Iraq- a turning point ? to peace or civil war?

[welsh]

Ok so tomorrow, Jan 30, the Iraqis come out and try to avoid getting shot at while casting their ballot.

What do you think? Is this a turning point?
Is the beginning of a more stable Iraq or the beginning of a civil war?

Curfews and shut down airports don't seem like typical for a democratic election-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4470816

One democratic oberver said that while it wasn't unusual for anti-democratic groups to target candidates or even polling places, targetting voters was an especially heinous development. Is this a real election?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4470819

Things aren't looking so hot.

A turning-point for Iraq, for better or worse

Jan 28th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

The ballots cast by Iraqis on Sunday may mark the start of a long and arduous journey towards stability and freedom for Iraqis. Or the beginning of a descent into anarchy, civil war and the break-up of the country

Voters, step this way please

IRAQIS danced in the streets outside the polling station, proudly displaying the indelible blue ink on their fingers that showed they had cast their votes—one gleefully called it the “mark of freedom”. However, this scene, on Friday January 28th, took place among the relatively small community of Iraqi exiles in Sydney, Australia. Voting in Iraq itself, to be held on Sunday, seems unlikely to produce such joyful scenes. If they turn out at all, voters are likely to be terrified of being attacked, at the polling station or afterwards, by insurgents who have declared “holy war” on the elections, anyone who takes part in them—and indeed on the very concept of democracy.

We have seen these images of Iraqis in America voting too. Big fucking deal. It's not like they are being shot at.

Honestly, any Sunni who tries to vote tomorrow has got some balls.

The fear of assassination has meant that, by and large, only the most senior party leaders have done any visible campaigning. The names of most of the 7,000 candidates for the 275-seat Iraqi national assembly have been kept secret until the last minute, for fear of making them an assassination target.

How does that make this a free and fair election? YOu don't even know who you are voting for?

On Thursday, an insurgent group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,

How is this asshole still alive?

a Jordanian affiliated to al-Qaeda, released a videotape of the killing of a candidate from the party of Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister. America has boosted its troop levels from 138,000 to 150,000 to provide additional security for the elections, in which a total of around 300,000 Iraqi and foreign troops will be on guard. Iraq’s international border crossings were shut on Friday. Travel between its provinces was temporarily banned and a 7pm to 6am curfew has been imposed in most cities.

In recent days the rate of car-bombings and other attacks has fallen, though it is feared that the rebels are simply conserving resources to mount spectacular attacks over the weekend. In four of Iraq’s 18 provinces where the Sunni Arab insurgency is strongest, including parts of Baghdad, there may be mayhem on Sunday, or at the very least, a derisorily low turnout. In at least another four provinces (see map below), fear of bombs and bullets is rife.

Ok, so lets say the Sunni's don't vote. They are only, what 40%. 2/5 of the population. So let's say they get zip out of the vote. WTF?

Samual Huntington, in Political Order in Changing Societies, said it clearly,- before you can have democracy you must have political order.

The stain of democracy
Iraq’s Shia Muslims, around 60% of the 25m-27m population, will be torn between the fatwa issued by the country’s most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, instructing the faithful to cast their votes, and the fear of being blown up at the ballot box or murdered afterwards. The marking of voters’ fingers with indelible ink, to prevent multiple voting, will also make them an identifiable target long after polling day.

Terrorists, "So what color are your fingertips?"

Voter,. "No no, my pen exploded..."

However, most Shias and most Kurds (around 20% of the population, based largely in northern Iraq) seem keen to vote, despite the risks. So even if most Sunni Arabs (the remaining 20% of Iraqis, roughly speaking)...

Actually, according to the CIA about 37% of the population-
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

..... stay away out of fear or opposition to the elections, it is possible that up to two-thirds of Iraq’s electorate will turn out in what will be a genuine multi-party election—a dazzling rarity in the Arab world—for the first time in half a century.

