Bloodshed and war for democracy - democracy = just bloodshed and war

[natedogg]

If you're going to invade a country and force democracy down it's throat, you should at least do it right.

What you should NOT do is let a bunch of uneducated, tribal-minded superstitious racists formulate their own constitution after all the bloodshed and expense you went through to bring them enlightenment.

We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, we killed thousands of people, we spent billions of dollars, the least we could do is actually make good on the promise of enlightenment and GIVE THEM SOME ENLIGHTENMENT!

If I'm not mistaken that's what happened with Japan in '45. We said, "listen up you psychotic fascists, here's your new constitution and you'll like it". I imagine there was some input on the matter but final say was up to the USA. I don't even think we had them ratify it. We just put it in place for them. I could be wrong but I think that's what happened.

But we have allowed Iraq to set up a nation where

" Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation" and "(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
"

And that's just the warmup.

They have preserved freedom of expression... " as long as it does not violate public order and morality:"

WTF!

And " freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law" Yeah, the government will organize your protests for you, as long as it conforms to the laws of Islam and you do not violate public order and morality.

And then of course there is an article that guarantees freedom to own property only if the owner does not "threaten a demographic change". I'm pretty sure that just means Jews and Kurds can't buy property or businesses in neighborhoods where people don't want them.

And there's also large sections of bizarre socialist utopia nonsense like "The state shall guarantee the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall take care of juveniles and youths and provide them with agreeable conditions to develop their capabilities. "

and

"parents have the right to respect and care from their children,"

Ummmm.... ok. You guys get right on those.

WTF How did we let these backwards fools do this to themselves? I thought we were there to shove some liberal democracy right up Iraq's ASS.

Instead we blew the place up and sat back while they laid out the foundations for oppression and possibly civil war.

I was not in favor of the war, but I wasn't as incensed as most of the detractors. I think I may be reaching that point
though.

natedogg

[lehighguy]

We've failed. I really should have seen it comming. I got so wrapped up in thinking it was possible, I never really thought about whether it was probable.

Looking back, given the political conditions of the US and the incompetence of it's political leaders this outcome was inevitable. Could an intelligent, driven, well studied leader with unlimited political capital have accomplished it, perhaps. That was really what I was thinking about in the whole run up. However, we don't have a benevolent dictator. We have an incompetent president, two incompetent political parties, and an impatient and uneducated voting population. Looking back, failure was a forgone conclusion.

This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[whiskeytown]

yep....

I always get nervous anyways when democracy is forced down people's throat anyways - I always thought when someone was ready for democracy, they'd just take it for themselves - passing it out under threat of death is a bad habit that evidently doesn't always work -

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shoulda kept Saddam in his box and went into Iran first.

Stu

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought we were there to shove some liberal democracy right up Iraq's ASS

[/ QUOTE ]

You thought wrong

[cadillac1234]

[ QUOTE ]
We've failed. I really should have seen it comming. I got so wrapped up in thinking it was possible, I never really thought about whether it was probable.

Looking back, given the political conditions of the US and the incompetence of it's political leaders this outcome was inevitable. Could an intelligent, driven, well studied leader with unlimited political capital have accomplished it, perhaps. That was really what I was thinking about in the whole run up. However, we don't have a benevolent dictator. We have an incompetent president, two incompetent political parties, and an impatient and uneducated voting population. Looking back, failure was a forgone conclusion.

This constitution really proved it to me. The whole reason I wanted to go into Iraq was to help those people. That maybe there was a solution to terrorism that didn't involve sitting around waiting for another attack. We could help others, make up for past mistakes in the ME, and even help ourselves in the long run. This constitution is a sign of complete failure. Iraq will descend into civil war the second we leave, or at the very least become a police state.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's been a long history of strife and an unwillingness to cooperate between the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Saddam got into power because he was a ruthless tyrant that beat the populous into submission and the poplous was a willing victim. They made their own luck and choices throughout the centuries and ended up reaping what they sowed for so many years.

The first level thinking of this entire war by the Bush Admin set us up for failure before the first US troop put a foot on the ground.

What do we do now? A pull out means Iraq turns into Iran II and we've doubled the headaches in the region. Stay and we dump more money and lives putting off the inevitable scenario 1.

Saddam was an a-hole but at least he was a very contained threat after Gulf War 1. The correct play was not to get involved in a completely -EV situation in the first place.

We had a lot bigger fish to fry than Saddam in 2003 and now we've completely lost our way, a lot of lives and a lot of our money.

Yep. using the nukes would have been a whole lot easier. Plus we could have had the Iraq oil fields in full production by now.

Wait a minute. My latest book is "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer


[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

You are worried that the Iraqis will choose some kind of theocracy, if left to their own devices? Only two days ago, poster PVN was saying this :

[ QUOTE ]
The free market is more than just the buying and selling of goods in mundane, day-to-day trade. It is the whole of individual interactions of all types when those individuals are unhindered by government dictatation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys need to get your act together! Either go for the freedom aproach (and let the Iraqis learn freedom by engaging in free choices) or go for the dictatorial approach (and dictate to the Iraqis their constitutions, their laws and their culture).

When the initial set of "premises" (America invades and occupies Iraq in order to give the Iraqis the opportunity to fix their country themselves) yields unwanted results (America wants democracy in Iraq -- but is about to get instead some kind of theocracy), the average Joe will stick to 'em "premises" for reasons of pride or patriotism or false math, whatever, but the smart guy will revisit the premises.

Here, let me cede the floor to an expert who does not frequent this page as often as he should:

[ QUOTE ]
The unacceptability of coming to a conclusion that can't be reached from your initial premises (while its negation can) does not mean that you have to abandon that conclusion. If in your heart that conclusion feels like it must be true, all you have to do to remain consistent, is appropriately alter you initial premise or axiom.
<font color="white"> . </font>
Of course by doing that you may wind up having to alter OTHER conclusions that stemmed from the original, but now altered premise. But if the conclusion that forced this alteration is especially clearcut or important to your values, you have no choice.
<font color="white"> . </font>
This whole procedure is second nature to world class scientists but takes some getting used to by your average Joe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[lehighguy]

Other countries in just as bad straits managed to make the transition to democracy. I still think it was possible with effective leadership and resources.

However, whether effective leadership and resources was in place is another story, and in getting tied up in that first question I didn't really think about the second. It was a grave error.

Our best bet is to install another brutal dictator. I thought those days were behind us, but perhaps the advocates of that policy were smarter then I thought.

[FishHooks]

Very good post. Some people seem to think we want to turn Iraq into a mini America, which is not the case. Let them decide, they were elected into office by the Iraqi people. Yea...lets force a constutition on them...create greater tentions and a chance of a real civil war breaking out...yea lets do that...