NationStates Jolt Archive

In light of the non-stop, indeed, worsening violence in Iraq, and the dubious allegiances to the United States of the Iraqi government and people like al-Maliki (although in all fairness, he is probably on a leash as to what he can and can't say), I've been seriously reconsidering whether Iraq is capable of democracy.

First of all, let's define democracy. I think democracy must meet the following criteria.
1) Some degree of capitalism and property rights.
2) Respect for women, religious and ethnic minorities.
3) Recognition of free speech.

Furthermore, I believe democracy is the inevetable outcome of a stable, capitalistic society with a strong middle class and a history of property rights. Chile was taken over by Pinochet in 1973, a brutal dictator who brought capitalist reform to that country. Right now, Chile has the strongest economy in all of South America, and it's a democracy. Over a decade after the collapse of communism, Russia is a cesspool of violence, short life spans, and corruption. To give another example, in Algeria, elections have led to violence and a funamentalist government, but Uganda was enjoying 10% econoimc growth under President Museveni, even as rebels in the north were being brutally suppressed.

I don't think it's possible to establish a democracy amid chaos, and even 130,000 American soldiers are unable to change that. Furthermore, Iraq faces a much more severe obstacle than its chaos-Islam. Even in one of the most free and democratic societies such as Britain, 33% of Muslims want sharia law, some 15% agree with the 9/11 highjackers, and 43% think attacks on Jews are acceptable. If Islam is festering ike this in a democratic society, how can we possibly expect democracy to succeed in the heart of the mid east? Keep in mind that these figures are probably higher, as there are most likely many Muslims who wouldn't admit that they want these things, or would be complacent about them.

However, leaving Iraq and letting the hardcore Islamists to take over is simply unacceptable to America's national security. The best thing we can do right now is to do away with Iraq's faux democracy, institute martial law, and seperate Kurdistan, an oil-rich, peaceful, and relatively pro-American region. Letting a dictator take over might also not be such a bad idea-Baghdad would be humming along in no time.

Agree/Disagree?

First of all, let's define democracy. I think democracy must meet the following criteria.
1) Some degree of capitalism and property rights.
2) Respect for women, religious and ethnic minorities.
3) Recognition of free speech.

1) Not a requirement for democracy.
2) By that standard the US isn't a democracy.
3) Agreed.

Can Iraq be a democracy, sure, they're completely capable of it. Is it likely? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

I'd create Kurdistan and allow them to develop in to a democratic state while I'd let the rest of the country become a dictatorship (I'd seriously consider reinstating Saddam) so that order can be restored and oil production revived in both Kurdistan and Iraq. The US gets to leave, oil production booms, two stable regimes are created and Iran has to fear a new Iraq with the cash and backing to arm its forces against them. Of course, I'd be worried about aggression from Iraq against the Kurds, but we could always just launch another limited Gulf War to keep Iraq within its own borders.

Hopefully, that dictator would open his economy to investment so we get both economic growth and law and order; ideally, the growing economy would eventually lead to democratic reforms, but it doesn't really matter as long as the regime is secular and stable and the oil flows. A strong, stable Iraq is necessary to protecting our interests in the region, and I honestly couldn't care less whether that came from a democratic state or a secular dictator like Saddam...as long as it's not a theocracy, it's not a threat to us.

Then what happens when Turkey invades as they have said they will in an independent Kurdistan is formed?

The EU gets off their collective asses and spanks them?

In 1945 many Americans asked "Is Germany Capable of Democracy", and after two world wars, it seemed to be a valid question. History has shown what the answer to that question was.

First of all, let's define democracy. I think democracy must meet the following criteria.
1) Some degree of capitalism and property rights.
2) Respect for women, religious and ethnic minorities.
3) Recognition of free speech.

Wait, why would respecting minorities be a definitive part of democracy?

I'd create Kurdistan and allow them to develop in to a democratic state while I'd let the rest of the country become a dictatorship (I'd seriously consider reinstating Saddam) so that order can be restored and oil production revived in both Kurdistan and Iraq. The US gets to leave, oil production booms, two stable regimes are created and Iran has to fear a new Iraq with the cash and backing to arm its forces against them.

Hopefully, that dictator would open his economy to investment so we get both economic growth and law and order; ideally, the growing economy would eventually lead to democratic reforms, but it doesn't really matter as long as the regime is secular and stable.

Then what happens when Turkey invades as they have said they will in an independent Kurdistan is formed?

No. Some people don't want democracy, and some people can't handle it.

This seems to be both.

I'm sure things would improve by great leaps if the U.S. would actually commit to actually getting Iraq's infanstructure rebuilt. When you have reliable electricity, water, enough food, gasoline, no open sewers, standards like that then there would be less incentive for people to join with the insurgency.

Then what happens when Turkey invades as they have said they will in an independent Kurdistan is formed?

Well, what did we do when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Aggression is still aggression, no matter who does it. An independent, oil rich Kurdistan is a lot more useful to us that Turkey and we would need to protect that ally against any form of aggression.

First of all, let's define democracy. I think democracy must meet the following criteria.
1) Some degree of capitalism and property rights.
2) Respect for women, religious and ethnic minorities.
3) Recognition of free speech.

