Iraq: How do we get out?

Parnelli Bone

Parnelli Bone

www.gtcarreviews.com
Premium
10,557
United States
Columbia, MD.
Parnelli_Bones
I'm starting this thread because even though GT Planet is basically a gaming website, there are plenty of intelligent sorts who post here, so i pose the question to you: How do we get out of Iraq? What are your opinions?

I've always been torn on this issue. When we invaded Iraq, i remember thinking we had plenty of good reason to do so, with the whole weapons of mass destruction argument brewing. At the time, i totally believed what Bush & cohorts were telling us and even though he's a republican, i got behind him (as did Hillary and many other lawmakers who would normally disagree).

My father (who knows just about everything on these matters--he works in government communications) disagreed, however. Although he can't tell me exactly what he does (Top Secret stuff) he outlined exactly why Bush was lying--but on this issue i parted ways.

And it turns out...Bush was lying. Cheney was lying. :dunce: I felt foolish once the truth came out..that there were no wmd. Of course, the US government knew all this beforehand. The way surveillance is nowadays, they had to know...

...so all of this leads to the topic of this thread. Iraq is a sucky mess. I'll admit i'm not 100% well-read on the subject, i'm a guy who works an honest living and plays videogames, watching or reading the news in a casual manner. I have no idea what we should do..it seems irresponsible to civilians over there if we just leave, yet (honestly) no progress is being made by us staying there. What do we do about it? How do we get out, or do you think we even should get out?
 
I'm totally against this war in Iraq. I hate seeing our soldiers die in a war that has no shot at winning.

The part I'm afraid of though, is withdrawing troops from Iraq. If we do that, I can't help but see us being screwed. Pretty much every country in that region hates us. The Persian gulf area. If we leave, imagine the oil prices. They will skyrocket without our presence there. Iran has oil, they hate is. Venezuela hates us, they have oil. Blah blah and if we leave, it gives that whole region an upper hand. Heck, China doesn't like us either, but they're fine with Iran.

We're just in a huge pickle. Saddam had Iraq on lockdown, and then we took him out and it all went to crap. I sometimes think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power. We just needed a diff startegy going in there.
 
Lots of assumptions here.

A) We should get out.
B) We want to get out.
C) The few WMD's found constitute proof that no WMDs were made.
D) The Bush administration KNEW that few WMD's would be found but misinformed the public regardless.


Very sloppy. Very sloppy indeed.
 
Danoff
Lots of assumptions here.
Click to expand...
E) War has a "winner".

If there's any way out of Iraq, it's going to take a few steps:

1) Iraq is no longer a powderkeg of activity between three warring factions: Shiite and Sunni, which makes the news, as well as Kurds to the north which have been mostly left alone, but also want some Sunni lands that have a lot of oil fields on/over their borders. Plus, the Kurds have been massaced by the Sunnis in the past.

2) Other surrounding nations sign peace treaties with the US and Iraq, and recognize Isreal, or at least, stop caring about thieir state.

3) Isreal stops attacking other nearby states.

4) Violent and self-hateful forms of Islam finally peter out, governments choose democracy and not Islamofascism/"Shah-ocracy"/Dictatorships, and judicial systems handle terrorists with extreme predjudice (or really long jail sentences).

5) The US pumps another 2-4 trillion dollars into the war effort, and gets more nations interested in the offensive.

6) We pledge another 10-20 years into things, and then we slip away overnight.

Simple, no?
 
Jjacks
We're just in a huge pickle. Saddam had Iraq on lockdown, and then we took him out and it all went to crap. I sometimes think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power. We just needed a diff startegy going in there.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, i agree there...we definately should have left Saddam in power...invasion or no invasion. He may have had some questionable tactics to control his people of different sects and beliefs, but at least he could control them. He was the glue that kept them all from doing what they're doing now.
 
Nuke the places around the oil so no one can have it and then pull out? :lol: :dopey:

Parnelli Bone
And it turns out...Bush was lying. Cheney was lying.
Click to expand...

It was fairly obvious to me from the start... Or at least they had their own agenda. Even if they were right it was still only for their gain.
 
DWA
Nuke the places around the oil so no one can have it and then pull out? :lol: :dopey:
Click to expand...

come on man, that's not even funny.

