NationStates Jolt Archive

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

How will the subjugation of one ethnic group by another lead to a stable and prosperous democracy?

Apparently, MTAE feels the democracy need be fertilized by the blood of the innocent. Pagan. ;)

How can it be good? Can you seriously see Iraq coming out of it as a Great Power? Its unlikely to advance very much, Iran will make sure of that. Iran dont want powerful neighbours :p

How will the subjugation of one ethnic group by another lead to a stable and prosperous democracy?

The complete annihilation of one sectarian faction would lead to a more stable and prosperous democracy, but a less extreme subjugation will implant the idea that the losing party failed in their minds and it would put an end to the conflict. By that point, almost everybody would be exasperated and tired of war -- the conflict would not be renewed in the near future. Thus, the road to national unity would be paved.

Apparently, MTAE feels the democracy need be fertilized by the blood of the innocent. Pagan. ;)

Actually, Thomas Jefferson suggested the same concept, only in a more raw form. He claimed that a revolution every two decades was necessary to keep the ruling party in line. Are you insinuating that he, too, is a pagan?

The complete annihilation of one sectarian faction would lead to a more stable and prosperous democracy,

Well, sure. Genocide may indeed be an effective guarantor of stability. But I don't think it is a particularly proportionate means.

but a less extreme subjugation will implant the idea that the losing party failed in their minds and it would put an end to the conflict.

Doubtful. More likely there will be a repressive government of one ethnic group that is regularly being challenged by the other; the amount of devastation necessary to make one party decisively "lose" is beyond the means of any side. Worst of all, the sectarian boundaries will be firmly established, as they were not before the invasion; the result will be disunity, instability, and repression for decades to come.

By that point, almost everybody would be exasperated and tired of war -- the conflict would not be renewed in the near future.

So? The result would just be another brutal tyranny.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson suggested the same concept, only in a more raw form. He claimed that a revolution every two decades was necessary to keep the ruling party in line.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea you are advancing.

A civil war and a revolution are quite different things.

So why is it they shouldn't try to stop the violence? If you think Iraq is going to come out of this civil war a new and better country and this(presumably) is what you want, then why just sit back and watch, why not try to end the violence as soon as possible and get right to the great country bit?

Doubtful. More likely there will be a repressive government of one ethnic group that is regularly being challenged by the other

No, US forces are in the area to ensure that the democratic will of the government is carried out. The faction which comes into power would not dare destroy the democratic base of the country, as it is an equitable system for everybody. The Iraqi people know the brutality of the former regime, and they are certainly not eager to implement a new one. In the US civil war, for example, the South despised the North. However, they were kept in line and brought back into the Union because of various cross-cultural good-will measures. The same is likely to happen in Iraq.

Yes, because everyone knows that, given these two historical examples, history is guaranteed to follow the exact same course as before, justifying our instigation of this mess. Complex and unique socio-political factors be damned.

:rolleyes:

two historical examples

Actually, I cited more than two historical examples, but I only analyzed two of them in particular depth.

No, US forces are in the area to ensure that the democratic will of the government is carried out.

No, they aren't, and the US forces are irrelevant anyway. They cannot solve this problem.

The faction which comes into power would not dare destroy the democratic base of the country, as it is an equitable system for everybody.

Yeah... and when you want to stay in power, you don't want equality, you want power.

The Iraqi people know the brutality of the former regime, and they are certainly not eager to implement a new one.

In the present sectarianization of the situation, it is unavoidable.

In the US civil war, for example, the South despised the North.

The US civil war occured in a country with fairly strong nationalist feeling and a substantial republican tradition. The union was restored, not remade.

No, they aren't, and the US forces are irrelevant anyway. They cannot solve this problem.

US forces, while they cannot stop the sectarian crisis, are able to carry out some of the orders of the government and are critical in the rebuilding of infrastructure. There is no problem, however, only a "solution in the making."

Yeah... and when you want to stay in power, you don't want equality, you want power.

A far-reaching movement, comprises of hundreds of thousands of people, cannot control a country. A country cannot be controlled effectively by that many people -- it would be chaos. There would need to be some system for reflecting the will of the people who aren't in power -- democracy would work quite well. Additionally, the US will ensure that the current system of government does not get overthrown. The current civil war is operating within the framework of a weak national government.

In the present sectarianization of the situation, it is unavoidable.

Or so say the nay-sayers. The war will drag on indefinitely; by the time it is over, must of the previous inhibitions will be forgotten and the Iraqi people will consider themselves one once more and put the past behind them.

The US civil war occured in a country with fairly strong nationalist feeling and a substantial republican tradition. The union was restored, not remade.

And that Republican tradition will continue in the future. Democracy is not such an arcane topic that is hard to grasp -- a democratic tradition means nothing. The Iraqis voted freely in elections in December, and they know what such a system of government entails. They have warmly embraced it. And the US was anything but nationalist in the days before the civil war -- it was heavily polarized and there were very distinct and concrete sectarian factions.

