Free Elections in Iraq

[Tgace]

Pearl Harbor fanned the flames against the Japanese (9-11's went out pretty fast) so Propaganda wise, i can see our "sticking to it". Why against the Germans, who were "at it" years prior to our involvement? Good Propaganda?

I would like to see some good War Bonds posters made up and hung in our local stores, libraries, etc. The old "dog face" giving the bayonet to some turban wrapped terrorist. They knew "propaganda" back then. The current stuff is limp wristed in comparison IMO.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Andrew Green]

you're right, it will be a larger test seeing if it actually works. but the election is a small step. there is alot to build off there. certainly you're not going to compare the elections under saddam's regime to these elections are you...? at least there isn't going to be republican guards standing over your shoulder at the polls telling you which way you should vote.

Is it a step in the right direction?

Is forcing a foriegn system of government on a country that has a very different culture, history and values a "good" thing?

I guess the question is is the US helping them rebuild a government that suits Iraq, or the US?

Perhaps I just don't get it, the US dissaproves of their way of life so they bomb them, destroy the gov't and install one they like. They don't like the US way of life and crash a couple of planes. Who did more damage?

Yes there are problems in those areas and perhaps we should help, but their is a difference between helping a country out and whipping them out.

The US has had quite a few assasinations, riots, gov't scandals, a high murder rate, school shootings, etc. Suppose some other larger super power decided it was the gov't to blame and bombed the crap out of it, whipped it out completly and worked to set up a completely different (non-US-Democracy) Would anyone here really like it?

Well chances are some people in the US WOULD, so this other super power films those people celebrating and puts it on every tv world wide to show what a good job they've done.

They could even give us some choice in the matter, Communist leader A, or Communist leader B, the people get to choose. Lots turn out to vote and the numbers go up. Again, see how good of job they are doing to have such a high turn out... the fact that most where simply picking what they saw as the lesser of two evils does not show up in the numbers...

Is this what is happeing with Iraq? Who knows, but regardless of whether it is or not we sure ain't gonna see that side on CNN.

But I am quite sure that when 300,000 troops are needed to "keep the peace" there really isn't any "peace"

 

[loki09789]

Is it a step in the right direction?

Is forcing a foriegn system of government on a country that has a very different culture, history and values a "good" thing?

I guess the question is is the US helping them rebuild a government that suits Iraq, or the US?

Perhaps I just don't get it, the US dissaproves of their way of life so they bomb them, destroy the gov't and install one they like. They don't like the US way of life and crash a couple of planes. Who did more damage?

Yes there are problems in those areas and perhaps we should help, but their is a difference between helping a country out and whipping them out.

The US has had quite a few assasinations, riots, gov't scandals, a high murder rate, school shootings, etc. Suppose some other larger super power decided it was the gov't to blame and bombed the crap out of it, whipped it out completly and worked to set up a completely different (non-US-Democracy) Would anyone here really like it?

Well chances are some people in the US WOULD, so this other super power films those people celebrating and puts it on every tv world wide to show what a good job they've done.

They could even give us some choice in the matter, Communist leader A, or Communist leader B, the people get to choose. Lots turn out to vote and the numbers go up. Again, see how good of job they are doing to have such a high turn out... the fact that most where simply picking what they saw as the lesser of two evils does not show up in the numbers...

Is this what is happeing with Iraq? Who knows, but regardless of whether it is or not we sure ain't gonna see that side on CNN.

But I am quite sure that when 300,000 troops are needed to "keep the peace" there really isn't any "peace"

Let's put a little realistic perspective on the idea that they were just a 'different' culture....

SHussein fed the tribal feud machine to keep them from effectively uniting. He tortured his olympic atheletes for failing to bring home the gold medal (I mean real torture too, not this stuff that was bad but at least not permanent). He used biological weapons against citizens of his own nation (to include women and children). Not to mention all the other fun stuff that we will only find out about over the years.

