Rice: Ghan and Iraq may not become Democracies

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
GREENSBORO, N.C. - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not assure those countries will become successful democracies. But she said the chance for success is worth the price.

ADVERTISEMENT




Speaking to a largely conservative audience of more than 12,000 Southern Baptists, Rice said she knows optimism can hard to sustain in the face of daily sectarian carnage and beheadings in Iraq.

Although the three-year-old war is increasingly unpopular at home and President Bush's public opinion ratings have sunk as a result, there was little sign of flagging support in the huge convention hall where Rice spoke.

She got repeated standing ovations for her call for continued U.S. engagement across the globe.

"We're standing together with people everywhere who desire these fundamental freedoms," especially in Afghanistan and Iraq, Rice said in a speech to the annual Southern Baptist Convention.

In those two countries alone, "We have given more than 55 million people an opportunity to flourish in freedom," Rice said. "Not a guarantee of success, but a chance."

Rice said the image of Bush embracing the new democratically elected Iraqi prime minister on Tuesday in Baghdad was a reminder of why the fight is worthwhile. The Bush administration hopes that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki can contain the violence and rally support for his government, and allow the United States to begin withdrawing some forces from Iraq.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken last week, before the killing of al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, showed that more Americans than ever thought the war in Iraq was a mistake. The poll showed 59 percent of adults say the United States made a mistake in going to war, and approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq dipped to 33 percent, a new low.

Just 67 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of conservatives, and 57 percent of white evangelicals believed a stable, democratic government is likely.

Only 68 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of white evangelicals and 51 percent of self-described conservatives — key groups in Bush's base of support — approved of his handling of Iraq.

Rice's speech was partly an attempt to appeal to Bush's political base after a series of disappointments for conservatives, including the administration's handling of the Dubai ports deal earlier this year.

Rice, the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, was introduced by outgoing Southern Baptist Convention President Bobby Welch as "a woman of faith and not ashamed to testify to that."

She referred often to God and prayer, and cast U.S. work overseas, from Iraq to Sudan to the attempts to stem the trafficking of human beings for forced labor or sex, in religious terms.

As she left the podium, delegates in the upper arena began to sing "God Bless America." The whole arena joined in the spontaneous anthem.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice

Hey that's okay though, Rice says so herself that it is okay that 3,000 plus Coalition forces, 100,000+ Iraqis and 10,000 Afghanis are dead now even though these two places may not become democracies. At least they will be buddy buddy to American politics and that is all that matters.
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Sounds like the coalition just ran out of rationales for their insane plundering of these two countries. The next one they lay on the public should be a good'un :roll:
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
As always, the "left" is right again....we should sit on our asses and do nothing.

If the two leftist parties ran on that principal alone, the welfare state Canadians would vote them in.


Good job!
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Re: RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq may not become Democracies

Jay said:
As always, the "left" is right again....we should sit on our asses and do nothing.

If the two leftist parties ran on that principal alone, the welfare state Canadians would vote them in.


Good job!

So its alright to you that 3,000 + Coalition soldiers, 100,000 Iraqis more like 150,000 Iraqis died and their country is so weak it could be pulled apart with one incident. And then in Afghanistan where 10,000 Afghanis died and its a Narco-state.

Democracy was the main component. What does America have left to justify this if it is not democracy.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
We should have left Saddam in power, absolutely, no question about it. We definitely should have never touched Afghanistan.
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Actually, Jay,

Ditch the left , right, centre bent on this and go strictly with right and wrong. Is it right to want to see a nation become an entity that responds to the will of it's citizens? Well of course it is. Is it right to impose that on a nation which is not at that particular stage of their evolution? Nope.

Aside from that aspect, how can it possibly sit well with any rational being to be blatantly lied to repeatedly on such large scale issues? There is a huge difference between having an elected member lie about some gifts or wotnot and being lied to over going to war where you not only are taking innocent lives but are also increasing the liklihood of that which you claim to be squelching (ie. attacks and hatred towards your own society)
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Re: RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Canucklehead said:
Actually, Jay,

Ditch the left , right, centre bent on this and go strictly with right and wrong. Is it right to want to see a nation become an entity that responds to the will of it's citizens? Well of course it is. Is it right to impose that on a nation which is not at that particular stage of their evolution? Nope.

Aside from that aspect, how can it possibly sit well with any rational being to be blatantly lied to repeatedly on such large scale issues? There is a huge difference between having an elected member lie about some gifts or wotnot and being lied to over going to war where you not only are taking innocent lives but are also increasing the liklihood of that which you claim to be squelching (ie. attacks and hatred towards your own society)

Agreed.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Canucklehead said:
Actually, Jay,

Ditch the left , right, centre bent on this and go strictly with right and wrong. Is it right to want to see a nation become an entity that responds to the will of it's citizens? Well of course it is. Is it right to impose that on a nation which is not at that particular stage of their evolution? Nope.