I don't think it's wise to predict the outcome of the Civil War in Iraq. Every theory that I hear sounds pretty plausible. One sect goes into power or that it is divided into three states or that the Kurds segregate and leave it to the Sunnis and Shias to fight it out or the whole place spontaneously combusts - these all sound plausible but none will be fun.

As I recall Saddam is a Sunni and Iraq was anything if not stable till someone decided he had weapons of mass destruction. Or did he?:confused:

How the hell is this a good thing?

People are dying. This is all rather crap, no?

How the hell is this a good thing?

If you'd read my post, you'd know.

If you'd read my post, you'd know.
No, it was basically utter crap.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

As much as I'd like to agree with this sentiment...my emphasis on your words should make clear the problem with it.

This is a religious conflict as much as it is a political one...unlike the largely nationalistic examples that you cited.

Such wars do not "end" as other wars do...faith is a far hotter fire than nationalism.

The bloodshed will eventually end...not in democracy, but in tyranny.

-snipish-

Actually I agree. Its like when you have two brothers that are really pissed off at each other and they get in a big fight to let out their anger, but after the fight, they realize that the fighting was useless, and a lot of times they have a closer brotherhood.

If you'd read my post, you'd know.

I've read and re-read. Aside from the utilitarian appeal of potentially having fewer people die in the long term, I can't see it being a good thing. Civil wars tend to be the worst way of achieving whatever benefits come from them.

Actually I agree. Its like when you have two brothers that are really pissed off at each other and they get in a big fight to let out their anger, but after the fight, they realize that the fighting was useless, and a lot of times they have a closer brotherhood.

Or one of the brothers dies and the other brother gets all the Christmas presents that year and peace reigns.

-snippage-
So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.
We must not shy away from a military confrontation?
We must not halt the violence?

Have you ever thought the wrong side might actually win?
What if Iraqi's get so sick of the violence they do band together and expel the Evil Crusaders?
But only to leave not a democracy, not a free nation but a Super Islamist state?

Actually I agree. Its like when you have two brothers that are really pissed off at each other and they get in a big fight to let out their anger, but after the fight, they realize that the fighting was useless, and a lot of times they have a closer brotherhood.
Or actually, it's sort of like that, but then their sister walks in with a chainsaw, lops them in two when they're a bit busy fighting, and then takes the adoration of their parents.

snip

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.As someone said already said, this is a religious conflict as much as anything else. I don't believe your oil analogy is accurate. Instead I believe a nuclear reaction is a more accurate analogy. With each person that dies at least one more, if not several more are radicalised. Such a reaction can only cease once there is no one left to radicalised. ie. everyone is either dead, living abroad as a refugee or living so far apart from everyone else that they are isolated.

In all the examples you listed there was already an established common identity such as a national, class or even religious identity. In Iraq there is no established common identity. Indeed as a nation Iraq is a mere 60 odd years old.

What Iraq needs is a tyrant who will lead the country in such a fashion that a common identity is formed through hope and not fear. So that such an identity is something that they can feel part of and not feel intimidated into accepting that identity.

Bad. But expected.

Bad. But expected.

Way to refute my argument. Don't quit your day job.

Way to refute my argument. Don't quit your day job.

Actually, I think it was an answer to your question. Try to keep up, MTAE.
Can we not just call him "MATE"? It would be so much easier to pronounce.

Way to refute my argument. Don't quit your day job.

I wasn't refuting your argument. I was expressing my opinion in a brief manner on the question, however...since you are going to be an arse about this, I will address your entire argument in my next post here.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

This "low intensity" conflict has been a feature of the Middle East for millenia. The divisions between Shia and Sunni and other factions of the Church of Islam have cost untold millions of lives over that period of time. I submit to you by their own admission, the only true beginning of a solution will come when a genuine religious reformation occurs. This is not just my argument but a respectable number of scholars within the region. You cannot and will not have a government that is secular in application unless the rule of "Al islam deen wa dawla" is abandoned.

In translation: "Islam is a religion and a state." Until you get past the conservative mullahs and muezzin who take this as literally as other fundamentalists believing that religion and government should be one and the same, you will not successfully plant as secular a concept as democracy into a nation that is anti-thetical to it.


Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does.

Respectfully it does not. France, Spain and the United States already were secular states in their civil war periods. In the Middle East there is only one NEAR secular state and that is Israel. If you bother to read the Koran (Americanized spelling, sorry) even translated, references to the enemies of Islam are the natural enemy of all Islamic states. That is why the USA is the "Great Satan," we are neither an Islamic state nor a majority Islamic nation. Until that little stumbling block is removed, the USA cannot naturally within reason establish either the seeds of a democracy, or a democratic republic.


From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

You cannot seriously expect a westernized argument to gain real sympathy? If and only IF the nations of the Middle East were past their long overdue religious reformation might a true western democracy or democratic republic to take root. The fundamental flaw with your argument is that you assume (rather sloppily I might add) that Shia and Sunni are secular political entities and not influenced by the dictates of their religious leaders who firmly believe that the religion is also the state.