So...it isn't the 'culture' that we ousted but SHussein. He was NOT any kind of good Muslim/Iraqi by any of the cultural standards that you are saying we are killing. He wasn't killing the culture, just using the differences to kill the people.

The ELECTIONS are designed to create a sense of nation for the people so that cultures can have a mediation forum, come together and strike a self determined balance between cultural preservation and social/economic progress based on what the citizens want - not the whim of a dictator.

When people are involved there is no perfect motive, no perfect form of leadership BUT at least in a democratic forum, people have a shot at saying something and having it heard instead of getting the axe (literally).

This isn't a nation of pristine 'noble savages' that we are corrupting with our whiskey and beads. They have doctors, politicians, professors...they are pretty modern.

 

[Flatlander]

Andrew makes a good point. Iraqi thought tends to be more framed in tribalist ideology, and we ought to note that in one of the longest settled regions of the globe, they have never, ever evolved toward a democratic system. It may very well be due to the fack that their way of thinking is not suitable to the democratic process.

Let's also recall that the borders of Iraq proper were essentially arrbitrarily chosen after the fall of the ottoman empire. Iraqis, at this time, do not feel a particular sense of "community" when they think about their country. They tend to think more along the lines of me>my family>my neighborhood>my people. Because of this difference in values, they are less committed to the success of their nation, rather, more likely to die for their neighbour than flag. This mindset is certainly one of the contributing factors to the instability there now.

Reference From Beirut to Jerusalem , and The Olive Tree and the Lexus by Thomas Friedman.

 

[loki09789]

They tend to think more along the lines of me>my family>my neighborhood>my people. Because of this difference in values, they are less committed to the success of their nation, rather, more likely to die for their neighbour than flag. This mindset is certainly one of the contributing factors to the instability there now.

Reference From Beirut to Jerusalem , and The Olive Tree and the Lexus by Thomas Friedman.

THis may be true. But just because it is hard doesn't make it a waste of time or not a noble cause. If Iraq can stabilize its borders, establish tribal/political parties that are willing to come together to represent those families/neighbors at a parlimentary assembly.....they win because they are stronger together and - just like the rest of the first world nations have taken advantage of - improve the quality of life for all members of the nation. I think given the choice between living 'within the culture' of a tribal community (which could mean high infant mortallity/shorter life expectancy for all because of lack of quality of life and medical support at the very least) and being able to avoid burying your children from easily cureable diseases by our standards, the tribe/family/neighbors will want to move forward.

Technology will play a big role in making that appealing. Plus, it seems to me that there is more cultural sensititivy within these operations (Treatment of women and such) than may have happened in the past. That may work diplomatically as well.

We (as in the global/community) win because on of the factors that can affect the fluctuation of oil prices is stabilized (and money does make the world go 'round) and hopefully take away one more excuse for some of the up and down pricing that we love watching as we fillup at the pump or pay for petroleum based products (including medical equiptment/practices, technologies, industrial products....).

Cultures evolve, people evolve...as martial artists this shouldn't be a problem to recognize because we take from the old ways and apply it to the modern all the time. THough I like and respect the origins of my source arts, I don't really want to live with the hygiene, medical, social standards that they did back then. I like my teeth in my mouth, I like my bones well set so I don't get a limp. I like knowing that I don't have to sleep with one eye open for wolves or bandits all the time. I like knowing that I can reasonably expect that I can name my child right away and don't wait for a year before I do it because there is a high infant mortallity rate....

Principles are easy to talk about when you have it as well as we do.

 

[Andrew Green]

Cultures evolve, people evolve...

Exactly.

So do we let them evolve and help them through it? Or do we step in and tell them how to run their lives?

American History is not without its dark days too, had someone stepped in and forced Communism on the country durring the civil war would that have been the right thing to do?

 

[loki09789]

Exactly.

So do we let them evolve and help them through it? Or do we step in and tell them how to run their lives?

American History is not without its dark days too, had someone stepped in and forced Communism on the country durring the civil war would that have been the right thing to do?

