OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:08:15 +1000, John Cook
wrote:


Quick question, what exactly are we teaching them?.

Cheers

John Cook


Do you watch the news much? Spain gets a huge terrorist incident
right before an election so they vote in a terrorist sympithizer (may
as well be) and his first order of business is to have any Spanish
troops in Iraq leave so fast all you see is the cloud of dust. I was
being sracrastic when I said "that'll teach 'em". Incidents like this
only encourage the terrorists. Next time they want something in
Spain they'll just blow something up to make sure they get it. And I
thought the French were bad.

i know you were being sarcastic, I was just wondering what we are
teaching Iraqi's.

The Iraqi situation is a **** up, the whole premise of the invasion
was based on lies or at best stage managed intellegence, then despite
warnings that without international support it would quickly turn into
a **** fight, The US decided to 'save' the Iraqi's from Saddam (I
can't find any good reference to Saddams links with Al Queda).

Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.
Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

Then look at what other countries fit into the reasons why we went to
war, China, North korea, virtually the whole middle east, Russia.

Its beginning to look like the 'war on terrorism' is just an excuse
for some really terrible political decisions.

How do you think the US has managed to turn the overwhelming
international support and outrage of the Sept 11th attack into a
minority of 'hard core' countries that now find it difficult to
disengage from the whole sorry mess.

People are calling the French cowards (and I'm not a great fan of the
french) but all they did was say that it was a bad idea to invade on
the flaky intellegence available and they wouldn't support such an
action (now they have been proved correct), the UN said wait till the
weapons inspectors have finished their work because they were
exausting all possible avenues, The US decided to give Saddam an
ultimatum, produce the WMD in 10 days or else. (Well the US has had a
year wheres the WMD?, 'oops we made a mistake' seems a little thin.)

Preemptive attacks are a pretty stupid idea especially when the
reasons for the attack evaporate, and It certainly hasn't helped the
US now, In fact the whole Iraq fiasco has helped the extremist anti
western elements hugely, uniting diverse factions against western
interests, splitting western allies, and destroying US international
credability especially its Integellence agencies.

Now ask yourself what positives have been achieved?.

The Iraqi's are now being 'helped' by the US, they are spending the
Iraqi Oil money with mainly American companies to rebuild the war torn
country.
Thats rather like having a mugger break into your house, and you pay
him to fix the damage he's done..


All in All the war on terrorism seems to be acheiving the extremists
aims more that western interests, its not a question of cowardice.
Whats required is common sense and sensible foreign policys to stop a
crusader type new holy war breaking out either through stupidity or
the perception that is a christian v muslim thing..


Just My 2 pennys worth

Cheers

Then look at what other countries fit into the reasons why we went to
war, China, North korea, virtually the whole middle east, Russia.

Its beginning to look like the 'war on terrorism' is just an excuse
for some really terrible political decisions.

BEGINNING???

John Cook wrote:


Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.

Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would
quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
Iran - and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
- like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
Middle East.

Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

If that was was true, recent polls wouldn't show that
the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
them to the thugs and Jihadis until they are capable of
dealing with these criminals on their own...

Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote in message ...
John Cook wrote:


Ask yourself a couple of questions,
Why are we in Iraq?.

Because a reasonably-secular and democratic Iraq would

Which is now a pipe-dream.

quickly be followed by a democratic (rather than theocratic)
Iran -

Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.

and both have the resources to be an economic miracle
- like S. Korea - leading to stability and a more peaceful
Middle East.

Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


Why don't the people in Iraq want us there?.

If that was was true, recent polls

Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

wouldn't show that
the average Iraqi (70% or so) doesn't want us to abandon
them to the thugs and Jihadis

Which does not translate to that the 70% of the Iraqi people wanted
them there in the first place.

until they are capable of
dealing with these criminals on their own...

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.


And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true. The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy. It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests of the civilized world.


Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much. The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown. Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message .com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.

I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state. Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.

Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.

of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?

And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.

Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.


Jarg

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Jarg" wrote in message
.com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.



I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah. How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?


