a civil war that, if recent history in Iraq and even the most perfunctory
review of civil wars throughout the ages are any indicator, would likely be a
long and extremely bloody conflict with hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths just as long as it would mean that there would be no U.S. troops under
U.S. command in the country.

In fairness, he *did* add almost in passing that, "(B)efore we get out of Iraq,
which we should do ASAP, there should be some sort of UN force there to keep
the peace.". I guess he's aware of some special power that soldiers serving
under a UN command have that not only renders them invulnerable to any physical
harm but also allows them to instill order in situations where people armed
with deadly weapons are shooting at them without resorting to shudder
shooting back.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

"Kevan Smith" /\/\ wrote in message
...
Besides, after engaging in an illegal and immoral war of
aggression, what moral right have U.S. forces to stay in Iraq?
You basic premise is wrong.

Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote in part:

Frankly, at this point, a U.N. force would have more moral authority than
U.S.
forces do.

---snip---

I guess Kevan's "moral authority" is that special power UN forces have that
renders them invulnerable while allowing them to stop civil war combatants from
killing noncombatants and each another without using deadly force themselves.

A civil war in Iraq if left to
itself would last just long enough for The Kurds to establish themselves in
the
North and the Shi'a to take the rest with the help of Iran.

---snip---

I wonder how many will die in that civil war. Apparently Kev doesn't mind the
deaths of innocents as long as those deaths keep the US out of the region.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:05:26 -0400, Stephen Harding
from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:

Kevan Smith wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:18:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:

Nah. Twelve years was more than enough time for diplomacy.

And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.

It did not work! His *known* chemical and bio materials from 1991
through to the expelling of inspectors have never been accounted for.

Saddam didn't "expel" inspectors. Clinton asked the U.N. to withdraw them to
begin Operation Desert Fox. Saddam later claimed the inspectors were being used
to scout out bombing targets and didn't want to let them back in for that
reason. The CIA later admitted that they had been using inspectors to scout out
targets.

This seems to be one of the dogmatic lines put out by the liberal left about
Iraq along with the "everyone is dying from US DU ammunition laying about"
line.

Here's a nice summarization extracted from Keith Willshaw on the military aviation
newsgroup concerning this issue.

In 1996 Iraq began systematically denying UNSCOM access to
ceratin sites, despite the passage of UN sec council resolution 1060
and the best efforts of Unscom cheif Rolf Ekeus

In June 1997 Iraqi minders went one stage further by boarding
a UNSCOM helicopter and physically preventing its use to
fly to a site the Iraqis didnt want UNSCOM to see.

Security council Resolution 1115 was passed

Sept 1997 - Iraqi soldiers physically attack a photographer
aboard a UNSCOM helicopter for taking pictures of
unauthorised Iraq vehicle movements at a site scheduled
for inspection

Later that month UNSCOM inspectors watched and filmed Iraqi
guards burning documents in a base they were scheduled
to inspect but prevented from accessing

October 1997 - Yep another UN resolution is passed (1134)

In late October the Iraqi government denied access to all
inspectors of US nationality

November 1997 - Guess what - yes UN resolution 1137

13 November 1997 Iraq demands that all US citizens
working for Unscom leave immediately, all UNSCOM
inspectors are withdrawn instead

March 1998 - Resolution 1154 is born

August 1998 - after 6 months of negotiation Iraq
decided it will only readmit inspectors if sanctions
are dropped.This is refused.

Sept 1998 UN resolution 1194 hits the streets

And yes, everyone opposed to Saddam's policies was pretty much
labeled a spy, and generally executed for it.

The US probably did have spies on the UN team. It is now known
that UNSCOM itself had also been infilitrated by Iraqi
intelligence. Just part of the game.

But please spare us the Saddam apologies. You should be ashamed
of yourself trying to promote the guy, and his policies, as mere
misunderstanding or the result of US bullying.


SMH

Mark Hickey wrote:

There have already been huge pro-democracy riots in Iran (and not just
college students either). A very good sign that "they're starting to
get it". The region is also fed a steady stream of propaganda about
the US that is crumbling under the weight of the relatively benign US
presence, and will face huge pressure when western news starts being
broadcast in the region (heck, even CNN is better than AJ...).

I find it near unbelievable that of all Muslim countries, the US is likely
most popular in...Iran!!! Apparently America, its democratic ideals as
well as culture has become extremely popular there. Some even look back
to the Shah with a degree of nostalgia given their current situation.

The Mullahs are on their way out. Iran is going to become a real republic
in the not too distant future. Fundamentalist "Islamic Republic" types
just haven't seen, or come to accept, the direction history is going.

It likely won't have American style democratic institutions, but they're
working their way toward some sort of representative government, that will
no longer allow a Fundamentalist Mullah to over-rule secular (popular)
expression.

US success in Iraq will greatly speed that process along, for everyones
betterment in the region.


SMH

Kevan Smith /\/\ wrote:

On 31 Jul 2003 13:50:47 GMT, (Hunrobe) from AOL
http://www.aol.com wrote:

I wonder how many will die in that civil war. Apparently Kev doesn't mind the
deaths of innocents as long as those deaths keep the US out of the region.

Well, how about you? Where's your big clamor to go into China, which is far
worse a regime than Saddam could have ever dreamed? In fact, where's your outcry
against being allies with the brutal, murders-his-own-people dictator of
Pakistan, Pervez Musharef, who overthrew a democratically elected government?

Hey, Kev... you know how long we've been in Bosnia? Where's your
moral outrage against that Clinton-initiated "occupation"?

Oh, and China is a "far worse regime than Saddam could have ever
dreamed?". Heh heh heh. Where DO you come up with this stuff. I
would imagine it would make your fingertips ashamed to type it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame