NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently all hell is breaking out at the moment in Iraq..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/iraq.main/index.html

when has hell not been breaking in iraq?

when has hell not been breaking in iraq?

Good point.. I was watching a show taped earlier on CNN and it broke in.. looks like a bit of a bigger attack then normal. It's happening in at least 4 cities from what I'm hearing.

that fuc|king sux. man, what the shit was i thinking supporting the war. i was such a bloody idiot!

Yea it was kind of expected as the so called deadline approaches.

Fighting hasn't stopped. It's just stepped up.

It will continue after the "handover" is done. After all the new goverment is only a puppet goverment.....

that fuc|king sux. man, what the shit was i thinking supporting the war. i was such a bloody idiot!

Hey, don't feel bad, you were lied to. As long as you see it now.. it's not like you did it.. Don't blame yourself.

actually i wasnt lied to. i never supported the war because of weapons of mass destruction. i supported it because i strongly felt that saddam should be disposed of, and because i didnt want more people to suffer under his regime.

i made the mistake of believing that developed world would try to help the developing world. i didnt realize that helping almost hurts more, and that we will eventually just use the country we "helped".

id love to see democracy in the middle east, but obviously not like this.

I am and always will be a war/Bush supporter, I dont whan to start a big duscussion, i am just saying it ok?

I am and always will be a war/Bush supporter, I dont whan to start a big duscussion, i am just saying it ok?

np. my pops is like that too, although almost all my family are super demos. actually, almost everybody in my city r super democraz.

actually i wasnt lied to. i never supported the war because of weapons of mass destruction. i supported it because i strongly felt that saddam should be disposed of, and because i didnt want more people to suffer under his regime.

i made the mistake of believing that developed world would try to help the developing world. i didnt realize that helping almost hurts more, and that we will eventually just use the country we "helped".

id love to see democracy in the middle east, but obviously not like this.

Well, the thing we know from history is that you can't force democracy on any one.. They have to want it, fight and die for it for themselves, sadly, it's not a gift that can be given. So many people don't understand that. It must come from within.

actually i wasnt lied to. i never supported the war because of weapons of mass destruction. i supported it because i strongly felt that saddam should be disposed of, and because i didnt want more people to suffer under his regime.

i made the mistake of believing that developed world would try to help the developing world. i didnt realize that helping almost hurts more, and that we will eventually just use the country we "helped".

id love to see democracy in the middle east, but obviously not like this.

Well, the thing we know from history is that you can't force democracy on any one.. They have to want it, fight and die for it for themselves, sadly, it's not a gift that can be given. So many people don't understand that. It must come from within.

Especially a people that have lived under a dictator for 35+ years.

The best thing the US could have done was policed an "honest" election and accepted the results. If they wanted a theocracy then so be it.

That would have tossed a wrench in recruiting efforts. "Wait if the US is evil, why did they allow an Islamic goverment?"

So says the armchair geopolicitian! ;)

Disappointing but no surprise really.

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

Holy crap, Iraq has gone to hell in a hand basket even more than the message board whose name cannot be said.

Lets not get too carried away. The three cities mentioned were in the area loyal to the Baath party and Saddam. As the deadline for handover to the Iraqi interim government approaches Baathists will of course try and prevent it from happening or at least hinder the transfer of power.

Bush should lower gas prices. If he drops them 50 cents a gallon before November and promises to lower them another 50 cents by this time next year, (assuming he'd fulfill that promise) I'd vote for him despite disagreeing with him (and almost everything on www.gop.com) on almost every issue.

The best thing the US could have done was policed an "honest" election and accepted the results. If they wanted a theocracy then so be it.
That is no democracy. "Free elections" in conditions of anarchy are not the way to go. Minimal conditions of a free democratic society must be safeguarded under any circumstances. Otherwise the new regime will be just as "democratically elected" as that of Hitler.

If by democracy we mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes, democracy is the solution.

If democracy is just free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.

(Haim Harari, Israeli scientist, in a recent speech).

In my opinion, the system that would suit Iraq now is the one that existed in the pre-civil war Lebanon- a semi-democracy on ethnic basis, restricted by a constitution so it remains a secular non-authoritarian state no matter the outcome of the elections. Under this system, only a Christian could be elected for a president, but he was obliged to have a Muslim prime minister and a Druze minister of defense- to maintain a power balance between competing ethnic groups. Iraq could have a similar Sunni-Shia-Kurd trinity government.

