Democracy In Iraq

[ComradeChris]

This may be more of a rhetorical question knowing most of the crowds already anti-american sentiment. What does everyone think of "Dubya's" version of democracy in Iraq? First he installs someone appointed by his cabinet. Then, in teh January (I'm pretty sure that's the date being tossed around), they're excluding large areas from voting. I mean is that was democracy's coming to? If they don't think our way, kill them, or don't let them vote. I know that seems to be America's way, and it completely sickens me. Maybe the US should get democracy right in it's own country before it goes and installs it around the world. If you can call what they're installing democracy. Sorry if this topic has already been covered. Any other thoughts or opinions, rants or beefs?

[dso79]

The U.S. don't want democracy in Iraq, since that will inevitably lead to an anti-American government. They'll probably try to use the elections to install a puppet government that actually seems legitimate.

[h&s]

The thing is that even the news is seeming to admit that Iraq is not going to be a democracy. Almost all of the news I have seen recently is completely hammering the legitimacy of whoever gets voted in, which surprises me.

[ComradeChris]

I agree with both of you. This was supposed to be a sarcastic thread moreso. It's obvious they want a puppet regime. I watched some of the presidencial debates last night. F***ing halarious is all I have to say. Bush had the dumbest look on his face while he was listening to Kerry, and didn't even understand him half the time.

[commiecrusader]

There is so much wrong with what that asshole wants to do to this country it's untrue. Firstly, forcing a country to leap straight from a feudal society to a U.$. 'democracy' just won't work, the people's views aren't liberal enough (patronising as that sounds). If they were that bothered about 'freedom' they would have revolted. Secondly, Bush is just gonna turn Iraq into a puppet state as you guys said.

And that 'debate' was pretty funny I watched some of it on BBC today. Bush ummed and aaaaaghed so much lol. It wasn't much of a debate though, they werent allowed to debate properly.

[cheka]

Commiecrusader, do you realize how pathetic your signature is? Bush is more of a tyrant than Hitler? Don't make me laugh, complete ignorance.

Take a look at the source of that quote....

[commiecrusader]

So? I just thought it was funny that a high-up political power had the balls to actually say that to his face. I don't care that it was by the North-Korean person. I agree with it and found it funny. Where do you get off anyway. Don't spam, that had nothing to do with the topic. You should of made a new thread in chit chat. Maybe I think Cheka is a shite name? I don't but I could do. Fuck Off. lol :lol:

[commiecrusader]

At least Hitler only tried to take over one continent, and tried to get rid of one religion.

Bush is trying to control several continents, and exterminate the whole Arab race, maybe not directly but certainly by inciting racial hatred upon the 'dirty arab terrorists'. Get a fucking grip.

[Freedom Writer]

IF Bush gets another 4 years.. Will we see n-korea and iran bombed. Which countrys are the next?

[commiecrusader]

Iran is a good guess I reckon. Partly depends how long it takes before he gets booted out of Iraq. Maybe Darfur. He reckons he can resolve North Korea peacefully.

[Hate Is Art]

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq but I do support the troops staying there, if we were to drop out now it would be horrible. The country would be torn apart by civil war and turned into another religious fundamentalist state.

We should never have invaded, but now we have we need to support the creation of a proper democracy in Iraq. This is a chance to try and create a democracy we have to make sure we get it right.

[Freedom Writer]

Originally posted by The Arcadian [email protected] 2 2004, 09:52 AM
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq but I do support the troops staying there, if we were to drop out now it would be horrible. The country would be torn apart by civil war and turned into another religious fundamentalist state.

I agree, but the invasion was totally illegal. Now they just have to do "something". I think there will puppet goverment (feat. lots of poverty) and the oil flows to U$.

[cormacobear]

If the U.S. government came to the U.N. and said ' We appologize for acting unilaterally. We promise to stop doing it.'

They probably wouldn't have to go it alone. It's just Canada, and Europe, and increaseingly other small countries are getting tired of cleaning up the mess.

The U.S. sucks at nation building, hell nobody is very good at it, it's a lot harder than say wiping out a standing army that line up in uniforms.

For example the Iraqi's might be more willing to respect a security force that included Arabs.

