Posted on 12/05/2005 1:09:57 PM PST by jmc1969
Sen. Charles Schumer is predicting failure for Iraq's democratically-elected government, complaining that the vote next week to determine the country's new parliament is being "imposed" on the Iraqi people by the U.S.
"There will be no government in Iraq the way they're trying to structure it now," the New York Democrat told WABC-TV's "Behind the News" on Sunday. "They're going to have these elections but that's sort of being imposed on them."
Schumer questioned the legitimacy of the Iraqi vote despite sky-high turnouts for the country's January and October elections, which saw a higher percentage of voter participation than in U.S. elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
They all co-existed reasonably well until Saddam's regime, when he played them off against each other, taking advantage of natural differences. Much of the animosity today stems not from the old divisions but from the effects of recent instigations by Chuckie's friend in the dock. . .
"How did this maroon get elected? The people of NY are stupid!!!!!!"
Most of the people of NY are either limosine liberals, welfare dependent, or public union thugs. It's embarassing that Schumer and Clinton are senators but all they do is promise more government handouts stolen from the producers of wealth (those working in the private sector). New York is an economic backwater stuck in the 1960's.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
The Democrats are against democracy. Never thought I'd see the day when they'd come out against free elections.
Look back at the election of 2000 and 2004 it was obvious they are against anything free elections or otherwise !
Shumer is THE number one horses ass out there. Met him once in NYC. He has a smile plastered on his face at all times.Every word out of his mouth is a prepared statement.I mean EVERYTHING.He's like a wind up doll. Massivly obvious fraud. He took questions and completly avoided saying ANYTHING. He's garbage
The frickin Democrats are all insane , There can be no other answer, They are all insane.
Japan had been bombed into submission before the U.S. established an elected government there after World War II. By the time that war ended, the people of Japan would have accepted Ronald McDonald as emperor for life if that's the kind of government the U.S. wanted to establish there.
The U.S. approach to Iraq today is nothing like that . . . it's "nation-building" without a thorough eradication of what stood there before. And you be sure about one thing: If FDR had stood up in 1945 and declared that "fascism is a religion of peace," he would have been chained to his wheelchair and dumped off a bridge into the Potomac River.
Dis-aggregation and "downsizing" is the clear trend around the world today -- as more and more people understand that totalitarian governments are a necessity whenever people from different religious/cultural/ethnic backgrounds are thrown together and expected to live as a "nation." This is true whether we are talking about the harsh totalitarianism of Eastern Europe and the Middle East or the soft, lazy totalitarianism of a Western country like Canada. Paper nations like the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia have been consigned to the dustbin of history over the last 15 years, and the people in those places are better off today than they were before -- primarily because they were able to shed what were basically fraudulent notions of nationhood.
Why the U.S. thinks Iraq will be any different is beyond me. In fact, the U.S. quite specifically cannot promote real "freedom and democracy" in Iraq, since the people of Iraq -- if left to determine their futures independent of any outside influence -- would likely decide to break the country up.
I do agree with you about the "religion of peace" nonsense. Re Japan vs. Iraq--the Japenese were fanatically loyal to the Emperor.
He and his henchmen didn't go around starving, maiming and raping their own population.
In contrast, the majority of Iraqis hate Sadam. The so-called insurgents would be better described as fascist death squads. As I said in my previous post, 70% of Iraqis have undergone enormous hardships and also risked death, in order to vote. That bespeaks an extraordinary committment to making democracy work.
This paragraph just shows again that you're not ready to deal with reality. First, it makes no historical sense for you to make that assertion. In about 1850 you could have pointed to Canada and said the same thing--no common religion, culture or ethnicity, just a British mandate that they get along. It is also belied by the fact that Iraq has functioned as a nation for quite some decades now, and has done all things nations do. Second, it doesn't square with current reality. The groups in question have agreed on a constitution and are implementing it. Your view of the nation of Iraq as a fictional entity would have been a bit dim in July of '03, but eight days out from the first parliamentary elections it's downright silly.
Dis-aggregation and "downsizing" is the clear trend around the world today -- as more and more people understand that totalitarian governments are a necessity whenever people from different religious/cultural/ethnic backgrounds are thrown together and expected to live as a "nation."
Actually, you've described the U.S. pretty well, and we're doing fine.
This is true whether we are talking about the harsh totalitarianism of Eastern Europe
Actually, Eastern Europe is pretty short on totalitarian regimes right now. Are you using an almanac from the early 1980s or something? The exception, Russia, is run by a control freak, and he'd probably act the same way if the country was made up of clones.
