The Government of Iraq

[Emperor Devon]

The topic is about what the title suggests. What do you think about the government in Iraq, and are we doing it right? Is Western democracy something the people of Iraq should have, and can we prevent a civil war? Or should we just get out of there as soon as possible?

 

To give some opening statements for people (probably including you, my nemesis! ) I think that what we are doing in Iraq is doomed to fail, and that we might as well get ot as soon as possible for several reasons:

 

(1. Democracy is not a natural thing in the Middle East. It's not a traditional form of government there. Not everyone likes freedom, and on a different note, for some good reasons.

 

(2. History. It failed with the British. Why should it work with us?

 

(3. Civil war. An unavoidable event. Having the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds all in one country is a house of cards waiting to fall over. The Muslim sects there hate each other. The Kurds, having their own language, culture and history want a country of their own. And obviously with good reason. But then there's how Turkey isn't wild about the idea of Kurdish state...

 

(4. More history. Civil war has happened with Iraq before. The conflict was eventually resolved, and by the people of Iraq themselves.

 

Because of all these factors, I think leaving is for the best. It'll collapse anyway, so we might as well save a couple thousand troops and an insane amount of money...

 

Arguments?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

1. Democracy is not a natural thing in the Middle East. It's not a traditional form of government there.

So? Once it wasn't a traditional form in England either, and they're a democracy now.

 

2. History. It failed with the British. Why should it work with us?

Previous failure does not guarantee repeated failure.

 

3. Civil war. An unavoidable event.

There are those who say civil war is already happening.

 

The Kurds, having their own language, culture and history want a country of their own. And obviously with good reason.

Kudos.

 

But then there's how Turkey isn't wild about the idea of Kurdish state...

Tough luck for them. And, may I add, it's not much of their business what the Kurds in Iraq do, except maybe fear of a "slippery slope" effect. "The Kurds in Iraq aren't oppressed anymore, teh o' noez, maybe we'll have to stop oppressing the Kurds in Turkey, too:eek:!".

 

I say stay in there.

[Emperor Devon]

So? Once it wasn't a traditional form in England either, and they're a democracy now.

 

Different circumstances. And with them, a foreign nation had not invaded their country and forced it on them.

 

Previous failure does not guarantee repeated failure.

 

History often repeats itself, and the situation had looked even better there with the British.

 

There are those who say civil war is already happening.

 

There is quite a bit of unrest. It should increase once the U.S. leaves, and my country has to eventually.

 

I say stay in there.

 

Even if it'll fail? It's doomed to, and staying in Iraq is an expensive cause.

[Q]

The only system that has a chance of working is one that consists of an independent nation for each of the different ethnic groups. I doubt that a central government could effectively preside over all three groups, given the fact that they hate each other so much. That situation would be too reminiscent of the former Yugoslavia. It simply wouldn't work, and the area would be the site of constant unrest. Iraq is just going to have to cease to exist for this situation to have any hope of a permanent solution.

[Jae Onasi]

One word: Iran

 

Since that is a powder keg, I imagine we'll be in Iraq for awhile yet.

 

Why wouldn't someone want to have a say in government? If we pull out now, someone will take over the fledgling government, and they'll end up in a dictatorship again. About the only way for Kurdish and women's rights to have any chance of making it is if they maintain a democracy.

 

We Americans made a mess, we need to be responsible and clean it up. I have to say I'm glad Saddam's out, though.

[Emperor Devon]

One word: Iran

 

Since that is a powder keg, I imagine we'll be in Iraq for awhile yet.

 

Why wouldn't someone want to have a say in government?

 

Not everyone likes liberty. Not everyone shares the same views on freedom as us westerners.

 

If we pull out now, someone will take over the fledgling government, and they'll end up in a dictatorship again.

 

I believe that to be inevitable. The place is a mess when a superpower has been there for three years. I doubt the people of Iraq could keep better order than we could.

 

About the only way for Kurdish and women's rights to have any chance of making it is if they maintain a democracy.

 

Are you saying that the Kurds shouldn't be independant, and just have rights in a country other ethnic groups?

 

Women's rights are an even more lost cause in Iraq. That region of the world has shown few signs of wanting to reform within this past century. Changing it now on top of everything else sounds like an even more lost cause.

 

We Americans made a mess, we need to be responsible and clean it up. I have to say I'm glad Saddam's out, though.

 

And if the mess can't be cleaned?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

We went in to Iraq, destroyed the country's infrastructure and removed the only secular government in the region and replaced it with a theocracy. Woo. The situation there now reminds me of why I think the British should still run the Middle East as well as India.

[The Source]

How about:

How far should we push our style of government onto others? Would it be morally correct to assume that we should leave, or should stay? When do we get to the point, which we say, "Okay, this is not working. Time to try something new."?

[TK-8252]

The people of Iraq neither deserve liberal democracy nor can they handle it.

 

To be as evil as possible, I will say that most people deserve the kind of government they get. Meaning that the Iraqi people deserved to be ruled by a brutal dictatorship, just as the people of Saudi Arabia deserve to be ruled by a corrupt monarchy, and the people of Iran deserve to be ruled by a bunch of religious fools.

 

And the American people deserve to be ruled by an incompetent failure that we call our current President.

 

So why am I being such a bastard, saying that the Iraqi people deserved to be ruled by Hussein? Because he was the only man who could hold together a group of nuts who hate each other, and when are given freedom, they abuse it; they use it as an excuse to start a religious civil war.

