OT: iraqi question your views

[SPJ]

this is inspired by many threads.

what are your views?

:D

[SPJ]

the middle east or the moslem world including states inside russian federal republics, PRChina, middle east all the way to north africa, southeast asia etc.

the american troops are in iraq and afganstan.

they will leave eventually. it is only a matter of time.

the countries are or used to be run by religious leaders, monarchies or military strongmen etc.

so somehow, iraqi are given a "democracy" to try.

will it work and change the societies in the area?

or "leaders" and the people in the region want to keep the "old" way as the only way.



--

[SPJ]

personally, there are 2 key issues:

1. the blunder:

it started with false intel or wrong presumptions.

a. iraq is not directly involved in 9-11.
b. there is no weapon of mass destruction or posing intermediate danger.

2. the opportunity:

so the country may have a fresh start and have a try of democracy.

then the question is that who want the democracy to work?

a. monarchy and religious leaders do not want to give up power.
b. people are "happy" and do just "fine" under religious leadership and monarchy.

we may be giving out food, water, freedom or democracy. but what if the people dun want them?

do local people really want democracy in the area? or just too many obstacles and no quick fix.

it is very long road/march.

some people are just happy that it started.

--

people may argue about the ethics of this intervention for a long time.

our hearts and minds go to the soldiers and their families.

their sacrifices will not be in vain.

--

:)

[SPJ]

I do not support war.

I do support the soldiers and their families.

[Vash]

I do not support war.

I do support the soldiers and their families.

Absolutely. I'd prefer our men and women were in Afghanistan, finding the individual who was once the most wanted man in the world. But wherever they go, they are serving their country, and deserve nothing but 100% support from those of us who are not doing the same.

[Merryprankster]

Wow.

It's like the question of the decade, probably.

Views on Iraq....

Bush led us into war based on a gamble. He and his administration, with the notable exception of Colin Powell and perhaps one or two others, like **** Armitage, chose to believe one version of one story, over another.

This is not unusual in presidential history. U.S. Presidents have often been called upon by circumstances or the people to make some tough gambles with U.S. power, treasure and lives.

Why does this matter? Because he bet on the wrong horse. At the end of the day, he bet on the wrong horse(s) when it came to Iraq:

1. He bet on the WMD story. It was wrong.
2. He bet that we would be hailed as liberators. That was wrong.
3. He bet that Iraqi nationalism would trump tribal/traditional loyalties. That was wrong. Incidentally, I thought that Iraqi nationalism might have a solid shot too.
4. He bet that a small force could tame Iraq. That was wrong.
5. He bet that the U.S. military - still the finest, most modern, and one of the most humane instruments of war ever devised in history - was capable of handling a protracted security mission. That was wrong.

And we are punishing him for it. Some find this appalling. I find it not only in keeping with human nature, but appropriate. Life, nature and other people can and DO punish people for making bad choices.

The Iraq war is an indictment of his judgment, and the judgment of half the American public for putting him in power, twice. We cannot afford to have "the decider" be so wrong, so often, so badly, when the wages are such loss in life and persuasion.

More than anybody else, I was hopeful that we would "win" in Iraq, not because I thought the war was a good idea, but because I recognized the consequences of losing. And with every day that passes, I become less and less hopeful that the outcome is going to be positive for us, for Iraqis and for the state of humanity.

Why did this happen? Because the gamble was based on ideologically driven assumptions and theories that lacked a classic American tempering agent: pragmatism. Bush and old Sovietologists like Condoleeza Rice were still bathing in the glory of winning the Cold War. They were basking in what they thought was ideological vindication - incorrect interpretation of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis and all. And I think they used up the last of America's cache of WW II and Cold War goodwill on Iraq.

Incidentally, this would all be moot if Saddam had had a robust WMD program. Bush wouldn't have been wrong about why we went to war, and, quite frankly, I've read the relevant UN resolutions, and while I still believe that the war would have been a bad idea even if Bush were RIGHT, I personally have no doubt as to the war's LEGALITY under those resolutions. The fact that other countries do just tells me they need to be more careful when they write Article VII resolutions.