Democracy has nothing to do with any of those

Well, what did we do when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Aggression is still aggression, no matter who does it. An independent, oil rich Kurdistan is a lot more useful to us that Turkey and we would need to protect that ally against any form of aggression.

You've obviously never heard of the Strait of Bosporus then.

The EU gets off their collective asses and spanks them?

The last time Europeans tried to invade Turkey it didn't end so well. Besides the EU is completely incapable of deploying much in the way of credible military force into that region.

agree/disagree?

Both. The idea of seperating Kurdistan is a fairly good idea, If NATO can keep Turkey in check, if american can set up a successful, free democratic society in Kurdistan then it will serve as a good example to the rest of Iraq, "When you co-operate with the Americans you become like Kurdistan".

islam=bad-SNIP-

I think(correct me if I'm wrong) you were subtly suggesting we should force the Iraqi people to convert to another religion. This is a bad idea, invading an arab country, setting up a puppet gov't, and persecuting the established religion is a great way to identify ourselves as an occupational, expansionist force.

yes, but the chances of it happening would be greater if saddam was overthrown by the iraqi ppl, instead of america.

i think democracy is possible in any country and/or culture. Sometimes it just needs a bit of local flavouring.

You've obviously never heard of the Strait of Bosporus then.

Turkey's military isn't strong enough to hold it. We force it open through whatever means necessary, station troops on both sides, destroy their airforce, naval, and missle capabilities and proceed to hold the strait until Turkey agrees to peace. The areas along the strait would be occupied until they could be safely returned to the Turkish government, and if necessary forces could be stationed along the border.

Turkey doesn't stand a chance against the US, let alone a coalition of nations...after all, Kurdistan's oil is more valuable than anything Turkey could offer us.

Turkey's military isn't strong enough to hold it. We force it open through whatever means necessary, station troops on both sides, destroy their airforce, naval, and missle capabilities and proceed to hold the strait until Turkey agrees to peace. The areas along the strait would be occupied until they could be safely returned to the Turkish government, and if necessary forces could be stationed along the border.

Turkey doesn't stand a chance against the US, let alone a coalition of nations...after all, Kurdistan's oil is more valuable than anything Turkey could offer us.

we will be stretched far too thin, we will be invading and occupying 3 seperate countries, let us not forget Hitler's great mistake of trying to wage a war on too many fronts..

.

First of all, let's define democracy. I think democracy must meet the following criteria.
1) Some degree of capitalism and property rights.
2) Respect for women, religious and ethnic minorities.
3) Recognition of free speech.

Agree/Disagree?


1) Not a requirement of democracy. Leon Trotsky himself said, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." There's no necessity for capitalism in a democracy.
2) I totally agree.
3) Indeed.

On whether Iraq can achieve democracy. I have serious doubts on there being a stable democracy any time soon. Insurgents are still pouring into the country, the Iraqi army is unreliable and has been infiltrated by the mentioned insurgents, the US and UK are withdrawing troops due to public opinion at home, and the current provisional Iraqi government is unpopular.

Democracy in Iraq could have been fulfilled sooner however had the initial invasion of Iraq not been so poorly executed. Government buildings where allowed to be looted. Interestingly enough the Oil ministry was guarded by a dozen tanks...

The major ammo depots carted off into the night, the Iraqi army and thousands of civil servants demobilised/dismissed. Borders where left unguarded due to absence of Iraqi or "Coalition" forces, all of them diverted to guarding Kurd oil fields. Insurgents just flowed into the country, with extremist clerics, warlords etc. all applying for the job of new dictator. Or if you where a Iraqi National guard, you where wandering the streets with no job.

Iraqi soldiers could have been employed by the Americans to help in the reconstruction and protect borders, but they were all dismissed. You did however still have your gun...

Yep. Democracy in Iraq was a possibility snatched away a long time ago.

we will be stretched far too thin, we will be invading and occupying 3 seperate countries, let us not forget Hitler's great mistake of trying to wage a war on too many fronts..

We've got a lot of troops in Germany and the forces in Iraq would also be in position to attack Turkey if necessary. Ideally, the US troops would be out of Iraq by now and would either be in the US or stationed in Kurdistan to help the democratic transition. By this point, there would be a dictator in Iraq that would ideally be armed and supported by the US and our actual forces would be already withdrawn.

Also, we wouldn't be going alone; there would be a pretty significant coalition formed to stop Turkish aggression just like we did in 1991 to protect Kuwait. Only this time it's even better because Turkey has almost no oil and Kurdistan does, giving everyone a huge strategic interest to support the sovreignity of the Kurdish people.

What should happen? Really, at this point, I would look for a three-state solution at this point - one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shi'ites.

In the north, we form Kurdistan and set up a protectorate for it. The U.S. sticks around, helps set up a little infrastructure, and tells the Turks to go crying back to Istanbul about it because Kurdistan doesn't include any Turkish land, so really, they shouldn't give a fuck if the Kurds get an independent state. If the Turks absolutely insist they will invade Kurdistan, then we should get the U.N. to recognize North Korea as Kurdistan and solve that problem and then set up a Kurdish homeland while the Turks are distracted.

