NationStates Jolt Archive

Before the Iraqi's were free to keep thier head down and not bother the governemnt too much as is All societies. Now they are free to live in a warzone. Which would you prefer?

The occupying soldiers don't systematically torture the people or bomb the Kurds for no obvious reason. Before the invasion Iraq was bombed each week and suffered from crippling econimic sanctions. I think occupation (with the possibility of a proper democracy sometime in the future) is the lesser of two evils.

At the end of the day the only difference between Saddam's troops and Bush's troops is that Bsh's troops travelled a few thousand miles to kill and oppress the Iraqis, though I think their intent is also more humane.

Aidan

I think occupation (with the possibility of a proper democracy sometime in the future) is the lesser of two evils.
And what about the third evil? You know, the one where there are no sanctions and no bombings?

Things are really not as simple as you make out with your question.... the old regime of Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal in history which repressed it's population with a network of secret service control the like of which no other nation could even approach. Electricity was not stable, partly due to dodgy supplies and partly due to Saddam turning it off every so often as another lever of control. Hundreds of thousands of people disappeared and many many more were tortured or disenfranchised by the regime.

Instead of that regime we have a regime which has made fundamental mistakes in dealing with the people of Iraq after the liberation. As a result of these huge errors, insurgency and violence are now on the increase.

Better to really ask the question what can we do now....

hand over administration (FULL administration).

I think occupation (with the possibility of a proper democracy sometime in the future) is the lesser of two evils.
And what about the third evil? You know, the one where there are no sanctions and no bombings?

When there's a power void in an unstable region it tends to lead towards to oppressive regimes (dictatorships, or the formation of gangs.) Democray goes against human nature, so it has to be taught (ie enforced) on people for a few years before it can survive on its own. Just look at what Russia has been through since the end of the Cold War.

Aidan

dp

When there's a power void in an unstable region it tends to lead towards to oppressive regimes (dictatorships, or the formation of gangs.) Democray goes against human nature, so it has to be taught (ie enforced) on people for a few years before it can survive on its own. Just look at what Russia has been through since the end of the Cold War.

AidanI hope you are not comparing Iraq and Russia. Russia has not been invaded and its military would still scare the hell out of any foreign country.

The occupying soldiers don't systematically torture the people or bomb the Kurds for no obvious reason.

People always conveniently forget that Saddam never just went after the Kurds for no reason. They were in revolt. And as much of a prick as he may have been, every government in the world will respond to armed insurrection with a military response. I'm not condoning some of the techniques he used, but let's not paint the Kurds as lilly-white farm folk just minding their business who got attacked for no reason. They revolted in Iraq and Turkey. Turkey was also brutal in putting them down. Why haven't we attacked them yet?

Before the invasion Iraq was bombed each week and suffered from crippling econimic sanctions. I think occupation (with the possibility of a proper democracy sometime in the future) is the lesser of two evils.

Oh... you mean we bombed them and starved them... and then we invaded them as our preffered method of stopping bombing and starving them? Gosh... why don't they love us again?

At the end of the day the only difference between Saddam's troops and Bush's troops is that Bsh's troops travelled a few thousand miles to kill and oppress the Iraqis, though I think their intent is also more humane.

Aidan

The intent, unfortunately, matters little to the parents of a child caught in the crossfire.

-Z-

Enforced democracy!
Brilliant!
Must be such a great system!
We assume that it is best for every culture we come across because various distorted forms of it work for us.
Many native tribes function happily without it. African before it was ‘civilised’ managed without it. We in the west make huge assumptions that ‘civilisation’ as we see it its best and that if you have this then democracy is also the best.
Could it be that the people of Iraq do not want democracy? Could they have a better idea of how to control their country? After all Kuwait is not a democracy, and why should it be? The citizens of that country are well provided for, immigrant workers are another matter but in a democracy transient workers would not have a vote.
I’m not saying democracy is not good or that it won’t work in Iraq, what I am saying is that it is presumptuous in the extreme not to consider any other option.

