NationStates Jolt Archive

I first saw this I had a good laugh. But I would think this sums up most of what voting Iraqi's think.

http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/13/gotohell/

Also look at what they are selling on the left side of there page. Another good laugh.... Is it me or does that t-shirt model look like Cindy Crawford?

Beautiful absolutely beautiful.

"Peace Through Superior Firepower"...couldn't say it better myself.

Fing Hilarious.:rolleyes:

Bet on Iraq.com? ugh....

Is anybody going to comment on what the Iraqi says, or are you all just going to make fun of the t-shirts in the ads?

I think it's odd that people will say "The Iraqis want us to leave, we should listen to them" but when an Iraqi, god forbid, has something positive to say about America, it gets ignored, spun, or explained away.

Why is it that we should only listen to the Iraqis with AK-47s?

Is anybody going to comment on what the Iraqi says, or are you all just going to make fun of the t-shirts in the ads?

I think it's odd that people will say "The Iraqis want us to leave, we should listen to them" but when an Iraqi, god forbid, has something positive to say about America, it gets ignored, spun, or explained away.

Why is it that we should only listen to the Iraqis with AK-47s?

Apparently everyone is speechless....

Is anybody going to comment on what the Iraqi says, or are you all just going to make fun of the t-shirts in the ads?

I think it's odd that people will say "The Iraqis want us to leave, we should listen to them" but when an Iraqi, god forbid, has something positive to say about America, it gets ignored, spun, or explained away.

Why is it that we should only listen to the Iraqis with AK-47s?

Funny that you brought this up, even though no one had anything negative to say yet. So, people who don't agree with you are damned if they do or damned if they don't, I guess.

Stuff it.

Good for this woman. I'm glad not everyone there hates us.

America deposed a dictator and brought democracy to that country. Of course people are grateful. I would be.

Is anybody going to comment on what the Iraqi says, or are you all just going to make fun of the t-shirts in the ads?

I think it's odd that people will say "The Iraqis want us to leave, we should listen to them" but when an Iraqi, god forbid, has something positive to say about America, it gets ignored, spun, or explained away.

Why is it that we should only listen to the Iraqis with AK-47s?

Okay, fine, you want a direct answer.

She's entitled to her opinion. But one opinion does not the opinion of a people make. Most Iraqis have a negative view of the US's performance in Iraq.

See here -
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41104000/gif/_41104744_pessimism2_gra203.gif

It is my opinion that democratic change should come from within - either by internal rebellion or a shift in policy from above. Outside intereference, especially when such interference is morally questionable, is not a good thing IMHO.

I am happy for the iraqis and their new government, but I am not appreciative that 30,000 Iraqis and ~2000 Americans are dead, or of the fact that more civilians die per day under the occupation than did under Saddam. Nor am I happy that we felt we had the right to go into another nation and dictate what their lifestyle and form of government should be. And I don't feel that I'm doomed to hell for those opinions.

That's what I have to say to the quote.

Does any1 else feel slightly spurious about the website? I mean, come on, "The Political Teen?" Not a lot of teens these days have political savy or wisdom, be they left or right wing. Then again, most political sites these days are just hotbeds of ideologues and pundits trying to wholesale mud-slinging or apoligest dreck.

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

LOL! I saw this video on the news. That lil old lady was pissed, man! I sure wouldn't wanna cross her! :D

“Anybody who doesn’t appreciate what America has done and President Bush, let them go to hell”

LOL! I saw this video on the news. That lil old lady was pissed, man! I sure wouldn't wanna cross her! :D

The lil old ladies are always the most dangerous of people. BBEEEEWWAAAAARRRE!:D

Does any1 else feel slightly spurious about the website? I mean, come on, "The Political Teen?" Not a lot of teens these days have political savy or wisdom, be they left or right wing. Then again, most political sites these days are just hotbeds of ideologues and pundits trying to wholesale mud-slinging or apoligest dreck.

How many teens are in political discussions right here on NS? This was a clip off a major news network.

Funny that you brought this up, even though no one had anything negative to say yet. So, people who don't agree with you are damned if they do or damned if they don't, I guess.

Stuff it.

Good for this woman. I'm glad not everyone there hates us.
Man, what the hell. I just expressed an opinion. No need to start the personal attacks. Stuff it? I hope you aren't representative of this forum. Pretty juvenile. :rolleyes:

Okay, fine, you want a direct answer.

She's entitled to her opinion. But one opinion does not the opinion of a people make. Most Iraqis have a negative view of the US's performance in Iraq.

See here -
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41104000/gif/_41104744_pessimism2_gra203.gif

It is my opinion that democratic change should come from within - either by internal rebellion or a shift in policy from above. Outside intereference, especially when such interference is morally questionable, is not a good thing IMHO.

