Which was why I predicted much the same.
Peace and Calm Returns to Iraq
- Thread starter Prakosh
- Start date
This is pure speculation no matter how many people subsrcibe to it. The only time that the Powell doctrine was used was in the first gulf war, but if you remember in that war we bombed the hell out of them and left because Powell and others in the Bush I administration realized that to take out Saddam was to destabilize the entire region. In this version, they used Powell's overwhelming force, but there is no such thing as a government by force, all government's count on the willingness of the great majority of people to be governed and to accept the parameters of life instituted by that government. I think Bentham, he of the Panopticon, suggested the proper guideline in governance was the greatest good for the greatest number (which is an idea that Bush and his cohors, the Republicans, have relinguished to their great regret in their adoration of the rich, even in the richest country in the world, where something like 20-30 percent think they are in the top 2 percent and where a "death tax" that is designed to benefit less than the top 1 percent is seen as a middle class tax cut, most see that they are not benefitting. This general and popular discontent is the source of the Republicans current political turmoil, although few, if any, of them have articulated it or even realized it.).
If you followed the occupation under Bremer you know that the great Bush/neo-con idea was to use the country of Iraq for all their crack-pot free market schemes, including taking away state health care and other so-called socialistic leftovers from the Baathist regime. This Trotsky-like revolution in reverse extended to other such beneficial social structures as trade unions. Instead of allowing freedom, the Bremer administration dictated how society would be constructed and what would and would not be allowed. It was supposed to create some kind of super free-market capitalistic state in the middle east, instead pf a capitalist utopia (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) we seem to have created the classical Hobbesean state of war--all against all. No one is benefitting in Iraq today except as is the case in all wars those with money and the ability to get things. Even in Vietnam there were some who could get and sold much needed items at a profit and who did quite well, if they lived through it.
Last edited:
Clearly we can.
Bullpucky, it was because we wanted to keep Arab nations in our group and they wouldn't let us take out Saddam and remain part of the coalition.
It isn't speculation. You fill a power vacuum with power. Overwhelming power would have filled that gap.
Give me one example where a population has ever been effectively ruled by force, no matter how much, all government depends on the acquiesence if not the outright support of the governed! Even the slaves in the American South revolted and escaped whenever given the opportunity.
I haven't said it was efficient, only effective. Saddam kept relative peace using force. Attempting to remove such a power without effectively filling the gap with a strong effective power is foolishness. So what I have stated is that the "plan" was flawed from the beginning as it ignored those who pointed this flaw out to them.
What are you saying? It is better to attack and ignore such a gap? We are speaking of what would have been "better" not what "should have happened" they are two separate speculations....
Keep up there, Prakosh.
uscitizen
Villified User
yes slaves escaped, but they were effectively governed. We have prisons for those who rebel against our govt and laws. Same difference. well on a governing level, not a moral one.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I'll name a few places that have successfully ruled through force.
USSR
China
Iran
Iraq
The roman empire
The Aztec empire
etc, etc.
USSR
China
Iran
Iraq
The roman empire
The Aztec empire
etc, etc.
Also filling the gap doesn't necessarily mean one must use the power ruthlessly. Enough people to collect weapons would also be an effective means of peacekeeping...
Never allowing even one person to be "tortured" in any prison under our power would have been very effective as well. Strong but not brutal. The two are not synonymous...
Never allowing even one person to be "tortured" in any prison under our power would have been very effective as well. Strong but not brutal. The two are not synonymous...
Are you suggesting that we should have just put everyone in Iraq in prison?
At least read the thread before attempting to speculate as to other's opinions. Uscit is almost always on your side.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
t's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Surprisingly (or not) you have left the United States off this list, when we have surpassed the former Soviet Union in the percentage of the population imprisoned. Actually, this list, except for the Romans and the Aztecs (about which I don't think we know enough to make a judgement), is nothing more than an enemies list. There is no way that the Soviet union or the Chinese could rule their populations by force, all governments rule because the population allows them to rule not because they control a billion people. How would one do that?
The Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci identified two ways in which population control is obtained: force and ideology. Louis Althusser refined Gramsci's basic categories in his timeless essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses", and to my knowledge no one has exceeeded his insight here. Ideology creates the supportive population that determines the success or failure of any form of government. It is the reason that all revolutions and revolutiuonary activity must begin with an education of the masses--the inculcation of ideology. According to Althusser, force must be kept in reserve and used as is necessary only when there is an ideological breakdown. Force will not govern or control an unwilling population, no mattter how much or how often applied. Other than this list of poopaganda "enemies" who we have always said ruled by force alone, but have never done so, anymore than the United States has ruled by force. What they have done is rule by ideology, just as the so-called Communists did and have done.
Iran is a democracy, by the way, and even has a Jewish member in their Parliament. And Ahmadinejad, a freely elected president, has a popularity rating that would make Bush jealous, Ahmadinejad has a job approval rating of 70 percent, whereas Bush can barely muster 40 percent. These facts are often buried in the poopaganda of the Bush administration which claims that "democracies don't war on their neighbors" and want to paint every enemy as oppresive and tyrannical, in fact, many others in the world consider Bush tyrannical as well.