A democratic framework, with a charter like our own constitution will go a long way to protect/preserve their cultural diversity where the previous government didn't care whether it existed or not - unless it served the purpose of lining SHussein's pockets or expand his power.

How is helping them structure a democratic form of government, with charters and documents similar to the ones that help us protect our own diversity (albeit not perfectly with each new interpretation) use 'telling them what to do' and not 'helping them' through their cultural evolution in a way that reduces death, bigotous/corrupt government practices or leave them ripe to do business with known terrorist organziation?

I understand the Prime Directive (star Trek reference) mentallity that we should impact cultures as little as possible, but should we have let SHussein continue to make a mockery of the ceasefire/treaty and conditions of that ceasefire (inspections and other conditions) with no consequences? Isn't it 'helping them' evolve culturally as well when you oust a known dictator that does the things that we know he did?

 

[Andrew Green]

A democratic framework, with a charter like our own constitution

So in other words everyone should be like Americans cause it is right and others are not? The American Democracy might work in America, but this does not mean it will work everywhere.

will go a long way to protect/preserve their cultural diversity where the previous government didn't care whether it existed or not -

By forcing American culture and gov't on them we preserve their culture.... huh?

unless it served the purpose of lining SHussein's pockets or expand his power.

And no politician in a American democracy is in it for money or power?

I understand the Prime Directive (star Trek reference) mentallity that we should impact cultures as little as possible,

I never said don't help, I said don't force them to be like us. Wasn't their a big war down their at one point when the British where doing that to you guys?

but should we have let SHussein continue to make a mockery of the ceasefire/treaty and conditions of that ceasefire (inspections and other conditions) with no consequences?

And starting a war based on the threat of nonexistant "weapons of Mass destruction" without the UN support is any better?

Isn't it 'helping them' evolve culturally as well when you oust a known dictator that does the things that we know he did?

Umm... he was a known dictator when the US helped him get that position...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just FYI, there's a good article by Michael Ignatieff in this Sunday's "NYT" Magazine telling all political sides to go to hell about the Iraqi elections..chest-thumping rightists and cynical whiny liberals alike.

 

[Bester]

So, since we want them to have a system like ours I have one question:


Have they started recounts yet?

Is the Sumaria district currently experiencing failure with their cardboard paper catching boxes?

And, how many votes did Dubya get?

 

[loki09789]

So in other words everyone should be like Americans cause it is right and others are not? The American Democracy might work in America, but this does not mean it will work everywhere.

By forcing American culture and gov't on them we preserve their culture.... huh?

And no politician in a American democracy is in it for money or power?

I never said don't help, I said don't force them to be like us. Wasn't their a big war down their at one point when the British where doing that to you guys?

And starting a war based on the threat of nonexistant "weapons of Mass destruction" without the UN support is any better?

Umm... he was a known dictator when the US helped him get that position...

No one is saying they have to become slaves to Britney SPears or worship reality TV. I imagine, since there are Iraqi politicians involved, they will be able to put the culturally sensitive details on it that are needed.

Dude, the democratic framework is not American 'culture.' When has democracy become worse than someone like SHussein?

Agreed, but then when has anyone done any job strictly for altruistic reasons. There is an ego/personal satisfaction kick that keeps people in jobs. What people do with that power is what counts....like not torturing your olympic soccer team for losing the gold, establishing a government structure that is controlled by the whim of one dictator ala SHussein.

Yeah, the war was about a 'absentee ruler' levying taxes on his subjects without representation in parlimentary government....monarch/dictator seems like a closer correlation when SHussein was making governmental policies without any representation most/all of his citizenry.

Back then we were getting help from the French/Germans and others too. But they didn't want to participate in helping the Iraqi people (I don't here much help in the Afg situation either btw) things have really changed haven't they?

There were many reasons other than WMD that made going into Iraq justified IMO. I didn't agree with the public spin/timing or the propaganda but the intel community internationally was duped by the WMD intel thing - not just the US.

