Life in Liberated Iraq

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
My point isn't that Iraq has failed to achieve "the perfect model for a democratic government." My point is that the new government is repressive and abusive, contrary to the impression one garners from the MSM, and much like war opponents like myself predicted, after pointing to other examples of U.S. intervention in poor countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
That may not have been your point, but I think you've set a bar that is almost impossible for a group of people that have lived under the conditions they have. And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed. Whether or not you believe that is what your doing remains to be seen, but that is the consistent behavior of the anti-bush left since the man was elected the first time.

So my point is, stop holding expectations that you know can't be met, just so you can nitpick the other side. Understand that even our own authorites can be oppressive sometimes, and we've been a republic for 200+ years! Give Iraq a chance.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've set a bar that is almost impossible for a group of people that have lived under the conditions they have. And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you contend, as Bush and his supporters tend to, that the war was justified in part to relieve the oppression of the Iraqi people, then yours is a circular argument where this condition always holds true no matter how repressive the outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think you're doing it because you want them to fail which you will use to show that Bush has failed. Whether or not you believe that is what your doing remains to be seen, but that is the consistent behavior of the anti-bush left since the man was elected the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong. We don't like Bush because he expresses no interest in the lives of ordinary people, including ordinary Americans, and like most U.S. leaders he apparently has no conscience. He's also dumber than most, at least that's the impression he likes to convey. But Bush isn't the problem.

The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries. There was a strong bipartisan elite consensus for a war of aggression and conquest. One condition for the war was a powerful, institutional consensus about an opportunity to expand U.S. geopolitical power. There was more disagreement among elites than usual, but most of this centered on strategy and tactics for prosecuting the war, not whether the war should be prosecuted. Once the consensus became sufficiently clear, everyone in Washington understood that the war would have to be deceptively sold as some combinaiton of self-defense and grandiose idealism (e.g., the same forumla that almost all countries use to sell almost all wars). Another condition was the moral irresponsibility of a large part of the U.S. public, mostly among Republicans but also a lot of Democrats. 9/11 created a new ability for the government and media to exploit "emotionaly potent oversimplifications" that allowed for a critical mass of public support to develop, at least until we could get in. (The fact of being there created another set of variables that makes it easy for our government to stay.)

Bush's role amounted to chief spokesperson for the public case. If Clinton or his wife had been President, they probably would have done the same.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if we did a survey of all the journalists, the majority if not great majority would be left-leaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen plenty of those surveys over the years. They all come to that conclusion. I doubt anyone would be surprised at that.

The part about Moore's "quibbles" is interesting. The one-liner about getting the gun at the bank/vault speaks volumes on its own. Moore's film was as if he just strolled on in, opened a checking account, gave him a gun, and told him to go shoot someone. When in reality, Moore had to pass the same background check he would have had to pass anywhere else in the country. And then Moore leaves out context and does these "quibbles" time after time after time.

Moore pretends to know what he is talking about or that he might have actual facts to back himself up, but when pressed, he leaves himself outs and says, "Hey, I just do comedy."

[sirio11]

Great post Chris, but I really doubt some people in this forum understand it. Well, not really sure if they understand but just dont care about the truth.

[Kenrick]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries. There was a strong bipartisan elite consensus for a war of aggression and conquest. One condition for the war was a powerful, institutional consensus about an opportunity to expand U.S. geopolitical power. There was more disagreement among elites than usual, but most of this centered on strategy and tactics for prosecuting the war, not whether the war should be prosecuted. Once the consensus became sufficiently clear, everyone in Washington understood that the war would have to be deceptively sold as some combinaiton of self-defense and grandiose idealism (e.g., the same forumla that almost all countries use to sell almost all wars). Another condition was the moral irresponsibility of a large part of the U.S. public, mostly among Republicans but also a lot of Democrats. 9/11 created a new ability for the government and media to exploit "emotionaly potent oversimplifications" that allowed for a critical mass of public support to develop, at least until we could get in. (The fact of being there created another set of variables that makes it easy for our government to stay.)

Bush's role amounted to chief spokesperson for the public case. If Clinton or his wife had been President, they probably would have done the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying life in liberated Iraq for its future generations will be a bad thing compared to what it was?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem was that the most powerful institutions in the U.S. are morally impoverished, both in an absolute sense and when compared to other wealthy countries.

[/ QUOTE ] In international politics and foreign policy, this is a very good thing. I'll let others elaborate.