- This topic has 67 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 18 years ago by PerryChase.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 26, 2006 at 8:04 AM #7778October 26, 2006 at 8:50 AM #38461JESParticipant
Interesting piece JG and I think it is clear that something needs to change fast. IMO the most likely outcome of this war is going to be the division of Iraq into a loose confederation of three autonomous ethnic regions after a significant withdrawal of US forces over the next two years. Democratic wins this November – heaven forbid they should occur – will quicken the calls for withdrawal and we are already seeing policy changes in the White House in anticipation of this.
The real problem we have now is the barbarian tactics of the various ethnic groups against each other and for that we should accept no blame. I’m afraid that there are only two arrangements that will bring partial peace to that area – a strong handed dictator like the one we got rid of or separating the country along ethnic lines. At the outset I was optimistic about the chances of democracy taking root in a unified Iraq, but no longer.
I think history will look back at this as a failed experiment of trying to bring democracy to a people whose culture and attitudes just aren’t ready for it. I believe it was a noble cause that needed to be undertaken, and perhaps the three regions will develop democratic governments. If they don’t, only the Iraqis are to blame. At this point I think we should divide the country in three along ethnic lines and assume the role of defending the regions against outside attack.
October 26, 2006 at 9:23 AM #38466WileyParticipantQuestions JES,
How is spreading Democracy a noble cause? Where is the proof Democracy is a superior form of government?
Obviously you supported the invasion and thought the outcome would be much differnent. Why do you think you now have the answers?
You can’t “bring” people anything. People must liberate themselves. Check history.
Would it be Noble for communists to come here with war because they truly felt their form of government was a better way for us to live?
This area has already been divided many times by the west. Why would more division solve the problem?
I’m not saying I have the answers. It just always bugs me that everyone (including people who can’t even manage their own personal affairs) believe they have the solutions for a people and country they know little about.
October 26, 2006 at 9:56 AM #38469blahblahblahParticipantThat’s an interesting article and it’s always good to hear the news from people who are actually there seeing firsthand what’s going on. But it’s scary to me to hear everyone throw the word “democracy” around like it’s some kind of magic incantation that can turn a war-torn country into a paradise overnight. A little civics lesson — we Americans don’t live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic.
This article gives a pretty good overview of our founding fathers’ opinion of democracies.
October 26, 2006 at 10:03 AM #38470CardiffBaseballParticipantMy thoughts are similar to the author’s. We did not handle the assimilation correctly. The occupation’s of Japan and Germany were far more reaching, and allowed over that 10 year period, better assimilation.
Let’s face the Japanese and German fighters were far more fierce and not impotent like Arab fighters, who wage war from behind women and children. Yet, despite being more worthy opponents, they were eventually controlled, and are now stable vibrant democracies.
Oh and for Wiley, history has shown in general that democratic nations tend not to attack one another. If you bust up the center of the Arab world with a democratic nation, you could potentially have a more far reaching peace. This is why I believed in the effort. As it stands there is only one democracy in the Middle East.
October 26, 2006 at 10:23 AM #38474blahblahblahParticipantOkay, this is getting WAY off-topic for a real-estate board, but let’s really think about this. We DEFEATED the Japanese and Germans, but the French, British, and Israelis (and perhaps we Americans too) have all failed to subdue Arab rebellions, so the Arabs are less worthy opponents? It’s true they don’t play by our rules, but of course we didn’t play by the British rules of engagement back in 1776, now did we? While they lined up in their fancy redcoats and marched in formation through the fields, we picked them off while hiding in trees. We didn’t even have the decency to wear uniforms! The American fighters were unkempt, unshaven, and uncouth, and the British were horrified at our uncivilized guerilla tactics. I am in NO WAY equating our founding fathers with the Iraqi resistance, I am just saying that you can’t be surprised that they’re not fighting by our rules. If they did, they’d last about 30 seconds, just long enough for us to drop some 2000-pounders on ’em!
As for hiding behind women and children, that’s just what happens in urban warfare. The Russians did the same thing to the Germans in Stalingrad. There was less of this in Western Europe because the front lines advanced very slowly and civilians usually had time to evacuate. In Iraq we occupied the whole place in the space of a month and the army just evaporated into the general population. Par for the course in any case where the opponents are drastically overmatched.
Our ONLY hope in Iraq is to get the people to trust our troops and the new Iraqi police and army. I am not sure if it’s even possible, but I hope that we still have a chance. We will all pay the price for many years to come if we don’t…
October 26, 2006 at 11:04 AM #38476WileyParticipantOh and for Wiley, history has shown in general that democratic nations tend not to attack one another. If you bust up the center of the Arab world with a democratic nation, you could potentially have a more far reaching peace. This is why I believed in the effort. As it stands there is only one democracy in the Middle East.