I am happy for the iraqis and their new government, but I am not appreciative that 300,000 Iraqis and ~2000 Americans are dead, or of the fact that more civilians die per day under the occupation than did under Saddam. Nor am I happy that we felt we had the right to go into another nation and dictate what their lifestyle and form of government should be. And I don't feel that I'm doomed to hell for those opinions.

That's what I have to say to the quote.

Now it's three hundred thousand Iraqi dead? The poll is just what it is. A poll! I would rather see live footage of an Iraqi speaking there mind than another mindless poll.

It is my opinion that democratic change should come from within - either by internal rebellion or a shift in policy from above. Outside intereference, especially when such interference is morally questionable, is not a good thing IMHO.

That's fine, but what do you recommend in the real world on Earth?

The lil old ladies are always the most dangerous of people. BBEEEEWWAAAAARRRE!:D
You better KNOW it, man! Dem lil ole hands can make one HELL of a deep impression! :D

Man, what the hell. I just expressed an opinion. No need to start the personal attacks. Stuff it? I hope you aren't representative of this forum. Pretty juvenile. :rolleyes:

Maybe it was because of this quote:

Why is it that we should only listen to the Iraqis with AK-47s?

Being provacative and then pretending innocence when someone calls you on it isn't exactly mature behavior now, is it? This "oh, everyone persecutes me! Even when they don't say anything they're persecuting me!" act doesn't wash.

Life sucks, wear a helmet.

That's fine, but what do you recommend in the real world on Earth?

Ummm, so America doesn't exist? Oh yeah, I guess you're right. Democracies can't self-generate...:rolleyes:

Maybe it was because of this quote:



Being provacative and then pretending innocence when someone calls you on it isn't exactly mature behavior now, is it? This "oh, everyone persecutes me! Even when they don't say anything they're persecuting me!" act doesn't wash.

Life sucks, wear a helmet.
Damn right I'm provocative. But you won't catch me pulling out the personal attacks when someone says something I disagree with. I ussually debate it like an adult, instead of telling someone to "shove it" like a 9 year old.

Of course, everyone has their debate tactics, I suppose. I just prefer post-high school options, rather than telling people to shove it like my little nephew. :rolleyes:

Now it's three hundred thousand Iraqi dead?

I'm certain I've heard that casualty figure somewhere, but don't hold me to it. My point is not contingent upon the exact number of dead, anyways.

The poll is just what it is. A poll! I would rather see live footage of an Iraqi speaking there mind than another mindless poll.

In reality, one single Iraqi speaking is meaningless compared to a poll by Oxford University, which can be assumed to use reliable methods of data collection. But if you really want the footage, check Al-Jazeera. They're the one's that play all those insurgent videos anyhow.

In reality, one single Iraqi speaking is meaningless compared to a poll by Oxford University, which can be assumed to use reliable methods of data collection. But if you really want the footage, check Al-Jazeera. They're the one's that play all those insurgent videos anyhow.

I actually watch Arabic sites all the time for footage. AlJazeera like alot of westren media tends to air to many negative stories. I prefer some of the other Arabic media. Could link it if you would like. Only you need to understand Arabic.

That's fine, but what do you recommend in the real world on Earth?

Well, let's examine the real world, shall we?

Countries that came to a democracy on their own, or mostly so (in the order I recall them, so no alphabetical, sorry) -

United States of America
Mexico
United States of Central America(later split into Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Those all gained independence by themselves, so count them in)
Gran Colombia(later split into Colombia, Ecuador, Venesuela. Count them.)
Peru(later split into Peru and Bolivia, so count Bolivia as well)
Argentina
Chile
Britain
Spain
France
Belgium
The Netherlands
Russia(after fall of USSR)
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Belarus
Ukraine
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Kazakstan
Turkmenistan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Turkey(after fall of Ottomans)
India
Pakistan
Bangaladesh
Sweden
Norway
Denmark

And that's off the top of my head. I'll freely explain any of the cases if you need me to. Some were straight up revolutions, some where reformations, some are unusual cases, but all got their republics/democracies/constitutional monarchies(which are democratic) by themselves.

I'm certain I've heard that casualty figure somewhere, but don't hold me to it. My point is not contingent upon the exact number of dead, anyways.

I think Bush said it the other day.

I think Bush said it the other day.
30,000

not

300,000

I actually watch Arabic sites all the time for footage. AlJazeera like alot of westren media tends to air to many negative stories. I prefer some of the other Arabic media. Could link it if you would like. Only you need to understand Arabic.


