Pull out of Iraq

[Italian Guy]

Wow, I am trying to fit all your reactions into a fitting answer. I agree with 5.56X45mm when he says it takes a long time to rebuild a nation. I agree with Missileer that democracy isn't the right word. But things get kind of dodgy afterwards.
There used to be a group of scientists called the "Vienna school" and they had a tendency to question the specific to the whole. Their relativism ended up in saying that the mass destruction of the Jews was a way of looking at the past and therefor not necessarily true. So it is a feeling I get when a specific group acts in the universal values of mankind. I just think that from a secondary level, there are no universal values. Food, shelter, safety are primair...all the others secundair and thus open for negotiation and interpretation.

Same thing with Iraq. Noone violated those specifics when we let Iraq be the first Arab country where people can freely write on, read and publish one hundred newspapers or vote for the party they want.

I don't know the feelings of the Iraqees. I haven't been there and don't know much about them. But it is the "we let" where I think: how do you know that is what they want. They certainly don't want to be gassed by Saddam's thugs or murdered by his butchers. But how do you know they want a multi party democracy? A system that is based on Khamesaat or Sultan's rule for the last 1000 years isn't ready for such a kind of democracy.

This sounds so racist! Why shouldn't they want to be free? Come on man let's be real. I know that's what they want because I saw them with my own eyes on those lines the day Iraq voted for their Parliament! That was when the liberals should have learned something about the courage and the pride of a people. A democratic, free, multiparty system is exactly what every good man in the world asks for, with no differences whatsoever. Otherwise I would not explain how come Afghanistan and Iraq are taking this huge part in their political process. They are voting for those parties, voting for Parliament, participating. Looks like they believe they're ready. Maybe you should inform them they are not!
Was Japan a democracy previous to 1945? Hell no, it took the US ten yrs of occupation, military occupation, MacArthur wrote them their Constitution, they had never heard about democracy of freedom of speech and vote before, it was taught to the, and look at where they are now. Mmm weren't they ready either?

Another thing about bringing peace is the haphazard way of deciding which country gets the attention. I haven't seen it in Ruanda (where buddies of mine were butchered), Liberia or many other African or Asian countries. Why not all or noone? This is what I mean with selective.

You haven't seen it in Rwanda because Bush was not at the White House, I tell you. And unfortunately so. Shouldn't we all have intervened? Shouldn't we Europeans had lift our fat asses and rushed there to help? Oh no, I guess they weren't ready for foreign intervention, right? Or were they? You know, people like you would say it's a risk when you intervene elsewhere, you risk to alter their equilibrium... :twisted:
Why Iraq, Afghanistan and not Rwanda? Well we gotta start from one, I think. The point is the US exported the pre-conditions for democracy to a lot of countries, Italy, Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq... But wars break out when more than just one reason comes up. Geostrategic reasons, military reasons, political reasons, security reasons, and so on. Moral reasons can take a role. I wouldn't hijack this into a "Was the war on Iraq right or wrong?" type of thing, because it's been done before, but democratization was just one of the three main reasons Bush used to attack Iraq.

What you call my democracy is not a false democracy and is virtually the same democracy that they have in Switzerland, or in Australia, or in Ireland, or in the US.

Is it a coincidence that you mention all AngloSaxon countries or Northwestern countries? This is exactly what I mean with social and cultural differences. People all around the globe had a way of making sure they had to eat, sleep and be safe. If you go beyond that you get things like: nationalism and the right to choose ones own government was explained in Vietnam to be communism. We all know what happened next. And if everything was okay, memorials in Arlington or the wall in DC wouldn't be so ambiguously interpreted by the people who fought there. And the people who live in Saigon aren't off so badly.... at least, not the last time I was there..