For the Shi'ites in the south, strip them of all resources, cut them off from everyone, and let them have their batshit insane theocracy. Gradually, airlift in supplies to the people of Batshitistan so they can kick out the oppressive rulers when they get sick of them.

For Iraq in the middle, I picture a Syngman Rhee-type figure to rule them. Then, he can give way to more progressive reforms, and Iraq becomes the new South Korea in about 50 years. Once people in places liek Saudi Arabia get wind of what's really going on in Iraq, Kurdistan, and the behind-the-times Batshitistan, they begin to overthrow the House of Saud and the Wahhabists, starting the Saudi Revolution. Sadly, some wacko tries to turn this into a power grab, and Saudi Arabia is ruled by a short, half-mad person for a while who tries to invade Iraq and Kurdistan and declares an alliance with someone who doesn't really like him. Soon enough, around 2100, democracy sets in and Saudi Arabia annexes Batshitistan after it experiences two revolutions in the same afternoon.

What will really happen? Iraq ends up like the Batshitistan I described, Saudi Arabia's revolution ends up behind schedule, and Napoleon Jr. is just revising the calendar and beheading Wahhabists by the time the 22nd century rolls around. Iran becomes a functioning democracy but has a love-hate relationship with the U.S. Oh yeah, and enough times of getting the shit kicked out of them convinces Israel's neighbors to leave it the hell alone.

First of all, let's define democracy.a system where the People (majority) gets to elect the President/PM/head-of-state.

1) Not a requirement for democracy.
2) By that standard the US isn't a democracy.
3) Agreed.

Can Iraq be a democracy, sure, they're completely capable of it. Is it likely? Not a snowball's chance in hell.
1) It is a requirement for democracy. Democracy rests on the middle class, and in order to have a middle class you need to have capitalism.
2) What the hell are you talking about? Religious and ethnic minorities have full rights here. Back when they didn't, it nearly permanently tore the nation apart (Civil War). And during Jim Crow, America wasn't a full democracy, as it didn't represent all the citizens. It was close, but not quite there.

I'd create Kurdistan and allow them to develop in to a democratic state while I'd let the rest of the country become a dictatorship (I'd seriously consider reinstating Saddam) so that order can be restored and oil production revived in both Kurdistan and Iraq. The US gets to leave, oil production booms, two stable regimes are created and Iran has to fear a new Iraq with the cash and backing to arm its forces against them. Of course, I'd be worried about aggression from Iraq against the Kurds, but we could always just launch another limited Gulf War to keep Iraq within its own borders.

Hopefully, that dictator would open his economy to investment so we get both economic growth and law and order; ideally, the growing economy would eventually lead to democratic reforms, but it doesn't really matter as long as the regime is secular and stable and the oil flows. A strong, stable Iraq is necessary to protecting our interests in the region, and I honestly couldn't care less whether that came from a democratic state or a secular dictator like Saddam...as long as it's not a theocracy, it's not a threat to us.
Pretty much what I would do, but there are plenty of other Saddam wanna-bees. We don't really need him anymore.

In 1945 many Americans asked "Is Germany Capable of Democracy", and after two world wars, it seemed to be a valid question. History has shown what the answer to that question was.
Germany didn't have religious fundamentalism. And also, it was under martial law until all violence was ended.

Wait, why would respecting minorities be a definitive part of democracy?
Democracy is supposed to represent all citizens. All stable successful democracies in the world right now give rights to their minorities. There may be some tensions, but as far as hoarding them up and shipping them of to concentration camps, that kind of thing just doesn't happen.

I think(correct me if I'm wrong) you were subtly suggesting we should force the Iraqi people to convert to another religion. This is a bad idea, invading an arab country, setting up a puppet gov't, and persecuting the established religion is a great way to identify ourselves as an occupational, expansionist force.
No, I wasn't suggesting that at all. Hell, I don't even think you could do it.

1) Not a requirement of democracy. Leon Trotsky himself said, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." There's no necessity for capitalism in a democracy.
2) I totally agree.
3) Indeed.

On whether Iraq can achieve democracy. I have serious doubts on there being a stable democracy any time soon. Insurgents are still pouring into the country, the Iraqi army is unreliable and has been infiltrated by the mentioned insurgents, the US and UK are withdrawing troops due to public opinion at home, and the current provisional Iraqi government is unpopular.

Democracy in Iraq could have been fulfilled sooner however had the initial invasion of Iraq not been so poorly executed. Government buildings where allowed to be looted. Interestingly enough the Oil ministry was guarded by a dozen tanks...

The major ammo depots carted off into the night, the Iraqi army and thousands of civil servants demobilised/dismissed. Borders where left unguarded due to absence of Iraqi or "Coalition" forces, all of them diverted to guarding Kurd oil fields. Insurgents just flowed into the country, with extremist clerics, warlords etc. all applying for the job of new dictator. Or if you where a Iraqi National guard, you where wandering the streets with no job.

Iraqi soldiers could have been employed by the Americans to help in the reconstruction and protect borders, but they were all dismissed. You did however still have your gun...

Yep. Democracy in Iraq was a possibility snatched away a long time ago.
I'm talking about what DEMOCRACY needs, not what socialism needs.

