Rumsfeld: "If we rush Iraqi gov't, we get Hitler"

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Here we go with the article

 

http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-06-06-0059.html

 

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the transition to a democratic government in Iraq can't be rushed - and cited the rise of German dictator Adolf Hitler as an example of what could go wrong.

 

Rumsfeld was asked if he was concerned about the pace of establishing a postwar Iraqi government. Rumsfeld said he wasn't and the transition from dictatorship to representative government is difficult.

 

"If you think about it, Adolf Hitler was elected. So elections are not the certain judge.

 

"You don't want to have (an) election one time and then a dictator and go right back to some dictator model," he said after a closed-door briefing with members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

Arghhhhh... let me pick this apart.

 

"U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the transition to a democratic government in Iraq can't be rushed - and cited the rise of German dictator Adolf Hitler as an example of what could go wrong."

 

Yes, a government could have a madman who will murder tens of millions come up if rushed. I can also die if my microwave explodes. I don't know the betting line on murderous genocidal madmen coming into power in Iraq, but I'd imagine lightning just won't strike twice.

 

"Rumsfeld said he wasn't and the transition from dictatorship to representative government is difficult."

 

Well.. of course. I just wanted to note that. It is quite difficult to get people out to vote in a Democracy in an area which has never had any form of Democratic government.

 

""If you think about it, Adolf Hitler was elected. So elections are not the certain judge.""

 

Rummy.. you fool. HITLER WAS NOT ELECTED. The Nazi Party never recieved a majority of the vote, even after the Reichstag fire. Your own historical ignorance has inadvertantly put you with the dumbasses who say "Hitler was elected, Bush wasn't" and all that. Hitler lost the Presidental election in 1932. He was then appointed Chancellor, and on the death of the President, he consolidated power. He was NOT ELECTED.

 

""You don't want to have (an) election one time and then a dictator and go right back to some dictator model""

 

yes, the dictator model is not one that Iraq should go to.

 

Hopefully they won't go to the 'repeating bullshit' model either, like you did with your Hitler comparison.

 

Sorry Rumster

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

iraq's majority (the shiite muslims) have endlessly stated that they want an islamic government, ala the taliban. any government we put in there is going to be trouble, imo, because we DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE want that to come true.

 

but hey, we want democracy for the iraqis!

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You're the fool, Rob. A few cheap, incomplete factoids worm their way into your skull and all of a sudden you think you're Edward fucking Gibbon. Let's clear up your ignorance.

 

Hitler became Chancellor through a valid procedure perfectly in line with Germany's constitution: the President chose the leader of the largest party in Parliament to preside over a coalition government. Hitler was elected to that position, so even though no Chancellor's post was ever directly contested, it's still absolutely correct to say that he was democratically appointed (or even elected). I suggest you grow up, rethink your strategy of borrowing smarmy, disrespectful nicknames for people who've accomplished a hell of a lot more than you have from the likes of Maureen Dowd, and read something worthwhile. Like, actual history.

 

As for the odds of your microwave exploding versus the odds of a Talibanesque government winning national elections in Iraq, I suggest you flip the circuit breakers now. Tyler is quite right. The majority would indeed vote for something of the sort; they'd vote for it in a heartbeat. Lightning won't strike twice? Really? Have you taken a look at the goddamn Middle East recently? Practically the entire fucking map seems to be covered with lightning strikes. Iran, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon aren't exactly cradles of democracy.

 

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy. But we want them to live in a real democracy, tempered with the rule of law, protection for minorities, respect for human rights and civil liberties, an independent judiciary, and constitutional provisions for orderly transfers of power, based on truth, justice, and the American way.

 

Not another blood-soaked Islamic mob rule.

Edited June 6, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Zorin Industries 0]

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy. But we want them to live in a real democracy, tempered with the rule of law, protection for minorities, respect for human rights and civil liberties, an independent judiciary, and constitutional provisions for orderly transfers of power, based on truth, justice, and the American way.

 

Not another blood-soaked Islamic mob rule.

But, what do you do if they don't want that?

 

What if the population wanted an Islamist government, would the US be prepared to overide that decision, or would the democratic process be respected?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As I've stated time and time again, there is nothing holy about what you are calling "democracy" per se. Democracy is good when it is virtuous, but what you are talking about is mob rule, not democracy. An Islamic government by definition does not incorporate freedom of religion, civil liberties, and human rights. That, as many administration officials have already said, is unacceptable. No matter how many people want it.

[Zorin Industries 0]

So, you would advocate the overthrow of that sort of government if it was democratically voted into power.