Oh, no, you are wrong, Ted. It was a mere coincidence in fact, I could have come up with a lot of non-Anglo-Saxon examples: Italy, Spain, Poland, Japan again, India, Israel, Turkey, Thailand.
And -hey- Saigon might have given you that impression, the last time you were there, ok. But you know my best friend and his family and all his community are American-Vietnamese. You have no idea what they say about the civil war that took place overthere. The communists butchered all their alleged opponents for decades after they took over. People starving and getting tortured in VN jails and torture chambers don't agree with you. Like I said, the Iraqis and the Afghanis are choosing their own government, are you kidding me? They are NOW. That's what the neocons wanted! They could not before, that's the difference.

Just to make sure: I do not condone what Saddam did and I won't lose any sleep over it. All I wanted to point out is the selective attitude to call Iraq "evil" as Reagan called the former USSR and remove the one in charge for another one. Who garantees the people overthere that life will get actually better? And if you can't garantee that, should you undertake action.... and if so; why just there and not all around the globe?

1. Well every man on earth would agree Saddam's and the Taliban's, with all due differences, were the worst systems possible and nothing could have been worse than that. So there was no need at all to make sure it would be better off. Of course it is being better off now!
2. We should! The free democracies! The fat lazy and coward free democracies of Europe, along with the rest of the world's democracies.
3. Yes, right, you said that: around the globe.

 

[Ted]

You know Italian Guy, after reading your post I couldn't agree more with you. But, as expected, I do have a few remarks:

1)

This sounds so racist! Why shouldn't they want to be free?

I wouldn't go so far as to call the will to free or to live or the lack of this will racist. But to be sure I looked it up and this is what the Oxford Dictionary says:
racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

So I wouldn't call myself racist.... I'm not sure what you could call me but not a racist!

2) I agree on the fact that should intervene more often, especially when it is obvious that the basic principles of Human Rights are violated. As I said this should be around the globe and pursued with great spirit. The issues you mentioned are summarized in article 1, 2 and 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

But I couldn't find the article where it said that it should be the American model of Democracy that should be implemented. That is my point. I hold the American soldiers that died during any liberation in the highest esteem. As a matter of fact, I visit the celebrations of Memorial Day almost each year. I visit and pay my respect to many veterans during the celebrations of the 50, 55 and 60th anniversary of Europe's liberation. And I visited many of the military cemetaries to pay due respect.
But I'll repeat myself. I can't understand the automatic assumption that it is the American Model of governement that is the be implemented.

The reason why I agree wholeheartedly with your last post is because you ommitted this from your speech on liberty. And when we discuss the right on liberty, well I guess you and I shouldn't differ so much on that.

Cheers

 

[Missileer]

But I'll repeat myself. I can't understand the automatic assumption that it is the American Model of governement that is the be implemented.
Cheers

Could you explain something that I either don't understand or there is a fallacy with your explanation of democracy?

1. What is the "American Model" of government and what is wrong with it?

2. Is it a fact that the Iraqis and Kurds drafted their own Constitution instead of just implementing America's or the Allies?

3. Has Japan, Germany, or Italy been hurt by adopting a form of "American Model" of government compared with the one each had before?

4. Finally, what would you change with the way Afghanistan and Iraq are forming their government?

Now a statement about the other African Nations you mentioned as needing help. They did not attack us or an Ally of ours. The attackers were all young Muslim males from Middle Eastern countries. There are only enough American and willing Allies to take care of the most dangerous nations first, then God willing, we can bring some other European countries into a World coalition to help the suffering of Africa. Soon, isolationism will not be an option.

 

[sunb!]

Political history

There are many good posts in this thread. Perhaps the best one on the forum right now.

The major problem in the countries America have invaded, that is Afghanistan and Iraq in this context (well, Somalia as well) - is that they, that is the Western World in general, have tried to change the political system over night - or at least wanted to. That simply cannot be done.