So what do you suggest we would have done to stop the looting? Shoot the looters, most of whom were civilians? Amnesty International would have shit their pants, and it would generate a lot of negative opinion. You'd probably be sitting there typing that we should've just let the looters have their way.

As for disbanding the Iraqi Army, how reliable do you think it would be? There were a lot of Ba'thists in it.

I tend to think that it's the social fabric of a society that determines whether they are ready for democracy, not how many hospitals and schools they have per capita.

a system where the People (majority) gets to elect the President/PM/head-of-state.
By that definition, Russia is a democracy. I think almost everyone will agree that's bullshit.

yes, but the chances of it happening would be greater if saddam was overthrown by the iraqi ppl, instead of america.

Like Afghanistan?

I'm talking about what DEMOCRACY needs, not what socialism needs.

So what do you suggest we would have done to stop the looting? Shoot the looters, most of whom were civilians? Amnesty International would have shit their pants, and it would generate a lot of negative opinion. You'd probably be sitting there typing that we should've just let the looters have their way.

As for disbanding the Iraqi Army, how reliable do you think it would be? There were a lot of Ba'thists in it.

I tend to think that it's the social fabric of a society that determines whether they are ready for democracy, not how many hospitals and schools they have per capita.


I wasn't talking about what socialism needs. I was explaining how you can have a socialist democracy. You don't need capitalism for democracy, nor do you need a dictatorship to install socialism, *cough*STALIN*cough*TRAITOR*cough* But I digress...

Also, the looting could have been stopped simply by the presence of coalition troops. Also, you'll find a democracy will work wonders when it has a country with an actual infrastructure i.e ministries, electricity grids, water supplies and civil servants to operate the bureacracy as well as an army to protect it and help to re-build the country. The Iraqi National guardsmen where trained in contruction of bridges, buildings etc. who would probably have been able to reconstruct their ruined country if paid by the coalition. As for the Bathist elements, I can't speak for the entire former Iraqi National guard, I doubt there would be any complications considering Saddam was utterly defeated. I think they'd be too demoralised to bother. I think the army would have been incredibly efficient and at least mildly co-operative.

I wasn't talking about what socialism needs. I was explaining how you can have a socialist democracy. You don't need capitalism for democracy, nor do you need a dictatorship to install socialism, *cough*STALIN*cough*TRAITOR*cough* But I digress...

Also, the looting could have been stopped simply by the presence of coalition troops. Also, you'll find a democracy will work wonders when it has a country with an actual infrastructure i.e ministries, electricity grids, water supplies and civil servants to operate the bureacracy as well as an army to protect it and help to re-build the country. The Iraqi National guardsmen where trained in contruction of bridges, buildings etc. who would probably have been able to reconstruct their ruined country if paid by the coalition. As for the Bathist elements, I can't speak for the entire former Iraqi National guard, I doubt there would be any complications considering Saddam was utterly defeated. I think they'd be too demoralised to bother. I think the army would be incredibly efficient and at least mildly co-operative.
It's true, you could have socialism and democracy. France, for example, is a very socialistic country and also a democracy. However, before that, you need to establish a middle class, which you can do only with capitalism. The only reason socialism can exist in Europe is because it feeds off the productive businesspeople. Unsurprisingly, Europe's economy is laughable compared to America's. In Iraq, there are two reasons why we can't build the infrastructure as efficiently as we would like to. 1) Bureaucratic bunglings, and 2) The ongoing violence, but more #2 than #1. You need to have stability before you can have democracy.

Do you really think that coalition soldiers could stop looters simply by being there? "Don't you even think about going in there, or I"ll...LOOK at you!!"

It's true, you could have socialism and democracy. France, for example, is a very socialistic country and also a democracy. However, before that, you need to establish a middle class, which you can do only with capitalism. The only reason socialism can exist in Europe is because it feeds off the productive businesspeople. Unsurprisingly, Europe's economy is laughable compared to America's. In Iraq, there are two reasons why we can't build the infrastructure as efficiently as we would like to. 1) Bureaucratic bunglings, and 2) The ongoing violence, but more #2 than #1. You need to have stability before you can have democracy.

Do you really think that coalition soldiers could stop looters simply by being there? "Don't you even think about going in there, or I"ll...LOOK at you!!"


You came up with interesting points which I neglected. You're right. You need capitalism first in the form of a middle-class, or bourgeoise, revolution in order to finance the mercantile classes. Then after that is established, a socialist democracy can be put into place. You need to have an upper and middle class to tax in order to equalise wealth and pay for public services. How could I possibly have ignored the teachings of Karl Marx?

However. Yes I do believe that a coalition presence protecting businesses and ministries would have kept looting to a bare minimum. Would you go up against a platoon of professional armed soldiers just to grab some useless crap?

You came up with interesting points which I neglected. You're right. You need capitalism first in the form of a middle-class, or bourgeoise, revolution in order to finance the mercantile classes. Then after that is established, a socialist democracy can be put into place. You need to have an upper and middle class to tax in order to equalise wealth and pay for public services. How could I possibly have ignored the teachings of Karl Marx?