We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

A vastly oversimplified and flawed argument. Children at this moment are still being raised on the 7th century arguments presented by the Church of Islam as current ideological fact. The argument that if the killing continues it will leave behind only peaceful people willing to change an entire way of life is a waste of time. The next generation is already in place and they will be as much the implacable enemies of secular government and religious reformation as the one we are currently engaged with. Why? Because ignorant people such as yourself, present themselves as the purveyors of credible and factual arguments, when in reality you are the purveyors of an ideology. Just like the very people you oppose in the Middle East.

The solution comes from education, trade and the inevitable cultural assimilation that comes from trade. There will come a time when the ordinary people of the Middle East will be prepared to cast off the chains shackled to them by their priests and governments. We have certainly delayed that by at least a generation or two with our arrogant meddling and cultural ignorance. Violence begets violence, not reasoned discourse.

Satisfied?

So Means new excuse that the US went into Iraq and caused a civil war is that 'Well we caused the civil war in Iraq, but having 90 new corpses on the streets every day is not a bad thing!' oh the troll....

Civil War? Hey, worked for the Congo, didn't it?





Didn't it?

What seems to be forgotten is that the concepts of a democracy and a republic are unique in the world. A combination of the two is really unique. Making the combination last for more than a century, well you can count the successes on one hand.

It seems to take centuries of cultural development, a high degree of common language and religion, and a gradual change of attitude to human decency and behaviour. I don't see any of this anywhere in the Middle East today and never in any country that has a majority of Islamic "citizens". If you read between the lines, there is a warning here for the western "democracies".

As they said in so many colonies, dependencies, whatever...

One Man
One Vote
Once...

I wasn't refuting your argument. I was expressing my opinion in a brief manner on the question, however...since you are going to be an arse about this, I will address your entire argument in my next post here.

Oh, I thought you were one of the annoying people who "rate" my threads. Sorry about that -- I'm getting a bit paranoid.

This "low intensity" conflict has been a feature of the Middle East for millenia. The divisions between Shia and Sunni and other factions of the Church of Islam have cost untold millions of lives over that period of time. I submit to you by their own admission, the only true beginning of a solution will come when a genuine religious reformation occurs. This is not just my argument but a respectable number of scholars within the region. You cannot and will not have a government that is secular in application unless the rule of "Al islam deen wa dawla" is abandoned. In translation: "Islam is a religion and a state." Until you get past the conservative mullahs and muezzin who take this as literally as other fundamentalists believing that religion and government should be one and the same, you will not successfully plant as secular a concept as democracy into a nation that is anti-thetical to it.

Yes, there have been many clashes between the two major sects of Islam in the Middle East. However, few have been so devastating, all-encompassing, concentrated, and lengthy. People accept war, and all the glory it supposedly entails, if it is a short affair which the patriots can support. However, once the war starts dragging on and seems interminable, public support plummets. An excellent example of this is Germany during World War II -- at first, the German people were fanatical about expansion, purging the Jews, etc. However, as time wore on and the Nazi juggernaut was halted and then routed, support for the war began to ebb. Towards the end, the citizens welcomed the entry of American soldiers and the end of the gruesome slaughter. The same logic applies to the situation in Iraq. While the war is still in its early stages, the populace will support their particular faction, thinking that they are making small sacrifices for their god and the preeminence of their religion. However, as the crisis grinds on, they'll start to truly see the horrors which are associated with it. They'll constantly be subjected to vile and heinous acts, which will only serve to permeate their obdurate mindset and erode their support. Eventually, the war will fizzle out as nobody wishes for a continuation of the ghastly contest. A democratic state will be created to appease both parties. Alternatively, one side will achieve a clear and decisive victory over the other. However, they will not be able to set up a dictatorial government -- nobody, even those of their sect, would want to see such a usurpation of power and a destruction of the values for which they fought. They would not want to see power wrenched from them in a method analogous to what Saddam did. Nobody could install themselves in a position of power when there are hundreds of thousands of men with guns preventing it. In the end, the only possible resolution would be a democratic system of government. Either way, democracy, freedom, stability, and prosperity would win out in the long run. Islam, while a religion, can be applied to the legal and moral framework of a state.

Respectfully it does not. France, Spain and the United States already were secular states in their civil war periods. In the Middle East there is only one NEAR secular state and that is Israel. If you bother to read the Koran (Americanized spelling, sorry) even translated, references to the enemies of Islam are the natural enemy of all Islamic states. That is why the USA is the "Great Satan," we are neither an Islamic state nor a majority Islamic nation. Until that little stumbling block is removed, the USA cannot naturally within reason establish either the seeds of a democracy, or a democratic republic.

