Accomplishments in Iraq

We are at the crossroads. Again i will say that nothing is impossible although i understand the difficulties we face. Democraticly elected arab countries are not non-existant. In fact the most powerful(at least militarily elected) arab nation on earth is democratically elected. That being Pakistan. Pakistan is 97% Muslim- Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%. To be specific it is a Republic. Turkey is another republic and is 99% Sunni muslim. There are other smaller democratically elected arab nations as well. So to say that it cannot be done is false. So it can work although obviously that doesn't mean that it will. What will happen if we just walk away? We all know exactly what will happen. If we fail the same thing's going to happen anyway so why not contunue to do our best? Arguing that there were or could have been better paths is pointless, debating who's profile most closely fits that of Hitler achieves nothing, and giving up obviously stands less of a chance at success than teaching these people the truth about "our way of life", that is, that it can be whatever kind of democracy they wish it to be.
 
Pakistan???
The military is in charge ,the Prime Minister is selected by the National Assembly for a four-year term .How is this a Democracy???
note: following a military takeover on 12 October 1999, Chief of Army Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Pervez MUSHARRAF, suspended Pakistan's constitution and assumed the additional title of Chief Executive; exercising the powers of the head of the government, he appointed an eight-member National Security Council to function as Pakistan's supreme governing body; on 12 May 2000, Pakistan's Supreme Court unanimously validated the October 1999 coup and granted MUSHARRAF executive and legislative authority for three years from the coup date; on 20 June 2001, MUSHARRAF named himself as president and was sworn in, replacing Mohammad Rafiq TARAR; in a referendum held on 30 April 2002, MUSHARRAF's presidency was extended by five more years
chief of state: President Pervez MUSHARRAF (since 20 June 2001)
head of government: Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan JAMALI (since 23 November 2002)
elections: the president is elected by Parliament for a five-year term; note - in a referendum held on 30 April 2002, MUSHARRAF's presidency was extended by five more years (next to be held NA 2007); the prime minister is selected by the National Assembly for a four-year term (next to be held NA 2006)
election results: results are for the 10 October 2002 election for prime minister - Mir Zafarullah Khan JAMALI elected prime minister
cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the Prime Minister
Click to expand...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's a Republic AB. And if you want to get technichal about it, we don't elect our president either.
Click to expand...
There was a military takeoever but elections are taking place soon. Progress rather than perfection. The USA didn't start off so great either.
 
I wouldn't say it's moot since it's survived as a republic for 55 years. The trails of the us breaking up during the civil war didn't make our existance as a democracy moot. It just meant we were undergoing difficulty.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's a Republic AB. And if you want to get technichal about it, we don't elect our president either.
Click to expand...

Good point about our pres, Hex. A lot of people miss that one too. Point is, although they're republics, they aren't republics the way we understand it. They are theocratic republics and the church weilds the power.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's a Republic AB. And if you want to get technichal about it, we don't elect our president either.
Click to expand...

so then would that make that whole florida thing a republican coup?
 
Still they are far better than any monarchy, dictatorship or socialist state. Twice Turkey has had military coups and both times it's rupublic was quickly restored by the people. This is very hopeful imo. As far as the coup in Pakistan goes, it could very well turn out to be a positive point for Pakistan and the world. Musharraf is not a radical compared to many of his peers.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Sorry people but "i've already been swayed" is not an answer. I think it's sad that so many want to see us fail just so they can say "i told you so".

I think if any of you had the slightest idea of just exactly what failure for the US in Iraq really meant you'd be a little more hopeful if only out of fear alone.
Click to expand...

I didn't realise it was a question being posed. My reply was simply an opinion. It does not intrincically imply that I wish for the coalition (or is that only US these days?) forces to fail at establishing peace in Iraq.

And please do not be so arrogant as to insult my intelligence, I'm not a damned two year old who doesn't understand what it would mean if things in Iraq weren't stabilised.Just because I don't agree with your point of view in no way indicates that I am ignorant of the facts.

