Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

In North America we choose our leaders from the "elite". It is very seldom you see just anyone elected to a prestigious office like President or Prime Minister who has not worked his way up the ladder. Whether we care to admit it or not, not just anyone can be a leader in the Western world, they must come from a certain class and have earned their way into the position. Coming from that "elite" makes it much easier to earn the nomination. Heck, in the United States even a complete imbecile can become President as long as he went to the right school and has powerful friends in high places (and a daddy who was President). Having access to that elite status gives you access to the seats of power.

So was it any different in Iran? Not really. Those in the "elite" were nominated. If you think outside the confines of Western society and place yourself into the context of Iran society, these men that were chosen from their pool of candidates and then the people voted. Its very much like the nomination process here, only less political and more theological. It is definitely superior to that which goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan IMO, and more closely resembles what we like to think of as democracy.

I agree. The "elite" are selected as rulers. They are essentially groomed to that role. There are subtle but stark difference. Take the US for example. Presidential Candidates are selected from their parties, and then voted on.
There is a very large pool of people to choose from, and they are selected in a democratic way, by vote. They are not hand picked by a supreme leader, a single person.

There are also stark theological and political difference in the process in the US and Canada. We all know to well how polarizing the last Presidential election was. It was between 2 people who where on opposite ends of the spectrum. In the Iranian process, you are essentially voting for the same "type" of person. One may "talk" better, but they are all fairly similar in their beleifs.

That's a good question. How about the way it has happened in so many other countries? Grassroots unrest? Or maybe just a military coup? I really don't care how it happens, when it happens, or if it happens at all, it is up to the people of that region to do/say something to cause change. The Iraqi people did not ask for help. They did not ask to be invaded to start their revolution. If it were the way you suggest, there would not be the unrest and turmoil in the country as it now sits. The country would not be on the verge of civil war over the presence of the United States military.

I am all for grassroots uprisings, don't get me wrong. Just the logistics of actually getting it done under Saddam's nose was not feasable. How can they get the word out that the need, or want help for a regieme change? I am sure a few brave had tried, only to be caught, tortured / killed, etc. Too many stories of people "going away" in Iraq makes it not hard to believe that Saddam and Son's squashed many attempts before they even got started.

I think you are thinking about the Kurds, in the north near Turkey. The Sunni's are the majority in Iraq with the #####es having large numbers in eastern Iraq and Iran. The Wahabis are the radicals and based predominantly in SW Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Not the Kurds, it may have been the Wahabis, but I can't remember for sure, and don't have time to look it up right now

[CalgaryCowboy]

Wow, things have gotten polarized. I think we all can agree that a successful working democracy would be good for Iraq. I think we can also agree that right now it not a "successful working democracy". It is just a matter of opinion whether they can or want to get there. Personally I think things are being rushed too much. The US desire to get out of dodge as soon as possible has hindered the processes. IMO if the US wanted to invade they should have willing to commit the time and troops needed to insure security and stability of Iraq until a democratic process could be formed if that was the peoples wish. Instead they are now rushing the Iraqis to take over security and stability roles which were destroyed in the invasion. Iraqis have a history of rejecting forms of government forced on them and this might be the same.

In Afganastan they are making good strides but is still a democracy in infancy and fragile. The recent case of the man of trial for converting religions shows that they were not yet ready to test the strength of the constitution over Islamic law.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Good thing that people are still lining up for recruitment. It's not a good thing that they are getting blown up by their countrymen. The fact that they where at the recruitment center shows that there are Iraqi's that are willing to fight and die for their country.

of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't any jobs in Iraq...

do you honestly believe that these people are lining up for the idealism that you are preaching? Or is it simply a case of being able to food on the table for their family.

mr.Brown -

Japan had the blessing of the Emperor for the peace accord. DO NOT tell me that this didn't have a huge role in the reason for the successful change. The Japanese worshipped the Emperor at the time, and his actions helped smooth over the transition....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by arsenal