 

Does that not go against one of the aims of the war, whih was giving th Iraqi people the right to choose there own government?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

That type of government will not be permitted to take power.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

So, you would advocate the overthrow of that sort of government if it was democratically voted into power.

 

Does that not go against one of the aims of the war, whih was giving th Iraqi people the right to choose there own government?

A true democracy protects the rights of the minority. Allowing, as Marney said, a mob rule to put an Islamist gov't, which is a theocracy, in place will lead to oppression and a lack of individual rights. This does not a democratic gov't make. Using a one-time "democratic" process to choose an oppressive state of rule is not a democracy.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You're the fool, Rob. A few cheap, incomplete factoids worm their way into your skull and all of a sudden you think you're Edward fucking Gibbon. Let's clear up your ignorance.

 

oooooh... it's the holy Marney, out to save the day!

 

Hitler became Chancellor through a valid procedure perfectly in line with Germany's constitution: the President chose the leader of the largest party in Parliament to preside over a coalition government. Hitler was elected to that position, so even though no Chancellor's post was ever directly contested, it's still absolutely correct to say that he was democratically appointed (or even elected).

 

You're not even sure if you can call it a Democratic appointment or an election. Let me spell it out for you, No, he was not. The Nazi Party never even won a majority (37% in July 32, 33% in November 32, 43% in March 33). But, if under the rules of the Weimar Republic, he was democratically elected, then of course it was a cruel turn since we know what he thought of Democracy.

 

As for the odds of your microwave exploding versus the odds of a Talibanesque government winning national elections in Iraq, I suggest you flip the circuit breakers now.

 

A few points to make with that. One, a Talibanesque dictator party will probably seek other ways to take power than Democratically. Second, a Shiite Iranian-sympathizing government could get a plurality, but something tells me they may not get a majority. But, that's dependant on what process is approved for the new government, either it be a congress/President, a Parliment/Prime Minister/President or what.

 

Tyler is quite right. The majority would indeed vote for something of the sort; they'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

 

What does that say about our popularity in Iraq if you think they'll vote for people who want to kick us out of Iraq? While I think the insane side of parties in Iraq is either exaggerated or can be contained, it'll probably be the best if the first few governments are ones that we can get along with.

 

Lightning won't strike twice? Really? Have you taken a look at the goddamn Middle East recently? Practically the entire fucking map seems to be covered with lightning strikes. Iran, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon aren't exactly cradles of democracy.

 

Can you name the Democratic governments in those countries? You can't because they never had any. It's not like all these countries have been taken over by the Psycho Talibanesque religious types. Hell, going thru that it's Islamic state, King, Emir, King, Emir, King, King, Dictator, Occupied by Syria. I'd take Iraq being a kingdom over the nightmare scenario of an Islamic Republic.

 

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy.

 

Yes, a Democracy, unless they vote for the Shiites, then we'll have to clarify Democracy to mean "Vote for anybody except the guys who want to expell the US from your country"

 

But we want them to live in a real democracy, tempered with the rule of law, protection for minorities, respect for human rights and civil liberties, an independent judiciary, and constitutional provisions for orderly transfers of power, based on truth, justice, and the American way.

 

Yeah, that'd be an ideal way to set up Iraq. Balance of power and all. Considering they have three groups (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) who would probably kill each other if it gets really bad.

 

Not another blood-soaked Islamic mob rule.

 

So, are you going for Democracy in Iraq or a Republic in Iraq?

 

I'll take 'Democratic Republic' as an answer, since you'd annul elections faster than the Turkish military if some psychos somehow got a majority of the vote.

 

Meanwhile, Iraqi elections aren't exactly flowing smoothly (or happening at all yet) It appears that mass apathy and mass accusations of corruption are hurting them in Um Qasr.

Edited June 6, 2003 by Rob E Dangerously

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy.

 

Yes, a Democracy, unless they vote for the Shiites, then we'll have to clarify Democracy to mean "Vote for anybody except the guys who want to expell the US from your country"

Using a one-time "democratic" process to choose an oppressive state of rule is not a democracy.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy.

 

Yes, a Democracy, unless they vote for the Shiites, then we'll have to clarify Democracy to mean "Vote for anybody except the guys who want to expell the US from your country"

Using a one-time "democratic" process to choose an oppressive state of rule is not a democracy.

Sure.. we want at least more than one or two elections before the thing goes up in flames. Or preferably a stable country.

