Three questions for GuruJane

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #1
I know that trying to have a reasoned discussion, on this board, is like trying to find an atheist in the Bush administration, but anyway… I’d be interested in your answers to these:

1. Why do think the Americans would put a properly representative democracy in Iraq, when any government that represented the will of the Iraqi people would be antagonistic toward the US, totally opposed to Israel (and its very existence), and primarily concerned with keeping the price of oil as high as possible?

2. Why do you think the man who supported a coup in Venezuela (which could only have resulted in a Pinochet style purge of Chavistas, so that they wouldn’t have the numbers anymore, before setting up democracy again), is seriously interested in fostering democracy?

3. Why, when you can surely see there are good reasons to be suspicious of Bush’s motives (or concerned about the possible outcomes in Iraq), do you continue to berate "pseuds" lke we're Stalinists from the 1950's?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#2
Good questions, will try to answer:

MightyFighting said:
I know that trying to have a reasoned discussion, on this board, is like trying to find an atheist in the Bush administration, but anyway… I’d be interested in your answers to these:

1. Why do think the Americans would put a properly representative democracy in Iraq, when any government that represented the will of the Iraqi people would be antagonistic toward the US, totally opposed to Israel (and its very existence), and primarily concerned with keeping the price of oil as high as possible?
Why are you presupposing what the attitudes of a democratically elected government in Iraq would be?

Why would you assume such a government would be antagonistic towards the US? Sistani, leader of the moderate Sh-i-ites who are likely to form the majority, has shown no signs of being "anatagonistic". Sistani actively participated in reining in the firebrand extremist Al Sadr and the disarming of his Mehdi army.

Allawi, the present Prime Minister, has shown no signs of being antagonistic. Nor has the president and two vice presidents, nor has the current Iraqi cabinet.

Finally, the Kurds, who will form the significant part of any federal government, are openly supportive of the US and forever grateful to the US for having liberated them from Saddam.

2. Why do you think the man who supported a coup in Venezuela (which could only have resulted in a Pinochet style purge of Chavistas, so that they wouldn’t have the numbers anymore, before setting up democracy again), is seriously interested in fostering democracy?
Have no knowledge and therefore understanding of the Venezuela coup, so can't comment.

3. Why, when you can surely see there are good reasons to be suspicious of Bush’s motives (or concerned about the possible outcomes in Iraq), do you continue to berate "pseuds" lke we're Stalinists from the 1950's?
I don't have a rosy view of Bush's motives.

My assessment is and always has been, that the US has been given no choice but to use its military and economic power to bring western style democracy, political freedoms and economic prosperity to the Muslim countries ever since 9/11 demonstrated the danger of the rise of islamic fascism and the threat to the world when they get their hands on dirty nukes.

So imo Bush is pursuing these policies because he knows there is no other alternative. The US cannot simply afford to go on pursuing the old Kissinger Doctrine of propping up "friendly" dicatorships. It's fatal in these days of globalisation and information technology.

Pseuds. I berate the pseuds because they claim to be "left" and "progressive" when in fact they are reactionary and want the world to go back to the Kissinger Doctrine. In fact they are so reactionary, they even support the rentention of fascist regimes! That is why they have to wear the badge of being "fake" leftists, Mightyfighting.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #3
1. Surely you acknowledge that the Iraqi people are opposed to Israel, and that it is in Iraq's interest to keep the oil price as high as possible?

2. Venezuela is central to this arguement, it proves that the Kissinger doctrine isn't dead, just hidden.

3. But our reasons are based on not trusting the people who brought us Kissinger, Pinochet and the Shar of Iran. What proof do we have that their conversion to a true belief in world democracy is genuine?
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#4
MightyFighting said:
1. Surely you acknowledge that the Iraqi people are opposed to Israel, and that it is in Iraq's interest to keep the oil price as high as possible?
All people in ME Muslim countries are opposed to Israel. I don't see why this would affect the US's determination to have a democracy in Iraq. Besides, perhaps when all Muslim countries are democracies the peoples won't be so opposed to Israel any more?

It's in ALL oil producing countries interests to keep oil prices as high as possible. But oil prices are basically set by supply and demand and opec aren't they?

2. Venezuela is central to this arguement, it proves that the Kissinger doctrine isn't dead, just hidden.[/qupte]

I don't know anything about it, and I don't know the detail. Sorry.

3. But our reasons are based on not trusting the people who brought us Kissinger, Pinochet and the Shar of Iran. What proof do we have that their conversion to a true belief in world democracy is genuine?
Well we don't. The proof will have to be in the pudding. But there have just been democratic elections in Afghanistan run by the UN, and so far no reason to suppose that the same won't happen in Iraq.