Outcomes/lessons learned:

1. The age of giant state on state warfare is fundamentally over, at least for several generations. The U.S. military must adapt to that reality or risk becoming like Dan Marino - the best quarterback never to win a superbowl.

2. Bismarckian/Kissingerian Realism has made a comeback as an appropriate foreign policy model (sans some of the non-humanitarian specifics, IMO).

3. Power has limits. Failure to understand those limits has a two-fold effect. It breeds over-confidence in the possessor, and it breeds over-expectation in the observers, some of whom are genuinely bad guys. The deadly combination is this: When the possessor fails, the bad guys feel free to act, and the good guy observers lose hope in the possessor's ability to effect positive change.

4. The pluralism of power in the world ensures that our normal conception of foreign policy must now be expanded to non-state actors.

5. The pluralism of power ensures that except for the smallest of conflicts or the most direct of objectives, "going it alone," makes little sense and almost ensures a negative outcome.

Through all of this, I remain convinced and committed to the idea that the United States has been, and still is, on the whole a positive force in the world. Further, I believe that although our knee jerk reaction to all of this will be disengagement from the world, ala Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs (idiots the both of them, and for oddly similar reasons), we MUST not let that happen. The answer is more engagement - not less.

The world is not punishing the United States so much for its actions as its failure to engage others. The United States is an unnerving presence, and the Iraq War shows why. We literally have the power to break any country in the world, and perhaps can do it 10 or 12 at a time. I'm not talking about ensuring a positive outcome here, I'm just talking about ****ing a place up. Our destructive force is matchless. And the only way you assure others that you are not an inherent threat - even if you are an inescapable fact - is to grant others some influence over your actions. That requires GREATER, not LESS engagement. MORE transparency and international cooperation, MORE willingness to act and across a range of world issues, not increased isolation, protection, secrecy, and perceived self-interest and casual disregard for the opinions of others.

The American message is a pretty good one, if a bit tattered at the moment. We've got a bit of sewing to do.

[jon]

Merryprankster
Great post!


They were basking in what they thought was ideological vindication - incorrect interpretation of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" thesis and all.
This is in my belief one of the largest problems, whilst it may be true that well established democracies don't typically go to war with one another, newly formed democracies are highly prone to becoming involved in wars.
I don't really buy the idea that you can 'induce' democracy as a way of trying to spread peace.

[lonewolf]

we went there for WMDs, no wait to free the iraqy people, no wait take the fight to alqida, no wait that's not it, what cheney? oh yeah spread democracy to the middle east. the same democratic government that is passing a bill to allow foreign investors to pump money into their state run oil. hmm will that be haliburtan? the same company getting large contracts that aren't going up for bid but being handed to them. oh wait shouldn't talk about that one counsel member was already fired for talking about that. has anybody notice the suttle but obvious prapaganda stories starting for going into iran. we have the resources to use alternative energy but some people won't profit from that as much. as for democracy in the middle east the saudis you know those people that had 15 out of the 19 highjackers on those planes have loudly proclaimed that they want the middle east to go back to the sheek and cleric ruling form of governing. democracy in the middle east, just stalling with more excuses to cash in while in office and keep his a$$ out of jail.
P.S. we won't ever leave the middle east now. we are still in japan, germany, korea. etc. 50-60 years later. i laugh when people say "bring the troops home", won't happen!:mad:

[lunghushan]

The only solution to the Islam vs. the West war seems to be to wipe every Muslim from the face of the earth and burn every Koran.

That would obviously be very bad and isn't going to happen. Therefore this entire conflict will go on for a long, long time and Iraq is basically a little insignificant blip on the radar compared to the entire conflict which has been going on since Islam started almost 1500 years ago.

At the rate that Muslims are breeding compared to the rest of the world, it is highly likely that Islam will become the dominant world religion in 100 years or so unless something major happens to change that.

Obviously most of the world doesn't like the idea of that outcome, but what other alternative is there?

So prepare to be assimilated! LOL

And imagine what will happen if Islam does take over, Sharia law becomes the dominant law worldwide, modern science is thrown by the wayside compared to the old ways -- basically Taliban style government. People keep breeding the way they are today because that's what Muslims do ... earth population goes to 12 billion ... 24 billion ... 48 billion ... environment is wiped out, mess everywhere ... humanity dies out.