However. Yes I do believe that a coalition presence protecting businesses and ministries would have kept looting to a bare minimum. Would you go up against a platoon of professional armed soldiers just to grab some useless crap?
"Equalise" the wealth"? I'm not so sure that's a good idea. That's like punishing people who are productive and rewarding those who aren't. And you don't want too many public services, lest the people become too dependent. Also, in most cases, the private sector does it better and cheaper.

If the platoon of coalition soldiers did nothing but sit on their asses and watch then hell yeah I would try to "grab some useless crap."

"Equalise" the wealth"? I'm not so sure that's a good idea. That's like punishing people who are productive and rewarding those who aren't. And you don't want too many public services, lest the people become too dependent. Also, in most cases, the private sector does it better and cheaper.

If the platoon of coalition soldiers did nothing but sit on their asses and watch then hell yeah I would try to "grab some useless crap."


Well the socialism vs. capitalism debate is long, arduous and strictly will never really end, so I won't say anything about your first paragraph. And about your second paragraph, if I had anything to do with it I'd make sure they weren't just sitting on their asses. They're supposed to be an occupying force. It should act like one.

I think(correct me if I'm wrong) you were subtly suggesting we should force the Iraqi people to convert to another religion. This is a bad idea, invading an arab country, setting up a puppet gov't, and persecuting the established religion is a great way to identify ourselves as an occupational, expansionist force.

And why shouldnt we? Conversion in the ME will get rid of unrest afterwards, or better yet, we convert them to judaism, Jews will be able to prevent cultural extinction

And why shouldnt we? Conversion in the ME will get rid of unrest afterwards, or better yet, we convert them to judaism, Jews will be able to prevent cultural extinction

Yes, converting people against their will has been such a sucess before...

And why shouldnt we? Conversion in the ME will get rid of unrest afterwards, or better yet, we convert them to judaism, Jews will be able to prevent cultural extinction

mhm, like that won't turn every muslim in Europe/World into a Jihadist

And why shouldnt we? Conversion in the ME will get rid of unrest afterwards, or better yet, we convert them to judaism, Jews will be able to prevent cultural extinction

Sheer brilliance. And what happens if people don't actually want to convert?

Sheer brilliance. And what happens if people don't actually want to convert?

We do it like christians did before. I mean, we have a lot of unused sword just begging to be used...

Is the Western World capable of humility?

The US smashes a country, slaughters its people, destroys its infrastructure, plays its factions against each other, and tries to impose its will... then blames them for not being grateful enough for the "gifts" they have been given.

The Iraqis are perfectly capable of democracy. The better question is whether we are capable of letting them have it, and by this thread, I doubt it.

Not sure...from what ive heard (and I freely admit im far from well-informed:( ) there are quiet big religious (e.g Sunni vs Shi'ite) and ethnic splits which arent too helpful for a democratic system that relies on value consensus. Usually when a country has had a long period of dictatorial rule its because the state is difficult to hold together and without strong rule it might fall apart. Perhaps more capable of democracy if a very loose federal system with a degree of autonomy.

I'm sure things would improve by great leaps if the U.S. would actually commit to actually getting Iraq's infanstructure rebuilt. When you have reliable electricity, water, enough food, gasoline, no open sewers, standards like that then there would be less incentive for people to join with the insurgency.
Yep. That's it.

a system where the People (majority) gets to elect the President/PM/head-of-state.
Not enough. Not only must they be able to elect a head of state but also local representatives to a national government.

It's true, you could have socialism and democracy. France, for example, is a very socialistic country and also a democracy.
France is a capitalist country.

The only reason socialism can exist in Europe is because it feeds off the productive businesspeople. Unsurprisingly, Europe's economy is laughable compared to America's.
Socialism ended in Europe 15 years ago. We're not significantly more socialist than America.

And why shouldnt we? Conversion in the ME will get rid of unrest afterwards, or better yet, we convert them to judaism, Jews will be able to prevent cultural extinction
Unrealistic, much?

Socialism ended in Europe 15 years ago.

Socialism has never existed in Europe.

Edit: Let me rephrase that. Socialism has never been the economic policy of any European state.

a system where the People (majority) gets to elect the President/PM/head-of-state.

Since when has democracy necessitated a head of state?

I'm thinking maybe let the Iraqi's sort that one out themselves...

Sure there is going to war and bloodshed...as in the history of virtually ever other 'western' country except for possibly the Swiss...and I am not too sure about them either.

Democracy is when every citizen votes on everything. The only democracy is Switzerland, and even then it barely counts. Im sure there are hundreds of local democracies.

If you mean republic, then no. The country needs to be split up. The entire Middle East needs to be redrawn...with Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Jews, etc. at the table.

Democracy is when every citizen votes on everything. The only democracy is Switzerland, and even then it barely counts. Im sure there are hundreds of local democracies.

If you mean republic, then no. The country needs to be split up. The entire Middle East needs to be redrawn...with Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Jews, etc. at the table.

It would be quicker and easier to nuke the whole place from end to end.

It would be quicker and easier to nuke the whole place from end to end.

If we nuke the place, the oil infrastructure will be destroyed. It's a lot easier to put in a secular dictator, normalize economic relations, and allow him to rebuild and maintain the stable flow of oil from the region.

If we nuke the place, the oil infrastructure will be destroyed. It's a lot easier to put in a secular dictator, normalize economic relations, and allow him to rebuild and maintain the stable flow of oil from the region.
Oh darn.

But, if we use high airbursts to make blast damage zero, and use tailored fallout, we can depopulate the entire area.

Sure, there will be tourists and other disinterested parties who are killed. But, in the long run, the total number of innocents killed will be smaller than the total number of innocents killed if we let this crap go on for another century.

Frankly, it would solve a lot of problems, and reduce the problem set dramatically.

Oh darn.

But, if we use high airbursts to make blast damage zero, and use tailored fallout, we can depopulate the entire area.

Sure, there will be tourists and other disinterested parties who are killed. But, in the long run, the total number of innocents killed will be smaller than the total number of innocents killed if we let this crap go on for another century.

Frankly, it would solve a lot of problems, and reduce the problem set dramatically.

Hey, all I care about is the flow of oil. If it works, and it keeps the crude flowing I honestly have no problem with it. We keep oil flowing, eliminate the problem at its root, and give the entire region a second chance. Honestly, it's no different than installing dictators to control these people...there's no real moral difference between the two.

Hey, all I care about is the flow of oil. If it works, and it keeps the crude flowing I honestly have no problem with it. We keep oil flowing, eliminate the problem at its root, and give the entire region a second chance. Honestly, it's no different than installing dictators to control these people...there's no real moral difference between the two.

And the fact that both of you unashamedly and openly advocate such options is indicative of more moral decay in our society than all the abortions and gay marriages in the world could ever match.

And the fact that both of you unashamedly and openly advocate such options is indicative of more moral decay in our society than all the abortions and gay marriages in the world could ever match.
BTW, I am for gay marriage, and I am pro-choice.

And the fact that both of you unashamedly and openly advocate such options is indicative of more moral decay in our society than all the abortions and gay marriages in the world could ever match.
If the total number of people killed by violent war using my method is an order of magnitude (over time) lower than your method of waiting for them to stop fighting, which one is more moral?

Yours, or mine?

Or does self-determination, no matter how violent, and no matter how many people die horribly, always trump outside interference that gets it over with immediately?

And the fact that both of you unashamedly and openly advocate such options is indicative of more moral decay in our society than all the abortions and gay marriages in the world could ever match.

I hope that we avoid such a terrible, murderous, inhuman act and I would love it if democracy could bloom across the Middle East. I wouldn't want to nuke the Middle East, let alone anywhere else in the world. I see such an atrocity as the very last resort, if all other forms of diplomacy, military action, economic reform and political pressure fail and we literally can't win against the forces of Islamic extremism.

I do however think we should seriously consider dividing Iraq in to a democratic Kurdistan and a secular dictatorship in the rest of Iraq until law and order are established.

However, oil needs to flow freely and we must take whatever actions are necessary to secure it.

I do however think we should seriously consider dividing Iraq in to a democratic Kurdistan and a secular dictatorship in the rest of Iraq until law and order are established.

However, oil needs to flow freely and we must take whatever actions are necessary to secure it.

We should have done the three-way split at the beginning, instead of the crazy "can't we all just get along" crap.

It's too arbitrary, and the only way it was held together this long was by a ruthless dictator.

If the total number of people killed by violent war using my method is an order of magnitude (over time) lower than your method of waiting for them to stop fighting, which one is more moral?

Yours, or mine?

Or does self-determination, no matter how violent, and no matter how many people die horribly, always trump outside interference that gets it over with immediately?

People who are willing to seriously contemplate genocide because they don't care about its moral implications lack any sense of moral decency worthy of the name.

People who are willing to go as far as to justify their serious contemplation of genocide with transparently absurd reasons have transgressed even further; they have violated the very concept of morality, turned it into a mere tool to suit their own evil intentions.

People who are willing to seriously contemplate genocide because they don't care about its moral implications lack any sense of moral decency worthy of the name.

People who are willing to go as far as to justify their serious contemplation of genocide with transparently absurd reasons have transgressed even further; they have violated the very concept of morality, turned it into a mere tool to suit their own evil intentions.

There's that "evil" word again.

Let me make this clear.

I consider all possible solutions, without regard to their morality. Logic requires it.

In the final analysis, there isn't any morality. And I require no justification for a nation's actions from a moral standpoint.

We should have done the three-way split at the beginning, instead of the crazy "can't we all just get along" crap.

It's too arbitrary, and the only way it was held together this long was by a ruthless dictator.

Sometimes, brutality is necessary to maintain law and order. South Korea, Japan, China, Germany, Chile, the USSR, and dozens of other nations throughout history were all modernized, unified and stabilized by fairly brutal regimes.

Not every nation has had the good fortune to be like the US, which was founded by generally middle class, literate people from an already wealthy superpower who brought their ideas of democracy, education, economic liberalism, and civil rights to their new colony and established functioning governments in the colonies that could work even after independence.

The reason Iraq failed is because we assumed that the people there are just like us; quite simply, they're not. It takes decades of gradual transition to democracy in order to change a people whose entire history has been one of altering degrees of religious and political repression. Even China, nearly 100 years after the end of its Qing dynasty still has the same problems with corrupt local officials and autocracy that the rulers and common people had to deal with for over 4,000 years.

