Bush and Iraq

24

Comments

  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Did you govern yourself to a few drinks this morning?

    Governing yourself means that your will and your actions are linked. Far too often in Iraq, the will of the people was manifested in opposite actions.

    hehe...maybe like a 50/50 kinda thing...

    where does this happen
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    how can i argue with you guys if your giving me half-truths and wrong information.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    macgyver06 wrote:
    No. Self Governing means thh country is Soverign.

    you govern yourself...meaning...if you are a part of a country, no matter what the rule is at the time...you are a part of the collective 'yourself'
    also, iraq technically wasn't a dictatorship, based on the fact

    THEY HAD ELECTIONS!

    Self Government

    The object of the republican form of government and of the principles that are essential to that form, is to enable a people to govern themselves to the most practicable extent possible. Not every nation of people are capable of self-government, and many expected the experiment of the Founding Fathers to fail. But it did not fail, and the experiment proved that an educated and enlightened people are capable of self-government. The question remains, however, the extent to which government by the people themselves may be extended. - Thomas Jefferson

    None of what Jefferson stated applies to the peopleof Iraq under Saddam.

    Do you consider Fidel Castro a dictator? What about Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Hitler? All of these individuals held election while in power but no one else was allowed to oppose them.Holding elections does not mean you are not a dictator when the results of the elections are already predetermined to favor those in power before a vote is even cast.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    apparently i have to instruct that there is an actual definition for this...because people have the lost the ability to determine fact/opinion reality/fake

    lf-gov·erned /ˌsɛlfˈgʌvərnd, ˈsɛlf-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[self-guhv-ernd, self-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    –adjective
    1. governed by itself or having self-government, as a state or community; independent.
    2. self-regulating; self-determining.
    3. exercising self-restraint or self-control.
    [Origin: 1700–10]

    —Related forms
    self-gov·ern·ing, adjective

    —Synonyms 1. autonomous.
    —Antonyms 1. dependent.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    where does this happen

    It happens throughout this world, inversely relative to the enforcement of acceptable behavior by armed thugs. The United States, much of Europe, Australia, many South American nations, Canada......the list of places wherein people's actions are direct manifestations of their will is quite long.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    mammasan wrote:
    Self Government

    The object of the republican form of government and of the principles that are essential to that form, is to enable a people to govern themselves to the most practicable extent possible. Not every nation of people are capable of self-government, and many expected the experiment of the Founding Fathers to fail. But it did not fail, and the experiment proved that an educated and enlightened people are capable of self-government. The question remains, however, the extent to which government by the people themselves may be extended. - Thomas Jefferson

    None of what Jefferson stated applies to the peopleof Iraq under Saddam.

    Do you consider Fidel Castro a dictator? What about Augusto Pinochet, Francisco Franco, Hitler? All of these individuals held election while in power but no one else was allowed to oppose them.Holding elections does not mean you are not a dictator when the results of the elections are already predetermined to favor those in power before a vote is even cast.


    im trying to avoid opinions in my posts.. i won't state how i feel about castro...nor do i think it has anything to do with the middle east
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    It happens throughout this world, inversely relative to the enforcement of acceptable behavior by armed thugs. The United States, much of Europe, Australia, many South American nations, Canada......the list of places wherein people's actions are direct manifestations of their will is quite long.

    im not sure what this is
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    also, I don't clearly know who you all are defending.


    howeve i can understand you don't like saddam... either do I.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    im not sure what this is

    Let me give you an example. You live in Orlando, right? Florida? Part of the US? Assuming that's correct....

    Let's say that you really hate George Bush. I mean, really hate him and you want to remove him from office. Now, let's say you go onto a public website and say something like "George Bush is a filthy douchebag, and let's remove his ass from office right now!" And now let's say that a bunch of people agree with you and take action via their representatives to remove him.

    See what this is? You're putting your will into action. There's no disconnect between your will (a desire to remove George Bush from office) and your actions (public activism to do so).