Having a secular state is not a prerequisite to having a democracy. There are copious examples of heavily religious countries which have nonetheless embraced republicanism. All that is necessary to sow the seeds of a democracy which will flourish is the support of the people. Certainly, the public is quite enthusiastic to the idea of deciding their own future instead of having a maniacal butcher decide for them. They showed their eagerness to vote in December, when they dutifully and courageously stepped out of the safety of their homes to cast their vote, regardless of all the danger which could befall them as a consequence of their action. The Iraqis don't need to worship the US as their savior; they don't even need to like the US. All they need have is an appreciation for democracy and a willingness to install such an equitable system in their own country. They have demonstrated that they have this, and nobody can deny them it. Eventually, they will attain the goal they have striven for all these years.

The next generation is already in place and they will be as much the implacable enemies of secular government and religious reformation as the one we are currently engaged with.

You seem to assume that the only path to a stable democracy is the total renunciation of religious beliefs; this is not so. They may be indoctrinated to the point where they are enemies of secularism -- however, this will not translate into a hatred of democracy. Even the most fanatic Muslims may accept democracy as the optimal form of government. Certainly, a generation which is bred amidst the inhumanity and depravity of war will seek any way to rectify that unfortunate circumstance. They will turn to democracy as a solution to the problem which will best suit all parties involved. They would certainly not seek for the war to rage on indefinitely. They would be completely and totally aware of how horrid and destructive it is, having been exposed to it from such an early age.

Satisfied?

Sorry about that, I didn't know to what you were referring.

Okay on eproblem that has been previously addressed, but which i would like to re-emphasize is the issue of religon in terms of this. I think that the only stable (If you could even call it that) religious government is Israel. however with no disrespect to Muslims, they are much more militant than any other religon I can think of (mainstream religon, not counting super-violent cults obviously). The simple fact is that in a scenario where the religon is fighting oftentimes over differences within their religon, and which could quite possibly wind up with 50% of Iraqs populace dead (30-35 % Sunnis, 10-15% Kurdish, and the Shiites who also would die in the fighting) leaves a not very pretty picture. The civil war will not stabilize and turn Iraq into a major power. It will far more likely wind up with a split-up of Iraq, with a side-bonus of massive killings.

If one wants to troll, one does not want to seem so Deep Kimchi'ish... All that nihilism and all. This thread is even OK... Jesus! Was it meant to be so?

Of course the war, started by false pretenses, will eventually benefit Iraq. It's a catalyst, see... A freer nation will emerge, you know what I'm saying? Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy... any day now. And that's a fact, Jack!

If one wants to troll, one does not want to seem so Deep Kimchi'ish... All that nihilism and all. This thread is even OK... Jesus! Was it meant to be so?

I'm striving to make topics that aren't construed as trolling. Thanks for noticing. :)

Unless you're being sarcastic, in which case you're mean. :(

At this point, (...) an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.
After erasing all that crap in the middle.

Really, it's getting b o r i n g. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies/yawn.gif

Really, it's getting b o r i n g. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/images/smilies/yawn.gif

I'm sure the Iraqis who are dying by the truckload would beg to differ with you. While they're dying, the least we could do is pay attention to the situation and acknowledge their plight. Being indifferent, according to a survivor of the nightmarish German holocaust, would undermine their plight. Do you agree with that statement?

Yes, there have been many clashes between the two major sects of Islam in the Middle East. However, few have been so devastating, all-encompassing, concentrated, and lengthy. People accept war, and all the glory it supposedly entails, if it is a short affair which the patriots can support. However, once the war starts dragging on and seems interminable, public support plummets. An excellent example of this is Germany during World War II -- at first, the German people were fanatical about expansion, purging the Jews, etc. However, as time wore on and the Nazi juggernaut was halted and then routed, support for the war began to ebb. Towards the end, the citizens welcomed the entry of American soldiers and the end of the gruesome slaughter. The same logic applies to the situation in Iraq. While the war is still in its early stages, the populace will support their particular faction, thinking that they are making small sacrifices for their god and the preeminence of their religion. However, as the crisis grinds on, they'll start to truly see the horrors which are associated with it. They'll constantly be subjected to vile and heinous acts, which will only serve to permeate their obdurate mindset and erode their support. Eventually, the war will fizzle out as nobody wishes for a continuation of the ghastly contest. A democratic state will be created to appease both parties. Alternatively, one side will achieve a clear and decisive victory over the other. However, they will not be able to set up a dictatorial government -- nobody, even those of their sect, would want to see such a usurpation of power and a destruction of the values for which they fought. They would not want to see power wrenched from them in a method analogous to what Saddam did. Nobody could install themselves in a position of power when there are hundreds of thousands of men with guns preventing it. In the end, the only possible resolution would be a democratic system of government. Either way, democracy, freedom, stability, and prosperity would win out in the long run. Islam, while a religion, can be applied to the legal and moral framework of a state.

No it cannot. When the state is indivisible from the religion, republicanism and democracy simply cannot exist. I don't believe you understand the degree of just how "top down" religious leaders' statements are in the Middle East. They say it and it is followed in a manner akin to canonical law.