Aside from that aspect, how can it possibly sit well with any rational being to be blatantly lied to repeatedly on such large scale issues? There is a huge difference between having an elected member lie about some gifts or wotnot and being lied to over going to war where you not only are taking innocent lives but are also increasing the liklihood of that which you claim to be squelching (ie. attacks and hatred towards your own society)

Doing nothing would have been wrong and every rational being knows it.

Lied to about what, WMD? I don't think it was a lie, and I don't think the Western worlds intelligence agencies thought it was a lie either, and it isn't a lie when GWB says "bring the fight to them".

Afghanistan isn't a lie either.


Afghanistan and Iraq made their own problems, and they had every chance to get out of them but didn't....was that wrong?
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
WMD was a lie because they forged documents to go their way.

If their not fighting for a democracy their in those two places what are they fighting for?

They had a decade or more to get rid of Saddam so don't give me this that they fought Saddam because of his human rights record. What he did is well known, and what is worst, they armed the Shites and the Kurds in 1991 and let them be slaughtered.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I didn't say they fought Iraq over human rights issues, did I?
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Jay

Even if they had a full blown WMD program, they still posed no threat wotsoever to the U.S. of A. Outside of the big players, North Korea has the best missile program on the planet and even they are barely able to get to the continental U.S. and a true ICBM is outta the question. To think Iraq could out-do the NK's on that count is unrealistic.

For what it's worth at this stage of the game, look at the human condition in Iraq before the war(s). They were #1 in the region for personal freedoms; women were educated, the populous was well off financially and like it or not, he kept all these factions from going at it and causing an all out civil war. There were grudges with the Iranians and Israelis, this is true but Saddam was not a stupid man. The war he fought with Iran was backed by the U.S. and considering the financial dependance on the U.S. for oil exports, ya think he would be crazy enough to attack Israel? Not likely.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Rice: Ghan and Iraq m

Canucklehead said:
Jay

Even if they had a full blown WMD program, they still posed no threat wotsoever to the U.S. of A. Outside of the big players, North Korea has the best missile program on the planet and even they are barely able to get to the continental U.S. and a true ICBM is outta the question. To think Iraq could out-do the NK's on that count is unrealistic.

For what it's worth at this stage of the game, look at the human condition in Iraq before the war(s). They were #1 in the region for personal freedoms; women were educated, the populous was well off financially and like it or not, he kept all these factions from going at it and causing an all out civil war. There were grudges with the Iranians and Israelis, this is true but Saddam was not a stupid man. The war he fought with Iran was backed by the U.S. and considering the financial dependance on the U.S. for oil exports, ya think he would be crazy enough to attack Israel? Not likely.


I agree with some of your points about the condition of Iraq before and after the war. I wonder if Saddam was asked some of these same questions before he took over Iraq. These things take time.

Why didn't Saddam and Afghanistan simply do what was asked of them before both of those conflicts became full blown wars?

I do disagree with the premise Iraq offered no threat to America. One could argue Afghanistan offered no threat to them either, but that we know now that isn't true.
 

Canucklehead

Moderator
Apr 6, 2005
797
11
18
I agree with some of your points about the condition of Iraq before and after the war. I wonder if Saddam was asked some of these same questions before he took over Iraq. These things take time.

Why didn't Saddam and Afghanistan simply do what was asked of them before both of those conflicts became full blown wars?

I do disagree with the premise Iraq offered no threat to America. One could argue Afghanistan offered no threat to them either, but that we know now that isn't true.

I understand what you are saying. Iraq still concerns me because they were complying with U.N. demands for inspections and the U.N. was making great progress there... until they were ordered out of the country or face death at the hands of U.S. bombs. The only commentary on Iraq and terrorism I can recall reading was that Iraq supported the Palestinians, and let's face it, even the Palestinian groups until recently have been not been considered terrorists carte blanche. Canada only changed it's stance from neutrality to the Israeli side recently as well.
Saddam despised Bin Laden and while they have met, it must be viewed more like a necessary evil than some grand planning session. Think of Bush meeting up with a few S.American nations... they are not exactly on great terms but recognise the need for dialogue. If Saddam, as has been suggested at times, paid off Bin Laden as S.A. did, well, it is not a sign of support. It is a sign of self protection if Saddam felt he could not control the repercussions of possible attacks.
The only factor that could be seen as a threat would have been the suggestion of moving his oil sales to the Euro and the possibility of that move escalating the rhetoric to a point where Iraq may threaten to cut of the supplies to the U.S., imho.