NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040728_1886.html
Saudi Arabia will lead a force of troops from other Islamic nations to facilitate security of Iraq, which may one day start replacing US troops.
The experiment of liberty in the Middle East will be squashed before it ever had a chance to start. Since we are trying to build a democratic institution in Iraq, this poses a direct threat to autocracies in the area. Sending troops into Iraq is the best way to make sure that this doesn't happen. I think this is short-sighted on the part of Washington and Baghdad. Should these nations be entitled to protect their borders with Iraq? Absolutely. But this is, in my opinion, tantamount to interference. And should these troops really be there to destroy Iraqi democracy, it'd be fair to call it occupation. But that's just me.

bump

Well, the American force is largely Christian. What exactly are you trying to point out?

Well, the American force is largely Christian. What exactly are you trying to point out?

So does that mean the Arab world is highly prejudiced? If not bigoted?

Only a question.....

Well, the American force is largely Christian. What exactly are you trying to point out?
Nearly every news article I've seen calls this force Muslim. However, religion has little to do with this force. It's the fact that they are from Middle Eastern autocracies. If they were from Jordan (one of the more liberal regimes in the Middle East), then great, send 'em in. They are a largely Muslim army, but who cares? I bite my nails, however, over autocracies sending troops to a nation trying to democratize. Doesn't this sound like the Soviet backed coup of the King of Afghanistan in 1979?

bump

So does that mean the Arab world is highly prejudiced? If not bigoted?

Only a question.....

I'm not sure where you conclude that from, i hope not from my post.

Nearly every news article I've seen calls this force Muslim. However, religion has little to do with this force. It's the fact that they are from Middle Eastern autocracies. If they were from Jordan (one of the more liberal regimes in the Middle East), then great, send 'em in. They are a largely Muslim army, but who cares? I bite my nails, however, over autocracies sending troops to a nation trying to democratize. Doesn't this sound like the Soviet backed coup of the King of Afghanistan in 1979?

So, what in this case, is the signifcant difference between a Christian force and a Muslim force?

I'm not sure where you conclude that from, i hope not from my post.



So, what in this case, is the signifcant difference between a Christian force and a Muslim force?
Nothing, dammit. Let me call them something different. American forces, and a Saudi-led Arab coalition. Happy?

Erm...O.K. So what's the difference between one foreign power and another invading another country?

I'm not sure where you conclude that from, i hope not from my post.

That is what I was asking of you.

What if funny is that I am basically asking:

So, what in this case, is the signifcant difference between a Christian force and a Muslim force?

An 'Islamic' force? Islam is a religion, not a country or a political alliance. Some people seem to have difficulty grasping such a simple concept.

Also, what is the difference between Iraq being occupied by Western troops and Iraq being occupied by Arab troops?
As far as I can tell, the Iraqis are allowing these troops into their country - this is not an invasion (like the campaign led by America was). What makes you think they want to destroy democracy?

Erm...O.K. So what's the difference between one foreign power and another invading another country?
I see you question US objectives here. While I respect that decision, I believe that, long term, it is a national security issue for the US to reform Iraq into a liberal government. Most of the Arab nations in the area aren't. As any liberal government in Iraq will pose problems to these governments, I think that they may be trying to keep an eye on the government in Baghdad, to make sure that it doesn't develope into an entity to threaten Middle Eastern autocracies in either word or deed.

That is what I was asking of you....


Ah right. Well, i was going on the premise that it was Purly Euclid here who was being prejudicial - no offence Purly :)

An 'Islamic' force? Islam is a religion, not a country or a political alliance. Some people seem to have difficulty grasping such a simple concept.

Also, what is the difference between Iraq being occupied by Western troops and Iraq being occupied by Arab troops?
As far as I can tell, the Iraqis are allowing these troops into their country - this is not an invasion (like the campaign led by America was). What makes you think they want to destroy democracy?
Governmental stability? I mean, no matter what happens in Iraq, there is little chance that it'll effect the American government. If Iraq becomes a republic, it'll seriously threaten Arab autocracies by a possible domino effect. I believe this is natural and healthy for the Middle East, but I didn't think that these autocrats could see this coming. Perhaps, however, they aren't as interested in opposing a republic so much as monitoring it, and keeping their people back home in the dark on democracy and the free market.

Ah right. Well, i was going on the premise that it was Purly Euclid here who was being prejudicial - no offence Purly :)
That's ok. I'm not prejudice, or at least I try not to be that. I thought it was implied by what I meant, but appearantly, I was wrong. Sorry.