Having a secular state is not a prerequisite to having a democracy. There are copious examples of heavily religious countries which have nonetheless embraced republicanism.

A republic is decidedly different from a democracy. Read the definitions please. The United States is a Democratic Republic. If you found a republic in the Middle East, unless you are Egypt or Israel you will have an Islamic Republic.

Secularism is a characteristic found in the majority of democracies.


All that is necessary to sow the seeds of a democracy which will flourish is the support of the people. Certainly, the public is quite enthusiastic to the idea of deciding their own future instead of having a maniacal butcher decide for them. They showed their eagerness to vote in December, when they dutifully and courageously stepped out of the safety of their homes to cast their vote, regardless of all the danger which could befall them as a consequence of their action. The Iraqis don't need to worship the US as their savior; they don't even need to like the US. All they need have is an appreciation for democracy and a willingness to install such an equitable system in their own country. They have demonstrated that they have this, and nobody can deny them it. Eventually, they will attain the goal they have striven for all these years.

A stable democratic system requires equity. In an Islamic nation, if you are NOT Islamic you are not equal. You are an enemy of Islam, an infidel.


You seem to assume that the only path to a stable democracy is the total renunciation of religious beliefs; this is not so.

You are correct, a nation may have the characteristic of having strong faith in system of organized religion. But to have a stable democracy, the government cannot embrace a religion that demands that church and state be one and the same. Islamic beliefs and the teachings of Islam DEMAND, no REQUIRE that the government and the church are the same. The ideas and rules are antithetical, a democracy says all citizens have an equal say in government, Islam says the Church trumps all of that.


They may be indoctrinated to the point where they are enemies of secularism -- however, this will not translate into a hatred of democracy. Even the most fanatic Muslims may accept democracy as the optimal form of government. Certainly, a generation which is bred amidst the inhumanity and depravity of war will seek any way to rectify that unfortunate circumstance. They will turn to democracy as a solution to the problem which will best suit all parties involved. They would certainly not seek for the war to rage on indefinitely. They would be completely and totally aware of how horrid and destructive it is, having been exposed to it from such an early age.

Until a reformation has occurred, democracy simply cannot flourish. The Church of Islam requires submission to the will of Allah. When the Church speaks you obey. The Roman Catholic Church had a period like this in human history. Have you seen the Arabic term "Ins' Allah"? When stated it means "It is the will of Allah" it also is a statement of submission to the will of Allah.

It is not to the advantage of fundamentalists to allow equal voices. Democracy requires equal voices. Until the influence of the Church of Islam wanes or is modified by religious reformation, there will be NO true democracy in the Middle East among Islamic nations. The priests simply do not allow it.

Your argument holds up well for more secular nations, but the Middle East does not hold up to that model. I encourage you to read Professor Juan Cole. His writings are freely available on the internet. Speak with knowledgeable people who have studied the dynamic of the Middle East for all of their life. It was an eye opener for me 20 years ago.

Like with Yugoslavia? Yeah sure. ;)

Civil War? Hey, worked for the Congo, didn't it?





Didn't it?

Which Congo? Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville) or Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo-Kinshasa)?

In the Middle East there is only one NEAR secular state and that is Israel.

Syria's secular.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

....The French Revolution was a horrible thing man. No good came from it. Napoleon came to power because the Republic was FAILING. It was getting its ass whipped by the Prussians, Austrians, and British. Then Napoleon came along during the Civil Strife, and did manage to bring France around.

And another case of Civil War failing to do what you claim: YUGOSLAVIA!

Among the most beautiful cities in the world, Sarajevo....totally destroyed. No country that broke off from the Land of Souther Slavs has recovered, and to this day remain shit holes.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

Yes, because, as we all know, Chairman Mao brought a great era of freedom after he won the civil war in China.

Syria's secular.

Governmentally it is a authoritarian, military dominated republic. It is 76% Sunni Islamic and still the Islamic Church has a hand in the law and administration of laws. The court system is based on a combination of French and Ottoman civil law; religious law is used in the family court system; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction.

It is not a fully secular state, I will grant you it is a NEAR secular state. But again we see the Church of Islam has a place in the governance of the nation, just as the Church wants it.

All of this is freely available in the CIA World Factbook.

Yes, because, as we all know, Chairman Mao brought a great era of freedom after he won the civil war in China.

Little red cookbook! Little red cookbook! Oops, sorry...I had an Eddie Izzard moment there.

I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you...

Yes. I'm shocked you made a ridiculous and trollish thread. I'd never have predicted it.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war

...although Bush always tries to do so.

I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Calling a massacre "good"... no way. "Necessary"... well, we shall never know, because no-one really attempted to prevent it - neither the US-led coalition, nor the Sunnis, nor the Shiites. Of course, Iraq will benefit from the END of the current state of war.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence.

"Because we have been proven unable to do so", you could add, don't you think?

Iraq is analo(g)ous to a barrel of oil

:D Oh my, an analogy between Iraq and oil!


Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

1.You assume that no kids are born in Iraq?
2.Of course, you assume that only "sectarian" terrorists die... what if all other people of Iraq die first? A single terrorist can easily kill 50 people with a bomb.
3.We could discuss the "sectarian" thing... but I doubt you've got clear ideas about what "sectarian" means.

civil war in iraq is clearly bad thing. if not because of the unneccesery deaths of civilian, than because it will let iran get control on the area, as they did with hizbulla in lebanon and the hamas in gaza strip.
and that will be very bad thing.

Quick question MTAE.

What means to what end? I'd love to know.

civil war in iraq is clearly bad thing. if not because of the unneccesery deaths of civilian, than because it will let iran get control on the area, as they did with hizbulla in lebanon and the hamas in gaza strip.
and that will be very bad thing.

Not gonna fight about this, especially not on this thread, but how oh how oh how are you substantiating Iranian presence in Hamas? Where are your sources for this?

Not gonna fight about this, especially not on this thread, but how oh how oh how are you substantiating Iranian presence in Hamas? Where are your sources for this?

iran were the only ones to sent money to hamas when there was global blockade against the goverment hamas lead.
hamas leaders seat at syria another iranian friend and hizbulla supporters. the unholy quartet share interests, equipment and money.

there are enough information which tied them in connections, even if hamas aren't iranians.

Nice, Means, now try for the big league here and create a topic defending nazism. Come on, try at least, let's see how you do in yet another round of defending the indefensible.

The complete annihilation of one sectarian faction would lead to a more stable and prosperous democracy

Ergo, democracy by killing everyone else that's different. Tell you what. Why don't you start your own ethnic cleansing program in your own damned country first. We'll take notes.

Ergo, democracy by killing everyone else that's different. Tell you what. Why don't you start your own ethnic cleansing program in your own damned country first. We'll take notes.

Let me get the pun! :D

He'd become Meanslosevic! :D :D :D :D

....The French Revolution was a horrible thing man. No good came from it. Napoleon came to power because the Republic was FAILING. It was getting its ass whipped by the Prussians, Austrians, and British. Then Napoleon came along during the Civil Strife, and did manage to bring France around.
The revolution itself was a horrible thing, especially under the Convention period, but it was, I think, necessary for helping to establish our modern concepts of democracy and freedom in Europe.

On a side note, I did wonder what if and how the world would be different if the Reign of Terror had not happened and the 1793 Constitution applied.

[QUOTE=MeansToAnEnd;12022450Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. [/QUOTE]

I thought you wanted to reintroduce slavery...

Not based on race just intelligence which is obviously so much better

No it cannot. When the state is indivisible from the religion, republicanism and democracy simply cannot exist. I don't believe you understand the degree of just how "top down" religious leaders' statements are in the Middle East. They say it and it is followed in a manner akin to canonical law.

How, in any way, is religion opposed to democracy? Does the Qu'ran state that those who opt not to accept a human
sovereign whose actions do not reflect the will of the people are immoral? Iran, one of the most religiously indoctrinated countries in the world, has the framework for a semi-functional democracy, and the people accept it and desire to expand it to better encompass the will of the people. There is no conflict between freedom and religion, although religion may impose some obscure laws upon the people.

A republic is decidedly different from a democracy.

What's that? A semantical argument? For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing in this modern day and age. There are no more democracies; there haven't been any for centuries.

A stable democratic system requires equity. In an Islamic nation, if you are NOT Islamic you are not equal. You are an enemy of Islam, an infidel.

While having equality between all people is a virtuous goal for which we should all strive, it is by no means required in a democracy. For example, look at the US prior to the civil rights movement: blacks were spat on in several regions in the US, yet the country was quite stable (the obvious exception would be the US civil war, however).

The ideas and rules are antithetical, a democracy says all citizens have an equal say in government, Islam says the Church trumps all of that.

Please cite the passage of the Qu'ran which states that democracy is an immoral system to which an authoritarian regime should be preferred. All it says is that the state should abide by the laws set forth in the Qu'ran. For example "thou shalt not steal" must be a principle which the state holds true. The basic notion is that the laws of the church must be extended to the state, not that the church should be the state and ruled by sheiks.

At this point, it is nearly impossible to deny that Iraq is in the state of a low-intensity civil war. That information is shamelessly paraded on all the news shows to reinforce the concept of the horror which is being perpetrated in Iraq. It indoctrinates viewers to the idea that the civil war occurring in Iraq is a terrible and that the nation lays in ruins. However, I take exception to this narrow-minded viewpoint. I submit to you that the war in Iraq is a good and necessary conflict and will eventually benefit Iraq.