It was fairly obvious to me from the start... Or at least they had their own agenda. Even if they were right it was still only for their gain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was obvious to alot of people i knew (friends & family). I was a dummy and disagreed with them all. :dunce:
 
You have to admit there wouldn't be anymore **** fight or things to fight about though right? Seeing that really is the only thing appealing to the US anyway.
 
DWA
You have to admit there wouldn't be anymore **** fight or things to fight about though right? Seeing that really is the only thing appealing to the US anyway.
Click to expand...

No way/not an option. You can't nuke. That opens up a whole new ballgame. We'd be the biggest baddest bully on the block, but then everyone would hate us. We'd be forced into a sort of "do this or else" sort of mentality, even with countries that currently are our ally. It doesn't solve any problems.

....plus nobody wants to destroy oil, not even myself. Sorry if i'm taking your joke a bit seriously (i probably am).
 
Parnelli Bone
Oh yeah, i agree there...we definately should have left Saddam in power...invasion or no invasion. He may have had some questionable tactics to control his people of different sects and beliefs, but at least he could control them. He was the glue that kept them all from doing what they're doing now.
Click to expand...

Better to live on your knees than die on your feet eh?
 
"How do we get out?" Well, it's them and not you. Only until the United States military says they want to leave, not based on election cycles. It is very dangerous to let politicians direct a war. Let's be honest, there will always be a US military presence in Iraq, just as Japan, Germany, and South Korea before it.

Leave Saddam in power? It's always easier to control things when you are a dictator who committed genocide.
 
Parnelli Bone
Oh yeah, i agree there...we definately should have left Saddam in power...invasion or no invasion. He may have had some questionable tactics to control his people of different sects and beliefs, but at least he could control them. He was the glue that kept them all from doing what they're doing now.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I gave you positive rep in the first post.
I gave you that rep because I initially wanted to neg rep you as bad as possible. You made assumption after assumption. The first post was more of an opinion with a few quick questions right at the end. I was disappointed in the quality of the post because of those opinions but just before clicking the negative option, I stayed with positive. I thought, hey, why not be a nice guy if I can be, it's no big deal.

I went on to read down the page and found what's quoted above.
questionable tactics
Click to expand...
Are you joking?

If you honestly consider Saddam's actions "questionable tactics " then I have no doubt that your opinion will rarely if ever be something I could condone. The actions commited by Saddam's government were so horrible I could never qualify them as "questionable tactics" and for that alone I've got to say.

I'm offended by the quoted comment. 👎
(Yes that's being a little sensitive :( )

The people of every country in the world (including Iraq) deserve treatment better than what you have called "questionable tactics."

I believe there is no question to Saddam's tactics (they are totally unacceptable).
I've always considered Saddam's tactics just one of the many reasons to support a removal of Saddam.

This of course concludes section one. ;)

Section two: The reason for section one. :ouch:

Would Saddam's tactics or the removal of Saddam be an issue in this thread if the subject was presented as the thread title suggest? I say no. I believe your interjection of opinionated pretenses are the foundation for off subject banter. :(

Section three: The Subject of the Thread. 👍
To withdraw from Iraq is difficult but possible.
More over, I believe it is simply a question of how many casualties among the Iraqi people are "we" willing to accept?
If the answer is, "whatever, doesn't matter" then we can pull out fairly easily by simply moving out of the country (physically).
If the answer is "as few as possible" then the withdrawal will be difficult due to the still unstable nature of the entire region.

Being that I would answer "as few as possible" I believe our best bet is to slowly withdraw while still working as military "advisors" (trainers is a better word) to the Iraqi military (civil defense forces, whatever...).

In any case, thanks for reading over this if you've taken the time. :bowdown: :cheers:
 
It really seems that there are two types of countries in the Middle East. There are the well-run, developed and rich commercial states like the UAE and Bahrain. Then there are the ones that were poorly run, are underdeveloped and in generally bad shape. These include Iraq, Iran and various others. They are generally in a state of chaos that will be hard to control. For these places, a stricter government would be required. A religious government might be the best here. The people will be able to associate their beliefs with the government and the government could run the country with a tight enough grip to keep the people under control.