 

Spicy, do you think it says about US involvement in Iraq if Iraqis vote people into power who resolve to expell our troops from the country? Just a scenario. But, Iraqis will probably feel gratefulness to us, unless we somehow wear out our welcome with them.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You're not even sure if you can call it a Democratic appointment or an election.

I'm quite sure. The term "democratic election" can refer to a direct vote, and it can also refer to an appointment carried out by democratic means.

 

No, he was not.

He certainly was.

 

One, a Talibanesque dictator party will probably seek other ways to take power than Democratically.

Really? How have you reached that conclusion? The Taliban themselves were welcomed to take over Afghanistan. The people wanted them to. As Tyler said, the majority of people would vote for them. So why wouldn't they just let the people elect them?

Second, a Shiite Iranian-sympathizing government could get a plurality, but something tells me they may not get a majority.

That's utterly fascinating, but the Pentagon likes to work with something better than "something tells me."

 

What does that say about our popularity in Iraq if you think they'll vote for people who want to kick us out of Iraq?

I'm sincerely puzzled here, do you think we went to war to win popularity contests in the future?

 

Can you name the Democratic governments in those countries? You can't because they never had any.

You missed the point. The region is general has always been enamoured of autocracy. That in itself is undesirable in Iraq. In order to create a lasting peace, we have to build institutions that can survive the caprices and death of any one man.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

One, a Talibanesque dictator party will probably seek other ways to take power than Democratically.

Really? How have you reached that conclusion? The Taliban themselves were welcomed to take over Afghanistan. The people wanted them to. As Tyler said, the majority of people would vote for them. So why wouldn't they just let the people elect them?

 

I'll leave it up to Tyler to cite any polls that show a majority of Iraqis want a Taliban-esque or a Shiite Islamic Republic.

 

What does that say about our popularity in Iraq if you think they'll vote for people who want to kick us out of Iraq?

I'm sincerely puzzled here, do you think we went to war to win popularity contests in the future?

 

It'd be nice if we'd win a popularity contest in the country we just liberated. You think they'd be favorable and like us.

 

In order to create a lasting peace, we have to build institutions that can survive the caprices and death of any one man.

 

Yeah.. good point. Although, if a lasting peace involved taking down the Iranian state, then you'd be for it, right? I wouldn't mind seeing their state fall by whatever means work.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Although, if a lasting peace involved taking down the Iranian state, then you'd be for it, right? I wouldn't mind seeing their state fall by whatever means work.

Absolutely.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Although, if a lasting peace involved taking down the Iranian state, then you'd be for it, right? I wouldn't mind seeing their state fall by whatever means work.

Absolutely.

I'm no real fan of the current Iranian government either, with them building nuclear stuff and denying it.

 

There could be enough dissent in the country to bring them down.

 

-------

 

Meanwhile, in other news. Iran claims they think Iraq had WMDs

 

I'm sure that will confuse most Americans on both sides. Leftists will wonder if Iran's lying to justify war, or a CIA tool, or if Newsmax is just lying about what the Ayatollah's gov't said. People on the right will still mention how Iran is bad, or "they're so bad, but they know when we're right" or whichever.

 

Best bet: Iran still really really dislikes Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government

Edited June 6, 2003 by Rob E Dangerously

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Spicy, do you think it says about US involvement in Iraq if Iraqis vote people into power who resolve to expell our troops from the country? Just a scenario. But, Iraqis will probably feel gratefulness to us, unless we somehow wear out our welcome with them.

As soon as there is a stable, democratic gov't that can function on its own, our troops should leave Iraq. And they will inherently wear out their welcome because the troops must transition from liberators to keepers of the peace, enforcing the law. No matter what the circumstances, people don't enjoy foreigners telling them what to do.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

my source was a washington post article a few weeks ago that talked about a shiite rally which stated that 60%ish of iraq is shiite and they, almost unilaterally, want an islamic government.

 

marney would probably know the numbers better than me, though.

 

i don't think the iraqi people are going to stand by idlely and allow us to tell them what they want, no matter how much it will benefit them. i fear an uprising the minute we leave iraqi soil by shiite insurrectionists that may erase any semblance of our progress there... that is, of course, speculation though.

[Guest JMA]

Theocracies must be stopped. They rob people of their freedom to choose their own religion and beliefs. Most religions are based on faith and, therefore, should not be made into laws. My worst nightmare (besides nuclear war) is the United States turning into a theocracy. I swear, people in the Middle East live too much in the past. The only thing differant are the weapons.

 

We've already taken down Saddam, so we should make the best of it. They may not WANT a secular goverment, but they NEED one.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Here we go with the article

 

http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-06-06-0059.html

 

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the transition to a democratic government in Iraq can't be rushed - and cited the rise of German dictator Adolf Hitler as an example of what could go wrong.

