It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rice: U.S. doubts that democracy will prevail

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Rice: U.S. doubts that democracy will prevail


Source Link: www.cbsnews.com

(AP) Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Iraqi government leaders Saturday that the contentious debate in Washington over President Bush's war strategy reflects U.S. doubts that democracy will prevail over violence.

"Some of the debate in Washington is in fact indicative of the concerns that some of the American people have ... if the Iraqi government doesn't do what it has said it will do," Rice said she told leaders from all of Iraq's factions.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
hosted.ap.org
abcnews.go.com




posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Well, her assertions are well founded. The American people are hesitant to expend more resources on a goal that may simply not be attainable. Unless the Iraqi people step up and take control of their country, they may be a lost cause. The US isnt going to fight this thing for them, thats the reason why vietnam was lost. We are there wit AID them, not fight and win freedom FOR them.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, her assertions are well founded. The American people are hesitant to expend more resources on a goal that may simply not be attainable. Unless the Iraqi people step up and take control of their country, they may be a lost cause. The US isnt going to fight this thing for them, thats the reason why vietnam was lost. We are there wit AID them, not fight and win freedom FOR them.





The US invasion was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was it not?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
yep, Iraqi Freedom.... not American bought Iraqi freedom..



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Rice is just conveying the current political climate that exists in the Congress now.

I take a bit of exception to the title of this thread, as it seems to imply Rice and the current administration feels that way too (although unintentually).

Anyway, I think the surge combined with tough talk like this is actually working at least for now. Only time will tell if it will end up being successful in the end though.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
This is exactly what she needs to be saying to the Iraqis. They need to try and get it together, but for god sakes, look at the hand they've been dealt.

Their country had been under a brutal regime for a long period of time where repression was standard. Now, they've been given the keys to their country and told set up a democracy but only one that is favorable to the US. In the M.E., this is a little easier said than done.

Not to mention the proxy war that the US and Iran are fighting in Iraq... along with Al Qaeda of the Arabian Penisula.

Yes, this is what Rice and this government should be conveying, but we've got to have patience. After all, how long did it take our country to get it right? Do we have it right yet?



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Rice: U.S. doubts that democracy will prevail


Read:
We knew it the whole entire time , otherwise we would have never had to use a multitude of different ways to decieve you. We just wanted to help ourselves and our friends to take a nice big hunk of cash from the lower and middle class before we left office.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 04:35 AM
link   
she was always going to say something like thta. if they want to attack iran, she could not have said anything else.

with the military buildup in the gulf, its going to be interesting.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Have we seen enough attempted Americanization of the Middle East?

If the ultimate plan was to have a peaceful democracy in Iraq, it is more than obvious that has failed miserably, at least to this point.

Ironic that a war intended initially to have a peaceful outcome has so far achieved the total opposite.

The current culture, religion, government structure, and way of life in the nations of the Middle East are a result of thousands of years of trials and tribulations. Rather arrogant of the U.S. government and military to assume that it could impose a western style of democracy in a region where people have been suppressed for so long. Were ancient conflicts and tribal wars, along with sectarian divisions ever even considered by the war planners?

I hear a lot from the current administration about the "will of the Iraqi people" However, the true will of the Iraqi people seems to be a mystery.

I don't really expect a broad admission of failure from the Bush administration, in regard to Iraq. And I believe Rice was only stating the obvious to the Iraqi factions. But at some point politics, and those who wish to pursue a future, will try to find ways to separate themselves from the failures in the Middle East. And those who may be concerned about their own legacy may openly stand against the current U.S. policies in Iraq and the Middle East.

At some point it either ends, or escalates to an unknown end. That choice is not really ours to make.

So much for Democracy!


apc

posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I said among friends back in '03 that a stable democracy in Iraq was impossible until most of the older generation and a good chunk of the younger were dead. You can't take people raised in the doctrine of dictatorship and thrust them into democracy with squat for a transition period. Obviously, it just don't work.

Of something that simple I have to think the powers at play were well aware. The conclusion therefore is that democracy was never the goal.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
The peoples in the area have been at war for over 2000 years.
Does anyone actually think that can be stopped by Democracy ?

Lex



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

The US invasion was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was it not?


And they have been freed!!
have they not??

Now is the time for them to step up and take control.

Iraqi troops trained and supplied by US who stand
in a group and watch U.S. soldiers breaking locks and
kicking in doors is bad enough, but then when those
same "troops" continue to stand in a huddle and then
cheer after each door.... BullShhtttt.
It seems that as long as we do it for them they are not
willing to put their own asses on the line.

