Democracy working in Iraq? Another huge vote.
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed they are voting, but one has to wonder what the outcome of this is all going to be, given the controversy attached to this constitution, within Iraq. A fragmented country which then separates into 3? Or a country which get's back on it's feet after 12 years of sanctions?
Only time will tell, I guess.
Some good news from Iraq
Illustrating perfectly that far from being some sort of national liberation movement the insurgents are just a small minority of Iraqis, bitter about the loss of the power they once wielded.
Let us hope the Constitution is approved and some sort of political stability comes to Iraq
.
Illustrating perfectly that far from being some sort of national liberation movement the insurgents are just a small minority of Iraqis, bitter about the loss of the power they once wielded.
Let us hope the Constitution is approved and some sort of political stability comes to Iraq
.
Jaglover said:
Some good news from Iraq
Illustrating perfectly that far from being some sort of national liberation movement the insurgents are just a small minority of Iraqis, bitter about the loss of the power they once wielded.
Let us hope the Constitution is approved and some sort of political stability comes to Iraq
.
It won't bring stability and you clearly don't really understand the nature of the groups who are causing the violence, if you believe this statement.
los Angeles said:
Not me, although I'm not sure what you mean by "deserve." It sounds patronising, Alex. What I want is what most in the Middle-East want, and many other counties too, the Americans out, supplanted by a multi-national force of peace keepers with no vested interests in dominating Iraq, working to a strict timetable of withdrawal. When I say "out" I include the air bases they are building, and handing back all land and businesses they now control.
By "deserve" I meant that after all the abuses and tyranny of Saddam Hussein, they have earned their freedom and thus deserve it. I certainly didn't mean to patronise - quite the reverse.
Like N. Ireland, you will never please everyone, regardless of the outcome. The insurgents are not the type of people to abide by a vote, and as such it will make no difference whatsoever the result of any vote. They can have as many 'democratically elected' officials as they want, I don't think this will stop the insurgents from continuing their war on the 'occupiers' as they see us.
(As a little aside, and something I was thinking about today, when Iranian originated bombs were mentioned on TV, and purely playing devils advocate, how is the Invasion of Iraq any different whatsoever from the Invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians. The insurgents surely see the allies as an occupying force, and as such, how is Irans supposed support of the insurgents any different to the support given by the US to the Taliban, and a certain Osama Bin Liner?)
(As a little aside, and something I was thinking about today, when Iranian originated bombs were mentioned on TV, and purely playing devils advocate, how is the Invasion of Iraq any different whatsoever from the Invasion of Afghanistan by the Russians. The insurgents surely see the allies as an occupying force, and as such, how is Irans supposed support of the insurgents any different to the support given by the US to the Taliban, and a certain Osama Bin Liner?)
andy mac said:
Like N. Ireland, you will never please everyone, regardless of the outcome. The insurgents are not the type of people to abide by a vote, and as such it will make no difference whatsoever the result of any vote. They can have as many 'democratically elected' officials as they want, I don't think this will stop the insurgents from continuing their war on the 'occupiers' as they see us.
Maybe so, but if we can build up a stable Iraqi state, the chances of defeating the insurgency are much increased.
968 said:
Some good news from Iraq
Illustrating perfectly that far from being some sort of national liberation movement the insurgents are just a small minority of Iraqis, bitter about the loss of the power they once wielded.
Let us hope the Constitution is approved and some sort of political stability comes to Iraq
.
It won't bring stability and you clearly don't really understand the nature of the groups who are causing the violence, if you believe this statement.
Pray enlighten us then oh sage of Iraq. (Maybe it is Iran after all!) :tongueincheek:
This is a debate about semantics. War on terror (which I think in itself is virtually meaningless) is not geographically localised. An "insurgency in Iraq" clearly refers to the events in one country. It is perfectly obvious that the US have never publicly said that their current level of engagment in Iraq will continue for 50 years.
Jaglover said:
Some good news from Iraq
Illustrating perfectly that far from being some sort of national liberation movement the insurgents are just a small minority of Iraqis, bitter about the loss of the power they once wielded.
Let us hope the Constitution is approved and some sort of political stability comes to Iraq
.
Correct; but I would further contend that many are not even Iraqis but hoodlums from Syria, etc.
los Angeles said:
Not me, although I'm not sure what you mean by "deserve." It sounds patronising, Alex. What I want is what most in the Middle-East want, and many other countries too, the Americans out, supplanted by a multi-national force of peace keepers with no vested interests in dominating Iraq, working to a strict timetable of withdrawal. When I say "out" I include the air bases they are building, and handing back all land and businesses they now control.
>> Edited by los Angeles on Sunday 16th October 06:10
Timetable?!? = Stated deadline for pullout + 1 day = all the bad guys come back. Can we make it any more obvious?
Think about this: It took the USA 13 years to ratify our constitution; and that was after 10 amendments to satisfy the Commonwealth of Virginia. Iraqis are doing great in comparision. 60-70% turnout...beats the hell out of the US and especially the EU....and there is nobody shooting at our voters. Give credit where it is due. First the naysayers say that the interim election will never work, then the constitution won't happen,etc. Now that it will pass, the naysayers say "the factions will never get along". Come on, the US has factions as does the EU; one can never please anyone. Give credit; you folks become more obvious everyday that you simply want failure in Iraq at any cost just because you do not like Bush, etc....just admit it and you will be more respected.
jimbeaux said:
Come on, the US has factions as does the EU; one can never please anyone. Give credit; you folks become more obvious everyday that you simply want failure in Iraq at any cost just because you do not like Bush, etc....just admit it and you will be more respected.
I suppose you believe that the poeple opposed to ther war are not patriots as well?
The insurgents are not going to be swayed on iota when it comes to the voting process. If they gave a hoot about the democratic system they woul;d be polititians, not fighters. It is not as simple as saying the naysayers are only whinging because they don't like Bush. Thats ridiculous. Do YOU really think things are marvellous, and rosey over there? I can't stand Bush, but I am certainly not hearltess to see thousands upon thousands killed just to prove him wrong. the fact remains that it is a catch 22 situation. We cannot leave becasue security is so bad, and the insurgents will continue their campaign while we are still there. What you think about posters, and whether they like Bush is neither here nor there, and certainly nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Maybe you can see thingts getting better, but I can't see an improvement in the near future.
andy mac said:
I don't think we should leave until things are sorted, as this would certainly lead to a civil war, between Sunni, Shiite, and possibly Kurds. That would be an even worse scenario. However, its is going to take a hell of a long time to get everything sorted.
Quite right, the scenario of a civil war is the one outcome that we must try to prevent. Instead of making the middle east a more peaceful place, it would result in it becoming infinitely more dangerous, with 3 republics, who all have axes to grind, being neighbours. In a way not dissimilar to the Balkan conflict.
The other situation that seems to be overlooked is the composition of the the political parties over there, it is inevitable that the religious hardliners will try to become involved. How easy it will be for them, to make the already militant factions, even moreso. Particularly in the south, the Iranians will have more influence there, although not officially annexed, it might well be a part of greater Iran.
andy mac said:
Vietnam is a very good analogy, even if the pro-Bush lot seem to think its all rosey, and fluffy over there.
Given the number of factions, and changing loyalties, perhaps it is a good analogy. And after the probable protracted length of the campaign, the casualties will be similar too.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff