soru

they understand that acquiescing to a political form of protest would never have worked… Jerry Bremer give the Iraqis a fair deal who are you kidding?

thats why we cheer the resistance… sure they cause civilian casualties but so do US troops… neither is any better than the other

Ah right I think what is being claimed here is becoming clearer (to me at least).

I think you are getting confused between totalitarian regimes (a new socio-political order unique to the 20th century) and Empires (which are as old as civilisation itself). You are quite right. Some Empires did last 1000 years or more (although NONE of them lasted forever….not an uninteresting fact. Even Rome fell).

But totalitarian states (Soviet Russia, Hitler’s Germany, the South American terror regimes, Albania, Romania, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal), which sometimes but not always were imperial powers (this is a very important point: just because you are totalitarian, it does NOT mean that you necessarily pose a threat to your neighbours, altbough of course you might): these states proved themselves to be extraordinarily unstable. Even the longest lasted of them all, the Soviet Union, only lasted seventy years: an eye blink compared to the British or Roman Empires. You must remember that seemingly ‘long lasted’ totalitarian states are incredibly young. China and North Korea are only slightly over fifty years old. Fifty years after the Soviet Union was created was 1968. If anyone had stated then that the Soviet Union was on its last legs, you would have been laughed at, loudly (to the best of my knowledge not one person predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union until the late ‘seventies).

Christopher Hitchens was right. Iraq WAS on the brink of collapse. So is North Korea. It won’t last another thirty years. I seriously doubt if ANY totalitarian state will last longer than the Soviet Union (which had huge advantages which no other totalitarian state in history is likel to have, in terms of natural resources etc. etc.).

Actually, I’m pretty sure it was a reference to the punk band.

Those insurgents do lay down a kickin’ bass line.
—-Myca

If he said and meant that, yes. Like North Korea, Iraq, without outside intervention, would almost certainly continue on indefinitely. Look at equivalent historical tyrannies. With military supremacy over the ruled and the will to use it, some of them lasted hundreds or thousands of years.

If he said or meant that, not the regime, but the remaining elements of pre-Iran/Iraq war civil nationalist society, the things that made it anything different from pure Tikriti clan rule, were fading, that the living standards of the people were dropping, then I’d agree with him.

Lower living standards and a smaller middle class make a dictatorial regime more, not less, secure, providing they can survive the transition.

soru

So when Christopher Hitchens argues that the Iraqi regime is on the point of collapse you disagree with him?

Was he referring to 1776 or to those guys who want to patrol our borders as immigration vigilantes? A case could be made for both.

My point, lest it be lost, is that it’s wrong to suggest that a dead man was having an affair if you have no idea, period. I don’t care if you’re Michael Ledeen, Juan Cole, or anyone in between. The man has a grieving widow who clearly believes otherwise, and people should have a little respect.

The fact that some pro-war types would use this allegation as a way to flog their standard claim that the insurgents are really bad people doesn’t help matters any, particularly because Vincent’s murderers can in no sense be considered part of the “insurgency.” But the allegations themselves are simply inappropriate, regardless of the point one is trying to make by repeating them.

but there were lots of ways to skin that cat.

Maybe, but no government with the military technology level of Iraq and the willingness to use it repeatedly on its own people has ever been overthrown other than by external military intervention.

Two, Iran and Romania, have fallen after firing on demonstrators once, and the army changing sides instead of repeating the operation. The post-war activities of the ba’athists make it clear there was no risk of any such such squeamishness.

soru

Two, Iran and Romania, have fallen after firing on demonstrators once, and the army changing sides instead of repeating the operation. The post-war activities of the ba’athist make it clear there was no risk of any such such squeamishness.

soru

That is why some of us suspect he was not trying for subtle.

Um, wow, Steve, lots and lots of reasons. Too many to get hashed out here. I mean, yes, deposing Saddam was a prerequisite to a better government for Iraq. But there were lots of ways to skin that cat, especially if you were willing to delay the transition while keeping Iraq contained militarily. The current resistance movement and civil war was the entirely predictable result of a U.S. invasion under false pretences, clearly conducted without genuine concern for the well-being of the Iraqis in the aftermath. That civil war is a major barrier to effective Iraqi sovereignty today and I believe we are pouring fuel on it by our presence there. We have no credibility with the Iraqi people, people who side too closely with us have no credibility, and the emergence of a powerful force that does have such credibility is critical to the eventual creation of a sovereign government. Not sure how to manage this, we are in a tragic situation here.

May I repeat that—to my knowledge—no one has been arrested for the murder, let alone tried and convicted. And that Vincent made, at least if the news accounts are to be trusted, more than one enemy in Iraq.

So, Mr. Davies, are you joking? If not, have you turned over your knowlege (not speculations) on those motives to the authorities?