I'm glad you put the disclaimer "in general". Off the top of my head we've interfered with Democratically elected governments in Chile and Nicaragua. If we're so peaceful why are we constantly waging war? Why do we spend more than all other countries in the world combined on our military?
Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?
The fact is we are an empire and act like all other empires before us. Waging war around the world in an attempt to show others how much better our way of life would be. The only big difference is other empires collect tributes from their newly conquered lands. We don't. But our will end as all others. Debasing our currency in an attempt to pay for all the folly, leading to ruin. All else is noise (imho).
Bagdad has been invaded so many times by people who had the answers its incredible. Each one grew tired of the expense and eventually left. We will too.
October 26, 2006 at 12:32 PM #38485AnonymousGuestDemocracies work in Muslim countries: look at Turkey. It doesn’t export terrorists. A priori, there was no reason to believe it could not work in Iraq.
Young men with no jobs and with limited access to women (many of whom are in the harem of the princes and their retinue); that’s why terrorism flourishes in Saudi Arabia, etc. Heck, I’d become a terrorist, too, under those conditions.
Was the election in Iraq a farce? Turnout was 50-72%. Why would folks risk death to vote? Because freedom is a universal human desire, and democracy (whether direct or representational) is a proven method for ensuring it.
Hitler elected? He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg. Do you remember the burning of the Reichstag? That’s how he seized control of the levers of government. Yeah, that’s democratic.
Iraq could survive as a democracy, but it may take a post-WWII occupation or British-style-empire-in-India to get it there.
October 26, 2006 at 2:00 PM #38490blahblahblahParticipantYeah, don’t count out Iraq yet but they need to do it for themselves and it may take a long time. I firmly believe the US must offer support (including military support), but we need to be realistic and accept that their government may not look like ours or even agree with us much of the time after all is said and done. And as for countries in the middle east being skeptical of democracy, they do have some legitimate concerns. Ever wonder how the Shah of Iran came to power? He deposed democratically-elected president Mossadegh in a US/British-engineered coup in 1953. Although Mossadegh was friendly to the US and was considered a valuable ally in our battle against the communist threat, he made the mistake of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, depriving US and British companies of their “rights” to Iranian oil fields. Whoopsie! Good-bye, open democratic government, hello repressive monarchy! The Shah allowed US and British oil companies back into the country and many Iranians were none-too-pleased at Western meddling in their affairs. Decades of brutal oppression by the Shah’s SAVAK police allowed the Islamic fundamentalist crazies to win lots of converts, eventually giving their movement enough momentum to otherthrow the Shah in 1979. Now we’ve got an Iran that is far more unfriendly and dangerous than the one we interfered with back in 1953. And don’t take my word for it, you can read the history yourself in this excellent wikipedia entry about the Shah.
October 26, 2006 at 2:11 PM #38491PerryChaseParticipantJES, what is the difference between what you’re advocating and not invading Iraq in the first place? It’s pretty clear to me that Iraq was a mistake.
Now that the mistake was made, how do we solve the problem? I don’t have the answer. But America needs to take responsibility for its error and not leave the Iraqi people in worse shape that when we first got in. It’s our moral responsiblity and our national interest depends on it. If we fail to fix our mistake, American influence will suffer for decades to come.
I’d say that the first step is to admit our errors and get rid of the people who caused that fiasco. Then we can come up with new ideas to fix the problem.
October 26, 2006 at 3:46 PM #38498WileyParticipantJG,
I stand corrected on Hitler. I should have said he came to power in a democratic government.On your other statement that democracy is a proven method for ensuring freedom I’d disagree. Do you think we are more free then say someone living under a monarchy?
Even the thought that a democracy is sustainable is highly dubious. A professor from Scottland once said during the formation of our government that democracies can only last approximately 200 years because as the people realize they can vote themselves more and more from the public treasury they slowly vote themselves into a tyranny. (or something close to that). I’d say he was pretty astute.
I don’t know if democracy would be better for them or not. I do know this. If a people wants a new form of government then it is their responsibility to make it happen. You cannot liberate a country. Only they can.
I think it very naive to think our government cares about the plight of the Iraqi’s (or our moral obligation). This is about money and power. If it were otherwise we’d send our army to Sudan.