The best thing the US could have done was policed an "honest" election and accepted the results. If they wanted a theocracy then so be it.
That is no democracy. "Free elections" in conditions of anarchy are not the way to go. Minimal conditions of a free democratic society must be safeguarded under any circumstances. Otherwise the new regime will be just as "democratically elected" as that of Hitler.

If by democracy we mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes, democracy is the solution.

If democracy is just free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.

(Haim Harari, Israeli scientist, in a recent speech).

In my opinion, the system that would suit Iraq now is the one that existed in the pre-civil war Lebanon- a semi-democracy on ethnic basis, restricted by a constitution so it remains a secular non-authoritarian state no matter the outcome of the elections. Under this system, only a Christian could be elected for a president, but he was obliged to have a Muslim prime minister and a Druze minister of defense- to maintain a power balance between competing ethnic groups. Iraq could have a similar Sunni-Shia-Kurd trinity government.

With all due respect Wom, you're not exactly an objective observer.. you live in Israel, you're an Israeli.. I don't blame you for your bias, I'm sure if I was an Israeli I would be the same way. However, it does put you at a deficit in the credibility department. Your opinions are not and shouldn't be in fact, objective.

I don't think an Israeli is the best person to be talking about Islamic problems and solutions.

Any more then I believe Islamic nations are best to deal in a non-bias way about Israeli problems and solutions.

There needs to be a strong constitution of course, and besides that democracy can work, like in India or Japan.

I forget which guy for Newsweek wrote it, but it was an article on how, in order to maintain freedom, democracy has to sometimes be curtailed.

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

Lets not get too carried away. The three cities mentioned were in the area loyal to the Baath party and Saddam. As the deadline for handover to the Iraqi interim government approaches Baathists will of course try and prevent it from happening or at least hinder the transfer of power.

Your Right Tygaland. THese cities may be placed under Emergency Law, i think that is what is being said. The terrorism will be stepped up as they try to destablize the new Government. The new government is steadfast in this and I have a feeling that they won't break under pressure. They want freedom and they will achieve it.

The best thing the US could have done was policed an "honest" election and accepted the results. If they wanted a theocracy then so be it.
That is no democracy. "Free elections" in conditions of anarchy are not the way to go. Minimal conditions of a free democratic society must be safeguarded under any circumstances. Otherwise the new regime will be just as "democratically elected" as that of Hitler.

If by democracy we mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to women, free international travel, exposure to international media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes, democracy is the solution.

If democracy is just free elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing, perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.

(Haim Harari, Israeli scientist, in a recent speech).

In my opinion, the system that would suit Iraq now is the one that existed in the pre-civil war Lebanon- a semi-democracy on ethnic basis, restricted by a constitution so it remains a secular non-authoritarian state no matter the outcome of the elections. Under this system, only a Christian could be elected for a president, but he was obliged to have a Muslim prime minister and a Druze minister of defense- to maintain a power balance between competing ethnic groups. Iraq could have a similar Sunni-Shia-Kurd trinity government.

With all due respect Wom, you're not exactly an objective observer.. you live in Israel, you're an Israeli.. I don't blame you for your bias, I'm sure if I was an Israeli I would be the same way. However, it does put you at a deficit in the credibility department. Your opinions are not and shouldn't be in fact, objective.

I don't think an Israeli is the best person to be talking about Islamic problems and solutions.

Any more then I believe Islamic nations are best to deal in a non-bias way about Israeli problems and solutions.
Please demonstrate how exactly my bias as an Israeli affects my judgement in the post you are quoting, and which part of my above suggestion you find "not objective". Either that, or withdraw your comment. I am slowly, but surely getting fed up with your rather dishonest attitude- instead of replying to what I said, you keep claiming that since I am Israeli, I am biased and therefore my opinions can be dismissed.

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

They won't succeed. A work mate told me he read an article that the PM has worked with the CIA for the past 20 years!

Now why won't the people accept him? :shock:

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

They won't succeed. A work mate told me he read an article that the PM has worked with the CIA for the past 20 years!

Now why won't the people accept him? :shock:

?

that really has nothing to do with it. The Iraqi People wanted this guy and they have him. He is trusted. He will do very well as PM. He will succeed and Iraq will succeed with him.