When pulling out, the key is establishing some kind of order to the region. If we try to establish something that we like that will "make the people happy" or "give them what they want," we will more than likely end up putting something weak up that will be toppled in a year or two. Democracy just doesn't work everywhere.
 
*Actually, to correct you Philly, there really aren't any "Developed" or "First-World" nations in the Middle-East. No matter how beautiful Dubai may be, no matter how rich the Saudis may be, the people in these countries are still dirt poor. The only Middle-Eastern nation that can be considered to actually be "Developed" in the slightest would be Israel, but thats all because of US, and even then, it is greatly debatable depending on your definition of the classification.

More on the topic:

Back in 2003, my support for the war was greater than the majority of my friends and family members. I was convinced that Saddam and Iraq was a cancer in the Middle-East, and that a good number of our problems were in fact coming from that country. Do I necessarily feel like I was duped by the boys in Washington? Not hardly, as these were my own personal beliefs. Though progress after the war has sucked, to say the least, only recently have I begun to doubt what the hell is going on, furthermore, attempt to find a plan for getting the hell out of dodge.

No, it isn't war fatigue. Its frustration. I'm frustrated with our Government, I'm frustrated with the Iraqi Government, and more than anything, I'm extremely frustrated with other Governments around the Middle-East.

My solution to the problem:

1) Admit that we've made too many mistakes in Iraq and that we need help

2) Outline reasons as to why we need help, appeal to other nations on the world stage

2A) Furthermore, make an appeal to other Middle-East nations to help bring stability to the reason

3) Open up talks, formerly, with Syria and Iran. Yes, we're caving, but guess what, we may actually get something out of this... Its kinda silly to continually fight these two powers when they may actually be able to help us. Furthermore, maybe getting slightly involved with Iran and Syria allows the idea of democracy to flourish in the region, further accomplishing our current intents in Iraq... You never know.

4) Set up clear, strong-standing benchmarks for the Iraqi government to measure effectiveness, allow breathing room for political reconciliation, manage talks between parties over political power, oil revenues, hopes of social stability...

5) Set up clear, strong-standing benchmarks for the Iraqi Military. As it has been said, "When they step up, we step down." A sliding scale for US involvement in Iraq, hoping for an eventual withdraw by 2009.

===

While I do realize that supporting an anti-war candidate like Ron Paul completely negates my stance, going with retards like Clinton and Obama isn't an option, furthermore, I often believe slightly that Rudy and Thompson may screw things up more than they are already...
 
How do we get out? Pass the buck, I say!

Main problem for the American troops in Iraq I feel are the roadside attacks. Build up a stronger Iraqi force, have them police their own streets. Bad guys blow stuff up, it's the Iraqi's duty to stop the bad guys. Good guys get blown up, they died protecting their own people. Any incidents that takes place on the streets will be a responsibility of Iraqi government, and the U.S. Forces can just focus on special, strategic missions, which should result in a lot less American troops getting picked off by roadside bombs and attacks.

Much easier said than done, no doubt. But I get the impression that Iraqi governement right now is acting like a young adult, who doesn't want to deal with any responsibilities. Perhaps it's time they are put on the spot just a little bit? Americans can't babysit them forever.
 
Actually... I most agree with Pupik.

If history shows anything... it shows that it takes time (and a hell of a lot of it, at that) for bitterness and hatred between rival factions to die down... if they ever will.

It's kind of difficult for people to make peace with each other, when those who've been tortured or shot or attacked or who've had family and friends killed by the other side still around. (In the case of Iraq).

Even if the transgression of the other side is one or two generations in the past, the bitterness still remains, with the children, grandchildren and great grandchildren willing to kill to avenge a long dead relative or to reclaim said relative's birthright (Israel).

The fact that the creation of Israel is less than a hundred years in the past makes that last particular point pivotal to peace in the Middle East.

Without social and economic (and, unfortunately, theological) progress in the Middle East, there can be no peace. It's much easier to be bitter about your situation and willing to blow other people up if your personal situation seems hopeless.
 
