democracy in Iraq Options

[Retrogressive]

Before stating wether you think we should still be in Iraq please think about this: Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right? Does this justify inforcement of democracy in other countries? If we obolish different cultures it will obolish the very thing that makes us human- diversity. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, I do believe in human rights especially womens rights. I just would like to get other opinions- elaborate.

[onecrazyfreak]

Geeezzz I dunno...When you think about it from either perspective it's wrong, you know??? I mean osama and hussien deserved to be taken out... but our soldiers and civilians don't deserve to die. You cannot forget what they did to us. The civilian casualties on 9/11 have to be higher than what we have done overseas. The problem is that the overall goal, why we even went over to the middle east in the first place, was to take out the al-quieda (sp?) and Osama bien ladan (sp?) neither of those goals have been accomplished so far. And then when you take into account all we have lost in Iraq (lives, money, equipment, etc.) You really have to question Bush's ego issues...So, in closing, I think that the war in Iraq (not the terrorists we were supposed to take out) is more about Bush's ego (and oil prices)than the fact that he genuinely cares about Iraq. If he really wanted to protect america from terrorists he wouldn't be playing around in Iraq...anyway I will always admire and support our armed forces, even if I believe that the cause is not such a worthy one.

--Onecrazyfreak

[technicolour]

Geeezzz I dunno...When you think about it from either perspective it's wrong, you know??? I mean osama and hussien deserved to be taken out... but our soldiers and civilians don't deserve to die. You cannot forget what they did to us. The civilian casualties on 9/11 have to be higher than what we have done overseas. The problem is that the overall goal, why we even went over to the middle east in the first place, was to take out the al-quieda (sp?) and Osama bien ladan (sp?) neither of those goals have been accomplished so far. And then when you take into account all we have lost in Iraq (lives, money, equipment, etc.) You really have to question Bush's ego issues...So, in closing, I think that the war in Iraq (not the terrorists we were supposed to take out) is more about Bush's ego (and oil prices)than the fact that he genuinely cares about Iraq. If he really wanted to protect america from terrorists he wouldn't be playing around in Iraq...anyway I will always admire and support our armed forces, even if I believe that the cause is not such a worthy one.

--Onecrazyfreak

To the crazyfreakperson:
-We didn't go into Iraq to take out Osamma B.L. We went in there for weapons of mass desctruction.
- What the hell does Bush's EGO have to do with anything? He is doing what he thinks best for this country. Ego has very very very very little to do with anything.


To Retrogressive:

-Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right? They've been under a dictatorship regime for so long, that this change is something good for them. A democracy where they can vote who they want to vote for, not some old fat person who decides.
- Where are we enforcing democracy in other countries?
- How are we 'obolishing' other peoples cultures? You call being under a dictator for X amount of years a culture?
- Human rights. Ha. Womens rights. Ha ha. I really dont see how those matter for this argument.

[medic]

Before stating wether you think we should still be in Iraq please think about this: Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right? Does this justify inforcement of democracy in other countries? If we obolish different cultures it will obolish the very thing that makes us human- diversity. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything, I do believe in human rights especially womens rights. I just would like to get other opinions- elaborate.

Nothing "justifies" the united states invading a country just to implant democracy. In fact, I don't know of any war that was started just to make the country a democracy, its just a part of the clean up. In theory communism is grate, but in real life it is nothing by failure. Communist countries end up having massive amounts of poverty due to the fact that communism is just a stock pile of war resources. The only communist country that has succeeded in some areas is China, but its government is hated by almost every country - and NO company will invest billions in new ideas in China. Communism hurts overall economy.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

-Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right? They've been under a dictatorship regime for so long, that this change is something good for them. A democracy where they can vote who they want to vote for, not some old fat person who decides.

Whose to judge whether Democracy is good for them??? If we did suceed, we'd be no better than the Biritish who try to imperialize India, Africa and Eastern Europe.

[sadolakced acid]

wow, forcing people to have freedom sure isn't ironic.

notice they haven't had a vote on whether they want dictatorship or democracy.