I can understand if you and others don't think that entering Iraq was the 'best' way to go. Fine. But to imply that the US occupation and support to establish an independent and democratic government for Iraq is 'worse' than leaving SHussein in power is a bit of a stretch.

 

[lvwhitebir]

But to imply that the US occupation and support to establish an independent and democratic government for Iraq is 'worse' than leaving SHussein in power is a bit of a stretch.

HERE, HERE!!!

One of the main goals of the UN Resolutions was to stabilize the region. After the defeat and capture of the Iraqi government what else were we to do than to help then rebuild with their own government? What other government model were we supposed to give them? Oh, since they've lived under a cruel dictator for a long time, we're supposed to pick one for them and put it all back where it began.

Now the power is in the hands of the people. If they want another dictator to take over later, then so be it. If they want a better government where they can speak their minds and select leaders that do things *for* them rather than *against* them, if they want a future that has potential rather than being downtrodden, then this process is the best.

I was under the impression that "we" didn't like tyranny and oppression. Am I wrong? Do "we" like having rulers who are a minority and control their people through threats and guns? Are "we" so bitter about politics that we can't see how better the future is for Iraq?

I am so impressed that so many Iraqis came out to vote. They walked for miles, some carrying their infirmed family members, under the very real threat of violence, to speak their mind. We in the US complained when there wasn't parking close to the door, or we had to wait for an hour because there wasn't enough voting machines, or we felt oppressed because a few police officers were giving out traffic citations. The Iraqi cititizens have sure opened my eyes as to how blessed I truly am. The knowledge of what my forefathers went through to give me this gift is inspiring.

WhiteBirch

 

[loki09789]

I am so impressed that so many Iraqis came out to vote. They walked for miles, some carrying their infirmed family members, under the very real threat of violence, to speak their mind. We in the US complained when there wasn't parking close to the door, or we had to wait for an hour because there wasn't enough voting machines, or we felt oppressed because a few police officers were giving out traffic citations. The Iraqi cititizens have sure opened my eyes as to how blessed I truly am. The knowledge of what my forefathers went through to give me this gift is inspiring.

WhiteBirch

Last I heard, the turn out was somewhere around 2,000 (could be wrong). I don't know much about the Iraqi population census, so what does this voter turn out compare proportionately to the total population?

 

[heretic888]

Two points that need to be made:

1) The overall voter turnout in Iraq was somewhere in the +60% margin. Of course, this does not take into account regional and minority demographics. For example, purportedly far less of a percentage of the minority Sunnis voted than, say, the more majority Shiyahs.

2) The claim that the Iraqis are "better off" now than they were, say, four years ago isn't particularly accurate...

Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. The guy was a prick, a dick, an ***, a douche bag, a murdering sociopath, a paranoid lunatic, and whatever other nastiness you can come up with (even "evil", if you are simplistic enough to think on those terms). But, the point remains that right now, most Iraqis are living under greater suffering than they were then.

Now, this might change drastically for the positive in the near future, but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend the Iraqi people are living in sunshine and lollipops right now. They most assuredly are not.

 

[loki09789]

Two points that need to be made:

1) The overall voter turnout in Iraq was somewhere in the +60% margin. Of course, this does not take into account regional and minority demographics. For example, purportedly far less of a percentage of the minority Sunnis voted than, say, the more majority Shiyahs.

2) The claim that the Iraqis are "better off" now than they were, say, four years ago isn't particularly accurate...

Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. The guy was a prick, a dick, an ***, a douche bag, a murdering sociopath, a paranoid lunatic, and whatever other nastiness you can come up with (even "evil", if you are simplistic enough to think on those terms). But, the point remains that right now, most Iraqis are living under greater suffering than they were then.

Now, this might change drastically for the positive in the near future, but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend the Iraqi people are living in sunshine and lollipops right now. They most assuredly are not.

Agreed that if you compare the daily quality of life, those who had now have less or not. THose who didn't have - because they were on the outside of that DEEK head's favorites circle are not doing much worse. But the potential for progress that is more equitable is important to remember.