Saddam gave them security;
Secure in the fact that they better obey
Failure could mean death and the torture of your family.

Secure that to oppose him would mean death and
The torture of your family.

They begged for freedom from saddam for 20+ years!!!!

Now that they have it they are unwilling to stand up for it.

Perhaps we should pull out.. Oh wait, That's where the
oil is! Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves on earth and is
also the only country capable of immediately, and
substantially increasing production..

The U.S. needs oil to survive.
U.S. oil production peaked in 1978
World oil production peaked in 2000

When the oil is gone the U.S. will be near the top of the
"hardest hit" list.

We did free Iraq from saddam but we didn't do it
for the Iraqis. We did it because we need a freindly
government in the region other than Saudi Arabia to
provide us with oil, and we need it installed before some
other big players (i.e. China) get involved.


if they want to attack iran, she could not have said anything else.


Agreed, but Iran is safe for now. As much as Washington
won't admit it but we all know, The U.S. cannot sustain
or afford a 3rd front in the "war on terror", Black ops?
Mabey, Ground invasion? Possibly eventually, but not
anytime soon..



If the ultimate plan was to have a peaceful democracy in Iraq, it is more than obvious that has failed miserably, at least to this point.


It took Germany 7 years to stabilize after the big one.

Iraq will stabilize but it takes patience. Unfortunatly
In modern day U.S. with it's fast food, fast money, fast
moving, throw away today and buy some more
tommorrow society. Well, you know..



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienChaser
It took Germany 7 years to stabilize after the big one.

I suppose you mean after WW2.
But it was still occupied for 50 years by allied powers --not for reasons of civil war though-- but for reasons of protecting freedom.

Tactical and treaty binding reasons kept troops there, where in Iraq you can say they are for logistic-strategically reasons, and having to fight an insurgency on top makes it tough, sure enough...
...but they'll be tied up for just as long as they were in Germany -- or as long as the commodity lasts.

Dealing with a German culture, who in major ways through the past centuries, have contributed to humanistic thinking in philosophy and social sciences, is far from dealing with nomadic tribes on a level where they never have developed/or maybe still be declining from past social systems.
(sorry for this off-topic slip)



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   
It was the plan at the beginning. Invade, divide, create a civil war, bring Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the conflict. Divide them according to the New Middle East map, put dictatorships or pro-US ``democracies``, buy them, profit.

Just one question for the future of the US: How will you be able to stop feeding the militaro-industrial complex without a bloodshed? Because it's like a beast, and won't accept a reduction of their budget.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It was the plan at the beginning. Invade, divide, create a civil war, bring Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the conflict. Divide them according to the New Middle East map, put dictatorships or pro-US ``democracies``, buy them, profit.

Just one question for the future of the US: How will you be able to stop feeding the militaro-industrial complex without a bloodshed? Because it's like a beast, and won't accept a reduction of their budget.

With what evidence is that claim made? That is based on speculation. Stated US policy is much different than that statement.



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Just one question for the future of the US: How will you be able to stop feeding the militaro-industrial complex without a bloodshed? Because it's like a beast, and won't accept a reduction of their budget.


the stuff in the middle east should take along time. but also remember if we ever start living together in harmony in this world, they will just create space threats, like asteroids and aliens, so they can build space weapons.


apc

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It was the plan at the beginning. Invade, divide, create a civil war, bring Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon in the conflict. Divide them according to the New Middle East map, put dictatorships or pro-US ``democracies``, buy them, profit.


If that is true... so what? As long as it doesn't set off a full scale meltdown, I'm all for it!



posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   


With what evidence is that claim made? That is based on speculation. Stated US policy is much different than that statement.

Look at the pentagon's own plans before the Iraq war. Look at the new middle-east map. ect... Look for yourself.




If that is true... so what? As long as it doesn't set off a full scale meltdown, I'm all for it!

So you are for the murder of millions of people to achieve that goal? To let Israël own the middle-east? To instaure dictatorship all over the middle-east who will kill anyone who oppose the 4th Reich will?

[edit on 19-2-2007 by Vitchilo]


apc

posted on Feb, 19 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Acceptable casualties...

The Middle East is a problem. I suspect in less than 20 years, it won't be. A lot of people will probably have to die to make that transition. Oh well, sucks to be them. I'd rather the death takes place in a controlled and manipulated conflict than an insane uncontrollable jihad.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join