Turkey was also brutal in putting them down. Why haven't we attacked them yet?

Oh, that one is simple!! :)

It's because their goverment has crawled up and taken residence in Bush's ass - must be quite crowded in there with all the other goverments who have done the same. :lol:

Turkey was also brutal in putting them down. Why haven't we attacked them yet?

Oh, that one is simple!! :)

It's because their goverment has crawled up and taken residence in Bush's ass - must be quite crowded in there with all the other goverments who have done the same. :lol:

What.. you mean like the leader of Uzbekistan who got 500M for joining the war on terror.... the one who boils political opponents alive?

And Pakistan who hands out plans to a-bombs like concert leaflets...

And ISreal who... well, let's not go there again.


*sigh*

The war on terror.... now supported by friendly terrorists everywhere.... we'll get to them later after they piss us off... and after we've armed them to make it a worthwhile challenge....

-Z-

Enforced democracy!
Brilliant!
Must be such a great system!
We assume that it is best for every culture we come across because various distorted forms of it work for us.
Many native tribes function happily without it. African before it was ‘civilised’ managed without it. We in the west make huge assumptions that ‘civilisation’ as we see it its best and that if you have this then democracy is also the best.
Could it be that the people of Iraq do not want democracy? Could they have a better idea of how to control their country? After all Kuwait is not a democracy, and why should it be? The citizens of that country are well provided for, immigrant workers are another matter but in a democracy transient workers would not have a vote.
I’m not saying democracy is not good or that it won’t work in Iraq, what I am saying is that it is presumptuous in the extreme not to consider any other option.


Any suggestions?? A sunni dictator? A shiite dictator? A kurdish dictator? An Islamic Fundamentalist oligarchy? The problem with most alternatives is that the likely outcome would be the exclusion of one or more groups from governmental affairs which in turn would doubtless result in unrest and more violence. Each Iraqi group has a right to representation and a democracy is the only way this can be achieved. That said I do believe that the US shouldn't be overly dogmatic regarding what kind of democracy it decides to install and ought to be more prepared to cater the system to the needs of the region.

My perception has been that most people in Iraq want a democracy and that their rejection of the occupying forces does not amount to a rejection of democracy.

Any aspiring form of government needs to be enforced, even a well established government has its own methods of enforcement although as time goes by these methods become more elaborate. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless the methods of enforcement become intolerable.

The occupying soldiers don't systematically torture the people or bomb the Kurds for no obvious reason.

People always conveniently forget that Saddam never just went after the Kurds for no reason. They were in revolt. And as much of a prick as he may have been, every government in the world will respond to armed insurrection with a military response. I'm not condoning some of the techniques he used, but let's not paint the Kurds as lilly-white farm folk just minding their business who got attacked for no reason. They revolted in Iraq and Turkey. Turkey was also brutal in putting them down. Why haven't we attacked them yet?

Before the invasion Iraq was bombed each week and suffered from crippling econimic sanctions. I think occupation (with the possibility of a proper democracy sometime in the future) is the lesser of two evils.

Oh... you mean we bombed them and starved them... and then we invaded them as our preffered method of stopping bombing and starving them? Gosh... why don't they love us again?

At the end of the day the only difference between Saddam's troops and Bush's troops is that Bsh's troops travelled a few thousand miles to kill and oppress the Iraqis, though I think their intent is also more humane.

Aidan

The intent, unfortunately, matters little to the parents of a child caught in the crossfire.

-Z-

C'mon Zep..he was more then just a prick..surpassed only by men such as Pol Pot and Stalin in their ability to commit murder on his own people. And the Kurds while not lily white were also under the dictatorial police state in a country where they were treated as second class citizens, same with the Shia...

If for no other reason then we liberated them from a psychotic madman (and yes..I know..you're going to say we put him there..not exactly we, a past adminstration..so who better to put it right but us)...whose sons used rape rooms full of Iraq's daughter's, mothers, and wives. No one will ever be able to convince me that taking him out was wrong.