And we have prison numbers and crime statistics that make other countries cringe and give some credence to American tyranny, although we are still at a loss to understand exactly ion what this tyranny consists. The numbers of incarcerated indicate that there is a great deal of unhappiness and disgruntlement within the general population. Something is going wrong somewhere for these numbers to be so high and for prison construction and law enforcement to be a growth industry. And don't give me that recidivism argument either, if only a small number of people where really committing all the crimes we wouldn't be need to be continually building more and more prisons nationwide. Once we had the bad guys all locked up , crime would drop dramatically, but it stays pretty level over time, remarkably reflective of the unemployment rates as has been noted by some researchers.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
There is no way that the Soviet union or the Chinese could rule their populations by force, all governments rule because the population allows them to rule not because they control a billion people. How would one do that?
You have got to be kidding me. I'm sure the Soviets loved there beloved Josef Stalin with his purges of anyone who dissents into exile in Siberia. They didn't fail to revolt because they were scared or anything it was because they loved old Joe. Same with China you actually believe all that garbage they put in their national media. The people have no free press, free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of movement. But I'm sure the Chinese don't care and keep supporting the party.
According to Althusser, force must be kept in reserve and used as is necessary only when there is an ideological breakdown.
Exactly. Once the excesses of Stalin or Mao became clear with the purges for the Soviets and the Cultural revolution and Great Leap forward for the Chinese the people became disenfranchised with their governments and no longer saw the ideology of their nation as sufficiently making up for those shortcomings.
Iran is a democracy, by the way, and even has a Jewish member in their Parliament. And Ahmadinejad, a freely elected president, has a popularity rating that would make Bush jealous, Ahmadinejad has a job approval rating of 70 percent, whereas Bush can barely muster 40 percent. These facts are often buried in the poopaganda of the Bush administration which claims that "democracies don't war on their neighbors" and want to paint every enemy as oppresive and tyrannical, in fact, many others in the world consider Bush tyrannical as well.
So what. Do you remember the last Iranian president? Mohammed Khatami was a reformist moderate who wanted to bring about change in Iran. He was popularly loved by the nation even moreso than Ahmadinejad. However he was completely impotent because it is actually the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini he rules Iran. He is not elected by the people and holds the real power.
Claiming Iran is a democracy is like claiming the USSR was one. Every nation on earth except the UAE grants suffrage to its citizens. This by no means indicates they are democratic.
And we have prison numbers and crime statistics that make other countries cringe and give some credence to American tyranny, although we are still at a loss to understand exactly ion what this tyranny consists. The numbers of incarcerated indicate that there is a great deal of unhappiness and disgruntlement within the general population. Something is going wrong somewhere for these numbers to be so high and for prison construction and law enforcement to be a growth industry. And don't give me that recidivism argument either, if only a small number of people where really committing all the crimes we wouldn't be need to be continually building more and more prisons nationwide. Once we had the bad guys all locked up , crime would drop dramatically, but it stays pretty level over time, remarkably reflective of the unemployment rates as has been noted by some researchers.
This is all very interesting. However this certainly doesn't in any way counter my point that many nations have sucessfully governed through the use of force. If anything your above post supports me in that view.
You have got to be kidding me. I'm sure the Soviets loved there beloved Josef Stalin with his purges of anyone who dissents into exile in Siberia. They didn't fail to revolt because they were scared or anything it was because they loved old Joe. Same with China you actually believe all that garbage they put in their national media. The people have no free press, free speech, freedom of assembly or freedom of movement. But I'm sure the Chinese don't care and keep supporting the party.
According to Althusser, force must be kept in reserve and used as is necessary only when there is an ideological breakdown.
Exactly. Once the excesses of Stalin or Mao became clear with the purges for the Soviets and the Cultural revolution and Great Leap forward for the Chinese the people became disenfranchised with their governments and no longer saw the ideology of their nation as sufficiently making up for those shortcomings.
Iran is a democracy, by the way, and even has a Jewish member in their Parliament. And Ahmadinejad, a freely elected president, has a popularity rating that would make Bush jealous, Ahmadinejad has a job approval rating of 70 percent, whereas Bush can barely muster 40 percent. These facts are often buried in the poopaganda of the Bush administration which claims that "democracies don't war on their neighbors" and want to paint every enemy as oppresive and tyrannical, in fact, many others in the world consider Bush tyrannical as well.
So what. Do you remember the last Iranian president? Mohammed Khatami was a reformist moderate who wanted to bring about change in Iran. He was popularly loved by the nation even moreso than Ahmadinejad. However he was completely impotent because it is actually the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini he rules Iran. He is not elected by the people and holds the real power.
Claiming Iran is a democracy is like claiming the USSR was one. Every nation on earth except the UAE grants suffrage to its citizens. This by no means indicates they are democratic.
And we have prison numbers and crime statistics that make other countries cringe and give some credence to American tyranny, although we are still at a loss to understand exactly ion what this tyranny consists. The numbers of incarcerated indicate that there is a great deal of unhappiness and disgruntlement within the general population. Something is going wrong somewhere for these numbers to be so high and for prison construction and law enforcement to be a growth industry. And don't give me that recidivism argument either, if only a small number of people where really committing all the crimes we wouldn't be need to be continually building more and more prisons nationwide. Once we had the bad guys all locked up , crime would drop dramatically, but it stays pretty level over time, remarkably reflective of the unemployment rates as has been noted by some researchers.
This is all very interesting. However this certainly doesn't in any way counter my point that many nations have sucessfully governed through the use of force. If anything your above post supports me in that view.
Last edited:
uscitizen
Villified User
Nope just showing you that your example was flawed. Totalatarian govts have existed throughout history, they suck but sometimes exist for thousands of years. Old biblical era Israel was pretty much one. Roman empire, although they were a bit softer than some, etc....
well mostly....