But not the first time in the muslim middle east.

No fewer than 84 parties and 27 candidates running on their own are stuffed into a national list from which voters will choose. In truth, no one knows who will prevail. The likeliest outcome is that the United Iraqi Alliance (better known by Iraqis as “the Shia house”, “the clerics' list” or simply “169”, after its number on the vast ballot paper) will do best, since it has Mr Sistani’s tacit blessing, though without winning an outright majority. A catch-all Kurdish Alliance is sure to sweep up the vast majority of Kurdish votes. And a list headed by Mr Allawi, a secular Shia who has also reached out to members of the former ruling Baath Party and assorted Sunnis, may do better than was once expected, thanks to an image of toughness and steadiness burnished by him during his past six months in office.

Ok so religious Shi'a and seperatists Kurds might win out.... And this is a good thing how?

No turbans allowed
Mr Allawi's group is more secular and less sectarian than the Shia house, though the latter’s leaders insist they are not seeking an Iranian-style theocracy: “We will have no turbans in the government,” says one. The likely outcome of the election is a coalition involving the Shia house, the Kurds, Mr Allawi’s lot and several Sunni Arab-led parties.

How many politician promises do you expect to be honored?

Seats will be allocated by pure proportional representation. The new assembly must first vote for a president and two vice-presidents who, in turn, as a presidential council, must unanimously choose a prime minister. He must then choose a government, which must be endorsed by a simple majority of the assembly’s members. Perhaps more important, the assembly must oversee the writing of a new and final constitution, to be drafted by mid-August and endorsed in a referendum by mid-October, leading to a full general election under new rules by mid-December (though the rules allow for some slippage). If two-thirds of voters in three provinces reject the new constitution, the process must start again. That gives both the Kurds and the Sunni Arabs a veto.

WHich kind of makes sense.

All this, however, seems immaterial while the insurgency rages, at a rate much higher than a year ago. American officers say their troops are subjected to some 70 attacks a day. Since the American invasion, around 1,100 have died in combat and another 250 or so in accidents.

Plus upwards of 5000-10,000 wounded.

Even more grimly, the tally of Iraqi civilian deaths continues to rise inexorably. IraqBodyCount, an anti-war but fastidious group, reckons that 15,000-18,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the American invasion in March 2003. By a Brookings Institution estimate based mainly on Pentagon briefings, some 32,000 insurgents have been killed or captured since the conventional phase of the war ended in April 2003.

32K? Didn't Rumsfield say they were just a handful of imported terrorists?

Yet the number of active insurgents, though hard to count, is plainly swelling. The head of Iraq's intelligence service suggested earlier this month that there were 40,000 hard-core rebels, with another 160,000-odd Iraqis helping them out. That is several times the standard, albeit rough, estimate of a year ago.

40K hardcore + 160K supporters- that's bigger than the US presence. ANd that's just an estimate. Fuck! That's not an insurgency but a civil war. ANd what if that number expands.

More than two-thirds of American deaths have occurred in just two provinces: Anbar (including Fallujah and Ramadi) and Baghdad. But Iraq’s four biggest cities—Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk—all echo daily to gunfire and explosions. Since the Americans recaptured the insurgents’ hotbed of Fallujah in November, their enemy has switched his focus to the northern city of Mosul, a religiously and ethnically explosive city now starkly divided on either side of the Tigris river. Though it is the biggest city of the supposedly quiescent Shias, Basra is highly dangerous too.

Moreover, the current relative calm among the Shia Arabs could be illusory. The notion that all but four provinces are safe is false. Armed gangs and a vast criminal underworld hold sway in many parts of the country. A rebellious young clerical firebrand, Muqtada al-Sadr, and his thuggish militia, known as the Mahdi Army, have been lying low since Mr Sistani talked them out of their rebellion against American occupation late last summer. But they control swathes of the centre and south, and the Americans have consistently underestimated the Sadrists’ power and reach. Though Mr Sadr himself is staying out of the election fray, he might well urge his men to rise up again if he or his group were cut out of a power-sharing deal.