We all know to well how polarizing the last Presidential election was. It was between 2 people who where on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I pretty much agreed with what you said, except for this statement. Bush and Kerry were not on opposite ends of the spectrum. Its actually scary how close these two are on the political map. Its even scarier when you look at their up bringing and how they got to where they are. The fact that people like to say how far a part they are in the political spectrum scares me. Bush and Kerry are really next door neighbors on the city map of political ideology. Frankly, this is the Democrats greatest weakness, is the fact they cannot differentiate themselves enough from the Republicans. There were just too many people that looked at Kerry and saw nothing that differentiated him from Bush, and they chose status quo. Kerry never took a stand on issues that really made a significant departure from the path the Bush admin was on. He never took a stand and said "this is what makes America great again". That lack of differentiation killed Kerry, not the fact that they were on polar extremes.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't any jobs in Iraq...

do you honestly believe that these people are lining up for the idealism that you are preaching? Or is it simply a case of being able to food on the table for their family.

mr.Brown -

Japan had the blessing of the Emperor for the peace accord. DO NOT tell me that this didn't have a huge role in the reason for the successful change. The Japanese worshipped the Emperor at the time, and his actions helped smooth over the transition....

Did I not say it was different?
He asked the question and I answered it.

[oldschoolcalgary]

but if the difference is vast, does the analogy even work? In my mind, there aren't a lot of similarities between the two situations, which makes it a meaningless comparision, which should be discounted within this thread.

[mbrown]

The Generals that effectively ran Japan at that time (the emporer was a figurehead_ were adamantly against it, but a couple of atom bombs made them accept it. The Emporer was a virtual deity to a lot of the population at that time, yes. But there were people against it as well.

Please note, I never made the comparison, but the question was asked where else has democracy been forced on a population and I answered it.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't any jobs in Iraq...

do you honestly believe that these people are lining up for the idealism that you are preaching? Or is it simply a case of being able to food on the table for their family.

No Jobs? The country needs to pretty much be re-built. There is alot of opportunity available to them. They don't NEED to join the security forces, but it may be the most beneficial to themselves and their family. These places have been attacked before, and yet, people are still signing up, standing in line to enlist.

Do I think that the "idealism that I am preaching" is the only factor? No, but I think it still is a factor. The Iraqi people have been given an opportunity (righhtly or not is a matter of opinion) to take control of their country after 30+ years of dictatorship. And yes, I do think that the majority of Iraqi's do want the freedom, and are willing to fight for it.

I can honestly say, that if I was an Iraqi right now, I would be standing in line to join the security forces (if I hadn't already). Not only for the money, but becuase I see the opportunity of a greater Iraq, and I see that there are factions who are trying to take that away from the people, and take control of the country for themselves.

But that's just me.

[oldschoolcalgary]

sure, I understand that, but I guess what I am saying is that even though japan is a country that had democracy forced upon them, that there are more differences than similarities between the two countries...

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by arsenal

No Jobs? The country needs to pretty much be re-built. There is alot of opportunity available to them. They don't NEED to join the security forces, but it may be the most beneficial to themselves and their family. These places have been attacked before, and yet, people are still signing up, standing in line to enlist.

No jobs....strange, but true...

Iraq's unemployment rate was 10.5 percent of a population of 27 million people, the report found. When the figure of workers who had given up looking for a job -- discouraged workers -- was included, the unemployment number increased to 18.4 percent.

The survey estimated that the minimum number of war-related deaths ranges from 18,000 to 29,000 and is probably higher.

The report said the survey didn't attempt to count entire families who died and therefore underestimates the total number of people killed.
Children under 18 accounted for 12 percent of the deaths, the report said, while the information on infant mortality and malnutrition shows that "the suffering of children due to war and conflict in Iraq is not limited to those directly wounded or killed by military activities."

The information about deaths was "derived from a question posed to households concerning missing and dead persons during the two years prior to the survey. Although the date was not asked for, it is reasonable to suppose that the vast majority of deaths due to warfare occurred after the beginning of 2003."