October 26, 2006 at 8:03 PM #38523qcomerParticipant“Young men with no jobs and with limited access to women (many of whom are in the harem of the princes and their retinue); that’s why terrorism flourishes in Saudi Arabia, etc. Heck, I’d become a terrorist, too, under those conditions.”
This quote oozes of American ignorance about other cultures in the worrld. I am just hoping that Washington is not basing tactics to engage terrorism based on the theory that “limited access to women” causes people to become terrorists.
For all now proclaiming that we went there to spread democracy are hiding behind an excuse. Americans went to Iraq believing it had weapons of mass destruction and moreover, beleiving that those weapons would go into hands of terrorists. Iraq could have been democratized anytime from early 90s, but without the WMD, this thing could never have taken off. People say that well in hindsight this war was a mistake. No way, the whole world told us that this was a mistake from the beginning but the American bravado wouldn’t listen to the european pansies. This govt pushed for this war so badly, with so little concrete evidence that one seriously doubts the motives of this govt for the invasion of Iraq. What are the intelligence reports now about Iran and North Korea? What about Pakistan who supplied atomic technology to NK? Why did we ignore much more dangerous terrorist havens and ended up invading a poor, weak, hollow disctatorship and turned the country into terrorist haven?
Another arrogant American concept is that Americans went to Iraq to “liberate” Iraqi people. A recent poll by NBC found that 87% Americans think their govt system is broken. Should another country invade the US with true intentions of fixing its broken democracy and with noble intentions of liberating its people from the corrupt politicians or corporates? The reason why we attacked Iraq ………. well because we could and because we knew that it will be the people of Iraq who will be paying major collateral for any mistakes or error of judgements, that we made. Well the war has caused Americans billions of dollars in debt as a gift to pass onto future generations, ~3000 soldiers and a budding ground for terrorism.
October 26, 2006 at 9:13 PM #38530socalarmParticipantsomeone mentioned a british styled empire in india as a viable precedent.
that’s pretty ridiculous. your argument gives credit for gandhi’s peace struggle to the british empire?
if a culture gives the world buddhism and secular peaceful protest in exchange for colonial oppression, wouldn’t you say that’s a quality intrinsic to a culture, not something bequeathed to it by an invader?that’s pretty lazy and arrogant thinking.
should we take credit for civilizing black slaves and chinese railroad workers too ?here’s samuel huntington, someone people love quoting about a ‘war of civilizations’:
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”October 26, 2006 at 9:58 PM #38539AnonymousGuestLovely Indian custom before the civilizing hand of the British, the burning of the wife upon her husband’s funeral pyre.
Lovely thing to live with, that caste system.
What ugliness, exactly, is there today in the world’s largest democracy that arose from its British subjugation?
Lovely condition that Black Africa is in: famine and rampant AIDs despite great mineral wealth. The Brits, French, and Belgians have been gone for decades; who’s to blame, now?
Lovely place to live, South Africa is, since the departure of the Afrikaaners from power: life expectancy of men of 54 and of women of 58, unemployment of 30%, per capita GDP of $3K. I know, I know, they’re poor but happy.
Gimme a break, guys. Culture matters. That’s why San Diego is rich and safe and Tijuana is poor and dangerous. Some cultures are better than others. Yeah, we’ve got our weaknesses — producing tarts like Britney and trash like ‘Desperate Housewives.’ But, I guarantee we Westerners won’t decapitate the Hollywood punks for giving us such.
October 26, 2006 at 10:32 PM #38542socalarmParticipant“The Brits, French, and Belgians have been gone for decades; who’s to blame, now?”
btw, arabs colonized and enslaved africa too.
yes it’s just those sorry-assed black folk who can’t stop invaders and are too busy fornicating with each other spreading aids. they should really ask to bring the belgians back. hey what the hell, let’s bring the spaniards back to mexico and the arabs to israel and the japanese to nanjing and the british to india and the turks to spain. that’ll show ’em 😉
i mean who cares if they’re free now.
you seem to know a lot about other cultures. san diego is rich and safe. i agree. take away rich and you will take away safe. your illusion of superiority will suffer remarkably the day the word ‘rich’ loses it’s power.
the caste system may not be half as bad as black slavery in the south. i forgot that’s been declared illegal. well, so was the caste system. there’s really no point to such irrelevant comparisons.
you’re subtly shifting responsibility from the occupier to the occupied.
i forgot. we just came in with our slaves and eradicated the previous inhabitants. we even gave them reparations but look them now. they’re just a bunch of drunks running casinos.change the century and there’s always one dominant power who pooh-poohs the others to proclaim his own unprecedented superiority. great attitude jg. bring ’em on.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.