Remember- before you have democracy, you have to have political order.

The US and it's Iraqi allies don't even have a monopoly of force on the ground.

It is not all unremitting gloom and doom in Iraq—but virtually everything is being kiboshed by the insurgency

The safest part of Iraq is Kurdistan, which has ruled itself since Saddam Hussein lost his first Gulf war against the Americans in 1991. But even here, tension is growing. The disputed city of Kirkuk and its oil-rich, ethnically mixed surroundings are a tinderbox. After bitter pre-election wrangling, it has been agreed that Kurds displaced by Mr Hussein in his brutal Arabisation campaign will be able to vote, so tipping the demography back towards them. Sunni Arabs are furious. With the insurgents doing their best to provoke sectarian warfare, this is but one of many potential flashpoints which might trigger wider unrest that leads inexorably towards civil war and even a break-up of Iraq.

And what of the divisions among the Kurds? THe involvement of outside countries- Iran and Turkey, on the Kurds?

It has not all been unremitting gloom and doom. A new currency has stayed steady and workers in the public sector, including teachers and doctors, have seen their wages rise as much as 40-fold. But virtually everything is being kiboshed by the insurgency. Unemployment is stuck, officially, at 30-40%, though some economists reckon that more than half of Iraqis are jobless.

Note that to have a viable insurgency you need three things-
(1) Money
(2) Labor- and 40% unemployment = labor.
(3) A grievance- and foreign occupation is a big one, especially when a Bradly APC has run over your new car.

Basic utilities are still wretched. Last week, nearly half of Baghdadis had no running water. Motorists are again queuing, sometimes for 12 hours, to fill up with petrol. Above all, oil production and exports are still far below hoped-for levels, mainly due to sabotage, knocking 15% off expected revenues. In December, some 2.2m barrels a day were being pumped, against a projected 3m b/d, the pre-war figure.

= grievances

Yankee go home...but not yet
Mr Allawi argues that, provided the Americans do not cut and run, the insurgency can be contained, if not beaten. The main plan is to beef up the home-grown Iraqi forces (now totalling 127,000 against an eventual goal of 273,000), enabling the Americans and their allies to wind down steadily their troop numbers.

Remember when they tried to turn the Vietnam War over to the South Vietnamese and what a great success that was.....

This, within the next few years, is a false hope. The Iraqi forces are utterly feeble. At present, only some 5,000 of them are a match for the insurgents; perhaps as many as 12,000 are fairly self-sufficient. Most of the rest are unmotivated, unreliable, ill-trained, ill-equipped, prone to desertion, even ready to switch sides. If the Americans left today, they would be thrashed.

Worse, they would disappear.

Besides giving more moderate Sunni Arabs fair representation on the new presidential council and on the committee drafting the new constitution, the new government must also reach out to spokesmen for the insurgency, which is far from monolithic. Indeed, no one is sure how to configure it. A year or so ago, the CIA reckoned that 40-60 groups were acting more or less independently of each other, though they now seem to be co-ordinating their attacks more than before. The new government must try to pick away those who might talk from those who are bent on eternal war against western civilisation.

Translated- the Coalition of the increasingly unwilling don't really know who they are fighting.

Note Sun Tzu says, "Know your Enemy and Know yourself and you will always be victorious." Chances are the enemy knows themselves and they know us. We don't know them, and we don't know how reliable our Iraqi allies are.

Most insurgents are above all nationalists. The government might accommodate many of them if they could be convinced that the Americans were certain to leave—if not immediately, at least soon. A new government could ask foreign troops to leave; but that is barely conceivable in the short run, because any government is bound, for now, to rely heavily on American force for its mere physical survival.

But in the process shoots itself in the foot for being an American toadie.