The most likely scenario is the end of humanity. Don't you agree?

[Samurai Jack]

Which brings me to my point. I believe George W. Bush's mission was a total success (from his perspective).

As Lonewolf pointed out, we now have a permanent military positon dead in the center of the middle east, thus giving us military leverage to use to inimidate those with the oil stranglehold who have been historically unfriendly towards our country.

Secondly, oil prices in the U.S. are higher than they've ever been in history, and the oil companies continue to be pulling in record profits year to year as a result. Remember 9 months ago when Congress was up in arms about the outrageous oil prices and they mysteriously dropped about twenty cents"? Have you noticed they are back up to thier former status and creeping dangerously close to the 3 dollar mark? Noticed that *nobody* is saying a thing about it now?

At any rate, my opinion, such as it is, is that the axis of evil (to borrow a phrase) won an important battle against those of us who believe that capatalism should not be the driving force of this nation. Democracy is still what this country needs if it is to remain a benevolent force for the postive evolution of humanity as a species. I believe that the U.S. can be that positive force. But we must quit putting people like Bush in office, and start holding the politicians accountable for thier lies.

[lunghushan]

At any rate, my opinion, such as it is, is that the axis of evil (to borrow a phrase) won an important battle against those of us who believe that capatalism should not be the driving force of this nation. Democracy is still what this country needs if it is to remain a benevolent force for the postive evolution of humanity as a species. I believe that the U.S. can be that positive force. But we must quit putting people like Bush in office, and start holding the politicians accountable for thier lies.

There is no winning. This is a battle of cultures.

If the Republicans continue fighting they will continue fumbling because they are just greedy. If they somehow manage to install 'democracy' in Iraq, the Iraqis will just choose Islam the same as Afghanistan. The Republicans are put in power by the same sort of people that we are fighting, stupid people who are easily manipulated.

If the Democrats win they'll be too soft and do nothing.

Think about it. Even with current demographics at the rate that the non-Muslim European population is reproducing, Islam will control Europe in 200 years or so. They will control India in a couple of hundred years.

Eventually the world will be entirely Islam, with Sharia law. What can stop it? Nothing short of wiping out a huge number of them will stop it, and how is that going to happen?

Bottom line is IT IS ALREADY OVER ... the battle has already been lost. It's nothing worth worrying about.

[lonewolf]

[At any rate, my opinion, such as it is, is that the axis of evil (to borrow a phrase) won an important battle against those of us who believe that capatalism should not be the driving force of this nation. Democracy is still what this country needs if it is to remain a benevolent force for the postive evolution of humanity as a species. I believe that the U.S. can be that positive force. But we must quit putting people like Bush in office, and start holding the politicians accountable for thier lies.[/QUOTE]

we didn't put bush in office, he put himself there. this is one sinerio that the congress was afraid of back in WWII. Rossevelt won his 3rd term and was turning the white house into a monarchy ( so they thought) most presidents only did 2 terms as washington put into tradition. when he died before the end of his last term congress put it into law that there was a 2 term limit to keep demacracy safe. the catch is that now you can have your daddy apoint god knows how many judges to the supreme court during his 12 years in office (VP and Pres) have your brother hand you over his state by allowing a member of your election commity to run the company counting the votes, and have terrorsit save your administration by bombing the trade center at the lowest point in your early carrier. personally i liked the eggs at his car when he tried to walk to his inaguration.
the problem we have to fix is at home. islam may "take over the world" in the future but sometimes i can only hope so with the way the right wing christians just keep sodamizing the public in the name of god. did you notice how people reelected bush in because he was a good christian? do some coke in the 70's, run every business in the ground you get your hands on, be responisble for more deaths than binladen is responsible for and you get to go to heaven. things like this is why i claim to be more taoist/ buddhist. christians like to do the opposite of what jesus taught and they seem to be proud of it. you guys worry about islam taking over, i hope to stick around long enough to see it just to find out if it's an improvement on the way things are now.