 

Rumsfeld was asked if he was concerned about the pace of establishing a postwar Iraqi government. Rumsfeld said he wasn't and the transition from dictatorship to representative government is difficult.

 

"If you think about it, Adolf Hitler was elected. So elections are not the certain judge.

 

"You don't want to have (an) election one time and then a dictator and go right back to some dictator model," he said after a closed-door briefing with members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

Arghhhhh... let me pick this apart.

 

"U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the transition to a democratic government in Iraq can't be rushed - and cited the rise of German dictator Adolf Hitler as an example of what could go wrong."

 

Yes, a government could have a madman who will murder tens of millions come up if rushed. I can also die if my microwave explodes. I don't know the betting line on murderous genocidal madmen coming into power in Iraq, but I'd imagine lightning just won't strike twice.

 

"Rumsfeld said he wasn't and the transition from dictatorship to representative government is difficult."

 

Well.. of course. I just wanted to note that. It is quite difficult to get people out to vote in a Democracy in an area which has never had any form of Democratic government.

 

""If you think about it, Adolf Hitler was elected. So elections are not the certain judge.""

 

Rummy.. you fool. HITLER WAS NOT ELECTED. The Nazi Party never recieved a majority of the vote, even after the Reichstag fire. Your own historical ignorance has inadvertantly put you with the dumbasses who say "Hitler was elected, Bush wasn't" and all that. Hitler lost the Presidental election in 1932. He was then appointed Chancellor, and on the death of the President, he consolidated power. He was NOT ELECTED.

 

""You don't want to have (an) election one time and then a dictator and go right back to some dictator model""

 

yes, the dictator model is not one that Iraq should go to.

 

Hopefully they won't go to the 'repeating bullshit' model either, like you did with your Hitler comparison.

 

Sorry Rumster

Read up on the Weimar Republic and you'll see that Rumsfield is dead-on balls accurate.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

So, you would advocate the overthrow of that sort of government if it was democratically voted into power.

 

Does that not go against one of the aims of the war, whih was giving th Iraqi people the right to choose there own government?

I'd FULLY support us overriding it.

 

In Germany's last "free" election before the whole WWII thing started, Hitler "legitimately" (well, he had a bit of an edge in terms of propagands and brown shirts beating the heck out of those who opposed him) won that election. The German people were not ready for a democracy at the time --- thus, they made the 2 largest parties the Communists and the Nazi, forcing the President to rule by fiat for YEARS (and ending the farce of democracy back in about 1930). The Germans, at the time, didn't WANT freedom and voted against it.

 

And the Triple Entente was idiotic in giving them almost total autonomy. The Entente SHOULD have let America (since Britain and, especially, France REALLY wanted to hurt the Germans) occupy Germany for a while and foster a pro-democacy vibe in the country.

 

Heck, why do you think we occupied Japan for as long as we did after WWII?

 

People can -- and WILL --- vote for the worst possible choice. We OWE it to the Iraqis to make sure they fully grasp what they forfeit if they go that route.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

1)

Hitler became Chancellor through a valid procedure perfectly in line with Germany's constitution: the President chose the leader of the largest party in Parliament to preside over a coalition government. Hitler was elected to that position, so even though no Chancellor's post was ever directly contested, it's still absolutely correct to say that he was democratically appointed (or even elected).

 

You're not even sure if you can call it a Democratic appointment or an election. Let me spell it out for you, No, he was not. The Nazi Party never even won a majority (37% in July 32, 33% in November 32, 43% in March 33). But, if under the rules of the Weimar Republic, he was democratically elected, then of course it was a cruel turn since we know what he thought of Democracy.

 

2)

As for the odds of your microwave exploding versus the odds of a Talibanesque government winning national elections in Iraq, I suggest you flip the circuit breakers now.

 

A few points to make with that. One, a Talibanesque dictator party will probably seek other ways to take power than Democratically. Second, a Shiite Iranian-sympathizing government could get a plurality, but something tells me they may not get a majority. But, that's dependant on what process is approved for the new government, either it be a congress/President, a Parliment/Prime Minister/President or what.

 

3)

Tyler is quite right. The majority would indeed vote for something of the sort; they'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

 

What does that say about our popularity in Iraq if you think they'll vote for people who want to kick us out of Iraq? While I think the insane side of parties in Iraq is either exaggerated or can be contained, it'll probably be the best if the first few governments are ones that we can get along with.