A rough timetable could be spelled out: some voices in the Sunni rejectionist camp have aired the possibility of a ceasefire if the Americans promised, in principle, to leave in, say, six months. That is unthinkable for the moment but may offer a chink of light for negotiations. President George Bush told Friday’s New York Times that he would withdraw American troops if asked but that those political leaders likely to win Sunday’s election understood the need to keep them for now.

If the US were to leave in 6 months it would have to go to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait if it wanted to protect its interests in Iraq. If the US pulled back to the US- it would be a damn expensive job going back to Iraq not just in money but in men.

For the past year, chaos has increased, along with ordinary Iraqis' hatred of the American occupation. But they also hate “the beheaders”—the likes of Mr Zarqawi. The emergence of a new government with a popular mandate will not change the situation overnight. It may be too late for any government seen to be sponsored by the Americans to establish itself. Nothing is certain—except that much more blood will be shed, and even more if Iraq's Sunni Arabs continue to feel disenfranchised.

So expect more bloodshed in the months to come.

 

[Bradylama]

Goddamn, Welsh, what point is there in even posting? You've already made the thread itself. =/

Well its the 30th now. So let's see what happens. *fingers crossed*

 

[Vault-Dweller]

Forcing Western Ideals on an Eastern Culture is, generally speaking, never a good idea.

In my most humble opinion, Iraq is precious little more than a Vietnam for the 21st century, except that the bad guy this time was Hussein, not Communism.

I'm sure i'll get flamed by all the "GO USA #1 OMG NEVER FORGET 9/11" types around here, but that's just one man's opinion of the situation.

 

[victor]

I'm sure i'll get flamed by all the "GO USA #1 OMG NEVER FORGET 9/11" types around here, but that's just one man's opinion of the situation.

Actually, you won't. We scared most of those guys away a long time ago.


I hope the Iraqi election will blow up in the US' face, plummeting the whole situation into uncontrollable chaos and despair.

 

[Brother None]

Re: Iraq- a turning poin ? to peace or civil war?

What do you think? Is this a turning point?
Is the beginning of a more stable Iraq or the beginning of a civil war?

Civil war. I believe the whole muslim democratic state enforced by the US is bullshit. See below.

IRAQIS danced in the streets outside the polling station, proudly displaying the indelible blue ink on their fingers that showed they had cast their votes—one gleefully called it the “mark of freedom”. However, this scene, on Friday January 28th, took place among the relatively small community of Iraqi exiles in Sydney, Australia. Voting in Iraq itself, to be held on Sunday, seems unlikely to produce such joyful scenes. If they turn out at all, voters are likely to be terrified of being attacked, at the polling station or afterwards, by insurgents who have declared “holy war” on the elections, anyone who takes part in them—and indeed on the very concept of democracy.

And you know what? They're right. They *should* declare a holy war on the concept of democracy. (at least when someone tries to enforce it on them)

Democracy, as in liberal democracy, is a concept developed and fostered in the Western World. It is based on Christian and, more importantly, Enlightenment ideals and has proven to be invaluable to the West.

And now our great president of the free world George Dubyah declares that since this concept of liberal democracy works so well here it must logically work well for everyone in the world, making it justified to enforce it on everyone by means of war, propaganda or political pressure.

So let's imagine I just put together my bed. To do this I used a screwdriver. It worked great. Hey, I think, since this screwdriver worked so great here, I'll use it on all my furniture. Next up; a table! Hey wait a tick, this screwdriver is not very handy for these screws.

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK, THEY'RE DIFFERENT SCREWS.

Does this mean that Arabs don't "deserve" democracy. If you state that they do, it'd be like stating "that child deserves a beating".

This system of liberal democracy can not be transported without change all across the world. Why not? Because it is not based on universal human values, it is based on strictly Western values grown during the Enlightenment. And now we're forcing everyone to take over those values so they can take over our system.