Oh and speaking of facts, who do you think is really responsible for these accomplishments? George bush and his administration? Guess UN volunteer programmes and organisations such as the IRC and Red Cross and other NGO's have absolutely nothing to do with it then. I am referring to the statement
Lest one be swayed by slanted news reports from mainstream media outlets that tell only of "the debaucle Bush created" in Iraq, of photo ops and turkey platters that were for show, here is a brief list of reconstruction and humanatarian relief, the entirety of which can be found at:
Click to expand...
the 'debaucle' created by Bush in Iraq has nothing to do with the work of the NGO's and relief organisations. Those accomplishments are not his and thus, though I do applaud the progress made, would not sway me to think that what he had done is or was right. And his reasons for the action he took turned out to be a lot of BS, so instead of admitting that he had made a mistake, he backtracks and hides behind the crimes against humanity comitted by Saddam - well, IMO if they were good enough reasons to go in there and rage war against Iraq, then surely it would be good enough reason to invade more than half of Africa. But of course, that will not be done because it simply is not profitable for them to do so is it?

And if the crimes against humanity was really such a big deal, why was there no support for the organisations that have been there all along, trying to make a real difference without feeling the need to bomb half the country to bits and kill innocent people....the very people that were the victims of Saddam's crimes (and thus the reason for the war)?
 
Wow! Alphatroll you sound really upset. Lol. That comment was not directed at you but was an opinion that i hold of the general population

Perhaps then you can share just what the repercussions will be if we turn tail and run or worse yet fail to stabalize the nation of Iraq. I'm interested in your response. Oh and by the way, the Red cross has been pulling out of Iraq and hasn't had a headquarters in Baghdad or Basra among other major areas for some time. But more importantly, nothing positive that's being done in Iraq by any non governmental organization or otherwise would even have been possible if it hadn't been for the action of the United States military.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
We are at the crossroads. Again i will say that nothing is impossible although i understand the difficulties we face. Democraticly elected arab countries are not non-existant. In fact the most powerful(at least militarily elected) arab nation on earth is democratically elected. That being Pakistan. Pakistan is 97% Muslim- Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%. To be specific it is a Republic. Turkey is another republic and is 99% Sunni muslim. There are other smaller democratically elected arab nations as well. So to say that it cannot be done is false. So it can work although obviously that doesn't mean that it will. What will happen if we just walk away? We all know exactly what will happen. If we fail the same thing's going to happen anyway so why not contunue to do our best? Arguing that there were or could have been better paths is pointless, debating who's profile most closely fits that of Hitler achieves nothing, and giving up obviously stands less of a chance at success than teaching these people the truth about "our way of life", that is, that it can be whatever kind of democracy they wish it to be.
Click to expand...


ahh but there is no true democracy. there are republics which is closest but that is still not a true democracy.





I didn't realise it was a question being posed. My reply was simply an opinion. It does not intrincically imply that I wish for the coalition (or is that only US these days?) forces to fail at establishing peace in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Britain is still with us i believe
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Still they are far better than any monarchy, dictatorship or socialist state. Twice Turkey has had military coups and both times it's rupublic was quickly restored by the people. This is very hopeful imo. As far as the coup in Pakistan goes, it could very well turn out to be a positive point for Pakistan and the world. Musharraf is not a radical compared to many of his peers.
Click to expand...

Not to me. The church weilds the power. That power is absolute. No one gets to power without the explicit support of the Muslim church. Besides, the best form of government (in a perfect world) is benevolent despotism. The problem is finding those benevolent despots. :D I know Gonz would volunteer, I'm not so sure he's so benevolent though.
 
Where to start....where to start....where to start....

How about at the top...


Gotnolegs said:
Why is it that you equate disgust at the way we have been lied to about the reasons for this war, and disgust about the deaths of thousands of innocent people as wanting to see the allied forces fail?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure of all that has been said in Britain but in the US Bush has stated a number of reasons to go to war. Before action ever took place. None of which were lies.

Deaths of innocents is the price of war. It's a very sad & unfortunate fact. The entire body count from coalition forces & the ongoing insurgent fighters is still only a fraction of the attrocities attributed to saddam.