 

4)

Lightning won't strike twice? Really? Have you taken a look at the goddamn Middle East recently? Practically the entire fucking map seems to be covered with lightning strikes. Iran, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon aren't exactly cradles of democracy.

 

Can you name the Democratic governments in those countries? You can't because they never had any. It's not like all these countries have been taken over by the Psycho Talibanesque religious types. Hell, going thru that it's Islamic state, King, Emir, King, Emir, King, King, Dictator, Occupied by Syria. I'd take Iraq being a kingdom over the nightmare scenario of an Islamic Republic.

 

5)

We do want the Iraqis to live in a democracy.

 

Yes, a Democracy, unless they vote for the Shiites, then we'll have to clarify Democracy to mean "Vote for anybody except the guys who want to expell the US from your country"

 

6)

But we want them to live in a real democracy, tempered with the rule of law, protection for minorities, respect for human rights and civil liberties, an independent judiciary, and constitutional provisions for orderly transfers of power, based on truth, justice, and the American way.

 

Yeah, that'd be an ideal way to set up Iraq. Balance of power and all. Considering they have three groups (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites) who would probably kill each other if it gets really bad.

 

Not another blood-soaked Islamic mob rule.

 

So, are you going for Democracy in Iraq or a Republic in Iraq?

 

I'll take 'Democratic Republic' as an answer, since you'd annul elections faster than the Turkish military if some psychos somehow got a majority of the vote.

Point by point:

 

1) In Germany, which was at the time the most open democracy in the world, a majority for ONE party was impossible. It absolutely, positively could not happen. So, after Hitler becam Chancellor and then President, they had one last election and the Nazis WON it. Did they get a majority of the vote? I do not believe so --- but they got a PLURALITY and that is all they needed.

 

The German HATED the Weimar Republic and, thus, voted big-time for the two prime anti-republican parties. Of course, if the center parties had EVER banded together --- or if the powers that be ever decided to stop back-stabbing one another --- they could've probably avoided all of this.

 

2) Who says? Hitler sought to gain power --- well, after his failed putsch --- via "democratic" means and he played the system. Why wouldn't an Islamist faction do the same thing? It's not like terrorists don't LIKE Hitler. In a parliamentary system, all you really need is a plurality as you can make an alliance after that.

 

3) We are HATED in Iraq and the Middle East. We're not freakin' BLIND here. They'd kick us out tomorrow if they could. We've been scapegoats for decades and our support of Israel doesn't exactly help our cause.

 

4) What you fail to understand is that if they had elections TOMORROW, the current governments would win "open" elections easily. The people only KNOW what they've lived through and, as bad as it may be, they are COMFORTABLE with it. You can't give them total freedom before they are prepared for it. You DO NOT give people with no experience with self-rule total freedom. It's unfair to the people who would have no clue what to do.

 

5) No, but we won't allow a gov't that will torture and slaughter those who oppose it to start. There is a middle ground. Heck, Kuwait doesn't like us and we freed them.

 

6) And we're trying to avoid that scenario.

 

7) Until somebody is READY for democracy --- which Iraq is not --- you do not give them democracy.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

One, a Talibanesque dictator party will probably seek other ways to take power than Democratically.

Really? How have you reached that conclusion? The Taliban themselves were welcomed to take over Afghanistan. The people wanted them to. As Tyler said, the majority of people would vote for them. So why wouldn't they just let the people elect them?

 

I'll leave it up to Tyler to cite any polls that show a majority of Iraqis want a Taliban-esque or a Shiite Islamic Republic.

 

What does that say about our popularity in Iraq if you think they'll vote for people who want to kick us out of Iraq?

I'm sincerely puzzled here, do you think we went to war to win popularity contests in the future?

 

It'd be nice if we'd win a popularity contest in the country we just liberated. You think they'd be favorable and like us.

 

In order to create a lasting peace, we have to build institutions that can survive the caprices and death of any one man.

 

Yeah.. good point. Although, if a lasting peace involved taking down the Iranian state, then you'd be for it, right? I wouldn't mind seeing their state fall by whatever means work.

Believe it or not, polls would be a little difficult to pull off in Iraq right now --- if for no other reason than they have been conditioned to tow the gov't line for years. I don't know of ANY scholar who doubts that a Taliban-esque Republic would win an election tomorrow if one was held.

 

As for popularity, Kuwait doesn't like us --- we liberated them. The Middle East does not like us --- it's not something we can stress about presenty, though.

 

We hope that a democracy in Iraq will CAUSE Iran to fall.

-=Mike