Bullshit. These people have different values. If we actually tried to make a system, perhap an adaptation of (non-liberal?) democracy, you might find that system is far superior for them.

Examples; in Asia, heavily Westernised countries like Israel and Japan are at the top on the living standard list, however China the communist state outstrips Indi the democratic state, which in turn outstrips both semi-democracies of Pakistan and Iraq.

In Africa, Tunisia outranks South Africa in standard of living, and Libya beats Egypt.

These numbers mean very little, as the situation of each country is different, but they deny the "democracy = teh win" philosophy.

Anyone that actually expects Iraq to calm down post-election is a moron. The Bush administration knows they won't, that's why they tried to put pressure on Holland to stay in Iraq, but they still have to tell the people they will. Morons.

How does that make this a free and fair election? YOu don't even know who you are voting for?

I would guess most of them would belong to political groupings with clear opinions

How is this asshole still alive?

An astute question.

Ok, so lets say the Sunni's don't vote. They are only, what 40%. 2/5 of the population. So let's say they get zip out of the vote. WTF?

Samual Huntington, in Political Order in Changing Societies, said it clearly,- before you can have democracy you must have political order.

You need a lot more than that. Wellfare for one.

Terrorists, "So what color are your fingertips?"

Voter,. "No no, my pen exploded..."

The indelible ink is one of the dumbshittest things in those elections, and a major turn-off to vote, especially for Sunnis. A coincidence? Yeah right. I guess "some" people don't really want to see too much Sunni voting.

Ok so religious Shi'a and seperatists Kurds might win out.... And this is a good thing how?

"good" should not be the question, welsh. A democracy is a democracy. If they would want to elect a king, that's their right.

Oh, wait, no, I forgot, American interests. Sorry.

How many politician promises do you expect to be honored?

More than in American elections.

WHich kind of makes sense.

Yeah, except that a massive cross-religion veto means the constitution would need to be either drawn up by a genius or redrafted ten gazillion times. Slowness causes trouble, too, more unhappiness and insurgence.

Even more grimly, the tally of Iraqi civilian deaths continues to rise inexorably. IraqBodyCount, an anti-war but fastidious group, reckons that 15,000-18,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the American invasion in March 2003. By a Brookings Institution estimate based mainly on Pentagon briefings, some 32,000 insurgents have been killed or captured since the conventional phase of the war ended in April 2003.

Wow, a number of Iraqi dead people!

I thought it one of the heights of hipocrisies of this war that we were supposed to cry about every dead Western soldier, then listen to disinterest to civilian casualty numbers and never hear about Iraqi soldiers.

I'm sorry but Iraqi soldiers are no different from German soldiers during WW II (though the Iraqi army wasn't threatening the world like the German one was); sure a number of them were bound to be assholes supporting Saddam, but I have no doubt the larger number of them were people just trying to make a living or somehow forced into this situation.

Even if I were to adhere to the general call of "a civilian life is worth more than a soldier life", which I have my doubts about, that would mean I should care first about Iraqi civilians, then Iraqi soldiers and only then the neglible number of Western soldiers killed.

Also; conventional phase of the war. Notice how Dubyah can declare a war won on April 2003, then have people say he just meant "convential phase of the war" 2 years later, and nobody actually seems to notice. You Americans rock at revisionist history. I mean 2 years. DAYM that's fast.

40K hardcore + 160K supporters- that's bigger than the US presence. ANd that's just an estimate. Fuck! That's not an insurgency but a civil war. ANd what if that number expands.

Remember that this doesn't mean all those 200K are actively working at insurgency. Of course they will be soon enough.

Translated- the Coalition of the increasingly unwilling don't really know who they are fighting.

Note Sun Tzu says, "Know your Enemy and Know yourself and you will always be victorious." Chances are the enemy knows themselves and they know us. We don't know them, and we don't know how reliable our Iraqi allies are.