I see you question US objectives here. While I respect that decision, I believe that, long term, it is a national security issue for the US to reform Iraq into a liberal government. Most of the Arab nations in the area aren't. As any liberal government in Iraq will pose problems to these governments, I think that they may be trying to keep an eye on the government in Baghdad, to make sure that it doesn't develope into an entity to threaten Middle Eastern autocracies in either word or deed.

Well, regardless of details i think it's in Saudi Arabia's interests to keep their neighbour stable and i don't think purely by sending troops there that they are going to have much control over what type of government Iraq ends up with.

Talking about democracy without security is redundant. Without security, there shall never be democracy. If Islamic troops stationing in Iraq will bring about security, so be it.

Well, regardless of details i think it's in Saudi Arabia's interests to keep their neighbour stable and i don't think purely by sending troops there that they are going to have much control over what type of government Iraq ends up with.
There are all sorts of things they may do with the troop presence, however. It's possible that they are trying to simply monitor how the government forms, and know what to cut from their state-run TV stations. Or perhaps they are going to be Stalinesque, by training troops who may try to launch a coup in the future. In any case, it is unlikely the Saudis will try to remove Baghdad's government by force. It'd invite US intervention, and cut our oil trade. After all, they need our money far more than we need their oil (although life is very expensive without it).

There are all sorts of things they may do with the troop presence, however. It's possible that they are trying to simply monitor how the government forms, and know what to cut from their state-run TV stations. Or perhaps they are going to be Stalinesque, by training troops who may try to launch a coup in the future. In any case, it is unlikely the Saudis will try to remove Baghdad's government by force. It'd invite US intervention, and cut our oil trade. After all, they need our money far more than we need their oil (although life is very expensive without it).

What makes you think Saudi has some evil hidden agenda? And i really don't understand the idea that they'd send troops in merely to aid their censorship of state-buidling....or maybe i've misunderstood.

What makes you think Saudi has some evil hidden agenda? And i really don't understand the idea that they'd send troops in merely to aid their censorship of state-buidling....or maybe i've misunderstood.
Well first of all, it isn't as if Saudi Arabia has a good record in building liberal institutions or promoting democracy abroad. Secondly, even if a republic never works, they are guranteed a free market, which worked well in many developing nations. If the Saudis see that they can have all the goodies associated with a free market, and not just their gigantic houses they're now building, then they'll want one, too. Take one of the many examples, entrepeneurship. In Iraq, they have it, and while it's a very rough business there to be an entrepeneur, more street vendors are out than ever, and unemployment is around pre war levels of 60%. In Saudi Arabia, owning a business is based more on club status than investment, denying the chance for many to make a living. There are myriad other examples, like a free press. However, they pose a threat to the absolute reign of the House of Saud.

Talking about democracy without security is redundant. Without security, there shall never be democracy. If Islamic troops stationing in Iraq will bring about security, so be it.
Indeed there never will be. However, given the Arab dictator's record on liberal democracy, I take their help for Iraq with a grain of salt.

Bump

Governmental stability? I mean, no matter what happens in Iraq, there is little chance that it'll effect the American government. If Iraq becomes a republic, it'll seriously threaten Arab autocracies by a possible domino effect. I believe this is natural and healthy for the Middle East, but I didn't think that these autocrats could see this coming. Perhaps, however, they aren't as interested in opposing a republic so much as monitoring it, and keeping their people back home in the dark on democracy and the free market.
...
Indeed there never will be. However, given the Arab dictator's record on liberal democracy, I take their help for Iraq with a grain of salt.
That isn't so much 'a grain of salt' as prejudice. You are suspicious of these forces on the sole grounds that they are Arab. This does not neccesarily mean that you are wrong, but you are prejudging them.

The 'track record' means nothing - America's and Britain's are hardly impressive either.
It is in Saudi Arabia's own interests to allow Iraq to develop independently. Of course they'll have an influence, but that doesn't mean that they will destroy Iraq's chances of democracy just to crush any hopes of Saudi democracy.
The Saudi government is smart enough to know that its own citizens aren't stupid - they can't be fooled by censorship.
Just what do you think those troops are going to do? Kill all political opponents to a potential dictator? It would never work. Iraq is being watched too closely by the world.

Besides, Iraq needs people to keep security. The Iraqi Prime Minister is welcoming the troops - there is no force involved.