I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?


Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.
Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.




And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.



Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran. Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world. The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.
As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran. It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.


of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.




Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?



Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets. He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary. Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship. Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women. Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".


And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.



The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.


Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.




It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes. In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

Jarg

"Jarg" wrote in message .com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...
"Jarg" wrote in message
.com...
"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.

Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections.

There are always limits to a pure democracy - for instance the
judiciary or a constitutional head of state in most west minister type
democracies. Not that I am arguing that the current state in the
evolution of the Iranian democratic state is examplary, but it is
pretty good progress overall compared to the American supported ideal
- the Shah Monarchy.



I see little democracy in Iran, certainly no more than occured under the
Shah.

I will tell you how much democracy there was under the Shah: Zero.

How many of the candidates were disallowed by the mullahs in the last
elections?

You tell me.



I never said that Iran was a democracy in the image of the US - but it
is a functioning and vibrant democracy none the less, and more
importantly evolving towards a better state, with all the ups and
downs in its journey. Before comparing it to Swiss, UK or US model
please remember that they just had a bloody revolution and a bloodier
war and not few hundred years of fairly peaceful and economically
productive years in which to evolve.

And if you think that it is way too authoritarian then just look at
the manner in which in which a single terrorist attack has undermined
the civil liberties in the US and how that nation has taken the first
tentative steps towards the establishment of a police state.


What an absurd idea. Do you live in the US?

About four months in the year.



Iran has
had to deal with worse - including now the damocles sword of threat of
invasion for future possible transgressions.
Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Exactly the same could be said, for instance, of the US. Most of its
citizens are poorly educated about Iraq or Iran and are constantly
exposed to indoctrination by the media, even the reviled US 'liberal'
media would be far right of center in most countries.



Most Americans are far better educated than the average Iranian with the
added benefit that they have a free press as a source of information. The
US media is much more varied than you allow.




And the confrontationist attitude that US takes towards Iran hampers
political liberalisation, rather than encourage it.


Hard to say, but I doubt this is true.

Standing external threat, the axis of evil rhetoric, threats and talk
of invasions, expressed desire to overthrow the current regime make
the those in control justifiably paranoid and weakens the hands of the
reformers. This is obvious.

The Iranian government isn't just
reacting to US policy.

Ofcourse not. That would ascribe to the US for more influence than it
enjoys; but it is certainly a major (or THE major) factor in the
Iranian calculations.

It has its own agenda that clashes sharply with the
interests

Good for them. Which country does not have its own agenda? I dont see
any particular reason that Iran should apologitic about a 'Iran first'
agenda. And another way to put it would be that Western interests
clash sharply with persian interests. As far as I know Iran is not
publicly planning and equipping for global domination or a New Iranian
Century. No Iranian carrier battle groups conduct freedom of
navigation excercises off Boston Harbour, occasionally shooting down
airliners. There is no funding for overthrowing the Bush regime and
bringing 'true' democracy to America.



Don't try to pretend there is some equivalence between US and Iran.

Hardly. They are both unique in both their good and their evil.

Iran
is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy which has largely had a negative
influence in the world.

But US has also had a larger negative influence on the world (along
with a larger share of the positive influence due to its large size
and economy).

The US is recognized as the leader of the
democratic world

Recognised? By Whom?

I live in a democratic country and if you asked the joe on the street
he would laugh at you.

and a source of inspiration for many freedom loving people.

Oh, yes - I agree. But the US is also the anti-christ personified for
other freedom loving people.

As for the presence of US force, they serve to help protect other nations in
the region from Iran.

Get a grip. The American forces are there for only one reason - to
protect their own strategic interests, which since the end of the cold
war are largely limited to securing oil security - by hook or crook.

It's hard to imagine that any US sponsored change of
government in Iran wouldn't be an improvement.

One merely has to look at the improvements in Afghanistan and Iraq to
counter your assertion. BTW many believe that _any_ change in the
current US regime (Iran sponsored or not) will be an improvement.



of the civilized world.

This is unadulterated hubris.