In the meantime the fascist, totalitarian, vicious regimes of the Taleban and the Baathists have been thrown out - just as they were in East Timor - so that's got to be a good start. (If you oppose fascist and totalitarian regimes, that is).
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #5
So you're saying that we should trust Bush (or as he would but it, have faith in him), until such a time as his motives are proven to be false?

So when can we say we no longer trust him? Haven't long-term oil contracts already been signed by the American intrem authority (all gone to American, Bush-friendly companies, of course)?


The important thing to note about Afghanistan is that it's not a democracy yet, and may never become one. Just having presidential elections doesn't make a country a democracy. Russia proves that.


I don't see why you doubt that most Iraqis (or indeed most arabs) hate Israel. You might be thinking that once they're all democracies, they won't be enemies. However, it's a myth that democracies are all friends of each other. History shows that democracies will fight each other as soon as they'll fight undemocratic countries. The only reason democracies haven't fought many wars against eachother, in the modern era, is that they've all tended to be part of the western block since WW2.

If the Iraqi government followed its people's will it would not ally with Israel. In fact, a democratic middle eastern country would be more be more likely to be opposed to Israel, because politicians could win significant votes by bad-mouthing it, Schroder style (ordinary people are less interested in the niceities of diplomacy).
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#6
MightyFighting said:
So you're saying that we should trust Bush (or as he would but it, have faith in him), until such a time as his motives are proven to be false?
You don't have to trust Bush but now he's been elected for another 4 years we're all going to find out. In the recent campaign I never heard Kerry once pledging democracy for Iraq, in contrast to Bush who talked about it all the time.

pSo when can we say we no longer trust him? Haven't long-term oil contracts already been signed by the American intrem authority (all gone to American, Bush-friendly companies, of course)?
The oil is under the control of the interim Iraqi government and the revenue goes to Iraq. I imagine the Iraqis would prefer American companies to be the developer rather than, say, French, wouldn't you?

The important thing to note about Afghanistan is that it's not a democracy yet, and may never become one. Just having presidential elections doesn't make a country a democracy. Russia proves that.
I hope you're not hoping that it never does?

I don't see why you doubt that most Iraqis (or indeed most arabs) hate Israel.
I don't doubt it!!

However, it's a myth that democracies are all friends of each other. History shows that democracies will fight each other as soon as they'll fight undemocratic countries.
Please provide examples in recorded history of one liberal democracy going to war against another liberal democracy. Plenty of people have done studies of this and haven't been able to come up with examples.

The only reason democracies haven't fought many wars against eachother, in the modern era, is that they've all tended to be part of the western block since WW2.
They haven't fought any wars against each other. There are numerous democracies that aren't part of the western bloc in asia and South America.

If the Iraqi government followed its people's will it would not ally with Israel. In fact, a democratic middle eastern country would be more be more likely to be opposed to Israel, because politicians could win significant votes by bad-mouthing it, Schroder style (ordinary people are less interested in the niceities of diplomacy).
If a democratically elected govt of Iraq doesn't want to ally with Israel then that's fine by me. I don't see that would trouble the US. It is not likely that a democratic Iraq would want to go to war with Israel or vice versa.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #9
GuruJane said:
Please provide examples in recorded history of one liberal democracy going to war against another liberal democracy. Plenty of people have done studies of this and haven't been able to come up with examples
I'm so glad you asked...

In the year 415BC the city of Athens, totally unprovoked, invaded the city of Syracuse. Both cities were democracies, both were far more democratic than any modern democratic state. This is one of many examples of democratic states (usually Athens) waging war against other democracies around this time (usually ending with the execution of the other city's male populus).

If you don't like ancient examples... Finland allied with Germany during WW2. Finland was a democracy at the time. Brittain declared war on Finland as a result. While Sweden (another democracy) didn't officially ally with Germany, it did aid them when they invaded Norway, and later Finland.

India and Pakistan (present government of Pakistan excluded) have tended to be democracies since independence. During that time, they fought several wars.


There's probably many more (I don't know everything after all), however, the basic fact that most democracies have been Western block countries (and thus allies) will have decreased the number of wars fought between democracies over the last 60 years.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#10
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkyfreo
Argentina is a democracy. Was it one in the Falklands war, or is it a recent transition?

MightyFighting said:
It was a military dictatorship at the time.
MightyFighting could have added that it was a vicious dictatorship that literally murdered thousands upon thousands of people and lasted until Margaret Thatcher threw them out of the Falklands whereupon Argentina shortly after that became a democracy.

ps the pseudo left opposed that war too.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#11
GuruJane said:
MightyFighting could have added that it was a vicious dictatorship that literally murdered thousands upon thousands of people and lasted until Margaret Thatcher threw them out of the Falklands whereupon Argentina shortly after that became a democracy.

ps the pseudo left opposed that war too.
I'd say most of the left did. I'll have to go back a read Adrian Mole again to brush up on my history of the times!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#13
MightyFighting said:
Margaret Thatcher also supported Pinochet, let's not erect a statue of her yet.
She doesn't have to be a hero.