Take a look at the former Soviet Union - Mr Gorbatchev developed two doctrines, Glastnost and Perestroijka, as a tool for opening the closed system of communism to the western marked economy and democratic political systems. The leaders of the communist party looked at him as a mad man and we know what happened from 1989 until 1994. Russia have large problems in mafia, corruption and the social area in general, things are getting better but you cannot say "democracy" and believe people will adapt that in no time in a country that have seen communism for somewhat 90 years.

The same will happen in Iraq, Iraq was independent from British rule in 1932, but the British established monarchy lasted until 1958 and the 14th of July revoulution. The Iraqi Army coup led Qassim to the power who initiated friendly negotiations with the Soviet Union. That lasted until 1963 when he overthrown by Colonel Arif. Colonel Arif died in 1966 and his brother resumed power until 1968 when Saddam Hussein acceded presidency. The Rule of Saddan Hussein lasted for three and a half decade until US invaded in 2003 and replaced him with an American backed interim gouvernment.

The political geography in Iraq has changed, there are no democratic tradition in Iraqs modern history and they are divided by various religous fractions.

As Ted (?) stated earlier, this is a matter of comparing apples and peaches. The old generations of Iraq have no concept of what democracy is, those who are teenagers and young children in Iraq have much better chances of adapting the new politics brought in from the West. The old generations choose apples, the new generations choose peaches.

If we study Iraqs history, we will clearly see that Iraq will not be a fully democratic westernized country for at least two decades... The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so. For years they've been ruled by one party or one king - they can say "yes to democracy" but do they really have a clue of what it is about?

 

[youngCAPcadet]

Since I am just a teen, then I can only draw from what my family in the military have said. My cousin-he went to Iraq, he told me that we probably won't be pulling troops out of there for almost another decade or two. My mother, she was in the army, said that if we do pull out, it would be worse than Vietnam

 

[Italian Guy]

You know Italian Guy, after reading your post I couldn't agree more with you. But, as expected, I do have a few remarks:

1)

This sounds so racist! Why shouldn't they want to be free?

I wouldn't go so far as to call the will to free or to live or the lack of this will racist. But to be sure I looked it up and this is what the Oxford Dictionary says:
racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

So I wouldn't call myself racist.... I'm not sure what you could call me but not a racist!

Please, Ted, I never called you racist. I said what you said sounded racist, because IMO it would implicitly attach a difference of aspirations to non-whites or no-westerners that they don't really have.

 

[Italian Guy]

Re: Political history

The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so. For years they've been ruled by one party or one king - they can say "yes to democracy" but do they really have a clue of what it is about?

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: I'm sorry, must be just me. I just find this totally unrespectful. "It is not natural for them to do so"???? Ooooohh I see now, it was natural for them to get butchered by the thousands, right?? My God how can you not see this is racism??
Every man has a natural right to freedom and there is NO freedom without democracy!
"They can say yes to democracy but do they really have a clue of what it is about?
Hell, are they stupid? They don't deserve to have democracy? Are they different men than you are in their need of freedom? What does that mean? Do you think the Japanese had a clue of what it was about in 1945? Do you think it was not natural for them?
I'm sorry but this drives me nuts I might have to chill down.

 

[Ted]

At the risk of talking in a circular argument, but I'll try one more to explain what I mean. If this doesn't work, well it automatically shows that our points of view differ. Then it would be safe to assume that theirs is different of ours.
The reason why I reacted on the racism-issue is that this about linking traits and charactaristics to a specific race. The Iraqi's aren't a specific race. Some of the things I said might have been generalizing and maybe even stereotyping, but this is still a long way of racism.

The second issue is the constant mixing of democracy versus the Human Rights. Nobody in the world wants to live in poverty and fear and we should try our hardest that nobody needs to. I'm just saying that a western oriented political system isn't automaticly the best.

Our laws and political history has developed over time along certain events in time. These events made for jurisprudence that we incorporated into our system. Nations at the other side of the globe haven't had these events and therefor miss the same needs and wants in their judicial and political system. Mind you; I'm not saying that they should copy a European system either. All that I'm trying to say is that getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase.

