Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?
- Thread starter reap
- Start date
yeh cuz im like totatlly in love hahahaha
that would be pathetic....cyber-gay-love
Giskard said:
You need to know the history of American foreign policy and the history of the people that Bush brought into his government. When trying to understand what a politician is trying to do, the words of the politician should never be given as much weight as his actions are given. All the talk about creating democracy is as bogus as the talk about WMD was.
There are some reporters who dare to leave the green zone and they give me an idea what Iraqis are thinking.
If Iraqis want a secure real democracy they must remove from power everybody that the Bush placed in high positions within the new Iraqi military and intelligence organizations. If Bush wants to achieve his objectives he must not allow the Iraqis to remove his chosen people from their government. While the struggle against the insurgents and Sunni extremists gets the headlines this other struggle between Bush and Jaafari or his successors will take place without media attention.
nirakar said:
If Bush wants to achieve his objectives, then he and his staff of incompetants should resign. Iraq is one of the best examples of what 'poor' military planning and a 'unjust cause' for going to war can do. If you don't believe it, then ckeck out the latest american polls on the subject.
Okeydoke
Yes, I am of the opinion that Bush's people will still be in place even after the next Iraqi election. It could be decades before they are removed. They can build little patronage fiefdoms within the Iraqi government. US Aid Iraq could be contingent on leaving these people in place. Both Iraqi government and US taxpayer money in Iraq has gone missing and may have been used for bribes. Bribery in all probability will be an important part of Iraqi governing regardless whether it is the White House or Sistani or whoever in the dominant position in the Iraqi political intrigue.
Remember that the French and Germans were willing to spend ther money and take part in the nation building in 2003 (after they passed on being part of the initial war) if they were given some authority and Bush told them no, we still want your money but only America will call the shots on the reconstruction of Iraq. To me that was a sign of the intent to set up a puppet regime in Iraq.
Saddam himself had been on the CIA payroll back in the 1950s and or 1960s. American governments trying to play kingmaker in third world governments by coordinating the actions of many corrupt local officials has been able to keep governments somewhat under US control for decades.
Allawi and Chalabi are high profile examples of US pawns. Neither of them really had much of a power base of their own that was not dependant on US money. I am sure there are thousands more lower level pawns like Chalabi and Allawi. Granted, their loyalty must be continually bought and if the US does not pay enough they may switch their loyalty to Iran or France or whoever. I have heard a report that US tax dollars are paying for several non-governmental goon squads / millitias in Iraq.
Neocons want permanent bases in the gulf area preferably in Iraq. Almost all of both Iraq's Suni and Shiite Arabs strongly dislike the idea of permanent US bases in Iraq.
I believe that a political/security/patronage infrastructure will be successfully created in Iraq that will use many of Saddam's methods and many of Saddam's people slowly destroy the insurgency and to keep control of Iraq for the White House and their own soon to emerge kleptocrat networks. The basis for my beliefs is that history tends to repeat itself and the scenario I describe has been the most typical outcome of situations like Iraq.
I expect Iraqis will understand they don't have a real democracy but most Americans will think that Iraqis have achieved democracy with our help.
The second most typical outcome of a situation like Iraq is that the Jaafari /Sistani forces will win the quiet political intrigue war against Bush and will then create a real or psuedo democracy with them in charge. If this happens while neocons control the white house the expect the Kurdish millitias and the world bank to punish the Iraqi government for daring to defy the White House.
The third most likely scenario is for the Shiites to join the insurgency and for the US citizens to tire of the war and pull out our troops in defeat in perhaps the year 2011.
Remember that the French and Germans were willing to spend ther money and take part in the nation building in 2003 (after they passed on being part of the initial war) if they were given some authority and Bush told them no, we still want your money but only America will call the shots on the reconstruction of Iraq. To me that was a sign of the intent to set up a puppet regime in Iraq.
Saddam himself had been on the CIA payroll back in the 1950s and or 1960s. American governments trying to play kingmaker in third world governments by coordinating the actions of many corrupt local officials has been able to keep governments somewhat under US control for decades.
Allawi and Chalabi are high profile examples of US pawns. Neither of them really had much of a power base of their own that was not dependant on US money. I am sure there are thousands more lower level pawns like Chalabi and Allawi. Granted, their loyalty must be continually bought and if the US does not pay enough they may switch their loyalty to Iran or France or whoever. I have heard a report that US tax dollars are paying for several non-governmental goon squads / millitias in Iraq.
Neocons want permanent bases in the gulf area preferably in Iraq. Almost all of both Iraq's Suni and Shiite Arabs strongly dislike the idea of permanent US bases in Iraq.
I believe that a political/security/patronage infrastructure will be successfully created in Iraq that will use many of Saddam's methods and many of Saddam's people slowly destroy the insurgency and to keep control of Iraq for the White House and their own soon to emerge kleptocrat networks. The basis for my beliefs is that history tends to repeat itself and the scenario I describe has been the most typical outcome of situations like Iraq.
I expect Iraqis will understand they don't have a real democracy but most Americans will think that Iraqis have achieved democracy with our help.