Increasingly, the Coalition (minus leaving countries, heh), is now facing up more and more with a representative force from *all* layers of society. This means you're fighting people from everywhere. You can't fight a people, not unless you want to go genocidal.

But in the process shoots itself in the foot for being an American toadie

Lose-lose situation, oy.

A rough timetable could be spelled out: some voices in the Sunni rejectionist camp have aired the possibility of a ceasefire if the Americans promised, in principle, to leave in, say, six months. That is unthinkable for the moment but may offer a chink of light for negotiations. President George Bush told Friday’s New York Times that he would withdraw American troops if asked but that those political leaders likely to win Sunday’s election understood the need to keep them for now.

Look at the wording. Bush knows damn well who's going to win and that he can count on their support. Democracy my ass.

(good thing too, ey, hehehe)

 

[John Uskglass]

Almost all good news. 90% turn out in some cities. Turning point, even BBC is optimistic.

This is a load off. First good news to come out of Iraq sense we got Saddam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4220551.stm

 

[Brother None]

60% turnout.

No sunni votes.

You do the math.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wrong. Saying 70% turnout, and you can't assume every Shi'a and Kurd in the country voted. Looks like signifigant Sunni involvement at this point.

 

[Brother None]

Wrong. Saying 70% turnout, and you can't assume every Shi'a and Kurd in the country voted. Looks like signifigant Sunni involvement at this point.

But polling stations in many Sunni-dominated cities in the centre of Iraq were closed or deserted, as voters stayed away out of fear of attack or opposition to the poll.

(...)

But reports from central Sunni cities, such as Falluja, Samarra and Ramadi, say not all polling stations opened, and there was at best a trickle of voters

Be careful not to get dragged along on a high of happiness now. If you think this means a turning point for the good you are most likely deluding yourself.

 

[welsh]

Re: Iraq- a turning poin ? to peace or civil war?

Well it looks like the election went better than expected, but the low Sunni turnout is troubling-

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20050130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_the_vote_53

Civil war. I believe the whole muslim democratic state enforced by the US is bullshit. See below.

But at the same time I think you discount that countries of different cultures do adapt to democracy. That the US or other Western countries, rammed down democracy in some places has worked on occassion. Japan after World War 2, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, India, on occassion Pakistan, Botswana, Kenya, Turkey- not to say the democratic experiments are perfect, but they rarely are.

And you know what? They're right. They *should* declare a holy war on the concept of democracy. (at least when someone tries to enforce it on them)

If the idea was that democracy was anti-islam, perhaps. But I am not so sure it isn't. A lot of muslims I have spoken too express disgust at the state of governance in the middle east, and prefer to worship in the West where they have religious freedom. Of course I have heard from Muslims that the first thing they would do if they ran the state was to remove religious freedom.

Democracy, as in liberal democracy, is a concept developed and fostered in the Western World. It is based on Christian and, more importantly, Enlightenment ideals and has proven to be invaluable to the West.

Perhaps it comes from enlightenment scholars but perhaps you are giving ideology more voice than the other mass changes of history. We could argue that democracy, and liberalism, are also the result of religious dissent and the development of commerce, creation of new merchant classes.

Mancur Olson's piece- Dictatorship, Development and Democracy- I can give you a link to it- states that democracy is really a process by which elites try to prevent a single predatory bandit from taking power (monopoly of force in a given area) and are individually too weak to take power themselves, so they structure a power sharing arrangement. Over time, other parties can enfranchised in the system. This is less a consequence of enlightenment or christianity but of rational self-interest and security.

And now our great president of the free world George Dubyah declares that since this concept of liberal democracy works so well here it must logically work well for everyone in the world, making it justified to enforce it on everyone by means of war, propaganda or political pressure.

Yes, and no- I mean democracy has been a regular theme of western states from the days of the UN. Ok, so the French did come out and say, "Oh you Africans aren't ready for Democracy, you'll have to stay under neo-colonial dictatorships and live in a state or relative poverty for the next few generations." Is that a better way to go?