[*not_your_average*]

Well, we didn't go to Iraq to implement democracy in the first place. We went there becasue of false intelligence hinting that there were WMDs in Iraq. Once we found out that there weren't any, we changed our plans. We wanted to take out Saddam because he was "affiliated with the 9/11 attacks." Then, we took out Saddam, and said that we wanted democracy in Iraq, hoping that other countries in the Middle East will follow suit.

]-Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right?[/i] They've been under a dictatorship regime for so long, that this change is something good for them. A democracy where they can vote who they want to vote for, not some old fat person who decides.

They didn't ask for the US military to invade their country for selfish purposes. Yes, a democracy is good, but the US is not always right. We may be a superpower, but we are not always right.

Is it considered freedom if one nation forces another nation to be under the same government just because we believe that it is right?

Well, we are forcing our own type of government (a democracy) onto the people, but we are not looking to rule Iraq. That would be imperialism. However, we came into a soveirgn (sp?) nation (albiet a dictatorship, but stlll a soveirgn nation) and 'forced' democracy onto them. Hm.

It comes very close to imperialism, and yet at the same time, it's not. Interesting.

[sadolakced acid]

^ interestingly, we have to extert an imperialistic military rule in iraq before we can give them thier freedom.

cus right now it's US appointed people who run in the elections. and the military patrols and enforces laws, and they obey thier COs.

[illumineering]

China, but its government is hated by almost every country - and NO company will invest billions in new ideas in China. Communism hurts overall economy.

Wrong...wrong...wrong!

The growth of the Chinese GDP from 1980-2000 has been triple the growth of the US. This is due to factors which include rising inflow of foreign capital. Direct investment in Chinese business accounts for the major source of foreign capital inflow.

[aera]

^yup. and they have a "fake" communist goverment.

once iraqis heard about democracy, im sure they wanted it. if they didnt, then we shouldnt have forced it onto them.

[medic]

Wrong...wrong...wrong!

The growth of the Chinese GDP from 1980-2000 has been triple the growth of the US. This is due to factors which include rising inflow of foreign capital. Direct investment in Chinese business accounts for the major source of foreign capital inflow.

If this is true, then why must China make so much investments in foreign companys?

One company has invested over 3 billion in China, and its all for the name of Oil. Haliburton. Verizon DENIED a contract China offered to invest billion in telecommunications, such as wireless and fiber optic. Where did Verizon invest the money, Russia. Wal-Mart only invested about 1 trillion because there market in Japan has failed so far. As for eBay, they got owned by Yahoo! in the auction business in Japan, and they view China as there way to make up the difference. China, is a last resort. Any investment agency will tell you to back off China based companies, they are unstable.

^yup. and they have a "fake" communist goverment.

once iraqis heard about democracy, im sure they wanted it. if they didnt, then we shouldnt have forced it onto them.

Its hard to run a Communist country on the ideals of Democracy.

[sadolakced acid]

^ nontheless, the increasing economic power, both in cheap labor and a market for goods, makes china quite needed.

imagine, for instance, if china decided to tax all exports 100%. all things we take for granted as being cheap would jump in price.

sure, there's a trade agreement, but it also means china has some clout. the US can't do anything bad to china for fear of loosing the manufacturing base.

[medic]

^ nontheless, the increasing economic power, both in cheap labor and a market for goods, makes china quite needed.

imagine, for instance, if china decided to tax all exports 100%. all things we take for granted as being cheap would jump in price.

sure, there's a trade agreement, but it also means china has some clout. the US can't do anything bad to china for fear of loosing the manufacturing base.

The U.S government has convinced many companies to take there business to other countries.

[*mipadi*]

The U.S government has convinced many companies to take there business to other countries. Since 1992, the percent of imported goods from china has only raised 7.5%. Taiwan - 21.4%, Switzerland - 22.8%, United Kingdom - 33.0%, Colombia - 46.8%..... 7.5% is a small number compared to Taiwan or Switzerland, China is slowly loosing its popularity.

Your figures are incorrect: "China's exports to the United States have grown by 1,600 percent over the past 15 years, and U.S. exports to China have grown by 415 percent" [1].

