Thread: Iran's Proxy War

We should not go to the UN at all. It should be completly dismantled.

The fact is Saddam did support Militant Islam but only when it suited his goals, not nearly as much as other countries but he did none the less.

The fact still remains he was a supporter making it a just war and a threat the United States.

But yes we should agree to disagree because this is going nowhere.

And i am being pragmatic. There is a power vacuum in Iraq. Anything that fills that vacuum that is not supported by the people will only stay in power by use of the gun. This is not the UK, the US etc. This is not a country that is in a steady state condition. It is in turmoil and it would be folly to ignore that. Therefore i do not believe you can take an imposition approach.

A proper Government takes the use of a gun out of the equation. It bans the initiation of force and fraud.

You keep contradicting yourself. You say we can't "impose" a proper government but the Iraqi majority can impoose a theocratic Government based on the Koran and consquently an unproper Government on the Iraqi minority that wants a Government that protects their rights.

I am not convinced by the comparison with Japan. A direct military act of war against the Japanese was perpetrated by Japan. Its people new that the Pearl Harbour attack was a pre-meditated act of war on behalf of Japan. Everything that followed could be attributed to that incident that the Japanese government crowed so majestically about at the time. When, years later, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocents were dead on mainland Japan the people could see the lineage. I am not convinced that you can equate the experience and knowledge of the Japenese people of the 40s with that of the Iraqi's of the noughties.

Read my post again I was talking about Iran.

The Iranian Revolutionarys took American hostages, they have directly and indirectly attacked America. There is no dought about it they are at war with us.

The Comparison holds.

Originally posted by Praxus
A proper Government takes the use of a gun out of the equation. It bans the initiation of force and fraud.

I agree. But how would the minority government retain power. I assume you would be advocating elections based on only a partial elctorate? Ie. offering Iran (or Iraq) an unreal democracy?

You keep contradicting yourself. You say we can't "impose" a proper government but the Iraqi majority can impoose a theocratic Government based on the Koran and consquently an unproper Government on the Iraqi minority that wants a Government that protects their rights.

Please help me to understand. My interpretation is that you are suggesting Iran (and i presume Iraq) should have a partial democracy where the suffrage is either allocated on some sort of criteria that gurantees the outcome to be a secular republican democracy based on the principles of Mr T Jefferson. If this is broadly the case. I would ask how your plan would guarantee the future of said government. If you are allocating some people more important voting rights than others, or restricting their voting rights, then i would argue the people with the Ak47s now, won't put them down unless they get the preferential voting priviledges. I am further surmising that those currently firing on US soldiers would not be top of your list for these priviledges?

Or are you being literal, and wish to turn modern day Iraq, into a democracy exactly as a 18th century US (i.e. only votes for the priviledged, not for all)

Either way, i am not sure how that is democratic in the currently employed sense (lets use your preferred USA as the example, but my yardstick would be 21st century USA.)

The Iranian Revolutionarys took American hostages, they have directly and indirectly attacked America. There is no dought about it they are at war with us.

The Comparison holds. [/B]

I still think the Iranians will struggle to see that lineage. If they do they will see any US attack as being less provoked than your example of the US / Japanese conflict in WWII. I am thinking here that if you want the Iranians to subscribe to the idea of regime change, they have to be convinced that the invaders are the good guys and that the current leaders have brought it all on themselves.

I agree. But how would the minority government retain power. I assume you would be advocating elections based on only a partial elctorate? Ie. offering Iran (or Iraq) an unreal democracy?

I do not support Democracy, I never have. The electorate should be selected by their dedication to liberty and individual rights.

Please help me to understand. My interpretation is that you are suggesting Iran (and i presume Iraq) should have a partial democracy where the suffrage is either allocated on some sort of criteria that gurantees the outcome to be a secular republican democracy based on the principles of Mr T Jefferson. If this is broadly the case. I would ask how your plan would guarantee the future of said government. If you are allocating some people more important voting rights than others, or restricting their voting rights, then i would argue the people with the Ak47s now, won't put them down unless they get the preferential voting priviledges. I am further surmising that those currently firing on US soldiers would not be top of your list for these priviledges?

If rebels initiate the use of force against the Government, the Government like all other people have a right to use retalitory force.

The people currently firing on our troops deserve neither life nor voting rights.

Only non-initiators of force should have a right to vote.

Or are you being literal, and wish to turn modern day Iraq, into a democracy exactly as a 18th century US (i.e. only votes for the priviledged, not for all)

Not litterally, I am talking about a true Constitutional Republic based on the ideas of Individual Rights.

Thomas Jefferson lead the Democratic Republicans and he believed that the power of the Government should be derived from the people. The Federalist believed in what you said "votes for privilaged" etc.

This being said he did not believe the Majority should dictate laws for everyone else. He believed that was oppression.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
-Thomas Jefferson

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "
-Thomas Jefferson

Keep in mind he also said "One man with courage is a majority."

Either way, i am not sure how that is democratic in the currently employed sense (lets use your preferred USA as the example, but my yardstick would be 21st century USA.)

My yardstick would be a country that has never exsisted but the closest thing would be late 19th century America.

So, how would you apply that to Iraq / Iran? Remember this is in a post invasion scenario, as per Iraq. You have active gunplay going on amd you have people's beliefs to deal with.

And what would happen if theologins got involved. Whilst i support your dedication to individual rights. You will appreciate that religion of some form influences most governments to a greater or lesser degree. Atheists and Agnostics are, i believe, in the minority, and certainly in the middle east the preference is for god to influence decision making.

