Posted on 04/27/2003 7:57:47 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
"Once the US withdraws from Iraq, it will prove, once again, that it is not an imperial power interested in empire."
- Congressman BillyBob"And that's the goal, the commitment of the United States and our coalition partners -- Iraq must be democratic."
- President Bush
I guess it's not technically an empire if you only conquer a nation, force it to adopt the government of your choice and then pull out -- except for a few permanent military bases, of course -- with the implied threat that you will return and do the same thing again if the people get out of line. It would only be an empire if you conquer a nation, force it to adopt the government of your choice and then remain as an occupying force -- that is, expanding the number of troops in the region beyond just a few permanent military bases -- with the implicit threat that you will do the same thing again if the people get out of line.
As you can clearly see, the differences are staggering. AMERICA IS NOT INTERESTED IN EMPIRE.
The quote you use on history is actually, "Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it." The source is the late, great historian, Georges Santayana.
As for getting this article out, I will be very interested to see, via Google News searches over the next few days, how many parts of the lamestream media choose to pick up and publish this article from UPI.
Cordially,
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
This is also the reason for following the Swiss pattern of a "loose confederation." By all that's right and holy, the presence of Germans, French, and Italians in Switzerland should have caused it to be torn apart in either WW I or WW II. Because of its constitutional design, it survived both those wars intact.
John / Billybob
Second, you ignore the history of all the real empires in human history. They conquered. They retained power. And they extracted tribute, originally in the form of slaves but later in the form of tribute. The United States does NOT retain power (witness Japan, Germany, the Philippines, etc.). And, rather than extract tribute, we send aid.
So, exactly as I said, America does not behave like any other empire in the history of the human race.
John / Billybob
Here is the full text of this article, as published on the UPI wire.
John / Billybob
It towers above everything else of yours that I have read here on FR. Just superb.
For an old redneck, you're not so dumb ;-)
UPI has the article featured on the front page of its website. The timing could not be better, since the "all-coalition" meeting is taking place in Baghdad, right now.
John / Billybob
I hope and I believe that those who write the new Iraqi constitution will not make the same mistake.
John / Billybob
And failing five times previous in Iraq is not repeating history?!? Considering one of those times created the situation that Hussein took advantage of to come into power.
Yes Congressman, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. The numerous times that Britain and France became involved in Middle East affairs, before our own nation had imperialistic visions, were just glowing successes weren't they? Ahhh, but it's the good ol' U.S. of A. now isn't it? So that makes it alright and sets the situation that everything will work out right?
Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights
Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Yes and no. The important thing to remember is that the oil is a resource and that Iraq is "tribal". The incentive to rape that resource to enrich one's own tribe will destroy the collective sense of a "public good" that is necessary to make a Western democracy work and the public utilization of a natural resource like oil work. No, I don't think you can just throw democracy and a free market economy at people who are busy thinking about dominance, not power sharing or the rule of law, any more than you can grow crops by throwing a handfull of seeds in the middle of concrete highway.
Surely you mean in the short term?
Until a super-majority decides to change it, which would mean that Iraqi polictics had matured enough to handle something more democratic.
Long term there would have to privatization of all the major income generators and service providers. An alarm or a little bell should go off in anyone's head anytime they hear, use or think the words "fairly distributed" or their equivalent.
And those alarms would certainly go off if Iraq had a market economy and a vital democratic system to prevent the development of the typical third-world kleptocracy.
Constitutions should deal with fundamental rights. There is no basis for distribution of wealth in a rule of law that is intended to be a sound basis for the development of a "Free Republic".
If the Iraqi people make a tribal grab for the oil so they can use the money to dominate their opponents, much as Saddam did, they can print their contitution on toilet paper because that is all it will be good for. For a constitutional republic to work, you need to have a national identity, the rule of law, and the public's interest in preserving the previous two. They aren't ever going to get there if they are all too busy trying to grab the oil to gain power and any movement in that direction will be killed if any of them succeed in making that grab, and we'll be right back where we were.
"It is unfortunate that you choose to ignore world history in assessing the situation in Iraq."
Based on Post #8, I would say billbears has a pretty good understanding of the situation in Iraq.
Ahh, but if they're truly free, then it isn't our place or right to determine what government another nation chooses. But of course they're not truly free now are they?
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.