Children also are affected by widespread malnutrition. About 43 percent of boys and girls between the ages of 6 months and 5 years suffer from some form of the condition -- chronic, general or acute malnutrition.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me....livingsurvey/

now let's be fair here - who would want Saddam back in power? No one. That being said, Iraqis would be the first to say that there were some aspects of their former regime they missed - mainly stability, constant power, clean water...

The entire point of the thread was that the slow slide into a civil war was inevitable because of the US failing to understand the long history of Iraq and having a naive view of how 'democracy would flourish'.

At this point, what choice does one have other than to fight for democracy? fight for a dictatorship? Fight for more instability?

Right now, even though I am against the war, if the US pulled out, Iraq would totally implode - so there is no choice really.

If a foriegn country invaded us, I'd be the first in line to join the defense of my country too or help in the rebuilding of it. I think anyone who loves their country would say and do that....

[Bobblehead]

Well said oldschoolcalgary.

I was against US action in Iraq. I agreed with Afghanistan, but believe the reasons to go into Iraq were spurious at best. But have always believed that once the US went in to Iraq, they would need to stay until stability resumed, and I thought that would be a long ordeal.

I don't think Iraq is in a position to rule themselves democratically, no matter how many people come out to vote. There is simply too much factionism, and too many religious soldiers for either side willing to to do anything, especially dying, to bring their beliefs to the forefront. They are fighting a religious battle, and politics is a tool or a weapon they will use to their own ends.

The military can help bring democracy only to places that are ready for democracy, are asking for democracy, and are willing to fight for democracy. In those cases, the military can remove the remaining barriers to democratic rule, but attempts to institute a democracy will have momentary, temporary success, if any.

You can lead a horse to water...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Something being lost here is the reasons for America to be in Iraq. Would anyone like to take a kick as to WHY they are there? Someone care to outline the real reasons for being there?

Also, on a related and slightly different angle, why did Al Qaeda do what they did? Why did they attack the WTC? What was their motivation? Was it related to?

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Something being lost here is the reasons for America to be in Iraq. Would anyone like to take a kick as to WHY they are there? Someone care to outline the real reasons for being there?

Also, on a related and slightly different angle, why did Al Qaeda do what they did? Why did they attack the WTC? What was their motivation? Was it related to?

http://www.calgarypuck.com/forum/sho...875#post327875

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...430-psab01.htm

in an earlier post in an earlier thread, al-quaeda has always stated its goal as forcing the US out of saudi arabia, and guess what happened.

as for america's reasons to be in iraq,

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/0...e_of_the_.html
keeping white trash down where they belong

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
keeping AIPAC happy

keeping the price of oil nice and high
keeping strategic foothold
keep terrorists in business
drain the people of tax money, stright into the right pockets
maybe even spark a next wave of terror attacks on the US, that'd be groovy!

as for the oil bourse thing (iraq selling oil in euros, not dollars) - put that one down as a maybe, i'm not sure the 5% top of american aristocracy would be so bad off if the economy collapsed, the brunt of the old money would be fine.

there's millions of reasons to invade iraq, and not one of them makes america, or anyone, safer.

and really, if you're put there by lobbyists, and kept there by fear, why NOT invade iraq?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by TheCommodoreAfro

Ummm, no he's not. You look like you're running away from someone having taken you down in your rhetoric induced haze. Righty spouting neoconservative fascist you.

Go watch some recorded hockey.

Oh yes he has. The "bring back the dictator" and "Iraqis don't know what they are doing because he knows better" is no longer being against the war or the occupation. That is well into dingdongland.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Where is anything "leftist" in that approach? Seems that you are just another one of those morons who get their knowledge from FoxNews and use the same tactics to make your argument. "Whatever I don't agree with is leftist rubbish!!!" Kindly pointout where I made any "leftist" claims? It seems that you and mbrown (sharing those same two failing brain cells) have your ends of the political spectrum all confused. I'm supposedly a leftist, but a supporter of Facists. Which is?