Countries only ever act in their own interest. W's USA is no different. It just happens that their own interest is now to democratise the Middle East.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#14
MightyFighting said:
I'm so glad you asked...

In the year 415BC the city of Athens, totally unprovoked, invaded the city of Syracuse. Both cities were democracies, both were far more democratic than any modern democratic state. This is one of many examples of democratic states (usually Athens) waging war against other democracies around this time (usually ending with the execution of the other city's male populus).
Oh! But of course! Athens and Syracuse! Why didn't I think of that! Did they have a free press at the time? Did they have separation of executive and judicial? Did women have the vote?

If you don't like ancient examples... Finland allied with Germany during WW2. Finland was a democracy at the time. Brittain declared war on Finland as a result. While Sweden (another democracy) didn't officially ally with Germany, it did aid them when they invaded Norway, and later Finland.
Finland. Well I'll have to brush up on that, but as I recall it Finland had just been absorbed into the USSR as a vassal state??? Er somewhat rendering its democracy a tad redundant? The "democracy" of Finland did not ally with Germany, it was the USSR that forced it on Finland.

Sweden. Did not attack anybody to my knowledge.

India and Pakistan (present government of Pakistan excluded) have tended to be democracies since independence. During that time, they fought several wars.
I don't think Pakistan at any stage qualified to be described as a liberal democracy (eg full franchise, civil rights for all, separation of powers of executive and judicial, free independent press and etc.)


There's probably many more (I don't know everything after all), however, the basic fact that most democracies have been Western block countries (and thus allies) will have decreased the number of wars fought between democracies over the last 60 years.
You'll have to try again. The fact is, liberal democracies do not go to war with each other.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #15
GuruJane said:
Oh! But of course! Athens and Syracuse! Why didn't I think of that!
I don’t know.
GuruJane said:
Did they have a free press at the time?
Free speech was not restricted, no.
GuruJane said:
Did they have separation of executive and judicial?
I’m not sure they had a judicial system that we would recognise. In any case, the decision to go to war was made by the legislative arm, not the executive arm.
GuruJane said:
Did women have the vote?
Can we discount all ancient examples, because of the treatment of women (womyn)? If so, we'll discount a lot of modern examples too. We'd have to discount Australia until 1967, because of the aboriginees. Getting pretty selective, Jane. By this measure there have been hardly any liberal democracies. No wonder they're not fighting eachother, there's only a handful of them.

GuruJane said:
Finland. Well I'll have to brush up on that, but as I recall it Finland had just been absorbed into the USSR as a vassal state???
Nope, Finland had lost territory to Russia, but was still independent and democratic.
GuruJane said:
The "democracy" of Finland did not ally with Germany, it was the USSR that forced it on Finland.
Finland allied with Germany in order to take their territory back (and get some more). The reason why, however is irrelevant. There’s always a reason why.

GuruJane said:
I don't think Pakistan at any stage qualified to be described as a liberal democracy (eg full franchise, civil rights for all, separation of powers of executive and judicial, free independent press and etc.).
Pakistan was as democratic as an impoverished country can be. Iraq will be declared properly democratic if it becomes anywhere near as democratic as Pakistan was. Afghanistan will likely never reach that level of democracy, how could it?
 

BlueMark

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 22, 2003
Posts
2,233
Likes
12
Location
MELB
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#16
GuruJane said:
Good questions, will try to answer:

Pseuds. I berate the pseuds because they claim to be "left" and "progressive" when in fact they are reactionary and want the world to go back to the Kissinger Doctrine. In fact they are so reactionary, they even support the rentention of fascist regimes! That is why they have to wear the badge of being "fake" leftists, Mightyfighting.
What a load of old cobblers Jane.

BTW The Kurds have made it pretty clear they want at the very least a automonous state in the north if not full independence.
 

CharlieG

Go Bloods!
Joined
Jun 22, 2002
Posts
12,985
Likes
358
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
#17
GuruJane said:
She doesn't have to be a hero.

Countries only ever act in their own interest. W's USA is no different. It just happens that their own interest is now to democratise the Middle East.
Yep. It was in their interests to democratise Vietnam in the 1950s, too. Until they realised that their guy wasn't going to win.

Very selective with how you choose to apply history to contemporary issues, aren't you Jane?
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#18
BlueMark said:
What a load of old cobblers Jane.

BTW The Kurds have made it pretty clear they want at the very least a automonous state in the north if not full independence.
What a load of cobblers, Blue Mark. The Kurds are part of the interim government. They hold one of the vice presidentships. Yes they want automony, that is why Iraq is being organised as a Federal system.