I hope that we avoid such a terrible, murderous, inhuman act and I would love it if democracy could bloom across the Middle East. I wouldn't want to nuke the Middle East, let alone anywhere else in the world. I see such an atrocity as the very last resort, if all other forms of diplomacy, military action, economic reform and political pressure fail and we literally can't win against the forces of Islamic extremism.

That's not what you said.

If it works, and it keeps the crude flowing I honestly have no problem with it. We keep oil flowing, eliminate the problem at its root, and give the entire region a second chance.

I do however think we should seriously consider dividing Iraq in to a democratic Kurdistan and a secular dictatorship in the rest of Iraq until law and order are established.

"Law and order" is the justification of every tyrant. Under a tyranny, it amounts merely to preventing resistance to statist murder and repression.

Perhaps we should tolerate chattel slavery for "law and order," too? All those stupid criminal blacks, killing each other and committing theft... maybe we should never have emancipated them in the first place.

To sacrifice other people's freedom for one's own selfish ends is never acceptable.

However, oil needs to flow freely and we must take whatever actions are necessary to secure it.

Fuck the oil, if the cost is countless millions of deaths.

There's that "evil" word again.

Yes. And that is the term your proposal deserves. I'll add "despicable", "abhorrent", "inhuman", "disgusting", "vile", "criminal", and "abominable".

As for the rest, I do not argue with people who are genocidal.

That's not what you said.

I did, didn't I? I'm afraid there's no proof that I didn't mean it in such a way, but I do not support genocide as a means of solving Islamic extremism unless literally everything else fails and they are prepared to do the same to us.

"Law and order" is the justification of every tyrant. Under a tyranny, it amounts merely to preventing resistance to statist murder and repression.

Perhaps we should tolerate chattel slavery for "law and order," too? All those stupid criminal blacks, killing each other and committing theft... maybe we should never have emancipated them in the first place.

To sacrifice other people's freedom for one's own selfish ends is never acceptable.

Society can't function without law and order. If the short term cost is repression to guarantee a stable and secure future for the country and the promise of functioning democracy I consider it a worthy goal. If people aren't ready for democracy and have proven it through their actions I see no reason why we shouldn't allow them to have the government they want and gradually bring democracy and economic reform as the country matures.

When people want democracy, they'll create it themselves.

Fuck the oil, if the cost is countless millions of deaths.

If we're not going to buy it, someone else will. I think such valuable resources are best used in order to benefit our interests rather than the interests of some other nation. After all, if the US doesn't buy it then China or India surely will...it's not like the problem will solve itself if we disentangle ourselves from the Middle East. If we have the resources and can manage them, then we should definitely use it to our benefit rather than someone else's.

Unfortunately, all nations that need something that isn't limitless are selfish. It's better to get it for our use than theirs, because they're sure as hell not going to repay the favor...instead, they're going to use it to their advantage.

I did, didn't I? I'm afraid there's no proof that I didn't mean it in such a way, but I do not support genocide as a means of solving Islamic extremism unless literally everything else fails and they are prepared to do the same to us.

Fair enough.

Society can't function without law and order. If the short term cost is repression to guarantee a stable and secure future for the country and the promise of functioning democracy I consider it a worthy goal. If people aren't ready for democracy and have proven it through their actions I see no reason why we shouldn't allow them to have the government they want and gradually bring democracy and economic reform as the country matures.

"Have proven it through their actions"?

Sorry; "democracy" imposed by the invasion and occupation of the world superpower is not "democracy" at all, and the Iraqis, proving that they are wiser than the propagandists and pundits in the US, understand the poison at the heart of this "gift."

Their country has been destabilized, their infrastructure destroyed, and the occupying forces have killed tens of thousands of them... do you expect them to cheer on an election show? "Democracy" has not been a failure because of Iraqi intransigence; it was never the intention of the invaders, was never the intention of the collaborators the invaders empowered, and was never the intention of the tribalist elites that dominate the "political parties" supposedly democratically elected.

When people want democracy, they'll create it themselves.

Let's leave them to it, then.

If we're not going to buy it, someone else will. I think such valuable resources are best used in order to benefit our interests rather than the interests of some other nation. After all, if the US doesn't buy it then China or India surely will...it's not like the problem will solve itself if we disentangle ourselves from the Middle East. If we have the resources and can manage them, then we should definitely use it to our benefit rather than someone else's.

Fine. But let's not nuke them, or impose repressive regimes on them, to make them slaves to our ends.

Unfortunately, all nations that need something that isn't limitless are selfish. It's better to get it for our use than theirs, because they're sure as hell not going to repay the favor...instead, they're going to use it to their advantage.

I am against all nation-states, and I have a hard time supporting the interest of one ruling class over another.

"Have proven it through their actions"?

Sorry; "democracy" imposed by the invasion and occupation of the world superpower is not "democracy" at all, and the Iraqis, proving that they are wiser than the propagandists and pundits in the US, understand the poison at the heart of this "gift."

That's what I mean. We went in there, overthrew the government, and tried to force our own version of government on them without any kind of appreciation for the culture or history of the region. Iraq is not the US, and we were stupid to assume the Iraqi people would be willing to overcome hundreds, even thousands of years of tribalism and autocratic rule and embrace a system as foreign to them as their systems are to us.