Britain did so of their own choice. They did NOT have a gun pointed at them telling them they would do anything. THEY as a people made they choice.



Wow, I guess you did crack that grade 8 civics book. Good for you! And did I say any different (although you are going to get an argument from many an American in this regard)?



Sinking fast in what way? Believing that country and its people should be able to chart their own course in the world? Believing that an illegal invasion under false pretenses in immoral and that attempting to install a false illiberal democracy in that country is wrong and will fail, doing more damage to the cause than good? I don't see that as sinking, and based on the reactions of others, neither do they. That's called standing up for the rights of others and believing that they have the right to make their own choices, not be forced into something at the end of gun.

The only one that is sinking here is you. If you would spend less time waiving your arms in the air, attempting to draw attention away from the fact you have nothing to support you, and bring something to the table it would be not only refreshing, but stop you from sinking. All that time you are waiving your arms madly, screaming look over there, look over there, you are not treading water and going under.

Your knowledge of history is tenuous at best as is your grip or reality. Someone who says and believes that a murderous dictator is needed to keep people in line and spew that they, the Iraqis, had no idea what they were doing as though you and you alone had intimate knowledge of what Iraqis thought or knew is at the very least arrogant and more likely truely insane. No one in their right mind could possibly take you seriously when you say such things. It has nothing to do with being for or against the Anglo-American invasion or occupation. Those things that you HAVE said are truely whacked!

You have turned a blind eye to reality and history and instead have twisted history to your own liking. You make the point that the Americans are/were holding a gun to their heads and the Iraqis should have been(be) allowed to make their own choices. When did the Americans, Brittish, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Italian, etc... put a gun to the Iraqi's collective heads and say "VOTE OR ELSE!"???? It was quite the opposite. It was the terrorists saying "Don't vote or else". The Iraqi people made a choice to ignore that threat and vote, 3 times! No one forced them to do that. No one. They made their choice. They chose to elect their government. The first time in their lives. No one was installed except by the Iraqi people themselves. Some how this is invalid because, according to you, they don't have internet access or TV and didn't check out the issues properly? Lanny before TV and the internet arrived in Canada...were we a democracy??

[Looger]

democracy, or our version of it, is more than voting booths.

democracy is security, economic opportunity, developed infrastructure and social welfare system, and a unified nation.

democracy is not what exists in iraq. what exists in iraq is people voting with bullets AND ballots to gain an edge on 'them' - the others.

tribalism and 'democracy' are a lethal combination, especially when the majority is as thin as it is in iraq, or there's a 3rd player that can tip the scales.

it's not that dictatorships are 'better' than democracy - it's simply that iraq is not a socially developed enough country to air-drop in some ballot boxes and tv air time, it has not had a calm-down period from a period of tension, which in fact has increased with the onset of 'democracy'.

and most importantly,

IT DID NOT CHOOSE DEMOCRACY

hosni mubarak, self-imposed dictator of egypt for (at the end of this term) 24 years, said it best (paraphrasing)- 'if the middle east were a democracy, whom do the americans think would be elected in - the democrats?'

iraq's borders have more to do with the political intrigue after WWI than they do with realities on the ground. Europe had huge wars in the 20th century to iron all this out, and like it or not, people don't like slightly different people, at least as far as their self-image goes.

call me a bigot, but that is life in the really-real world.

ethnic/cultural divides in modern europe take the (media) form of 'religious riots' - call it what you want, it is 'us' and 'them'. such has been life, forever.

here in canada (and not because the government forces it down our throats) we have a different kind of existence, we don't understand that even progressive, white, modern europe's singular national identities are at least partially ethnic. canadians don't have an ethnic identity, the brown guy next door watches hockey and eats donuts.

in europe, in iraq, things are different.

please take that into consideration.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Your knowledge of history is tenuous at best as is your grip or reality.

Seems only you seem to hold that opinion, and the majority of posters here seem to think that you're view of history is "tenuous at best". Personally I just think you're full of ****.