[medic]

Your figures are incorrect: "China's exports to the United States have grown by 1,600 percent over the past 15 years, and U.S. exports to China have grown by 415 percent" [1].

Well I got it from http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/archive/aimp3172.htm

Its also done in dollars, I didnt notice that.........

Correction: NEWSWEEK incorrectly reported the number of Wal-Mart's suppliers. The company has over 68,000 suppliers in the U.S. alone. Less than 6 percent of the $137.5 billion Wal-Mart spent last year with suppliers went to China. NEWSWEEK regrets the errors.

[*mipadi*]

Well I got it from http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/ocg/archive/aimp3172.htm

Its also done in dollars, I didnt notice that.........

You did notice the title of the chart is "Top 25 U.S. Import Sources for Personal Leather Goods", right?

[medic]

You did notice the title of the chart is "Top 25 U.S. Import Sources for Personal Leather Goods", right?

LOL, no I didn't...... O well, I got another one, I will be editing my post.

Ok here it is in Graph form,

Source: The U.S. Census Bureau
Top Trading Partners - Total Trade, Imports
Year-to-Date September 2004
Data are goods only.

[sadolakced acid]

they still wield a clout there.

and thier billion fold consumer base... for instance, if they decide to ban windows, that will have global impact.

[*mipadi*]

So, medic, even by your own charts, China is still our biggest trading partner outside of NAFTA. How does that support your argument again?

[medic]

So, medic, even by your own charts, China is still our biggest trading partner outside of NAFTA. How does that support your argument again?

Actually, China accounts only for 9.9% - Mexico is at 11%, and then Canada is at a good old 19.7%. I was saying some companies are pulling away from China and investing in other countries. And also that China is loosing its popularity, considering that there in 3rd place out of the US's top 15 importers. It was number 1 at one point in time.....

[*mipadi*]

Actually, China accounts only for 9.9% - Mexico is at 11%, and then Canada is at a good old 19.7%. I was saying some companies are pulling away from China and investing in other countries. And also that China is loosing its popularity, considering that there in 3rd place out of the US's top 15 importers. It was number 1 at one point in time.....

Again, as I said, China is our biggest trading partner outside of NAFTA. Coupled with the fact that Chinese exports to the US have grown by 1600% since 1990 (and American exports to China have grown by 415%), it doesn't seem as though China is exactly a minor player in our international trade.

[medic]

they still wield a clout there.

and thier billion fold consumer base...  for instance, if they decide to ban windows, that will have global impact.

Asia is the most active region in the world for software pirates. U.S. trade group Business Software Alliance estimates that more than half of the software in use in Asia is illegally copied, resulting in annual losses of more than $4 billion for the software industry. China's piracy rate is more than 90 percent.

Pirated versions of Microsoft's Windows XP operating system--some selling for as little as $1.50--were circulating in Asia mere days after the software was released in the United States last year.

[sadolakced acid]

^

and the chinese government requires all government computers to run chinese written software for fear that americans wrote a back door in the software.

or something liek that.

[*mipadi*]

^

and the chinese government requires all government computers to run chinese written software for fear that americans wrote a back door in the software.

or something liek that.

They're afraid we're going to h4x0r 7h31r m3g4h3rtz!

[sadolakced acid]

^ yea i didn't understand that last part.

mayhaps we should move to the china thread...

[*RiC3xBoy*]

^ yea i didn't understand that last part.

mayhaps we should move to the china thread...

He said" Hack their Megahertz.

[Retrogressive]

- Human rights. Ha. Womens rights. Ha ha. I really dont see how those matter for this argument.

Maybe you should take that up with president Bush. That's one of his main arguements of why we haven't pulled out of Iraq- that and because it would make us look like cowards. I don't understand how his main arguement of staying in Iraq was for womens rights (he said it on CSPAN last week) if I'm not incorrect- didn't he used to beat his wife?

God, I wish my mom would let me drive down to Crawford! Because I live in Texas it seems like its right down the road and I'm just sitting here.

[*not_your_average*]

This is not the China debate. If you are going to talk about China, look for the China debate and post there. kthx.