Above all you have to deal with people's perceptions. And we are not starting with a blank slate here. We are starting with a group of western, predominantly christian nations having invaded a largely islamic arab nation. Saddam may not have been a good muslim, but lots of Iraqis are.

You are going to need a Saddam like regime to control those factions that are not part of your electoral system, are you not? Once the regime starts behaving with strong arm tactics, do you think it will ever be able to win people over to its true intentions?

Originally posted by Trooth
I shall dig it out. The ones i saw were in a TV programme, where even Kaye was backing down. But i am sure they have been reported elsewhere, i will have to search.

There's no point, I would just say he is speaking from hindsight.

Originally posted by Trooth
We went to war because Iraq was going to launch a chemical attack on his enighbours in 45 mminutes.

May be why you supported it, but not me.

Originally posted by Trooth
Bit more investigation, turns out they were not. Oops.

A bit more investigation by unhampered investigators yes.

Originally posted by Trooth
If my government wants to go to war i want it to tell me why.

Unless you're saying that they outright lied, then they did tell you why. If you're saying they lied, prove it. France and Russia thought he had them, and they were jockeying for position to cup Saddam's balls while he slept.

Originally posted by Trooth
Well a cynic would say that the reconstruction contracts where not being selected by the Iraqi's. I have no problem with the US selecting the contractors for the ones where it is footing the bill. But it isn't footing the bill for all of the work.

The Iraqis aren't rebuilding the country, we are. It is not in our best intrest to allow people who actively stood against us to have any role in representing us. I do not trust them, and do not want them to have the chance for more sabotage. The Iraqis are reciving goods and services from anyone who will trade with them, I have heard about no embargos.

Originally posted by Ray
Confed is a dear friend, but I would disagree even though I hate to do so.

Allways so nice to me. I don't actually expect anyone to agree with me, so disagree at will!

Originally posted by Ray
It is all BULLSHIT that that idiot Saddam had WMD or had connection with terrorists.

Except Saddam did have WMD at one time. Saddam was a terrorist. I know it because I saw him offer money for my death on a weekly basis from his own public TV. I think it was about 10 grand until the war started, then it was 20 grand. He also took terrorist actions against Iraqis. His terrorist units have been fighting the Coalition in Iraq since the war started.

Originally posted by Ray
He was a hated icon of the Terrorist world or even the 'pure' Moslem world. He screwed the hell out of them to remain in power. So, be rational. Give the Dog his due.

They may not have liked Saddam, but they still put him on a pedestal as the only one willing to stand up to the west. He was made a hero, even if the higher upps found him distasteful.

Originally posted by Ray
Ask the UN to get them out of the Mess. Period.

The UN ran, we're on our own.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
She took me out to dinner and forgave me.

Then I pray you will forgive yourself, and take some of the weight from your shoulders. I do not believe you should have to bear it all alone.

UN ran.......(?). You are doing everything. (?)

That is that UN head honcho has been called in to organise the unstallation of a civil govt and hand over of power to the Iraqis?

Praxus,

Did you get the articles?

No I didn't get it.

Edit: Got it

How do I open a .max file. A .max file is normally opened in 3d Studio Max which is a 3d Modeling Program (which I don't think this would be the format or an article.)

Originally posted by Ray
UN ran.......(?). You are doing everything. (?)

That is that UN head honcho has been called in to organise the unstallation of a civil govt and hand over of power to the Iraqis?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3623653.stm
"The UN special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, is in Baghdad helping Iraqis decide on the formation of an interim government, and a small UN team is looking at when elections might be possible."
That isn't the "UN to get them out of the Mess. Period." They are providing technical assistance, and that's it. I also shouldn't have said "we" in my statement, as I am sitting behind a computer keyboard and not a rifle. The UN ran. The Coalition is on it's own. The UN cannot be counted on for anything in or around Iraq, and I truthfully group them in with the people I don't trust to represent the Coalition there.

“It's quite simple we destroy their military, wmd sites, and terrorist sites. Then we institute a Government based on the American constitution and we ban Islam from the entire Government. No weapon/tactics/stratedgy should be ruled out for moral reasons. This is in essence how you fight a just war.”

Are you stupid? That has got to be the dumbest thing I have heard. So two wars are not going well for us so lets start a third against a non-push over like Iran. So when the daily death totals are in the 100s as opposed to less then a dozen and when of course we are massively outnumbered on three fronts and the nation goes broke what will we have won? Nothing. And then of course you have the wealth of terrorist attacks we would get on all of our embassies and of course the home front.

Confed,

Why take even technical advice from the UN and Goofy Anan (as you all like to call him on this forum). They are dumb and they ran. You are wise and you did not run. So, do it yourself.

Praxus,

They are Paperport (Scansoft) files. Use Paperport.

Troung is nearest to realties. The world is not a videogame.

Why do people insist on personal attacks. It ads absolutely nothing to the conversation besides degrading it into name calling session and pissing me off.

Imagine if the leaders during world war 2 had the same mind set as you. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would still be around.

They were willing to do what was nessecary because we knew that we were in the right and they were in the wrong. If it takes firebombing cities to the ground, then it is justified just like it was justified in World War 2. I am not suggesting this but it would be justified.

Iran is our principle enemy, not Al Quadi, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

the nation goes broke what will we have won?

Umm I think we can go without the welfare state for a little while.

I am also not suggesting going in immediatly we need to build up proper forces on top of that we need more soldiers in the Army or better yet support a Revolution by the pro-American Students.

Praxus,

Sure would love to her your comments on Woodwrd's book on Bush's plan to take on Iraq even as the Afghanistan war was on. The book is hitting the bookstores this Tuesday.