Enforced democracy!
Brilliant!
Must be such a great system!
We assume that it is best for every culture we come across because various distorted forms of it work for us.
Many native tribes function happily without it. African before it was ‘civilised’ managed without it. We in the west make huge assumptions that ‘civilisation’ as we see it its best and that if you have this then democracy is also the best.
Could it be that the people of Iraq do not want democracy? Could they have a better idea of how to control their country? After all Kuwait is not a democracy, and why should it be? The citizens of that country are well provided for, immigrant workers are another matter but in a democracy transient workers would not have a vote.
I’m not saying democracy is not good or that it won’t work in Iraq, what I am saying is that it is presumptuous in the extreme not to consider any other option.


Any suggestions?? A sunni dictator? A shiite dictator? A kurdish dictator? An Islamic Fundamentalist oligarchy? The problem with most alternatives is that the likely outcome would be the exclusion of one or more groups from governmental affairs which in turn would doubtless result in unrest and more violence. Each Iraqi group has a right to representation and a democracy is the only way this can be achieved. That said I do believe that the US shouldn't be overly dogmatic regarding what kind of democracy it decides to install and ought to be more prepared to cater the system to the needs of the region.

My perception has been that most people in Iraq want a democracy and that their rejection of the occupying forces does not amount to a rejection of democracy.

Any aspiring form of government needs to be enforced, even a well established government has its own methods of enforcement although as time goes by these methods become more elaborate. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless the methods of enforcement become intolerable.

Well, Iraq IS in many regards an artificial country. Perhaps partition is the best option as it may ease the process by allowing decisions to be made by largely homogenous groups rather than with all of the distrust currently on the table. There would need to be some asset management to ensure they all get their share of the wealth (i.e. oil), but it might just be the best route to go.

It certainly helped in the stabilization ot the former Yugoslavia to allow it to partition into ethnic holdings rather than attempt to keep the country held together.

As it is, ramming our form of democracy down their throats does not seem to be very appetizing to them. Understandably.

-Z-

Turkey was also brutal in putting them down. Why haven't we attacked them yet?

Oh, that one is simple!! :)

It's because their goverment has crawled up and taken residence in Bush's ass - must be quite crowded in there with all the other goverments who have done the same. :lol:

What.. you mean like the leader of Uzbekistan who got 500M for joining the war on terror.... the one who boils political opponents alive?

And Pakistan who hands out plans to a-bombs like concert leaflets...

And ISreal who... well, let's not go there again.


*sigh*

The war on terror.... now supported by friendly terrorists everywhere.... we'll get to them later after they piss us off... and after we've armed them to make it a worthwhile challenge....

-Z-

Yeah! Exactly like them! As they say: monkey see is monkey do... :lol:

No one will ever be able to convince me that taking him out was wrong.So, what do you suggest instead of Saddam?

No one will ever be able to convince me that taking him out was wrong.So, what do you suggest instead of Saddam?

It's already been suggested..but the ideal of course would be a representative democracy whereby all parties would have a fair say in the role of government..but seeing as how these people have no practical experience with democracy...a Federation of the 3 main regions, Kurd, Shia, and Sunni, for all intents and purposes autonamous (sp?) of each other, united for common defense and resource management...Iraq was never more then an artificially created nation anyway, irrespective of natural borders previously held.

It's already been suggested..but the ideal of course would be a representative democracy whereby all parties would have a fair say in the role of government..but seeing as how these people have no practical experience with democracy...a Federation of the 3 main regions, Kurd, Shia, and Sunni, for all intents and purposes autonamous (sp?) of each other, united for common defense and resource management...Iraq was never more then an artificially created nation anyway, irrespective of natural borders previously held.That's quite good. It's too bad the US government didn't think about it before the war.

... ask the question what can we do now....

hand over administration (FULL administration).

ask the question..answer the question...