To Missileer I want to say that there is nothing wrong with the American political system. It works overthere and that's fine! But that doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If it were so, wouldn't we have the same system overhere? Fact is we don't. We choose a different form of democracy then you guys did. Sure everybody above 18 has a right to vote. But we have a queen you have a president. We have a prime ministre and you have...? We have a multi party system you have a two party system. The whole counting of the votes differ as well...... This is what I mean with a different form of democracy.

So if this isn't clear... well then I am just more certain that we have a hard time getting nsync with our views. And I say once more, can you understand that "they" will sure as hell have different interpretations of the things we are trying to do?

 

[Italian Guy]

At the risk of talking in a circular argument, but I'll try one more to explain what I mean. If this doesn't work, well it automatically shows that our points of view differ. Then it would be safe to assume that theirs is different of ours.
The reason why I reacted on the racism-issue is that this about linking traits and charactaristics to a specific race. The Iraqi's aren't a specific race. Some of the things I said might have been generalizing and maybe even stereotyping, but this is still a long way of racism

.

Oh well it seemed to me that you somehow attached certain predispositions to the Caucasians, the whites, the Anglo-Saxons, the Westerners. Predispositions to live under a democratic system.

The second issue is the constant mixing of democracy versus the Human Rights. Nobody in the world wants to live in poverty and fear and we should try our hardest that nobody needs to. I'm just saying that a western oriented political system isn't automaticly the best

.

Can you name me at least three countries in the world where human rights are respected and at the same time there is no democracy? Don't you see that a shift to democracy means a shift towards respect for human rights? Plus, isn't it a human right to freely express own's ideas in public? Isn't it a human right to be able to freely choose one's government? Isn't it a human right to have a country where one can have a fair trial in court and not a joke trial? Don't these things happen where there is democracy only?
And, what do you mean by "western oriented system"? You mean liberaldemocracy was born in the West, well yeah, maybe, but please explain me the case of Japan prior and post 1945. Well oh yeah of course they were industrialized, modernized, all that. Wasn't Saddam's Iraq a modernized and industrialized country as well? In Saddam's Iraq people were even more educated than 1940's Japaneses were.

Our laws and political history has developed over time along certain events in time. These events made for jurisprudence that we incorporated into our system. Nations at the other side of the globe haven't had these events and therefor miss the same needs and wants in their judicial and political system. Mind you; I'm not saying that they should copy a European system either. All that I'm trying to say is that getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase

.

Our system... man I'm gonna tell you this: What you are calling our system was not the Italian system prior to 1945. It was not Japanese system prior to 1945. In my country it was referred to as the AngloAmerican system. Now it is referred to as the Western system, because it has stretched to all the Western countries (and Japan, India etc). In a decade's time the Afghanis won't call it "American democracy" anymore, they will hopefully call it "Democracy", period. So uhm you say getting rid of a tyrant doesn't mean implementing our system as a second phase, well yeah but it would be good if it did.

To Missileer I want to say that there is nothing wrong with the American political system. It works overthere and that's fine! But that doesn't mean it will work everywhere. If it were so, wouldn't we have the same system overhere? Fact is we don't. We choose a different form of democracy then you guys did. Sure everybody above 18 has a right to vote. But we have a queen you have a president. We have a prime ministre and you have...? We have a multi party system you have a two party system. The whole counting of the votes differ as well...... This is what I mean with a different form of democracy.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but let me say this: Ted, come on, don't mess with this. Are you seriously gonna say that Dutch democracy is sooooo different than American democracy because you guys have a totally powerless Queen and they have a Presidential system, when we are talking about democracy as a whole? I mean don't both Americans and Dutchmen enjoy the same right to elect their own governments? To freely travel abroad? To have a system of checks and balances? To have a free and just trial? Who cares if the US President is elected by the people and the Dutch PM by the Parliament? Is that such a huge difference that they have Reps, Dems and Indeps in the US and we Italians have two coalitions? Don't you think the Afghani system is being let become "their own" system? They elected their shura, they still cherish a relevant role to Islam, they weren't deprived of any of their cultural traditons or features that just didn't clash with human rights.