Wonderful, I need the practise over the winter break. Gotta work on learning that Arabic!

As for Iraqi oppnion. I know an Iraqi and she says she doesn't like the US involvement at all, rather hates it. I am aware that she is not representative of the entire Iraq population, but so am I aware that one Iraqi going on TV (let alone a US new channel, I have no belief in those) is any representation of the Iraqi people as a whole. And because of a ton of factors, I am more inclined to being the person I can talk to face to face then I am a person on TV.

30,000

not

300,000

My mistake.

30,000

not

300,000

Wow. That's a significant typo. I googled it, and you're right, 30,000. Damned misplaced zero...

I'll fix it immediately.

Find me a democracy that self-generates, without the total collapse of a dictatorship, and then you can talk.

Find me a democracy that self-generates, without the total collapse of a dictatorship, and then you can talk.
Britain? England, certainly, and Britain by extension.


edit: lol, just had a thought; I can think of a lot of 'democracies' that imploded due to being imposed from another country without internal support - big chunks of the old British Empire, particularly in Africa, after they gained their independence from the UK. Most of the democracies imposed by Athens at the height of their empire collapsed when the Athenians withdrew their immdeiate support.

Why would one think the situation in Iraq will prove different?

But more generally, perhaps 'imposed' systems of government without a history in the subject-nation tend not to flourish?

Find me a democracy that self-generates, without the total collapse of a dictatorship, and then you can talk.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I not just provide a rather long list of nations that became Republics/Democracies/Constitutional Monarchies on their own?

Though your request has me confused... an example of a democracy self-generating without the total collapse of a dictatorship? It seems like you're asking the impossible of me. By definiton, a democracy would require a total collapse of dictatorial power(though perhaps not of dictatorial titles/offices (see European Constitutional Monarchies)), no?

Let's get back onto the subject of commenting on Betty Dawisha's comment.

Though this one statement may not reflect every person in Iraq, I still find happiness in knowing that a group of people still found this day a day to at least feel happy.

http://www.dustinmhawkins.com/wordpress/?p=15

Find me a democracy that self-generates, without the total collapse of a dictatorship, and then you can talk.

Assuming you mean democracies that formed without violent revolution:

Spain. After Franco died, the Spanish just put back their old liberal constitution.

Portugal. Pretty much the same thing as Spain.

Britain. Modern democratic elements were legislated in over the course of the 19th century.

Switzerland, sort of. They had a tiny civil war of around 100 dead- more like a nasty riot than a war. They then adopted a constitution, which was revised to be very democratic in 1891- Switzerland is the only place in the world to practice direct democracy.

Denmark, maybe- Wiki is unclear on whether or not it was hit by the Revolutions of 1848, or if its adoption of a constitution in 1849 was a precautionary measure.

Sweden. They came close to a violent revolution, but it was avoided.

Norway. Its constitution was put into place in the early 19th century, and its peaceful split from Sweden was finalized in 1905.

India. Aside from a brief "state of emergency" that was ended peacefully, India has been a democracy since independence.

Czechoslovakia pulled it off in the 1910s and '20s, tried to do it in 1968, and finally pulled it off again in 1989, peacefully splitting into two democracies- the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are all democracies, and they all established those democracies peacefully.

Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Azerbaijan... All democracies, all had their governments established peacefully.

Thing is, peaceful democracies are more common than imposed democracies, and revolutionary democracies are rarest of all.

Anyway, on to the Iraqi election: I still think the war was unjustified. However, I hope the new government succeeds, so that something good may come out of this stupid endeavor. Now that Iraq has a real government, the last excuse to keep our troops there is gone. Let's begin a phased withdrawal; if the Iraqi government wants a few US troops to stay there to help train their troops, fine, so long as the majority of the occupiers aren't there pissing people off.

We broke it. It look like it's almost fixed (politically, anyway). No need for us to stick around anymore.

Assuming you mean democracies that formed without violent revolution:

Spain. After Franco died, the Spanish just put back their old liberal constitution.

Portugal. Pretty much the same thing as Spain.

Britain. Modern democratic elements were legislated in over the course of the 19th century.

Switzerland, sort of. They had a tiny civil war of around 100 dead- more like a nasty riot than a war. They then adopted a constitution, which was revised to be very democratic in 1891- Switzerland is the only place in the world to practice direct democracy.

Denmark, maybe- Wiki is unclear on whether or not it was hit by the Revolutions of 1848, or if its adoption of a constitution in 1849 was a precautionary measure.

Sweden. They came close to a violent revolution, but it was avoided.

Norway. Its constitution was put into place in the early 19th century, and its peaceful split from Sweden was finalized in 1905.