 

Democracy is only useful when the people themselves are responsible enough to handle it. It is, after all, government by the people. The Iraqi people are CLEARLY not responsible enough to handle freedom. Hell, the American people can't even handle it. How the hell are we supposed to spread freedom and democracy when it isn't even working very good for us?

[Samnmax221]

No arguments what so ever about the crummy scenario that is Iraq. I do however find it amusing that Saddam who hates Islamic Fundamentalism is yelling **** from the Koran now when he thinks it might help.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

So why am I being such a bastard, saying that the Iraqi people deserved to be ruled by Hussein? Because he was the only man who could hold together a group of nuts who hate each other (...)

Good point. Just about the one thing he was ever good for.

[Mace MacLeod]

We went in to Iraq, destroyed the country's infrastructure and removed the only secular government in the region and replaced it with a theocracy. Woo. The situation there now reminds me of why I think the British should still run the Middle East as well as India.

This illustrates one of the fundamental differences in the way the British did things: they were unabashedly building an Empire. They would go in, conquer whoever was around, then put their own guys in power and crush all opposition to them. The Americans only went half-way with Iraq; they went in, blew away Saddam's regime and military, then they sort of stopped and annouced the Iraqis were "free" and waited for the party balloons to come out. D'oh. They made the mistake in their thinking as many of the pundits on why Iraq has become the mess it is. There's a collossal arrogance in assuming; "Well, of course the way we do things is the best of all possible worlds! Obviously it's so much better than their fruitcake style of Banana Republic government that all we have to do is go in, and the people will be so grateful to us for bringing our way that they'll all be celebrating and happy! Aren't we nice guys?"

 

The British Empire knew they'd have to force the natives to accept their way, so that's what they did. The Americans thought (very naively) that their way would automatically be welcomed with open arms. Especially as that way came to Iraq in a wave of stealth bombers and several hundred thousand Iraqi corpses. Remember all those Weapons of Mass Destruction that nobody found? All those bullsh!t attempts to link Saddam to 9/11? The US and the UK have been patently dishonest every step of the way in justifying the invasion of Iraq, and people are mad at the Iraqis for not being ecstatic about their presence? I think too many folks have seen too many GI Joe cartoons as impressionable children.

[Windu Chi]

Stick a fork in it, that government is done.

 

:nut:Bush is so naïve and delusional to keep his faith in that government.

After all the hell that has broken lose in that, looks to be doomed country.

It is getting more worse every single day in Iraq.

 

:yoink:It is time to get the hell out of the second "Vietnam War".

[Spider AL]

First of all, I find it pathetically hilarious that the general flavour of debate on this topic has changed from "Are our governments committing flagrantly illegal acts in invading a sovereign nation without international approval" to "Those darned Iraqi's don't deserve the gifts we've been struggling to give them! Should we leave them in their vile uncivilised cesspit?"

 

It's the height of foolishness.

 

Originally Posted by Emperor Devon:

(1. Democracy is not a natural thing in the Middle East. It's not a traditional form of government there. Not everyone likes freedom, and on a different note, for some good reasons.

Democracy isn't a natural thing anywhere, it would seem, Devon. We certainly don't live in democracies. Both the UK and the US have electoral college arrangements in terms of general elections, we both suffer the indignity of having our leadership candidates being chosen by internal party mechanisms rather than the populous, and certainly in the case of the UK, (and probably in the case of the US) we have a government that routinely ignores the majority opinions of the populous they're sworn to serve.

 

So perhaps we don't "like freedom" either.

 

But your entire train of thought is beside the point. We were never going to be able to create "stable regimes" in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I and many others remarked on this before the conflicts started. It's almost unheard of for an invading force to quosh ALL resistance to the extent necessary to "stabilise" the country in the way we understand the term. Why, even in the case of Northern Ireland, which has been part of the UK for what, four-hundred years or so? It's not "stable" yet. And it's right next door to us.

 

Nobody who knew any facts ever expected the mission to "install democracy" to succeed. Including our governments, unless they're morons. And I don't think they're morons. Democracy for Iraq wasn't the goal.

 

Once we accept that a happy-go-lucky lovely democracy is not going to emerge from the rubble of the countries we've destroyed, the question remains: Should we bug out?

 

Well, what do you think. Do you think an illegally invading force has a responsibility to stick around and help clear up some of the damage it's caused, even if it costs hundreds and hundreds of British and American lives? I think it does. If you think it doesn't, there's something wrong with your sense of moral fairness.

[goldberry]

No matter how good our reasons were for going into Iraq, it was still an invasion.

We niether had the right to remove thier dictator from power, nor to force a democratic system on them. In all fairness, the UK was dragged into the war on Iraq because the leaders of the UK and US are far too close, but that's another story.

 

We may have gone in there for the right reasons, but it is not for anyone else to force anything upon anyone. All we have done is cause the deaths of hundreds of ours and your soldiers in a futile bid to force ourselves upon an unwilling government.

 

Now that we are there, it is difficult to just up and leave, because then it will be our fault that the country is in turmoil, however, if we stay there, we loose our people's lives.

 

I would also like to mention from a brit's point of view that our government is seriously debating leaving whether or not you guys pull out, for the sole reason that our army pledged alliegence to the crown and to defend our country. Nobody signed on to impose on another country, there was no war until we made it one (collective responsability).

 

I think that Spider hit the nail on the head when he said that it was an illegally invading force. That's all it was, there was no formal declairation of war or anything.

 

Also I would just like to mention that "Civil War" is an oxymoron

[Mace MacLeod]

Also remember the "We can't leave yet, we have to finish the job we started, and we can't leave the country to these horrible people!" argument was applied to Vietnam for years, yet in the end of course, the US ended up cutting and running just the same.