Any transition to democracy has to be done gradually and it has to be done from within. If we try to impose it, it fails or even worse gives way to a regime more brutal than the one it replaced (think of "democratic" South Vietnam).

Their country has been destabilized, their infrastructure destroyed, and the occupying forces have killed tens of thousands of them... do you expect them to cheer on an election show? "Democracy" has not been a failure because of Iraqi intransigence; it was never the intention of the invaders, was never the intention of the collaborators the invaders empowered, and was never the intention of the tribalist elites that dominate the "political parties" supposedly democratically elected.

Very true. The problem is, tribalism takes a lot more than what we've done so far to overcome. Until the people have placed their tribal loyalties and leadership second to the leadership of their government, democracy will not work.

Let's leave them to it, then.

That's what we should be doing with Iran; hopefully, our leaders will realize (however unlikely) that Iran will only change and its theocracy will only fall if it comes from within. I fear that we're not going to learn from Iraq and try to do the same in Iran with even less success.

They should realize that Iraq is an unmitigated failure and will not succeed as a democracy unless we leave and the country goes through the painful process of becoming a democracy through whatever stages of dictatorship or repression are required to get there.

Fine. But let's not nuke them, or impose repressive regimes on them, to make them slaves to our ends.

I'm assuming the country will naturally fall in to a dictatorship (with the exception of the Kurds, to whom I would preferably grant self-determination and independence); we can use that regime to restore order and infrastructure and gradually introduce reforms as the country recovers economically and socially from 30 years of devastation and mismanagement.

The only time I would support installing a dictator is if the country is at risk of falling in to theocracy. That would be simply too dangerous to the region to allow.

I am against all nation-states, and I have a hard time supporting the interest of one ruling class over another.

Until you can change the system, you have to try and tip the balance in favor of the one that can be most easily changed once the time for supporting them against their competitors is over. The US and Europe are going to be more likely to reform and set in a new direction with less difficulty than China or India, so it makes sense to support them if it means realizing your goals far sooner.

That's what I mean. We went in there, overthrew the government, and tried to force our own version of government on them without any kind of appreciation for the culture or history of the region. Iraq is not the US, and we were stupid to assume the Iraqi people would be willing to overcome hundreds, even thousands of years of tribalism and autocratic rule and embrace a system as foreign to them as their systems are to us.

But we have not even tried to impose democracy. We never intended democracy in the first place. Imperialism hates democracy; it runs the risk of nationalism. The Iraqi people are not eager to accept US rule; thus they must be subordinated to it, and that is what we have tried (and failed) to do.

Any transition to democracy has to be done gradually and it has to be done from within. If we try to impose it, it fails or even worse gives way to a regime more brutal than the one it replaced (think of "democratic" South Vietnam).

We did not try to impose democracy in "South Vietnam", either. In fact, we actively sought to prevent the one chance it might have had to occur.

I do agree that democracy has to come from within, though... I'm not sure if it needs to be done gradually.

Very true. The problem is, tribalism takes a lot more than what we've done so far to overcome. Until the people have placed their tribal loyalties and leadership second to the leadership of their government, democracy will not work.

The government has no right to expect the loyalty of the people. It has to earn it. That is what is meant by "democracy."

At least the tribal leaders can be trusted to defend the interests of their tribe, to a greater or lesser degree, anyway.

That's what we should be doing with Iran; hopefully, our leaders will realize (however unlikely) that Iran will only change and its theocracy will only fall if it comes from within. I fear that we're not going to learn from Iraq and try to do the same in Iran with even less success.

I fear that, too.

They should realize that Iraq is an unmitigated failure and will not succeed as a democracy unless we leave and the country goes through the painful process of becoming a democracy through whatever stages of dictatorship or repression are required to get there.

We should get the hell out, I agree with you there.

I'm assuming the country will naturally fall in to a dictatorship (with the exception of the Kurds, to whom I would preferably grant self-determination and independence);

The problem with Kurdish independence is that you deprive the other Iraqis of the wealth from the oil there. Just or not, they won't like it; it may not turn out very prettily.

I do think they should get it, though.

we can use that regime to restore order and infrastructure and gradually introduce reforms as the country recovers economically and socially from 30 years of devastation and mismanagement.

If an authoritarian regime comes into power, yes, we should not seek to impose our will upon the country, and I guess certain kinds of aid can be justified along harm minimization lines.

The only time I would support installing a dictator is if the country is at risk of falling in to theocracy. That would be simply too dangerous to the region to allow.

I'm not sure if interfering will do any good. I think theocracy is probably somewhere close to the most disgusting political system any country can have (short of outright genocidal regimes), but intervening will give the theocrats another weapon. Our record in this sort of thing is awful.

Until you can change the system, you have to try and tip the balance in favor of the one that can be most easily changed once the time for supporting them against their competitors is over. The US and Europe are going to be more likely to reform and set in a new direction with less difficulty than China or India, so it makes sense to support them if it means realizing your goals far sooner.

More than India? I don't know about that. China, yes.

The thing, though, is that at the moment the US and Europe are the dominant superpowers; curb their excesses, and at least you will get a more balanced world, where imperialist domination is harder to maintain.