Under SHussein, no matter what kind of running water or utilities you had, you were running the risk of death and torture for just about what ever he said at the moment was the law.

No one, I think, has their head in the sand about the living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase of a military operation. It sucks. I saw Bosnia in 1999 to 2000 still trying to get up to a normal daily routine with day on day off utilities and 1/2 day schools and no jobs for people....this is well after the Dayton accord btw. It takes time. But, everyday we were there, the citizenry in general were glad that we were there to help stabilize, they were hopeful for where things were headed and they didn't want us to go. From direct conversation with vets of Iraqi operations, it seems that the same sentiment by the general population exists.

 

[michaeledward]

You know, I had hoped we were past statements like this.

No one, I think, has their head in the sand about the living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase of a military operation. It sucks.

Of course people have their heads in the sand about living conditions in a post war/rebuilding phase.

From President Bush - “I’ve asked the American people to foot the tab for $20 billion of reconstruction…Others are stepping up as well, 13 billion out of the Madrid Conference…The Iraqi oil revenues – excess Iraqi oil revenues, coupled with private investments, should make up the difference.” - 10/28/2003

From Glenn Hubbard (White House Economist) - “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.” - 10/4/2002

From Paul Wolfowitz - “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - 3/27/2003

From Paul Wolfowitz - "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - 3/27/2003

From Richard Perle - "Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance, the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will." - 7/11/2002
​

I mean ... we could go on ... and on ... and on....

If these people, some of the brightest minds leading our government somehow mis-understood the dollar values required in dealing with an invasion of Iraq, how can we possibly accept there is, anywhere in our government, a grasp of reality concerning the elections and reconstruction of a government.

Say what you will about the son-of-a-***** Hussein, he did provide 'stability'. Sure, that stability came at the cost of grotesque human rights violations, but I defy anyone to argue cogently that Iraq is more stable today that it was three years ago.

The Washington Post reports 260 unique insurgent attacks in Iraq on Sunday.

There are a lot of heads in the sand around here, I think.

 

[Andrew Green]

So basically those say:

Lots of Oil = Lots of money = better if controlled by US....?

Is that about right?

 

[ghostdog2]

Say what you will about the son-of-a-***** Hussein, he did provide 'stability'. Sure, that stability came at the cost of grotesque human rights violations,​

Posted by Michaeledward

Gosh, and Mussollini made the trains run on time.
Wasn't that the argument for what was called "appeasement" in the 30's?

And just a question, given your history of championing human rights, your endorsement of the trade-off of "grotesque human rights violations" for " stability" becomes meaningful.

Can we talk about Abu Ghrab again......

 

[ghostdog2]

So basically those say:

Lots of Oil = Lots of money = better if controlled by US....?

Is that about right? Posted by Andrew Green

__________________

So what about:

Lots of oil = Lots of money = better controlled by Saddam Hussein.

Is that about right? If so, invest in windmills.

 

[ghostdog2]

Four years ago, the vast majority of Iraqis had running water, working electricity, a stable supply of employment and food, healthcare of some sort, and did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies causing them and their families harm. Their standard of living is exponentially poorer than it was those few years ago.

Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't some kinda wacko vidication of Hussein. posted by Heretic888

Sure it is. If you can say, you can claim it. Why all these posts that try to have it both ways? Either he's a murdering thug and our country has done the right thing, or he's just mis-understood and we should put the old boy back in charge.
BTW, you're all wrong in saying (as you minimze a mass murderer ) Iraqis "did not have to worry about constant terrorist insurgencies(sic) causing them and their families harm..." What a load of nonsense.
Mass graves, rape rooms, thousands gassed and more shot down or made to disappear and you gloss over it? Those same insurgents still killing their own people used to run the whole country...Hell, they were the country.
Geeez, if you're rooting for the guy, just say so. But don't pretend there's some kind of balance here. It ain't even close.