National Holiday for Iraq

[Cyrus]

Let's assume that eventually everything turns out alright politically for Iraq and there's a new constitution, elections, a new government, relative peace, et cetera.

Like most countries in the world, the (new) Iraq would have a national holiday, like the U.S. has the 4th of July.

The question arises as to what exactly would that holiday be in celebraqtion of. Usually such holidays celebrate national independence and/or an event directly linked to it (e.g. an uprising against invaders or occupiers). Can we expect the Iraqis to be celebrating anything related to the American occupation as a matter of national pride?

There is something wrong with this picture.

[jt1]

ehh, point taken...but not a big deal. Canada has Canada day. and anyway I'd rather a revolution be bloodless and gradual rather than start on a particular day just so there can be a holiday for it. in this case, it could be the day the Americans left or the day they finally kick us out or the day they give us a timeline for troop withdraw or just any day like Canada does it.

[BadBoyBenny]

They could always celebrate Saddam's Birthday

[bobman0330]

Well, this is officially the shallowest argument against the war ever devised.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
This is officially the shallowest argument against the war ever devised.

[/ QUOTE ] Go deeper.

[Wes ManTooth]

just having the option or the freedom to actually decide to come up with a national holiday now is good right?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is officially the shallowest argument against the war ever devised.

[/ QUOTE ] Go deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument is shallow so there is no deeper. The Kurds and the marsh Arabs will remember the US fondly. And even lots of the Shi'a. And all them will be glad Saddam is gone courtesy of the US. Only the Sunni who had the run of the country under Saddam and have shown they don't want true democracy will regret our involvement. Of course you didn't have to live under Saddam so it's easy to maintain otherwise.

[Olof]

It would be quite funny if they selected September 11.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be quite funny if they selected September 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be quite funny if a Russian sub had a nuclear accident in Swedish waters.

[nicky g]

"Only the Sunni who had the run of the country under Saddam and have shown they don't want true democracy will regret our involvement. "

This myth is becoming more and more widespread and is quite dangerous. Saddam was a Sunni Arab and lots/most of his entourage were Sunni Arabs (more specifically, Sunni Arabs from or from near Tikrit, his hometown) . But the increaingly common idea that Saddam-era Iraq was some sort of South African style ethnic/racist state where all Sunni Arabs "had the run" of the place/controlled government for Sunni Arab purposes/good do and say what they liked, and ran around oppressing Kurds and Shi'ites as their slaves is wrong. There were Shi'i figures in the Ba'ath. All opponents/independent thinkers were oppressed under Saddam, whether Shi'i, Kurdish or Arab Sunni. Sunni Arab areas probably suffered less on the whole, in part because they never mounted a rebellion comparable to the Shi'i uprising after teh 1991 Gulf war, but the idea that "the Sunnis"/all Sunnis were in charge, and are now simply pissed off that they aren't any more, is wrong. A specific group of people, who were mostly Sunni Arabs, were in charge, and they were repressive of all sections of society regardless of their religion or ethnic affiliation. Saddam's Iraq was much closer to a totalitarian regime state than a South African style one.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is shallow so there is no deeper.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think so?

The original post was kinda alluding to the impossibility of a foreigner forcibly building a new regime in Iraq and that new regime celebrating this, i.e. celebrating what, when all is said and done, is its defeat and submissiveness!

This was not an "argument against the war", as someone took it to be, by the way. We are past that stage.

[BluffTHIS!]

We "deposed" their oppressive dictator and "imposed" democracy. Yea, they're really gonna hate us for that. And they're free to democratically change the system once we're gone.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We "deposed" their oppressive dictator and "imposed" democracy.

[/ QUOTE ] Nicely done. By the way. Any sign of 'em WMDs yet? Y'know, the stuff that supposedly got the war going.

[ QUOTE ]
They're free to democratically change the system once we're gone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure these guys will elect a pro-western, pro-American, gung-ho secular government as soon as the Americans vamooze outta Dodge. I mean, is that a sure bet or is that a sure bet ?

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

That we didn't find the WMD's doesn't matter because we couldn't take the risk that he did have them. And whoever they elect is up to them but will surely be much friendlier and less of a threat than Saddam.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Nicely done. By the way. Any sign of 'em WMDs yet? Y'know, the stuff that supposedly got the war going.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiosity, not to start a debate, but interested in opinion... finding materials for WMDs is practically for political purposes just as incriminating as finding WMDs?
Is this a safe assumption?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
That we didn't find the WMD's doesn't matter because we couldn't take the risk that he did have them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sklansky should start a thread about the threshold of probability of a country having WMDs, above which the United States invades!

But, then of course, we should have to define very carefully what are WMDs! (And then exclude Israel from the list.)

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever they elect [in Iraq] is up to them but will surely be much friendlier and less of a threat than Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ] I'd say those words will come back to haunt you but that would be assuming a lot from your part.