Kent
I can't believe I gave you positive rep in the first post.
I gave you that rep because I initially wanted to neg rep you as bad as possible. You made assumption after assumption. The first post was more of an opinion with a few quick questions right at the end. I was disappointed in the quality of the post because of those opinions but just before clicking the negative option, I stayed with positive. I thought, hey, why not be a nice guy if I can be, it's no big deal.
Click to expand...

Wow. How about i give you +rep for this post, that way we've evened the score? :dunce:

I went on to read down the page and found what's quoted above.

Are you joking?
Click to expand...

No i'm not. Saddam at least kept his maniacal people from blowing each other up they way they are now. You have Sunnis, you have Shiites, and it's ridiculous what they're fighting over. It makes no sense to me. So in my opinion, they need to be controlled like a bunch of fifth-graders. Saddam could do that. We cannot.

If you honestly consider Saddam's actions "questionable tactics " then I have no doubt that your opinion will rarely if ever be something I could condone. The actions commited by Saddam's government were so horrible I could never qualify them as "questionable tactics" and for that alone I've got to say.

I'm offended by the quoted comment. 👎
(Yes that's being a little sensitive :( )

The people of every country in the world (including Iraq) deserve treatment better than what you have called "questionable tactics."

I believe there is no question to Saddam's tactics (they are totally unacceptable).
I've always considered Saddam's tactics just one of the many reasons to support a removal of Saddam.

This of course concludes section one. ;)

Section two: The reason for section one. :ouch:

Would Saddam's tactics or the removal of Saddam be an issue in this thread if the subject was presented as the thread title suggest? I say no. I believe your interjection of opinionated pretenses are the foundation for off subject banter. :(

Section three: The Subject of the Thread. 👍
To withdraw from Iraq is difficult but possible.
More over, I believe it is simply a question of how many casualties among the Iraqi people are "we" willing to accept?
If the answer is, "whatever, doesn't matter" then we can pull out fairly easily by simply moving out of the country (physically).
If the answer is "as few as possible" then the withdrawal will be difficult due to the still unstable nature of the entire region.

Being that I would answer "as few as possible" I believe our best bet is to slowly withdraw while still working as military "advisors" (trainers is a better word) to the Iraqi military (civil defense forces, whatever...).

In any case, thanks for reading over this if you've taken the time. :bowdown: :cheers:
Click to expand...

Yes i have taken the time to read it. I agree, the people of Iraq deserve better treatment than they had under Saddam, but as i said i don't think things are any better for them now than they were. You're taking my "questionable tactics" comment way too seriously. What would you rather i had said? Saddam is a monster? Saddam's tactics were horrible? Unacceptable? You tell ME what i should have said...in any event i'll agree because he was a monster; but we have no right taking over the country and "deciding" what its leader's fate shall be. I mean, we got rid of Saddam, who was essentially not a threat to us. What next? Why not invade every country in the world that we don't agree with and assasinate their leader too? Why stop with Iraq?

Things aren't any better with Saddam gone. That was my point. In fact, they're far worse if you ask me. :nervous: Better yet, don't ask me. Your anger is something i'm glad i'll never witness in person.

In any event. i also agree with your 2nd to last comment; we can't just leave all at once. It'll be better to withdraw more slowly.
 
YSSMAN
*Actually, to correct you Philly, there really aren't any "Developed" or "First-World" nations in the Middle-East. No matter how beautiful Dubai may be, no matter how rich the Saudis may be, the people in these countries are still dirt poor. The only Middle-Eastern nation that can be considered to actually be "Developed" in the slightest would be Israel, but thats all because of US, and even then, it is greatly debatable depending on your definition of the classification.
Click to expand...

I think the facts might disagree with you.

United Arab Emirates
GDP: $164 billion (2006 est.)
GDP per capita: $49,700 (2006 est.)
GDP real growth rate: 8.9% (2006 est.)
GNI per capita: US $23,770 (World Bank, 2006)

Source: CIA World Fact Book; BBC NEWS

"The United Arab Emirates has a highly industrialized economy that makes the country one of the most developed in the world, based on various socioeconomic indicators such as GDP per capita, energy consumption per capita, and the HDI."