Not at all. Examples of uncivilized behavior are abundant, for example
public beatings, sponsorship of terrorists, hostage taking, etc.

LOL. I suppose they are also guilty of not using toilet paper and
forks or burping loudly.

Dear me! If you really came down to it do you realise how much of that
could be pinned on america too? Subverting democracy, aggressive war,
collective punishment etc are not the signs of civilized behaviour
either.





Iran would have been an economic miracle if its democratic government
wasnt overthrown by vested external interests and a monarchy installed
in its place. It would have been nice to if a bloody dictator hadnt
been encouraged and helped to wage a decade long war against it.


I thought you said they have a democracy! The Shah was by far the most
progressive government Iran has had, which isn't saying much.

This is so silly.


Wow! the US installed Shah monarchy with its savak terror was an
improvement over the Mossadegh government?



Indeed it was. Mossadegh's only notable (and foolish) idea was the
attempted nationalization of British assets.

Foolish? I suppose he should have let Britain control his nation's
most precious asset.

He demostrated clear
tendancies towards demogogary.

You mean like most of the current world leaders?

Many of his peers believed he aspired to
dictatorship.

Hearsay and Conjecture.

Whereas the Shah made a concerted effort to drag Iran into
the modern world, including efforts at increasing literacy, land reform and
voting rights for women.

But that does not mean that he was repressive, bloody minded dictator
at the same time.

Incidentally, repression under the Islamic
government is well documented

I dont doubt that.

and much worse than it ever was under the Shah
and the "savak terror".

Perhaps. I am not aware of any metric that compares the two.



And look at the state of democracy in Iran, which broke its US
shackles with those still under western influence - KSA et al.

The economy
of Iran improved dramatically under the Shah and collapsed when he was
overthrown.

A rise and decline in which the US had a prominient part to play.



The current Iranian government has only itself is to blame, including its
poor economic policies - centralized planning, lack of diversification, and
state ownership of key industries for example - and the isolation resulting
from efforts to spread Islamic revolution.

You think a bloody revolution, embargo and a decade long bloody war
had nothing to do with it? There goes your credibility.



Part of that was Saddams doing, but mostly it is the result of
foolish governement political and economic policies.

Politically it was a time for terror and counter-terror which any way
you look at it sucks. But what exactly were the foolish economic
policies and how could they have done it different in a state
undergoing a historical revolution? The economy always goes down the
drain during such times.


Polls taken by occupiers under a military occupation are not very
credible.

I believe the polls were taken by independent news organizations.

Independent only in matter of speaking. US media is neither
disinterested nor completely unbaised or objective; it takes its
patriotic duty pretty seriously. What is acceptable and what
displeases the USG is clearly and publicly articulated and largely its
preferences are adhered to by US media companies. How much value would
you ascribe to a poll taken by Al-jazeera or by Fox? Being independent
is a prequiste but certainly not sufficient for being objective.




It doesn't follow that an organizations ideoliogical biases would show in
the polls it takes.

And there is a pretty good chance that they would too. Hence the
skepticism.

In any case the polls being discussed are not by any
given organization but by many.

How many are from those not from the US or its puppet states?


Jarg

Jarg wrote:

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.


Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does, but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Hmmm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
decisions etc can't he?

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Jarg wrote:

"Tuollaf43" wrote in message
om...


Iran is democratic. US wouldnt give a damn weather Iran was democratic
or theocratic dictatorship as long as its government could be
persuaded to look after US interests. See KSA.


Iran is not a democracy since the clergy has a veto on all political
decisions including eligible candidates in elections. Which isn't to
say
the current Iranian government doesn't enjoy popular support. It does,
but
only because the majority of Iranians are poorly educated and constantly
exposed to indoctrination.

Hmmm...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US president can veto political
decisions etc can't he?

Not irrevocably he can't. Provisions are in place for overriding a veto, and
they have indeed been used. DON'T try to cast the US as being similar to
Iran in terms of level of democratic freedom--you will lose, badly.

Brooks

Brooks