So if this isn't clear... well then I am just more certain that we have a hard time getting nsync with our views. And I say once more, can you understand that "they" will sure as hell have different interpretations of the things we are trying to do?

Oh yes, sure, and they have all the rights to have them. Will it lessen their right to it or they are doomed to tyrants, since like you said "multiparty system" is not natural for them?

On a sidenote, Ted, you're new here, so I want to say I don't mean to be rude or unpleasant in anyway. I'm sorry if I did, guys here know I am an easy going person. And you I find you very polite and it's good talking to you.

 

[sunb!]

Re: Political history

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: I'm sorry, must be just me. I just find this totally unrespectful. "It is not natural for them to do so"???? Ooooohh I see now, it was natural for them to get butchered by the thousands, right?? My God how can you not see this is racism??

Every man has a natural right to freedom and there is NO freedom without democracy! "They can say yes to democracy but do they really have a clue of what it is about? Hell, are they stupid? They don't deserve to have democracy? Are they different men than you are in their need of freedom? What does that mean? Do you think the Japanese had a clue of what it was about in 1945? Do you think it was not natural for them? I'm sorry but this drives me nuts I might have to chill down.

Italian Guy, this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. My post was intended to cast some light on the political history of countries and the fact that changing a political system is not done over night and may take decades to do.

I believe you lost some of the context, but let me know if the post was offending to you and I will remove it.

 

[Italian Guy]

Re: Political history

Italian Guy, this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. My post was intended to cast some light on the political history of countries and the fact that some people might not know what democracy is, what is means for them in their daily life and how it is performed.

If you have problems reading about political history let me know and I will moderate my posts.

I didn't call you racist, I said that attitude was racist. I know it might be unclear, so I apologize for that. You know I have no problem at all reading about political history, believe me, I only have problems when someone draws the conclusion that "The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so". Ok it might take two decades? Let's let this take that long! It will be damn worth it.

 

[Ted]

On a sidenote, Ted, you're new here, so I want to say I don't mean to be rude or unpleasant in anyway. I'm sorry if I did, guys here know I am an easy going person. And you I find you very polite and it's good talking to you.

I can say without a doubt that the feeling is mutual! I choose to take part in the forum to learn and read about issues I care about. I know that my views on matters might be closer to wrong then to right.... but they are mine. I love the quality of the conversation and the way people respect the others. And no, not at one time did I feel offended or attacked in any way andI salute you all for that. I have seen different!

What I learned so far is that I have the tendency to talk with too much focus and less overview. In general there is little difference in the forms of democracy we have. Looking to details; there are so many differences with sprouted out of need to nuance certain things so that they applied to a specific constitution. And the main point I was trying to make is that it is wrong to automatically assume that "our democracy" is the best path to follow. It might be so, but assuming this is to deny the people you liberate to use their brains and work on their own future. Chances are that they will implement a form of democracy (The ancient Greeks had a democracy based on slave labour) but they must think of and implement this in their own time. All I wanted to say is is that we should take that into account.

Cheers & I'm looking forward to the next discussion.

 

[sunb!]

Re: Political history

I didn't call you racist, I said that attitude was racist. I know it might be unclear, so I apologize for that. You know I have no problem at all reading about political history, believe me, I only have problems when someone draws the conclusion that "The people of Iraq, Afghanistan etc, can participate in democratic votes but that is not natural for them to do so". Ok it might take two decades? Let's let this take that long! It will be damn worth it.

I see your point, I will write more precisely in further post

 

[Italian Guy]

All I wanted to say is is that we should take that into account.
Cheers & I'm looking forward to the next discussion.