Of course the U.S. isn't going to let democracy interfere with their elections in Iraq they've already rounded up most of the Shi'ite clerics that would have popular support. It's rather hard to elect a prisoner.

[bunk]

I don't think the US will attack Iran soon, maybe they were planning to but with what's happened in Iraq i'm sure they won't. They don't want to ge involved in another long war.
After 1991 Iraq did not have the money to buy any military goods. All it had in in this 2 Irawwar werre remnanats of the 1991 army. Iran have been and are manging to buy modern Russian weapons that sometimes match or excede US technology. Iran could probably shoot down some yankee planes and put up a decent fight - even though there is dissent gathering there the dissenters don't like the U.S either.

[cormacobear]

Iran's rugged terrain poses another obstacle particulairly to a ground assault. That's why the U.S. backed Saddam's military for so long. They figured arabs fed to the slaughter would cause less bad press at home. Saddam didn't mind attacking Iran he hoped to give his Sunni- Bathist regime control over another Shi'ite territory.

We can look at Afghanistan to judge levels of success in conquering and controlling a mountainous region not compliant to foriegn rule. The U.S. and their allies in Afghanistan control two cities and the road between them, and even these regions are virtully lawless. All other outlying areas have reverted back to control by regional tribal warlords. While Iran is not a tribal oriented nation. It does present the same potential for large groups to remain hidden for years making a prolonged guerrilla war likely.

I figured Syria was next, it appears so did the Syrians since they've become quite eager to comply with int'l demands recently.

[Fidelbrand]

what kind of "democracy" do we wish to see in Iraq?

If "liberal (capitalist) democracy" , Hell no for me..... :D

[h&s]

That wouldn't be a democracy then would it? ;)

[Fidelbrand]

For us, no.
For many others (non-leftists), yes.

[Guerrilla22]

Democracy in Iraq? There is no democracy in Iraq. The current government was hand picked and put into positions of power by the Bush administration, the Bush adminstration alos dictates all governing decisions. In effect, the government of Iraq is a puppet government. The citizens have no say what so ever in whats going on.

[redtrigger]

I don't think it will work, plain and simple. It is like an organ transplant, if someone needs a new liver you don't just give them what you think would be best (i.e. forcing democracy) you have to give them the one that best matches up with the DNA and what not (i.e. culture) if you put the wrong one in the body dies (civil war and general chaos). Which I'm not completely sure this is not what Bush is trying to do, no Iraq (as a political entity) one less middle man in the way of oil, but that is another story. Anyway, Bush can post all the soldiers over there, hell reinstate the draft, it wouldn't matter you have to do what is right for the country. Democracy (or capitalism, whatever) is not what is right for the country.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:13 AM
I don't think it will work, plain and simple. It is like an organ transplant, if someone needs a new liver you don't just give them what you think would be best (i.e. forcing democracy) you have to give them the one that best matches up with the DNA and what not (i.e. culture) if you put the wrong one in the body dies (civil war and general chaos). ......
very Sammuel Hungtington,
...... which I agree. :)

[Beccie]

I think that if America is going to invade another middle eastern country it will most likely be Syria or Iran. Although I don't think that will happen any time soon simply because the ongoing military occupation in Iraq is costing American tax payers billions, American civillians will not support and can not afford another war in the middle east.

I don't think that Democracy is going to occur in Iraq. THe elections are schedualed for Janurary 2005, if they do go ahead they will only occur, as already noted, in the cities of Iraq in which the Americans have control. A pro-American regime will come to power in Iraq but they will not gain cotrol the entire country, the Iraqi resistence is the strongest it has ever been, they will not see the pro-American government as legitimate. The country will be subject to violent attacks and the new government will struggle to build infustructure and impose the rule of law in such a decedent society. If a pro-America governemt does come into power in Jamuary I don't think that they will last very long.

[Hate Is Art]

But if we leave we are faced with having the country torn apart in a horrible civil war. We have well and truly fucked the situation up and (sorry if I sound like I'm spouting Bushist rhetoric here) the people of Iraq do have a very real chance to make the situation work. War and suicide bombings won't get the fundamentalist's anywhere at all.

[LSD]

the people of Iraq do have a very real chance to make the situation work. War and suicide bombings won't get the fundamentalist's anywhere at all.