Someone who says and believes that a murderous dictator is needed to keep people in line and spew that they, the Iraqis, had no idea what they were doing as though you and you alone had intimate knowledge of what Iraqis thought or knew is at the very least arrogant and more likely truely insane.

Well, now you're just taking my comments completely out of context, which for a lying piece of **** like yourself is understandable. You have not been able to convince anyone of anything in this thread, except that your view is completely skewed. What I did say was "There is a reason why so many people in America are demanding an immediate withdrawl and to let Iraq go its own way. There is a reason why some are suggesting the reinstatement of Hussein, or someone like him. With the religious fragmentation that exists in Iraq, the only thing that can hold that country together is someone who can opress the living hell out everyone and MAKE the people live together."

I also added, "under Hussein Iraq was the most progressive of the Arab countries. Women had rights and were considered useful in society. Now that the strongman is gone, and non-secular agendas are being pursued, Iraq is getting ready to step back to the 8th century for societal norms."

What I said was that the country NEEDED a strongman leader that could indeed stand up to the religious sects and FORCE them to respect each other's differences, or keep them under wraps for the stability of the country. What's really ironic is that quite a few "experts" on the subject are now suggesting the same thing. Reza Aslan, Fareed Zakaria, Bob Baer, and John Burns have all made comments in the past couple months that Iraq was better off prior to the invasion and that a step back to the government model that was in power is likely the only way to stabilize the region. I'll take the word of these guys over a no mind idiot like yourself.

No one in their right mind could possibly take you seriously when you say such things. It has nothing to do with being for or against the Anglo-American invasion or occupation. Those things that you HAVE said are truely whacked!

Whacked? But supporting the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation that has seen thousands of people killed, created a state of civil war, destabalized an entire region of the world, and cost each citizen of the United States $3,000 dollars (to date) is okay? Wow, you are a piece of work.

You have turned a blind eye to reality and history and instead have twisted history to your own liking.

Really? And what history is that? Definitely nothing that you have talked about. I have spoken to the history of the region and the history of the people themselves.

You make the point that the Americans are/were holding a gun to their heads and the Iraqis should have been(be) allowed to make their own choices.

That is correct. The Americans have invaded a sovereign nation and are attempting to install a democracy of their making. That is democracy at the end of a gun.

When did the Americans, Brittish, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Italian, etc... put a gun to the Iraqi's collective heads and say "VOTE OR ELSE!"????

Seems they just have. You may want to ask someone for some game tapes of the past three years. Seems you have missed a substantial amount of news that has been taking place in this country called Iraq.

It was quite the opposite. It was the terrorists saying "Don't vote or else". The Iraqi people made a choice to ignore that threat and vote, 3 times! No one forced them to do that. No one. They made their choice. They chose to elect their government. The first time in their lives. No one was installed except by the Iraqi people themselves. Some how this is invalid because, according to you, they don't have internet access or TV and didn't check out the issues properly? Lanny before TV and the internet arrived in Canada...were we a democracy??

Okay, you're officially the stupidest SOB I have ever seen. Do you understand how democracy works? Obviously not. Do yourself a favor and try and wrap you pea-sized brain around the concept of an illiberal democracy, as that is what has developed in Iraq. The people voted, but did not have a comprehension of WTF they were doing. They voted for who their imam told them to vote for. People voted multiple times. There were more voting irregularities than a Florida election. If that does not tell you that this "vote" was invalid, and that the people were not aware of how the voting process functioned, or what responsibility that vote had, then the whole democratic principle is lost on you. No, it IS lost on you. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Editted for erro in math.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Looger

http://www.calgarypuck.com/forum/sho...875#post327875

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...430-psab01.htm

in an earlier post in an earlier thread, al-quaeda has always stated its goal as forcing the US out of saudi arabia, and guess what happened.

as for america's reasons to be in iraq,

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/0...e_of_the_.html
keeping white trash down where they belong

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
keeping AIPAC happy

keeping the price of oil nice and high
keeping strategic foothold
keep terrorists in business
drain the people of tax money, stright into the right pockets
maybe even spark a next wave of terror attacks on the US, that'd be groovy!

as for the oil bourse thing (iraq selling oil in euros, not dollars) - put that one down as a maybe, i'm not sure the 5% top of american aristocracy would be so bad off if the economy collapsed, the brunt of the old money would be fine.

there's millions of reasons to invade iraq, and not one of them makes america, or anyone, safer.

and really, if you're put there by lobbyists, and kept there by fear, why NOT invade iraq?