India. Aside from a brief "state of emergency" that was ended peacefully, India has been a democracy since independence.

Czechoslovakia pulled it off in the 1910s and '20s, tried to do it in 1968, and finally pulled it off again in 1989, peacefully splitting into two democracies- the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are all democracies, and they all established those democracies peacefully.

Poland, Hungary, the Ukraine, Finland, Georgia, Azerbaijan... All democracies, all had their governments established peacefully.

Thing is, peaceful democracies are more common than imposed democracies, and revolutionary democracies are rarest of all.

A man after my own heart.

I wish you well here on NS sir. :)

Does Israel count?
Well, they were a democracy from the start.

Oh, and Turkmenistan is a dictatorship, bordering on a theocracy that worships their leader, Turkmen-Bashi.

Does Israel count?
Well, they were a democracy from the start.

Oh, and Turkmenistan is a dictatorship, bordering on a theocracy that worships their leader, Turkmen-Bashi.

Eh, I'd say Israel was an imposed democracy- the Israelis went to Palenstine with a constitution (or at least the basis of one) in hand, unlike the other countries mentioned, who lived in their respective areas for centuries or millenia.

I don't see Turkenistan mentioned anywhere on this thread as a democracy. Obviously, not all of the former Soviet republics became democracies; Belarus certainly didn't, and Russia isn't looking too good either.

Assuming you mean democracies that formed without violent revolution:

You know what they say about assumptions.

Spain. After Franco died, the Spanish just put back their old liberal constitution.

In other words, the dictatorship collapsed.

Britain. Modern democratic elements were legislated in over the course of the 19th century.

Required a civil war, and killing a monarch to establish the supremacy of Parliament.

Azerbaijan [and a few other former Soviet Republics]

Have been good at holding elections. Somehow, the result changes little, and there are few liberties.

Thing is, peaceful democracies are more common than imposed democracies, and revolutionary democracies are rarest of all.

The question is do those circumstances apply to Iraq, or could they? The closest you can get to yes is "perhaps, in several decades".

"Democratic peace theory" was an important part of the reasons for war, but it was not the fundamental reason, which was that Saddam Hussein had violated almost every provision of the 1991 ceasefire.

I'd say Israel was an imposed democracy- the Israelis went to Palenstine with a constitution (or at least the basis of one) in hand

No, it wasn't. They established a community on land they acquired legally, and in 1948, declared the State of Israel, which was democratic from the outset.

You know what they say about assumptions.[/quotq]

And what, praytell, did you mean?

[quote] [on Spain and Portugal] In other words, the dictatorship collapsed.

But not violently. Well, 3 Portuguese guys died because the police panicked. Doesn't count very well.

[Britain] Required a civil war, and killing a monarch to establish the supremacy of Parliament.

The English Civil War was in the 1640s, and it didn't establish the prominence of Parliament; it established the prominenc of Cromwell. When he died, Parliament brought in the new king (Charles II, IIRC); his brother, James II, tried to rule autocratically, like his relative, Louis XIV, in France. Parliament carried out the Glorious Revolution (called such because it was bloodless), placing William of Orange as king. Even then, Britain was in no way a democracy; it was controlled mainly by the landed nobility. It wasn't until the 19th century when the real democratic elements were legislated in.

Have been good at holding elections. Somehow, the result changes little, and there are few liberties.

Eh, I wasn't looking too in depth on Azerbaijan; my Wiki-based research indicated that they had established some kind of semi-healthy democracy in 2003. The Ukraine, the Baltic States, and some of the former Eastern Bloc countries are definitely real democracies, though; you'll recall the recent triumphant elections in Ukraine.

Incidentally, you failed to note some of the other countries I mentioned. Do any of them follow the qualifications you set out?

The question is do those circumstances apply to Iraq, or could they? The closest you can get to yes is "perhaps, in several decades".

"Democratic peace theory" was an important part of the reasons for war, but it was not the fundamental reason, which was that Saddam Hussein had violated almost every provision of the 1991 ceasefire.

Aye, I agree that such reforms would probably have been slow in developing; however, they would have happened, especially once Hussein died. Remember, no one expected the USSR to collapse when it did.

The case for violation of the ceasefire terms has been bandied about multiple times. I think that the intelligence was too sketchy, it's obvious that Iraq was not developing nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, and a strong case can be made that Bush and Blair knew this before the war began. It seems to me that the UN inspector expulsions were a foolish attempt by Hussein to intimidate his neighbors- make them think that he was more of a threat to them than he was. That backfired, obviously. Plus, inspectors were let back in in 2002, and they were still looking when the war began.

The case for war was simply too weak, and has been demonstrated as such.