The second most typical outcome of a situation like Iraq is that the Jaafari /Sistani forces will win the quiet political intrigue war against Bush and will then create a real or psuedo democracy with them in charge. If this happens while neocons control the white house the expect the Kurdish millitias and the world bank to punish the Iraqi government for daring to defy the White House.
The third most likely scenario is for the Shiites to join the insurgency and for the US citizens to tire of the war and pull out our troops in defeat in perhaps the year 2011.
nirakar said:
Up until this point in your argument I had no disagreement. Though the scenario you've constructed is hypotheticaland unprovable it is also entirely possible, and perhaps even likely to some degree.
At this point, though, I found myself asking, "What evidence would convince nirakar that Iraq's democracy was genuine?" You suggest in the second paragraph that if the Shiites win a majority and the Kurds and World Bank punish Iraq, then that would indicate things had not gone according to plan, and therefore a sort of democracy had occurred.
My problem is that you seem to be arguing that the only indicators of a true democracy in Iraq must include anti-American sentiment. If Iraqis continue to go about the business of rebuilding their country while maintaining good relations with the US, then as far as you're concerned the democracy is just a sham to put a false front on an American-controlled puppet state. I believe this is a false dichotomy.
Here's an alternative indicator: the peaceful exchange of power after future elections. I think this is a generally used indicator among political pundits anyway, to judge the health of any functioning democracy. If the bigwigs get voted out of office and leave without making trouble for the new government, by jingo, you've got a democracy. Regardless of the influence of foreign "advisors" attached to the bureaucracy.
Okeydoke said:Like you said, if Bush get's envolved in another Muslim country using his infamous 'BIDO' plan for democratic change, then who are 'you' going to blame if it fails?
Okeydoke
If it failed, I'd blame Bush. I don't consider the situation in Iraq to be a failure. And besides, the likelihood that Bush is going to invade another country before the end of his second term is extremely narrow.
BHS said:
I suggested that indicator of a democracy would work as an indicator only if neocons had the White House. Clinton and Bush Senior probably would not react that way, Reagan I don't have an opinion, Carter would not react that way.
I left out the fourth place the Bush administration is telling the truth and really wants real independent democracy for Iraq and will create this democracy. Given the clues that I have been given this is not likely but in my opinion still has about a 3% chance of being the right scenario.
BHS said:
Your right, Peaceful exchange of power is a much better indicator of democracy. You may have to wait several years for the first peaceful exchange of power if the first winners win real re-election.
The Iraqi government does not have to be anti-American to be democratic but if the Iraqi people continue to not want permanent US bases and the Iraqi government gives them permanent US bases anyway then we should question whether or not the Iraqi people are living in a democracy.
As in the USA's CIA, FBI and military the top several positions in these types of organizations are normally appointed positions. Watching whether these people are being kept on by the new administrations is going to require the use of news sources beyond the mainstream media.
I am 95% sure Jaafari is not a US picked person. I don't know if the US can buy him off or in some way get control of him. A puppet is probably be a person who is selfish and out for themself rather than for their nation or clan, so puppets are not the kind of people who make peaceful exchanges of power easy. After two peaceful exchanges of power through elections I would believe the government was a real democracy and not a puppet pseudo democracy unless there were many signs of pseudo democracy like apparent election fraud, assassinations, people enriching themself from government coffers and most importantly policies that seem to benefit foreign nations and corporations more than they benefit the Iraqi people.
I consider the USA a real democracy because the people do have the power to change their leaders but I don't think that the people who rise up through the American political system can be considered a conscious choice of the American people as much as they can be considered the unconscious choice of the collective special interests. The American people choose to not exercise their power when they choose to not be informed. The USA tried to influence the Iraqi election through US taxpayer funded advertising but it did not work very well. If the USA as the dominant special interest together with other special interests ever gets Iraqis into a rut of choosing between two tweedledum and tweedledee special interest dominated parties the way it's done in America I will still consider that a democracy because the Iraqi people would have the power but just be not exercising their power.
Last edited:
BHS said:
Tell that to those who have died so far in Iraq because of Bush's 'Mission Accomplished'??? This is Bush's last term (thank God) as a U.S. President before he's 'impeached'. He'll most likely find another excuse before he's 'thrown out' office by the american people, to do his 'BIDO' (Bomb, Invade, Destroy & Occupy) thing in Iran too. Don't bet against it.
Okeydoke
No other country in the mid-east is ever going to convert, and Iraq will turn into a massive civil war whenever we leave. Also other countries such as Syria and Iran love Bush because the United States is so weak from this quagmire in Iraq that we can no longer bully them around.
And as for this highly successful war on terrorism:
The United States and it's weak alliance (Great Britain.) are more prone to attacks. (I.E London Bombing, and Madrid Bombings.)
wow i never knew this... after a soldier serves his i dunt no u can call it a term if u will, in Iraq he can choose whether he wants to return to Iraq or not. that just kills half the argument that "Bush kills soldiers" or "Bush has a draft" or "Bush doesnt care about his americans" or "Bush is a dictator of america" or "Bush doesnt have enough followers" or "that soldiers r 100% behind bush and the american ways, (if u even know the process of becoming a soldier, they take an oath to sware loyalty to their president)" ... so that just helps me out alot