They will only go for independence if your and Odan Bin Warner's "freedom" fighters get their way.

and btw, they are prospering and have done so since the no fly zone.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#19
MightyFighting said:
Getting pretty selective, Jane. By this measure there have been hardly any liberal democracies. No wonder they're not fighting eachother, there's only a handful of them.
No they have to be defined as the modern liberal democracy would be ...full franchise, civil rights, independent judiciary, free press.

Nope, Finland had lost territory to Russia, but was still independent and democratic.
Finland allied with Germany in order to take their territory back (and get some more). The reason why, however is irrelevant. There’s always a reason why.
Finland was NOT independant. I doubt if it was democratic after the Russians had finished with it.

Pakistan was as democratic as an impoverished country can be. Iraq will be declared properly democratic if it becomes anywhere near as democratic as Pakistan was. Afghanistan will likely never reach that level of democracy, how could it?
Democracy is not just about having elections. It is also about enshrined democratic institutions. I suggest you look up the proposed Iraqi constitution as an example of what the Iraqis (and the Americans) have in mind.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#20
CharlieG said:
Yep. It was in their interests to democratise Vietnam in the 1950s, too. Until they realised that their guy wasn't going to win.

Very selective with how you choose to apply history to contemporary issues, aren't you Jane?
Bullshyte. The Americans never had any interest in democratising Vietnam.

The reasons why the A,mericans have this interest now should be painfully obvious, given 9/11 and the threatened proliferation of wmds.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #21
GuruJane said:
No they have to be defined as the modern liberal democracy would be ...full franchise, civil rights, independent judiciary, free press.
GuruJane said:
Democracy is not just about having elections. It is also about enshrined democratic institutions.
So, zero countries outside of the western bloc then. Why would western bloc countries invade eachother?

GuruJane said:
Finland was NOT independant. I doubt if it was democratic after the Russians had finished with it.
It was independent and democratic, all Russia did was make Finland give them some land for peace. The didn’t take over the Finish government, because they couldn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#22
MightyFighting said:
So, zero countries outside of the western bloc then. Why would western bloc countries invade eachother?
Not at all. I think you can look at the emerging democracies of Asia and South America and they do not make war on each other nor does the western bloc make war on them.

It was independent and democratic, all Russia did was make Finland give them some land for peace. The didn’t take over the Finish government, because they couldn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War
Well, thanks for that, it was fascinating to get that refresher.

But Finland was clearly an exceptional case which does not prove your point. In the ordinary course of events (ie not being attacked by the totalitarian USSR) it is unlikely that Finland would have gravitated to the Nazis, more likely it would have remained neutral like Sweden.

Britain supported Finland against the USSR, then declared war when Finland allied itself to the Nazis. But did the allies ever invade Finland?

Maybe Norway would be an example? But again it was an exceptional time - given that totalitarian Germany was simply over-running these countries.

You could stretch the argument, for instance, and say that France was also a "democracy" invaded by the Allies in 1944.
 

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #23
Every time I come up with an example, you find some reason why it doesn't count. I'm sure that if I spent many hours I could come up with more examples. However, I'm equally sure that you'd dismiss them.


But let's not forget what we're arguing about, democratic arab states and their relationships with Israel. The six-day war was fought because the arab states wanted to gain their publics' support by doing something popular. Democratic governments crave public support more than dictatorships. Therefore, democratic arab states are more of a problem for Israel (and thus America) than dictatorships. Therefore, Iraq won't be a democracy, it will be a puppet-dictatorship that they will call a democracy.
 

GuruJane

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
15,537
Likes
1,678
Location
home of the mighty sa
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Tottenham
#25
MightyFighting said:
But let's not forget what we're arguing about, democratic arab states and their relationships with Israel. The six-day war was fought because the arab states wanted to gain their publics' support by doing something popular. Democratic governments crave public support more than dictatorships. Therefore, democratic arab states are more of a problem for Israel (and thus America) than dictatorships.
I don't what you're saying. If democratic govts crave public support more than dictatorships, why was the six day war fought because arab govts "wanted to gain their public's support?" Every single one of the Arab states that attacked Israel were dictatorships (Jordan being an absolute monarchy.)

Therefore, Iraq won't be a democracy, it will be a puppet-dictatorship that they will call a democracy.
You obviously don't think much of the present Iraqi interim government, all of whom are marked for death by the "freedom fighters".

You really think Sistani would be a puppet dictatorship?

Do you think the Kurds are a "puppet dictatorship?"

Why would it be in the US's interest to install a puppet dictatorship? The whole point of the democracy exercise is to install free market economies so the middle east states become prosperous instead of the basket cases they are now and therefore give some hope to the young so they stop hating and terrorising people better off than they are.
 
Top Bottom