Iraq War - again

[Dude_Doc]

I'm surprized that many people blame the USA for the problems in Iraq, and it seems like, most of those wanted Saddam to stay in power and let the country figure itself out.

But isn't it a good thing that the Americans got rid of Saddam? Didn't Saddam murder his own people?

And there is also a question. I have the impression that most Arabic people choose, or even wants, a central leader of sorts. I'm not blaming them for anything, and if they want it, well sure... it's really not one of my problems.

The other choice is for another country to overthrow Saddam, which has already been done. Except that the occupators may be out for the country's resources.

For example, Iran have a kind of dictatorship. They have a religious leader. Iraq had Saddam. Libya has the Mohammed or what his name was. Palestine has Arafat.

Not only that, the new religious "candidate" in Iraq seems to be very popular. If the Americans would leave tomorrow, I wouldn't doubt that he became the new leader.

I know this all have been brought up before, but I figured that we could talk about it again... eh...

[filecore]

Not only that, the new religious "candidate" in Iraq seems to be very popular. If the Americans would leave tomorrow, I wouldn't doubt that he became the new leader.

If the Americans would leave tomorrow, hah, I don't think anything would have changed.  They would rebuild what was destroyed, pick a single leader, and start over again.  Not that I'm saying the new would leader would be another Saddam, but when you talk about "imposing democracy", look at the phrasing - you don't "free" a people just to "impose" a different type of rule on them.  And they might not accept it anyway.  Look at it - thousands of years of culture and society geared in another direction, and the Americans just waltz in, say "our way is better because WE do it, so you should too", and try and fight against those thousands of years of socialisation.  I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong to change, but really, the way they're going about it...

[alchemi2]

America aided Saddam come to power in the first place and now they have overthrown him. seems to be a bit of a trend they have done this before in other counties working on the premise the enemy of my enemy is my friend only to find out later that this ain't the case. ;)

[filecore]

America aided Saddam come to power in the first place and now they have overthrown him. seems to be a bit of a trend they have done this before in other counties working on the premise the enemy of my enemy is my friend only to find out later that this ain't the case. ;)

*cough*Taliban*cough*Bin Laden*cough* ::) less said the better, I think.

But seriously.  I don't think the Yankees can or should try and change something like that by might.  If they want democracy, and the people of Iraq choose differently from what the Americans want, then the USA should respect that - after all, isn't that the essence of democracy?

[Acriku]

After decades of experiencing the horrors of dictatorship, can they really make a rational choice? What's best for the Iraqi people is democracy for right now, but if they change it later on I wouldn't want to deny them that right.

[Dunenewt]

  Libya has the Mohammed or what his name was.

Gadaffi

[Dante]

Change has to come from within or it will be resented. Even then there are problems. Forcing anything onto anyone else will make them resist it simply because they are being forced.

I think the onlt way to achieve democracy (if that is even a desirable outcome) is to let it happen without outside intereference, or overt pressure.

[Gobalopper]

Well Japan seems to be doing ok, they didn't have democracy until the US defeated them did they?

[shygirl4]

yup it worked in germany and italy too  ::)

[Wolf]

America cannot leave now, or Iraq becomes a terrorist state. A country can be remolded into a democratic form of government surprisingly quickly; Japan, Germany, and Italy after World War Two testify to this fact. The people in all three of those nations, and in Iraq, had dictator that they did not necessarily like (the Japanese are exempted from this description, since theire Emperor was largely respected and revered), and felt that the dictator in charge had made poor decisions. It is not reconstruction in Iraq that concerns me, it is the price that we paid for it.

First, America's actions were not legitimate. This bothers me. In 1999, France, Germany, and Russia, along with the US and other Western nations, invaded Kosovo without UN mandate. Now, France, Germany, and Russia demand that America get a UN mandate, or its actions are unilateral. But, this also bugs me. Does America not have a coalition? Some thirty-plus nations that banded with it, including Poland, the UK, and Australia? What magic number of nations do you need to make your actions "multilateral"? No, to me, it seems that when France says America's actions were illegitimate because they were "unilateral", France means that America's actions were illegitimate because France did not agree with them.

So, America lost credibility, and there's nothing it can do about it, except wait, and let time heal the wounds of politics while America seriously scales back its offenses to the international community.*

The other price we pay is terrorism. In Spain, was not Aznar -- a man who was ahead in the pre-train bombing polls -- surprisingly ousted? And then, in response to these bombings, Spain promises to recall their troops? In this case, it seems that al Qaeda has won! They have intimidated people into doing what they want them to do! When the new Spanish prime minister promised to recall troops from Iraq, he declared that "Hey, as long as you kill enough people, you can get us to do anything." This may encourage future terrorist attacks, put all Westerners in even more danger than they were before, and weaken the overall global effort on terrorism.

Because that's the real problem, isn't it? Terrorism. Isn't that what caused all this to happen in the first place?

*How does America stop offending the world? Well, first of all, the feeling of being insulted changes from time to time, so it is impossible to avoid offending everyone. However, what I feel really makes people angry at Americans is when America exercises its powers. We want to control America, we want it to sit and play nice with us, and let us do what we want. Is that right? Even if America is such a powerful and well-off nation, is it morally right to try controlling their actions? Well, it seems that, whether or not it is right, Europe certainly has a lot of power over America in turn, because only Europe can really legitimize America's actions. Mark my words, once every EU member accepts an America action, that action is "right" regardless of its moral nature whatsoever. Perhaps America's actions were wrong simply because they were inherently wrong. However, this does not satisfy my objection as to the reasons why nations such as France, Germany, and Russia did what they did. Did not France receive oil from Iraq at a lower price? (Don't believe me? Check this http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm out.) Did not Russia sell the Iraqi military IR goggles mere months before America invaded? Besides America's terrifying mistake (which, I believe was a mistake, not a calculated act), I see the actions of some Europeans as being just as disturbing. Mainly because these actions are cloaked in moral righteousness that I do not feel they have.

*EDIT: In response to my own paragraph, I feel that no nation should undertake actions which are directly in violation of human rights agreements and international law. However, once could say that the campaign in Kosovo was just such a breach, and Kosovo, to my knowledge, never received a UN mandate. How come Kosovo was right and Iraq was not?

[nemafakei]

No-one in their right mind wants rid of Saddam <|Negatives... Hm. You know what I mean.|>. But to set and allow to

[Caid Ivik]

State is thing which allows people to make a social order, to have control over themselves. Eliminating other states, which react negatively against created order, looks like a natural process of protection. Protection is one of the forms of making the order.

[Wolf]

"No-one in their right mind wants rid of Saddam. But to set and allow to

[ordos45]

I just saw something, it was the value of human life.  CNN, MSNBC, Fox News all showed it to me.  Cheney was busy slamming Cheney, while on splitscreen with the most hellish images I've seen in Iraq yet.

[Wolf]

How does Cheney slam Cheney?

[ordos45]

Sorry, Cheney was slamming Kerry.

[Wolf]

Ahhh. Good to know that he [Cheney] is finally up and about.

[Dante]

Was wondering where to put this and this thread seemed like a good spot...

http://www.2dtv.co.uk/picture/bush.jpg

It's so true...