Yes, and your contribution has been hugely appreciated.

I see your point, I will write more precisely in further post

Anyways you still look like a badass on that Avatar, dude :shock: (I wouldn't mess with you :? )

 

[sunb!]

Anyways you still look like a badass on that Avatar, dude :shock: (I wouldn't mess with you :? )

Off topic: :drunkb: - that's the worst thing that may happen :lol:

On Topic from here....

 

[FULLMETALJACKET]

we shouldnt pull out until the iraqi government and military can take care of itself.

 

[LeEnfield]

Just because you suffering some casualties is the reason to cut and run. If you left before the job was done any insurgency force would know all they have to inflict a few casualties on the American forces and they will head for home. This is the message that other American governments have sent out over the last 30 years. No I am not blaming the Military for this I am blaming the politicians who start some thing and then don't have the guts to see it through to the bitter end. With terrorist just watching the American press then they can see the pressure building in some quarters to for the with drawl of American troops so they will carry on killing and looking for the maximum publicity to fuel to the fires.

 

[Sadist Dream]

We should complete the mission, as ever changing as it has been, from WMD to the liberation and reconstruction of a nation. We can debate the validity of invasion, but we cannot debate that we are now responsible for the future of every Iraqi man, woman, and child.

A quote that strikes me is, "If there may be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine

In the following I speak about humanity as a whole.

It appears some would rather leave their children with the burden of facing the enemies of today and their heirs - whom would have festered and grown stronger - than confront them here and now. They would rather appease the monster lurking in the shadows, hoping it would devour them last. It is bad enough that our children may very well have to continue this war, but it is our duty, our obligation to fight the enemy if only to weaken them so our progenies can deal the final death blow to this vile creature we face.

If one is not willing to fight, and die, on the behalf of their sons and daughters they deserve a the fate of the timid and the weak... Not death, or imprisonment, nor slavery, but the dishonor, the shame, and the humiliation that will become their bitter companion for the rest of their days, because they are too willing to let brave and courageous men and women, greater than themselves, secure their future and their children's on their behalf.

Not everybody can be a hero, but everybody should have something they are willing to fight, and die, for... Their children, their future.

 

[PVT archer]

* comes to the position of attention and salutes any top ranking officer in the area *

we wont be out of Iraq in the next 5 years , and if we do pull out before then , my worst fears are come true , my future children will have to live in a cold war of another generation , sir . i would rather fight now than let a force of terrorists rule the world with missles ( just example sir ) , but if we don't deal with this now sir , the future generation will have no future ....

* remains at position of attention waiting on the order to go at ease *

 

[Chief Bones]

No longer a simple answer.

The answer to your poll is no longer a simple one.

If we pull out immediately before we complete the mission, thousands would have died for nothing. Another Vietnam is DEFINITELY not something I would be in favor of.

On the other hand, the longer we keep our troops on the ground in Iraq, the more 'we regret to inform you' messages will have to be delivered to American and allied families not to mention all of the civilians that are dying in this fiasco.

America broke it (Iraq) and now we are honor bound to fix it (Iraq) before we turn the country back over to the Iraqi government.

For every opinion that is being posted for or against immediate withdrawl of forces, there are hundreds of thousands of opinions where people just don't know what to think any more.

If it were a simple choice even Bush could come up with something more than platitudes, slogans, and evasions.

Stay the course is no longer acceptable as the ONLY policy dictating actions in Iraq (or) the middle east.

Global involvement of our people, forces, and equipment in world affairs dictates that we come up with more than pig headedness on the part of our President and partisan politics as usual on the part of Congress. No matter which way you lean politically, it's obvious that America has to resolve the question of whether we are the policemen of the world or whether we are willing to work in concert with the rest of the 'free' world to attack the root reasons that terrorism is a pandemic that must be addressed before there can be 'Peace on Earth - good will towards all men"