Initially, such a hypothesis may come as a shock to many of you. However, I urge you to consult historical examples of civil wars and look into their aftermath. The French Revolution, for example, was a bloodbath in which "death squads" were rampant and the nation was plunged into chaos. Nonetheless, from those perilous depths and dark days emerged a bright, new government; a government that was capable of conquering practically all of mainland Europe. The French empire was glorious in the years following the conclusion of the civil war; it was powerful as it had never before dreamed (and would never dream again, I might add). Consider the American civil war -- hunderds of thousands of people were killed, yet the nation was reborn from the ashes of its former self. With the peculiar institution of slavery in shambles, the US ascended to the ranks of industrial giants and propelled itself into the untamed West. The war was a necessary catalyst for modernization and global power. In fact, there are countless other examples in which a civil war sparked a nation's rapid growth, including those in Greece, Germany (an excellent example of a war which heralded national unification from distinct and diverse factions), Spain, England, etc.

So, then, why does this logic not apply to Iraq? Actually, it does. From the blood which is spilled will be fertilized a new, more powerful, and freer nation. From the corpses which line the streets and the rubble of the destroyed buildings will be created a prosperous country. Sure, it may take a while; it always has. However, the wheel of history shall turn as it always has -- in the favour of national unification. All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni. Once this dreadful affair is done with, Iraq will be fully reborn and a stable and successful democracy -- it will go down the very same road which innumerable other nations have gone. At the end of that road will be rewards beyond its wildest dream; freedom, peace, and prosperity.

We must not shy away from a military confrontation. We must not attempt to halt the violence. Iraq is analoous to a barrel of oil, set alight by the intense fires of sectarian tensions. Slowly, that fuel is being consumed -- each day, sectarian terrorists are being killed. Slowly but surely, the fire will be extinguished when it runs out of a source of energy to renew itself. At that point, the nation of Iraq will be able to breathe the clean air -- an exhilarating sensation of utter freedom.

Again, you show your idiocy. How can war possibly be good? War is hell, and you know it, I know it, and the veterans of Vietnam, Korea, and WWII know it. And I believe the premise of democracy is equality for all, isn't it?

Idiot, defenestrate thyself.

For a secular democratic government to exist there must be a secular infrastructure to base the government on. During 2003 during the riots almost all of the secular infrastructure was destroyed, the national libraries, museums, universities, hospitals, and sources of secular knowledge were uprooted and systematically burned by angry mobs. This was further exacerbated by both continuous bombing and the fundamentalist hatred of secular institutions.

While the oil infrastructure and economic infrastructure was protected by the Americans and their allies, the infrastructure for civil society was totalled. Soldiers did not see themselves as protectors of civil order or culture both necessary for a true democracy to flourish. Economic interests were put before cultural preservation and the preservation of civil order.

With the burning and destruction of civil government bodies this left a vacuum where there was no other place to turn to for civil society than the clerics and the fundamentalists. Without the presence of viable secular institutions, the country was forced to turn to religious bodies to maintain their identity in an increasingly lawless land.

Democracy-- voting was introduced and economic reforms were introduced, however, there was no attempt to bring back the culture or secular identity of Iraqis leaving a power vacuum. In this vacuum, a power struggle is occurring among the two primary religious bodies the Sunnis and the Shiites on who will create a future Iraq and who will create a cultural identity for Iraqis.

The fundamentalists currently have all the assets and Iran is the first place the Iraqis are turning towards to help rebuild their cultural identity, Iranians are capable of rebuilding the universities, libraries, and civil institutions and form a stable government. The allies have shown no interest in addressing cultural or civil concerns only economics and government. We will most likely see a Sharia state modeled after Iran. I would much rather not see this happen. New leadership for the military needs to be put in place and civic order needs to be brought about so people can rebuild their institutions. If this does not happen we will see a fundamentalist Iraq.

To understand better another situation where a country descended into chaos was Afghanistan. When the Taliban took power in Afghanistan, the first thing they did was destroy the secular infrastructure and eliminate most civic institutions leaving only one option-- fundamentalist religion. There are parallels between the chaos which happened in Afghanistan before the Taliban and what is happening in Iraq.

All that is necessary for such a change to occur is one party subjugating another, whether it be Shia or Sunni.
Ummm, that is the way it was before. Before the Iraq war, the country was more secular under the Sunnis. Now the country is turning to a dominance by the Shia who prefer a theocracy more in line with Iran.

I see nothing but problems into the future of Iraq and we get to blame it all on trigger happy Bush.

The complete annihilation of one sectarian faction would lead to a more stable and prosperous democracy, but a less extreme subjugation will implant the idea that the losing party failed in their minds and it would put an end to the conflict. By that point, almost everybody would be exasperated and tired of war -- the conflict would not be renewed in the near future. Thus, the road to national unity would be paved.

Yes. The Tutsi rebels are causing all the trouble. They shot down the president's plane. It's up to the Hutus to get rid of them and create everlasting peace and democracy here.

Governmentally it is a authoritarian, military dominated republic. It is 76% Sunni Islamic and still the Islamic Church has a hand in the law and administration of laws. The court system is based on a combination of French and Ottoman civil law; religious law is used in the family court system; has not accepted compulsory ICJ jurisdiction.