Please demonstrate how exactly my bias as an Israeli affects my judgement in the post you are quoting, and which part of my above suggestion you find "not objective". Either that, or withdraw your comment. I am slowly, but surely getting fed up with your rather dishonest attitude- instead of replying to what I said, you keep claiming that since I am Israeli, I am biased and therefore my opinions can be dismissed.

Well you might throw back at her that she has a bias against Israel so how would that make her opinions objective?

As to your comments:

They don't have a free press as the US seems to shutdown anybody that prints stuff against them.

You can't have international travel until the airlines are willing to return to a "functioning" airport.

They do have access to international media and ideas. However, many seem to follow the fox news of the arab world (Al-Jazeera).

Womens rights? Actually Sadaam, I am told, was rather liberal minded in that area.

Basically, I am hearing that we have to Westernise the country and then we can let them have democratic elections.

That won't work.

I tend to wonder that the majority of the people want a theocratic goverment. If that is the case then they should have it.

If they don't want freedom, how do you force them into it?

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

They won't succeed. A work mate told me he read an article that the PM has worked with the CIA for the past 20 years!

Now why won't the people accept him? :shock:

?

that really has nothing to do with it. The Iraqi People wanted this guy and they have him. He is trusted. He will do very well as PM. He will succeed and Iraq will succeed with him.

If the people haven't voted, how do you know they want him?

He was chosen by the interm goverment and most like "blessed" by Bremmer(sp).

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

They won't succeed. A work mate told me he read an article that the PM has worked with the CIA for the past 20 years!

Now why won't the people accept him? :shock:

?

that really has nothing to do with it. The Iraqi People wanted this guy and they have him. He is trusted. He will do very well as PM. He will succeed and Iraq will succeed with him.

If the people haven't voted, how do you know they want him?

He was chosen by the interm goverment and most like "blessed" by Bremmer(sp).

Not for PM! Bremmer and the US wanted someone else not Allawi. The Iraqis wanted Allawi. They got Allawi when the other guy said he didn't want it because he didn't want to be associated with the USA. The Iraqis now have Allawi.

Allawi will be a successful Interim PM for Iraq. He will do what is necessary to help his country succeed. He is already promising Emergency Law in the Sunni Triangle. He wants a free Iraq and he will strive to achieve this.

As for voting, that'll be done in Jan '05!

the new iraq government has no chance of succeeding with these damn terrorsits :?

They will continue. No denying that they will! They have threatened to kill the PM of Iraq. You say they won't succeed, I say they can.

They won't succeed. A work mate told me he read an article that the PM has worked with the CIA for the past 20 years!

Now why won't the people accept him? :shock:

?

that really has nothing to do with it. The Iraqi People wanted this guy and they have him. He is trusted. He will do very well as PM. He will succeed and Iraq will succeed with him.

If the people haven't voted, how do you know they want him?

He was chosen by the interm goverment and most like "blessed" by Bremmer(sp).

Not for PM! Bremmer and the US wanted someone else not Allawi. The Iraqis wanted Allawi. They got Allawi when the other guy said he didn't want it because he didn't want to be associated with the USA. The Iraqis now have Allawi.

Allawi will be a successful Interim PM for Iraq. He will do what is necessary to help his country succeed. He is already promising Emergency Law in the Sunni Triangle. He wants a free Iraq and he will strive to achieve this.

As for voting, that'll be done in Jan '05!

Doh! :oops:

Can I use the excuse that the names all sound alike to me? :wink:

Got it now! THanks.....

Your quite welcome!

I have a good memory when it comes to names when it comes from the News. Don't know how but I've always been good with it! :)

There needs to be a strong constitution of course, and besides that democracy can work, like in India or Japan.

I forget which guy for Newsweek wrote it, but it was an article on how, in order to maintain freedom, democracy has to sometimes be curtailed.
Do you call what they have in India a "democracy"?

The starvation deaths in Kashipur and Baran are just the tip of the iceberg. Hunger is widespread in India. It is said that at least 50 million Indians are on the brink of starvation and over 200 million Indians are underfed. This, when a 60-million-ton surplus of foodgrains is rotting in various government warehouses in the country.

That plus continued political unrest is a model for Iraq?