State of Iraq

[MMMMMM]

Nicky I agree that costs must play a part in the consideration. However these costs seem like relatively small costs when weighed against the costs incurred elsewhere in struggles for freedom. Be on your guard against being too short-sighted. Costs appear immediately but whether a country has decades--or even centuries--ahead of it in freedom or in tyranny is a BIG, BIG thing.

Freedom is worth more than pure material things, too. I'd rather be a bit poorer and free than a bit richer and danger of my own government or without rights to free speech, etc. Hopefully you agree and can see the merits of this, not just at present, but for the ever-extending future.

[nicky g]

I don't think there's much merit to talking in centuries as noone can know how long the situation in Iraq would have continued without a war, or how long the current "freedom" will last.

"I'd rather be a bit poorer and free than a bit richer and danger of my own government or without rights to free speech, etc."

Sure. But I'm not sure I'd trade living under a tinpot dictatorship for open sewers in the streets, no electricty in one of the hottest places in the world 50% or more of the time, a massively increased chance of a violent death and not being able to work or feed my family properly in return for the chance to live in a free chaotic and corrupt semi-police state. A decrease in material wealth is one thing, large increases in sickness and mortality rates is another.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I was referring to Nicky and Cyrus as "Left".

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm not of the Left, but let's not quibble. I understand what you're trying to say. (And it's more fun this way.)


[ QUOTE ]
I also think that the Left has been amazingly often on the wrong side of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that so? Well, well, well. Care to elaborate?

This has all the makings of turning into a laugh-in. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. But I'm not sure I'd trade living under a tinpot dictatorship for open sewers in the streets, no electricty in one of the hottest places in the world 50% or more of the time, a massively increased chance of a violent death and not being able to work or feed my family properly in return for the chance to live in a free chaotic and corrupt semi-police state. A decrease in material wealth is one thing, large increases in sickness and mortality rates is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but wouldn't you trade it if you only had to endure a relatively short time of stuff like that? Plus the conditions you mention are not affecting all Iraqis.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as justice rules supreme in the United States, there is hope for the Middle East, for Iraqis either living or gratefully dead, for Iraq, for democracy, for freedom, for private property, for the price of oil - for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 years for vandalising cars lol, if thats justice [censored] it, he would probably get a caution over here, now his life is basically [censored], all because the US legal and political system hates environmentalists? Where is the hope, where is the justice, seems draconian in the extreme.

Mack

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't like the Center or Right was wrong on all those things, was it? And the Democrats were more opposed to black civil rights than were the Republicans at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, talking about the 'Center' as if it's an ideology gives rise to the false notion that the center is an ideology; the center is hardly ever right or wrong. They're typically never proposing anything other than compromise between opposing factions. Saying 'The Center and the right' were joined together in unity for/against women's rights/segregation/labor is just an attempt to make the right seem more moderate and the left appear more outside the mainstream; which may all be true, but I'd be willing to bet that you would be hard-pressed to prove that the center is always aligned with the right. I wish you luck if you'd like to try though. I can even give you some aid if you'd like. First, define the center, who it consists of (both contemporarily and historically), and what the center believes (again, both now and historically), then diagram how these beliefs align with the right on segregation/women's rights/worker's rights.

Then, when that fails, stop claiming the center is unified with anyone or anything.

Also, claiming 'Democrats' were more opposed to civil rights than Republicans isn't necessarily true (see below); the prescence of conservative Southern Democrats created opposition to Civil Rights within the Democratic party. But it has little power to implicate the left. MMMMMM did not claim DEMOCRATS were on the wrong side of history; he claimed the left was on the wrong side of history, and certainly the left has not always been synonymous with the Democratic Party - particularly in regards to Southern Democrats during the Civil Rights Era. So attempting to claim the left was on the wrong side of civil rights because some Democrats were opposed civil rights fails upon even the softest of scruitny.

Either way, if the voting record from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is any indication, then support/opposition to Civil Rights didn't break on party lines, but geographical ones:

Vote totals, Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5

Civil Rights Act of 1964

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Good thing they were right on slavery, women's rights, segregation and worker's rights, huh?



[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure what "workers rights" exactly means, but if you mean the modern labor movement in the U.S. it has basically decimated the working middle class in the U.S.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but wouldn't you trade it if you only had to endure a relatively short time of stuff like that? Plus the conditions you mention are not affecting all Iraqis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends what you mean by relatively short. It looks to many of us that Iraq will end up a democracy in name where parties get and hold onto power through intimidation violence and curruption, making it only marginally better than the previous administration. Also it should be noted that many believe that Saddam's power structure was weakening to the point where his reign wouldn't have lasted much longer, that though he had murdered hundreds of thousnads in the past- he was no longer capable of doing so, and that large sections of Iraq were out of his power, and living a reletively free existance (those living under the no fly zone).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks again boys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I sense your outrage at the insurgents and I share that outrage towards the insurgency with you. Glad to see that at least you understand and grasp the criminal and evil nature of the Iraqi insurgency, the insurgency that targets innocent civilians; the insurgency that rejects the right of the Iraqi people to choose their government; the insurgency opposed to democracy; a mindless insurgency with no political purspose other than to oppress free people and destroy their institutions. Congrats nicky didn't know you had it in you.

[ACPlayer]

You should learn to be more precise in your writing so that people can be precise in their reading.

Regarding the Left being right more or the right being left (behind) more those are subjective opinions. You offer them often, usually without definitions. Amazing!