Qatar
GDP: $26.37 billion (2006 est.)
GDP per capita: $29,800 (2006 est.)
GDP real growth rate: 7.1% (2006 est.)
GNI per capita: N/A

Source: CIA World Fact Book

"In 1973, oil production and revenues increased dramatically, moving Qatar out of the ranks of the world's poorest countries and providing it with one of the highest per capita incomes in the region. Despite a marked decline in levels of oil production and prices since 1982, Qatar remains a wealthy country."

Kuwait
GDP: $60.72 billion (2006 est.)
GDP per capita: $23,100 (2006 est.)
GDP real growth rate: 12.6% (2006 est.)
GNI per capita: $24,040 (World Bank, 2006)

Sources: CIA World Fact Book ; BBC NEWS

Israel
GDP: $140.3 billion (2006 est.)
GDP per capita: $26,800 (2006 est.)
GDP real growth rate: 4.8% (2006 est.)
GNI per capita: $18,620 (World Bank, 2006)

Sources: CIA World Fact Book; BBC NEWS

World Bank: GNI per capita 2006; Atlas and PPP methods

-----------

On topic: We don't get out. We started it, we finish the job.


M
 
Anyone else feel like those are all places that seem less hostile to the U.S.?
Coincidence I suppose. :odd:
By the way, from what I understand, Iraq before Saddam was very similar to the countries above regarding the statistics provided.
 
Rule #1 of any potential invasion, "Always have an Exit Strategy"... In this case, "Exit Strategy" can be replaced with "Escape Plan"... but that's another story. There's no doubt that the lack of any clear strategy pre-invasion coupled with a staggering lack of knowledge of, and respect for, the political landscape in Iraq (and the wider region) means that the Coalition now have an incredible task on their hands, for which there is no precedent.

The lack of foresight and the naivety of the people who thought that beheading the Iraqi regime of 2003 would lead to the streets being lined with rose-petals is bordering on the comical (if it weren't so bloody tragic).

Whether we like it or not, we have to admit that the task of leaving a peaceful Iraq cannot now be done without an alliance with groups in Iraq and the wider region (and that includes Iran, who, like it or not, have alot of justified (as well as unjustified) influence in Iraq)... a 'coalition of the unwilling', if you like... we had a chance, loads of chances infact, for an alternative, but we blew it - firstly by invading without the support of the UN and secondly for disbanding the Iraqi army as soon as we went in... now, the only options left are almost as unsavoury as the thought of us running away from the problem we created.

Iraq: How do we get out?
Click to expand...
Whatever you do, don't turn right...
 
philly cheese
A religious government might be the best here. The people will be able to associate their beliefs with the government and the government could run the country with a tight enough grip to keep the people under control.
Click to expand...

A religious government is NOT a good idea and I feel is largely the reason that the region is messed up in the first place. To allow Iraq to be led by a tight fisted religious government is to say that our soldiers died in vein and our tax dollars have been utterly wasted.

What we need in the middle east is a government that has a chance prosper. Stability is not the goal, saving lives is not the goal (or we wouldn't have gone in in the first place), the goal is a government that has a chance to prosper and respect human rights. Anything less than that is complete failure.

There are things at stake here that are more precious than human life.
 
Danoff
A religious government is NOT a good idea and I feel is largely the reason that the region is messed up in the first place.
Click to expand...
Who are we to say whether Middle Eastern countries should not be religious? Just as we pour scorn on the idea of 'converting to Islam', the vast majority of ordinary folks in Iraq may well pour scorn on your idea of a non-religious government. Nice idea, but face facts -it ain't going to happen in Iraq. Never was and never will.

Danoff
To allow Iraq to be led by a tight fisted religious government is to say that our soldiers died in vein and our tax dollars have been utterly wasted.
Click to expand...
Again, who are we to allow Iraq to do anything when it comes to self-government?? Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign state and it's our ideas of how Iraq should be run that is the problem right now. No wonder the other countries in the region think we are arrogant.

Danoff
To allow Iraq to be led by a tight fisted religious government is to say that our soldiers died in vein and our tax dollars have been utterly wasted.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that has already happened.

Danoff
Stability is not the goal
Click to expand...
I totally disagree with that.

Danoff
There are things at stake here that are more precious than human life.
Click to expand...
I totally, totally disagree with that...