US troops on one side, religious guerrilas on the other, not exactly conducive to "democracy".

Vote one way and the fundamentalists kill you, vote the other way and the US burns down your home. Depending on where you live, you've pretty much got to make sure that which ever side is in power that day is happy with your decision.

Hmm.. I get the feeling there will be a lot of strategic voting in this upcomming election.


We have well and truly fucked the situation up

Yes you definitely did at that.

Don't feel bad though, I hear some americans were against the war. :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 05:42 PM
Then, in teh January (I'm pretty sure that's the date being tossed around), they're excluding large areas from voting.
I think they have that covered.

Between now and January, they launch massive military assaults on maybe 20, 30 towns they've been staying out of lately. Like the one they just did in Samarra. Blast their way in, and leave troop concentrations to occupy 'em. Don't underestimate Uncle Sam's brute strength, even though it's the only thing he's really good at. They can't wipe out the rebels so easily, of course, but they can take territory and push the rebels back into hiding and striking from ambush.

In Sadr City and other areas, deals with Sadr may be part of it. The deals they previously made in Najaf and elsewhere haven't kept the Marines out of Najaf or stopped 'em from arresting Sadrist leaders. The Sadrists are kinda ambivalent about participating in the elections, so there's leverage for a deal there. If that doesn't work, there's always brute force.

So then they put up voting booths on the smoking rubble and people can walk past a bunch of Abrams and Bradleys to cast their ballots. There'll be a bunch of guerilla attacks, of course. No intimidation here, folks. Free and fair election. Sure, anyone coulda ran, even if they were against the occupation, just set up a soapbox in front of the Abrams and start campaigning.

Of course the pro-occupation parties are getting money from Washington (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041009/wl_nm/iraq_usa_elections_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480)

Many people will see through this, of course, especially in Iraq, but it will have a certain usefulness for Washington in tying some Iraqi political parties closer to Washington and giving the puppet government at least a veneer of legitimacy. Not a beacon of democracy, of course, except maybe like a lighthouse that warns ships away from a rocky point. If this is democracy, nobody's gonna want any. But still a sort of political victory for Washington.

I mean, consider the election in Afghanistan today. Everybody knows that people voted for whoever the local warlord told 'em to vote for. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A4388-2004Oct3?language=printer)

But none of the people who are organizing the election care if it's fair or not. (http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FJ08Ag01.html) (You gotta scroll down into the middle of the article.)

A free and fair election? Not nearly. Politically useful to U.S. imperialism, both in Afghanistan, at home, and around the world? You betcha.

[Hate Is Art]

Yes you definitely did at that.

Don't feel bad though, I hear some americans were against the war

WANKER!! Don't call me American.

[LSD]

Well, I assumed that the "we" in

We have well and truly fucked the situation upmeant that you were American.

I guess not. :P

You must be from another "coalition" country then.
The UK or Australia perhaps?

Regardless, if your country assisted in the invasion my remark stands, just replace "some Americans" with "some from (your country here)".

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by The Arcadian Dream
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq but I do support the troops staying there...

Translation: if there's going to be killing, raping, looting, and torture going on, then by God, "we" Anglo-Saxons are going to be the ones who are doing it!

This is the kind of crap you'd expect to hear from a "Labour" party supporter...and TAD doesn't disappoint.


...if we were to drop out now it would be horrible. The country would be torn apart by civil war and turned into another religious fundamentalist state.

In case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what's happening right now.

Imperialism always makes things worse!


...but now we need to support the creation of a proper democracy in Iraq. This is a chance to try and create a democracy; we have to make sure we get it right.

Bollocks! All the U.S. could ever "create" in Iraq is a corrupt oligarchy along the lines of what the British created and militarily supported from 1920 until 1958.

Quislings are both inexpensive and readily available in the Arab world...it's keeping them in power that costs so much.

The U.S. and U.K. ruling classes clearly plan on the occupation of Iraq indefinitely.

They must be defeated...and even if that's accomplished by fundamentalist reactionaries, I don't give a shit.

At this particular point in time, any defeat of U.S. imperialism (and its British lackeys) is a step in the right direction.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[commiecrusader]

Imperialism always makes things worse!
Capitalist imperialism always makes things wrong. Communist imperialism will make things better.