From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 20:29:27 BST
Hi all,
msh said:
Your argument might have some weight if, say, China had invaded
the US in 1775, defeated the British in a putative "American
Revolution", then gathered up the former colonists and said, "Ok, now
here's how we're gonna do this democracy thing..."
JON:
Well, what's different is always easy to point out, but that doesn't
change the fact that there are similarities worth thinking about as
well...
msh says:
You offered an argument and I analyzed it. The weight of your
argument rests on the similarities which, I would say, are
insubstantial. The historical purpose of the American Revolution was
to replace a British elite ruling class with an American elite ruling
class. Though, I'm sure, many colonists perceived the outcome of the
revolution as an increase in their freedom, there were many more who
recognized it for what it was, a kind of shifting of the yoke.
Thus, Shay's Rebellion, etc. Still, IMO, the AR was a moral step
forward. Discounting the rhetoric, I see nothing similar in the
motives behind the invasion of Iraq.
The rest of your message is opinion without argument, so I have no
response. I would say, however, that you and I have quite different
ideas about democracy. My guess is that your list of emerging
"democracies" in the middle east includes none where every citizen
has an equal voice (meaning none more influential than another) in
determination of his/her country's foreign and domestic policy.
Rather, study would reveal that there is a relatively small minority
whose interests are served regardless of the interests of the
population as a whole. FWIW, democracy, as I understand it, doesn't
exist in the US either. Far from it.
JON said:
In conclusion, the verdict remains the same. If in 20 years Iraq is a
relatively peaceful functioning democracy (along the lines of Japan
or Germany) those who were skeptical of Bush's vision will grudgingly
have to admit they were wrong.
msh says:
It's interesting, your subtle analogy between the motives of US
involvement in WWII, and motives behind the invasion of Iraq. But,
again, the historical realities simply do not support the analogy.
As I've argued elsewhere in this forum, establishing a true Iraqi
democracy is not and never has been the motive behind the attack.
As for Bush being seen as a visionary, there's no need to wait 20
years. He's already regarded as a visionary darling by The Carlyle
Group and Halliburton in particular, two companies with EXTREMELY
close ties to the Bush and Cheney families. Whatever one thinks of
the morality or necessity of the war in Iraq, one thing is for sure:
certain well-placed companies, including these two, will end up
making millions if not billions off the war. The Carlyle Group is so
proficient at raking in government contracts that it is often
referred to as the "Ex-Presidents Club."
Thanks for your thoughts,
Mark Steven Heyman
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 20:30:37 BST