It is not a fully secular state, I will grant you it is a NEAR secular state. But again we see the Church of Islam has a place in the governance of the nation, just as the Church wants it.

All of this is freely available in the CIA World Factbook.

I didn't know that.

At the very least, though, they do allow religious freedom, which is a plus.

How, in any way, is religion opposed to democracy? Does the Qu'ran state that those who opt not to accept a human
sovereign whose actions do not reflect the will of the people are immoral? Iran, one of the most religiously indoctrinated countries in the world, has the framework for a semi-functional democracy, and the people accept it and desire to expand it to better encompass the will of the people. There is no conflict between freedom and religion, although religion may impose some obscure laws upon the people.

What part of religious theocracy do you not understand? The system of democracy (especially western style democracy) is antithetical to "Al islam deen wa dawla." Islamic republics exist. If the Church of Islam does not endorse a candidate in Iran, they simply cannot run for office. The Church has final say on candidates in Iran. Do you call it a democracy because the people are allowed to cast a ballot? The USSR had voting long before they had the underpinnings of a democracy. You could vote...for ONE candidate. If anything, most Islamic nations are oligarchical in nature.


What's that? A semantical argument? For all intents and purposes, they're the same thing in this modern day and age. There are no more democracies; there haven't been any for centuries.

No they are NOT. they are two different things.

Republic- 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Democracy- 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

The United States, by proper political definition is a Democratic Republic.


While having equality between all people is a virtuous goal for which we should all strive, it is by no means required in a democracy. For example, look at the US prior to the civil rights movement: blacks were spat on in several regions in the US, yet the country was quite stable (the obvious exception would be the US civil war, however).

You cannot have a democracy without the decision making power being vested in the people of the country. You may have a republic that derives it's power from any source, in Iran this is the Church...as in most Middle Eastern nations. You are correct in the sense that all groups within the nation may or may not be equal and still have a democracy, but your theory falls down when the power does not derive from or is not vested in the citizens of the nation.


Please cite the passage of the Qu'ran which states that democracy is an immoral system to which an authoritarian regime should be preferred. All it says is that the state should abide by the laws set forth in the Qu'ran. For example "thou shalt not steal" must be a principle which the state holds true. The basic notion is that the laws of the church must be extended to the state, not that the church should be the state and ruled by sheiks.

I will do no such thing. I have already pointed out the history of the faith and the even clearly given you a place to start. You have somehow failed to understand that the power in an Islamic nations derives from and is vested in the Church of Islam. It matters not one fig who is the figurehead when the Church holds final approval on all laws and decrees.

Finally:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Please pay careful attention to the name of the nation and the form of government.

Iran is a THEOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

Iran is formally known as: Islamic Republic of Iran.

A civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. Civil wars have a knack for making countries better even though during the war there would be great suffering and death, but that is how humanity advances.

A civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. Civil wars have a knack for making countries better even though during the war there would be great suffering and death, but that is how humanity advances.

Are you MTAE's puppet? If so, you're banned for 2 weeks. That means no posting, even as a puppet.

I see nothing but problems into the future of Iraq and we get to blame it all on trigger happy Bush.

And our rubber stamp Congress, the "liberal" media, the PNAC, and everyone who bought the "Saddam has WMDs" bunk.

What's MTAE?

A civil war in Iraq would be a good thing. Civil wars have a knack for making countries better even though during the war there would be great suffering and death, but that is how humanity advances.

Humanity advances DESPITE wars, not because of them. Great social change is rarely, if ever fostered by armed strife. Great soldiers of all nations freely admit this.

The USA has become a nation of specialized half-wits. It places no emphasis on a well rounded education. Arts, humanities and history are on the decline in this nation, this is how we get bombastic twits who assert civil war is the best tool for societal advancement or that civil war is the handy-dandy GOOD THING.

War is a tool. It is used to secure or gain territory for a cause. Of the breed, civil war is the worst of the lot. It places brother vs brother and takes the instruments of society and civility and casts them off like old shoes. It is extreme and causes upheavals so great that it takes decades (usually longer) for a society to recover from the effects.

Even if Iraq became peaceful today, the infrastructure is so weak there it will take close to a decade to fix the damage done to the country. That is not taking into account the disagreements the factions of the Church of Islam have with each other.

You would know this if you cracked a history book or actually read something germane to the topic. Your assertion is flawed and without merit since you present no evidence with your statement, just bombast.

What's MTAE?

The initials for the person who was wrote the Opening Post (OP).

MTAE=MeansToAnEnd. Who I believe has been suspended for 2 weeks from yesterday for Trolling or Flaming or something.

The majority of NSG consider him a Troll.

On topic: To be honest, I'm not sure. I suppose it would depend on certain circumstances.

Civil War in Iraq could be a good thing if the Iraqi People take the control of the country and stand up against and force the decline in numbers to the insurgencies.

Civil War in Iraq could be a bad thing if the extremists take the control of Iraq.