Some great links and some great comments there Looger. Nice to see someone pull out a PNAC link to show people exactly what a bunch of delusion idiots are running the United States. When I think a word to describe this country right now, its hubris. They really need a change of attitude and slap into reality.

I think that people are under-rating the motivations of Al Qaeda. People fail to acknowledge what bin Laden and company have been trying to do. I think the organization is really trying to unify Islam and recreate the caliphate that made thr Islamic nation the most powerful and successful on earth. To do so they must get Muslims across two continents to rise up and fight a common foe. That common foe has been identified and the United States was earmaked as the the country most likely to be drawn into a conflict that could achieve that goal. Interestingly, Al Qaeda had been hitting the United States for almost a decade prior to 9/11, but the US would not be dragged into a conflict.

A lot of people complained that Clinton was not forceful enough in answering the actions by Al Qaeda, yet it appears he knew what he was doing. bin Laden had been counting on America reacting strongly and doing something that would inflame the Islamic world. Clinton would never give in and play the game. The reaction was always a calculated response and aimed at the responsible parties. This was the same reaction that Reagan and Bush 41 had used prior, and Clinton continued to follow the advice of the military and intelligence community and not get dragged into a conflict that could spin out of control.

Al Qaeda was patient and continued to escalate their attacks. They knew it was only a matter of time before they got someone in the White House that would fall into their trap and react in a way that would inflame the Islamic world. Of course it took an unimaginable act to generate the reaction, but they also had the right group of politicians, with a warped sense of reality, in power that would react exactly as they saw fit.

Al Qaeda got the United States to react exactly as they would have hoped, in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. They got a huge bonus when Iraq was also invaded and occupied. Two for the price of one, and a huge bump in paranoia around the Islamic world. Bush and company have done more to further the cause of Al Qaeda than bin Laden could ever dream. Bush has insured that recruiting centers for Al Qaeda will be jam packed, as Islam is under attack. The Iranians are rattling their sabers and WILL begin work on atomic weapons ASAP. The United States has pushed them into a corner and they have no other choice. The United States now has Iran surrounded (Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east), so what do they have to lose? Nothing. The region is quickly becoming a tinderbox, and only because Bush, and his administration of idiots, walked right into the trap that bin Laden has been working on since the late 80’s.

All of the reasons you bring up for America’s invasion of Iraq are pretty much on the money. There is no real world reason for being there. Bush and his band of boneheads have been jonesing to get into Iraq since the end of the first Iraq war, so it was pretty much a sure thing they were going in (god bless the PNAC and their stupidity of publishing their plans in the late 90’s). Sadly, the American people are too naïve to put two-and-two together and come up with the answers the rest of the world have come up with.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

and cost each citizen of the United States $30,000 dollars (to date) is okay?

That works out to 9 trillion dollars* so that ain't right. It's been an expensive adventure to be sure, but not even close to that number.


*I think. All those zeroes tend to fog the brain of a non-math-good person.

[Vulcan]

There is another old saying, "you can attract a lot more flies with honey than vinegar". The West has lost or is losing the war for the Moslem's heart and this didn't have to happen. We have the biggest tool for propaganda the world has known. Movies, TV, newspapers, the internet, etc. and we are losing to some uneducated Moslem clerics spewing hate. I'm not advocating giving up our weapons and saying love will conquer all. Far from it, but if we want a more peacefull world all peoples will have to want it.