posted
To respond to an earlier post to me, no, we did not have a plan. Or at least, we had a "plan" that failed to consider Iraq might need judges soon after the war, that thought making little effort to hold any but our areas of highest concentration against the warlords was a good idea, that didn't support ore reinforce the middle tier of government and civil services in Iraq at all (you know, the ones who do the day to day administration? and who were the same ones targeted by the enemy?), et cetera.
We had a really cr*ppy plan, if it can even be called that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The major opposition to the Bill of Rights was not to the rights themselves, but to the fact that enumerating the rights would cheapen those necessarily left out.
There was also an idea that the Federal government had enumerated powers, not the general police power as the states had, and so an enumeration of rights were not needed. The thinking was that instead of listing what the government can't do, we'll just list what it can.
The Bill of Rights was basically promised before the Constitution was ratified, and was crucial in obtaining some states' ratifications.
posted
Oh yes, and the "plan" also proceeded with the idea that giving away about one third of the money for rebuilding without even a bidding process was a good idea:
quote: Or do they really think they are so right in this that in short order everyone is just going to say "oh, look, it worked out great! Thanks guys!"
pretty much.
fallow
PS. well, that, and the diffusion of responsibility.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: one of the Constitution's primary purposes was to protect the minorities.
i suppose that's one way to look at it, and it is certainly the way most textbooks present it. another way is that the colonists found themselves in a potentially very volatile situation in which a large portion of the population was held in slavery, another large portion was in virtual slavery as indentured servants, and the majority of the remainders were poor and practically starving. yes, there was a middle class of sorts in urban centers, but the majority of the population needed to be kept from armed rebellion. In this situation, which concern would you think was more cogent: the concern that a new government would trample the rights of minorities (which by the way it did on multiple occasions, despite the bill of rights), or the concern that the population be pacified to ensure "domestic tranquility"? I guess i look at the constitution and bill of rights as a way of appeasing the majority of the country which was poor and well armed by creating a sense of nationalism and participation in the government. (not to mention by legitimizing economic disparity through the concept of upward mobility).
i guess i agree with you on the pragmatics, namely that we made a mistake in the first place and that we need to show the world we recognize that. I think the most important point to all of this is that it's going to take a very long time before iraq has a stable government, probably a few decades, and we now have a responsibility to do everything we can to foster that government, regardless of the shape it takes. I doubt that the international community is going to be very excited about sharing this reponsibility with us considering that we basically made this mess by ourselves, although it would be nice if they did.
i sort of feel that between 9/11 and the recent actions which our government has been taking, we are currently on the cusp of a long era of decline in american supremacy. We might be able to salvage our influence, but it will be difficult.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep reading that we should have gotten the support of the international community, or that we should get it now. But the distinct impression I got, from the very beginning of this affair, is that the international community was uninterested in doing anything but telling us to keep out and remain uninvolved. Don't get me wrong--they didn't have to help out--but it seems odd to suggest that we just headed in without asking. We did ask. They said no.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