Paper nations like the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia have been consigned to the dustbin of history over the last 15 years, and the people in those places are better off today than they were before -- primarily because they were able to shed what were basically fraudulent notions of nationhood.
You have shown your abyssmal understanding of human nature here. The primary reason those people are better off today is because they were able to shed communism. You think the folks in Slovenia will be glad to have the Commies back as long as they're Slovenian Commies? Give me a freakin' break. No wonder you think Iraq isn't a state when you can't figure out why Czechs and Slovaks wanted to breath free.
In fact, the U.S. quite specifically cannot promote real "freedom and democracy" in Iraq, since the people of Iraq -- if left to determine their futures independent of any outside influence -- would likely decide to break the country up.
If so, good for them, but you have opposed them having that choice and yet have pretended to be a friend of liberty. You are nothing of the sort, and this post I'm responding to has demonstrated that you don't even really understand the concept.
Amen to that!
There are three basic points to note about Canada in this regard:
1. From a political standpoint, Canada is no more stable today than it was 155 years ago. There is a referendum in Quebec about potential secession every 10-15 years, and armed insurrection was a reality for Canada even as recently as the mid-1970s.
2. Canada's defining characteristic is a small population spread over a vast land mass. Canada has a population similar in size to the greater New York City metro area -- but living in a gepgraphic area larger than the entire United States. This is one of the primary reasons why it has enjoyed stablity on a local level despite the instability on the national level. Canada isn't even really a country at all . . . as evidenced by the fact that the national government in Ottawa is utterly incapable of enforcing any of its own laws. Canada is basically a confederation of semi-autonomous provinces and territories that bears a striking similarity to the U.S. before the Civil War.
3. There are two basic things that make Canada "work" to the extent that most other countries in similar situations would not: the combination of its Anglo-Saxon foundation(which tends to produce very orderly societies and government structures) and its harsh climate. The latter is often overlooked in the world today, but it's no accident that Anglo-Saxon countries in cold climates are disproportionately represented among the most ordered, structured (and economically successful) societies in the world today. The hostile climate makes creative ingenuity necessary for survival, whereas nations closest to the equator are adversely affected by what is known as the "Fruit Tree Syndrome" (which basically means that survival doesn't require enough energy and ingenuity to keep people focused on what they do for a living).
It is also belied by the fact that Iraq has functioned as a nation for quite some decades now, and has done all things nations do.
This doesn't mean anything in the context of this discussion. The Soviet Union functioned as a state for more than 70 years, but was no more a "nation" than Yugoslavia was. That's why a totalitarian government was a necessity in those places -- because these states were comprised of religious and ethnic groups that never would have come together on their own.
Second, it doesn't square with current reality. The groups in question have agreed on a constitution and are implementing it. Your view of the nation of Iraq as a fictional entity would have been a bit dim in July of '03, but eight days out from the first parliamentary elections it's downright silly.
There is no question that the "state" of Iraq is really operating under duress. These elected leaders were presented with a plan for a unified government, and that this unified government would have to be propped up come hell or high water. This is far from a stable situation. Heck, in the Kurdish region of Iraq many of the government offices don't even fly an Iraqi flag -- they fly the Kurdish flag.
Actually, you've described the U.S. pretty well, and we're doing fine.
You'll note that the U.S. is the exception, not the rule. There are more independent states in the world today than there were 25 years ago -- and this was entirely the result of the break-up of formerly unified states. The U.S. is "doing fine" primarily because of an accident of history. North America is a very young region in terms of organized human settlement, which means we are not affected by religious and ethnic disputes that go back hundreds or even thousands of years.
Actually, Eastern Europe is pretty short on totalitarian regimes right now.
Exactly. The totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe were eradicated once the fictional post-WW2 "paper states" were eliminated.
You have shown your abyssmal understanding of human nature here. The primary reason those people are better off today is because they were able to shed communism. You think the folks in Slovenia will be glad to have the Commies back as long as they're Slovenian Commies? Give me a freakin' break. No wonder you think Iraq isn't a state when you can't figure out why Czechs and Slovaks wanted to breath free.
There's only question that needs to be answered in this regard: Would the Czechs and Slovaks be better off today if they lived in a unified (and non-Communist) Czechoslovakia? I don't think so, and apparently they don't either.
If so, good for them, but you have opposed them having that choice and yet have pretended to be a friend of liberty.
You misunderstand me completely. I'm not opposed to allowing the people of Iraq the freedom to break Iraq into three different states. It's the U.S. government and the "provisional governing authority" in Iraq that are opposed to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.