I believe that the opponents to this war wish coalition failure for any number of reasons. One of which is, we've done it & still you go on about nothing but the bad. You seek out & find nothing but negative news stories & reply to positive news with disdain. You fail to recognize facts. Squiggy said we're only fixing what we broke. Untrue. With the exception of Baghdad, most of Iraq had sporatic power at best. They didn't have clean water to begin with, in most cities. Their infrastructure was in shambles before we began. Today. it's in better shape than it was before the Iran war, which was it's peak.

Squiggy said:
Our failure was inevitable
Click to expand...

You know something I don't? You're speaking in past tense & from what I can gather, we're still there & haven't failed at squat. The leadership is gone, the people have more food & medicine & they're working on a better sysytem of government. Some outside terrorists & former party hardliners are being a pain in the ass but they're being taken care of, slowly but surely. Better on the streets of Tikrit than on the streets of Philadelphia.

You are right about one thing. He wasn't the only tyrant in the world. There you veer off course. To begin with, he spent 12 years fucking the UN & making them look impotent. He continuued WMD programs. He used oil for food money to enrich himself. He committed genocide, to the (current) count of over 300,000 Iraqi's. He, his sons &/or his regime directly & indirectly participated in rape, maiming, murder, crimes against humanity & war crimes. Hell, they even committed crimes against nature (draining the marshlands). One or 1000 tyrants doesn't matter. What does it they are stopped. It takes one step to begin a journey.

I find the arguments that a middle eastern country being incapable (or not ready if you prefer) of a democratic government to be incredibly racists & short sighted. Why is it possible for causcasians to have one but not our olive skinned clans? There had never been one before the European settlers made one. Well, we're trying to make another one. With some help & the backing of nations around the world it can & will happen. These people are the ones that brought science out of the witches closet. It's our turn to help them return to glory days.

For those of you who can't get over the 2000 elections...get over it. Dubya stole nothing. It was legally handled & is legally binding. He beat Gore fair & square, according to the Constitution. Read it, it's good stuff.
 
Gonz said:
I find the arguments that a middle eastern country being incapable (or not ready if you prefer) of a democratic government to be incredibly racists & short sighted. Why is it possible for causcasians to have one but not our olive skinned clans? There had never been one before the European settlers made one.
Click to expand...

The problem that you'll be facing there has nothing to do with race or the colour of their skin. Democracy is a tough project. It doesn't happen overnight...not even close.

Take a look at Russia...it was fairly close to democracy and capitalism, but is degrading daily. Mobs taking over where power and military are weak. No structure to work from..it's failing.

In the case of Iraq, the structure to support democracy, including elections, are nonexistant. they don't know a poling booth from a privy. NOthing set up for counting votes, nothing set up for secure counts etc... the problems that need facing before a fully democratic election can happen are numerous. Then you have the setting up of a constitution, laws etc..some of which exist, but most which do not. Ombudsmen, judges, red-tape and all those other goodies that we take for granted because we've had them for over 100 years now. Those took a while (Four-score and seven years to be more specific).

If you think that it'll happen overnight in Iraq, you're dreaming in technicolour. If it's going to work like you and I would like it to, with enough stability to build on, the U.N. have several decades of work ahead of them. It's not going to be over in the next 6 months...so what happens? Do American and British troops stay there for the next 20-30 years while everything comes together? What if they're asked to leave? What if the great experiment fails and another solitary leader emerges from the crowds and convinces them to make him leader for life?

If they vote him in...it's democratic...can't do anything about it.

There are hurdles taht I havn't mentioned, or could possibly even concieve of, but no matter which ones crop up, it's not going to be an easy path.

People like the path of least resistance...if that's a Monarchy or another version of al-quaida...who are we to stop them?
 
Gonz said:
I find the arguments that a middle eastern country being incapable (or not ready if you prefer) of a democratic government to be incredibly racists & short sighted. Why is it possible for causcasians to have one but not our olive skinned clans? There had never been one before the European settlers made one.
Click to expand...
:disgust: I don't know how else to say it! Not incapable, not "not ready," simply not interested. Again and again the west makes this mistake and again and again refuses to learn from it. Sorry Gonz, but you just keep proving my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top