Our model of "democracy" simply doesn't work in a country like Iraq. Neither would it work or is likely to ever be tried out in China either, but we're not about to invade them and force it down their throats either. It's the ultimate conceit to think that we know how to run a country and the people who live there do not. A country like Iraq is not a stand-alone entity - indeed no country on Earth is. There are always tensions, synergies, inextricable links between nations that have existed for many, many years - and this was one of the biggest mistakes that the coalition made - to assume that Iraq was a simple dictatorship with only one 'voice' - that of Saddam's... they now know differently...
 
Touring Mars
Who are we to say whether Middle Eastern countries should not be religious?
Click to expand...

Last I checked Iraq violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war. By violating that agreement they forfeit the cease fire - they effectively started a war, a war that they lost.

As the victors of that war, we get to tell them exactly what to do with their (our) country. They gambled their sovereignty by attacking Kuwait. They lost the gamble, but we gave them an out because we didn't want to collect. They didn't comply with the requirements of the "out" we gave them, so we collected.

Touring Mars
Nice idea, but face facts -it ain't going to happen in Iraq. Never was and never will.
Click to expand...

I hope you're wrong.

Touring Mars
Again, who are we to say allow Iraq to do anything when it comes to self-government?? Last time I checked, Iraq was a sovereign state and it's our ideas of how Iraq should be run that is the problem right now.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not, not entirely. It's an invaded, occupied nation under the control of the coalition.


Touring Mars
I totally, totally disagree with that... Our model of "democracy" simply doesn't work in a country like Iraq.... It's the ultimate conceit to think that we know how to run a country and the people who live there do not.
Click to expand...

We'd like them to run it. We'd like every citizen over there to have a say in how it's run, but they're too busy fighting amongst themselves for control over each other.

I hope you're wrong in saying that Iraqis are simply culturally unable to be free - it's something that every human being deserves.
 
Danoff
Last I checked Iraq violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war. By violating that agreement they forfeit the cease fire - they effectively started a war, a war that they lost.

As the victors of that war, we get to tell them exactly what to do with their (our) country.
Click to expand...
:lol: You're having a laugh, aren't you?

I hope you're wrong.
Click to expand...
So do I, but look around at the Middle East. How many effective democracies do you see? China is not a democracy either, but atleast it 'works'. In other words, "democracy" is not the elixir of life for a sovereign state, even though some Western nations seem to think it is. And as the close relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia demonstrates amply, the US don't seem too bothered about some other countries in the region being rather less than democratic, not to mention their record on human rights...

Actually it's not, not entirely. It's an invaded, occupied nation under the control of the coalition.
Click to expand...
Invaded and occupied without the mandate or support of the UN, and (in the view of many people) illegally...

We'd like them to run it. We'd like every citizen over there to have a say in how it's run, but they're too busy fighting amongst themselves for control over each other.
Click to expand...
And were they fighting amongst themselves before we invaded?

I hope you're wrong in saying that Iraqis are simply culturally unable to be free - it's something that every human being deserves.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said. You are equating democracy with freedom - the two are not the same. Of course, our preference would be to see a Western-style 'democracy', one-man-one-vote system operate in Iraq - but the question is, do they want it, or do they even need it? Not having the same form of government to us doesn't make them inferior in any way. Only a government that doesn't represent the people fairly is inferior - and while our democratic systems help us do that, it doesn't necessarily hold true across the globe.

Also, you might want to look at just how 'democratic' our countries are. Sure, we get to choose who ever we want... Red or Blue, take your pick! Atleast Iraq never had an election where the guy with the most votes lost!! We may shake our heads and pity the poor Iraqi who doesn't get to vote, but in a country where ethnic and religious allegiances are already so deeply engrained, is there really much point in asking them who they'd vote for given as simple a choice as we give our own electorate?
 
Parnelli Bone
Oh yeah, i agree there...we definately should have left Saddam in power...invasion or no invasion. He may have had some questionable tactics to control his people of different sects and beliefs, but at least he could control them. He was the glue that kept them all from doing what they're doing now.
Click to expand...

I see (below) where some disagree with the point of having left Saddam in control, but at least one famous member of the GOP (Greed over Principles) Party once shared your views:
Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
 
Touring Mars
:lol: You're having a laugh, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Not sure I get much more serious than that.

Touring Mars
So do I, but look around at the Middle East. How many effective democracies do you see? China is not a democracy either, but atleast it 'works'. In other words, "democracy" is not the elixir of life for a sovereign state...
Click to expand...

Granted, but you can't have personal freedom without a representative government.

Touring Mars
Invaded and occupied without the mandate or support of the UN, and (in the view of many people) illegally...
Click to expand...

Couldn't care less whether or not France, Germany, etc. thinks we should have done it. Last I checked we're a sovereign nation. We gambled that sovereignty when we defended Kuwait and later invaded Iraq. But it wasn't much of a gamble.

Touring Mars
And were they fighting amongst themselves before we invaded?
Click to expand...

If you count Saddam's genocidal tendencies then yes. If not, then no, they were not in an anarchistic state before we toppled their government. That doesn't mean that they deserved to be in a dictatorship (let's face it, that's what it was).

Touring Mars
That's not what I said. You are equating democracy with freedom - the two are not the same. Of course, our preference would be to see a Western-style 'democracy', one-man-one-vote system operate in Iraq - but the question is, do they want it, or do they even need it?
Click to expand...

Every person needs representation in government. Whether or not they want their neighbors to be represented is completely irrelevant.

Touring Mars
Only a government that doesn't represent the people fairly is inferior - and while our democratic systems help us do that, it doesn't necessarily hold true across the globe.
Click to expand...

Not following you. Yes governments in which individuals are not represented are inferior.

Touring Mars
Also, you might want to look at just how 'democratic' our countries are. Sure, we get to choose who ever we want... Red or Blue, take your pick! Atleast Iraq never had an election where the guy with the most votes lost!!
Click to expand...

Having a conglomeration of states is an added complication to our republic. It does not in any way mean that our system is broken. It is broken, but that's not why.
 
Touring Mars
So do I, but look around at the Middle East. How many effective democracies do you see? China is not a democracy either, but atleast it 'works'. In other words, "democracy" is not the elixir of life for a sovereign state, even though some Western nations seem to think it is. And as the close relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia demonstrates amply, the US don't seem too bothered about some other countries in the region being rather less than democratic, not to mention their record on human rights...
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's extremely arrogant of us to assume we have the right to invade a country, get rid of its leader (as reprehensible as he was), then tell them how to run their country. You can't enforce democracy on a people who won't accept it; who are too busy blowing each other up.


And were they fighting amongst themselves before we invaded?
Click to expand...

Nope,they sure weren't, at least not to the scale that they are now. Everyone pay attention to Touring Mars. He knows what he's talkin about.

That's not what I said. You are equating democracy with freedom - the two are not the same. Of course, our preference would be to see a Western-style 'democracy', one-man-one-vote system operate in Iraq - but the question is, do they want it, or do they even need it? Not having the same form of government to us doesn't make them inferior in any way. Only a government that doesn't represent the people fairly is inferior - and while our democratic systems help us do that, it doesn't necessarily hold true across the globe.
Click to expand...

Again, i agree. It's useless to enforce our rules on someone else's turf. I may draw another page of bashes from Kent on this, but i think what'll work in Iraq (the only thing that'll work) is someone who grips down with an iron fist. Not necessarily another Saddam, but someone else in that vein, who will run the country like an old-style dictator and nobody gets to disagree with him.

Also, you might want to look at just how 'democratic' our countries are. Sure, we get to choose who ever we want... Red or Blue, take your pick! Atleast Iraq never had an election where the guy with the most votes lost!!
Click to expand...

👍
 

Similar threads

mef
  • Poll
Digital IDs and how they will be used to control us
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
MatskiMonk
MatskiMonk
Mick Tee
Show Off your liveries in detail - Show & Shine
Replies
2
Views
504
Mick Tee
Mick Tee
B
This car is unique and deserves its own thread. Hint, its a 1953 Jaguar.
Replies
2
Views
713
Bsmooth
B
e30318is
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE LEFT?
Replies
13
Views
3K
jrbabbitt
jrbabbitt
VBR
MSNBC Producer Quits - “We are a cancer..."
Replies
10
Views
1K
ryzno
ryzno

Latest Posts

Back