    Now, under your argument, people in Iraq were free to do this. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein would disagree with you. The trail of the dead potential activists he left behind, killed for nothing more than their opposition to his rule, proves that, as well as the fear held by the living there of facing similar reprisals. The will of the Iraqi people was not linked to their actions.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    also, I don't clearly know who you all are defending.

    I'm defending the rights of the Iraqi people to choose their course without fear of violent reprisal from others. Because of that, I reject both the previous leadership there as well as the current situation. I just happen to agree with George Bush on the original statement that a self-governing Iraq is a noble goal. Of course, George Bush has done little to accomplish that goal, but the goal is noble, nonetheless.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    im not sure who it was, i don't feel like looking

    but someone said something about saddam torturing, killing people of his country

    well.

    Facts

    1.Saddam Killed Kurds
    2.Kurds resided on outskirts of city
    3.Kurds publically displayed to be seperate from Iraq/Gov't
    4.Kurds allowed to remain on outskirts of populous cities within Iraq borders.

    Opinion

    1. Any country's leader would never allow rebels tot ake over there gov't

    Example

    1. storm the whitehouse demaninding to speak with the president
    2. hold a rally in your college town and dont move when tanks show up
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    macgyver06 wrote:
    im not sure who it was, i don't feel like looking

    but someone said something about saddam torturing, killing people of his country

    well.

    Facts

    1.Saddam Killed Kurds
    2.Kurds resided on outskirts of city
    3.Kurds publically displayed to be seperate from Iraq/Gov't
    4.Kurds allowed to remain on outskirts of populous cities within Iraq borders.

    Opinion

    1. Any country's leader would never allow rebels tot ake over there gov't

    Example

    1. storm the whitehouse demaninding to speak with the president
    2. hold a rally in your college town and dont move when tanks show up


    What are you implying that the Kurds deserved what Saddam dished out because they wanted autonomy.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    macgyver06 wrote:
    im trying to avoid opinions in my posts.. i won't state how i feel about castro...nor do i think it has anything to do with the middle east

    Castro has nothing to do with the Middle East but you stated that Iraq was not a dictatorship because they where elections. I merely brought up other dictators who allowed the same one sided elections and asked if you thought that these men where dictators or not. I don't care what your personal opinions of these men are I just want toknow, in your eyes, are these men dictators or not.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    mammasan wrote:
    Castro has nothing to do with the Middle East but you stated that Iraq was not a dictatorship because they where elections. I merely brought up other dictators who allowed the same one sided elections and asked if you thought that these men where dictators or not. I don't care what your personal opinions of these men are I just want toknow, in your eyes, are these men dictators or not.

    yes, and every leader in some way i sa dictator. Even American Presidents who act on how they ''feel''

    you can call them representatives or reflections of the people or whatever you want.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    mammasan wrote:
    What are you implying that the Kurds deserved what Saddam dished out because they wanted autonomy.

    im not implying anything.

    those are facts mammasan.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    macgyver06 wrote:
    yes, and every leader in some way i sa dictator. Even American Presidents who act on how they ''feel''

    you can call them representatives or reflections of the people or whatever you want.

    The difference betwwen a dictator and an American president is if the majority of the people do not agree with his decisions and/or action he/she can be removed from office via impeachment or simply not re-elected. I a dictatorship that is not possible.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    The kurds were treated as terrorists by Iraq's supporters of the Iran/Iraq war.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    macgyver06 wrote:
    im not implying anything.

    those are facts mammasan.

    So derived from the facts that you presented you believe that the Kurds where deserving of Saddam's actions? It's not a hard question to answer, so quit beating around the bush.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    mammasan wrote:
    The difference betwwen a dictator and an American president is if the majority of the people do not agree with his decisions and/or action he/she can be removed from office via impeachment or simply not re-elected. I a dictatorship that is not possible.

    True.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    mammasan wrote:
    So derived from the facts that you presented you believe that the Kurds where deserving of Saddam's actions? It's not a hard question to answer, so quit beating around the bush.


    The kurds were treated as terrorists by Iraq's supporters of the Iran/Iraq war.

Categories