So let's imagine I just put together my bed. To do this I used a screwdriver. It worked great. Hey, I think, since this screwdriver worked so great here, I'll use it on all my furniture. Next up; a table! Hey wait a tick, this screwdriver is not very handy for these screws.

A bit oversimplified- but the success of democracy has generally come with adapting to the environment. German democracy is not French democracy, and while Japan and Korea might be based on the German civil code, their democratic developments are not like those in Europe. Democracy is less an iron wrought system of institutions but a body of principles about elected governance and politicians that owe fiduciary relationships to citizens, who are more than just subjects.

This system of liberal democracy can not be transported without change all across the world. Why not? Because it is not based on universal human values, it is based on strictly Western values grown during the Enlightenment. And now we're forcing everyone to take over those values so they can take over our system.

But you discount the possibility of values transending borders. Since the 18th century we have lived in an increasingly globalized world based on basic accounting practices. If you buy Weber's Protestant Ethic- it all starts with those damn Calvanists. I don't buy it, but the idea that rational capitalism spreads because it's a superior form of social institution holds weight. Feudalism spread with the collapse of Rome, leading to mercantilist empire builders (not just in Europe but elsewhere), which broke down due to bankruptcy or exhaustion from war into democratic states which slowly enfranchised more of their populations and released their colonies- this has been the history of much of the world and is still going on.

Bullshit. These people have different values. If we actually tried to make a system, perhap an adaptation of (non-liberal?) democracy, you might find that system is far superior for them.

Maybe, but like I said, I discount the notion of values and think that democracy has more to do with control over markets and protection of private property that the espousing of values. Of so market control and private property- might be western values? Doubtful.

Examples; in Asia, heavily Westernised countries like Israel and Japan are at the top on the living standard list, however China the communist state outstrips Indi the democratic state, which in turn outstrips both semi-democracies of Pakistan and Iraq.

Of course you discount the fact that Iraq has been on a war footing for over two decades, China is huge with one of the largest population fueled in large part by FDI, Israel is an expat country that is constantly on a security footing, India has ethnic problems and cultural divisions like no other place on earth, and that Japan adapted both democracy and capitalist economics in a surprisingly fast period in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and still had to go through it's period of mercantilist conquest.

It is hard to make comparisons over countries without paying some attention to the countries variations. That China has outpaced Japan has a lot to do with the adoptation of that countries economic system. What if China was democratic? Who knows what would happen. And yet, in many ways China is still behind both Japan and Taiwan in issues of quality of life, standards of living and high tech goods.

In Africa, Tunisia outranks South Africa in standard of living, and Libya beats Egypt.

And compare the populations? Tunisia and Libya- small population rentier states. Brunei has a great standard of living but everyone works for the Sultan.

I don't think anyone believes that democracy is the be-all, end-all for prosperity and social peace. Indeed, dictatorship might also bring with it greater social order as there is less restraint on the dictators repressive power. But there is also less to restrain the dictators monopoly power.

These numbers mean very little, as the situation of each country is different, but they deny the "democracy = teh win" philosophy.

Again, I think you are over-simplifying.

Anyone that actually expects Iraq to calm down post-election is a moron. The Bush administration knows they won't, that's why they tried to put pressure on Holland to stay in Iraq, but they still have to tell the people they will. Morons.

I would be surprised if Iraq calmed down. If those who win the election play their ethnic cards, than there will be bigger problems to come.

That said, the insurgents will have to face a new problem, those who use violence against democracy essential support despotism. This is the message that should be broadcast. As bad as US occupation has been, the insurgents are not offering a better alternative.

I would guess most of them would belong to political groupings with clear opinions

Apparently you are voting for parties.

How is this asshole still alive?

An astute question.

Seriously. What is it with the US that we can't knock of these guys?

You need a lot more than that. Wellfare for one.

But a couple things the Iraqis do have- they are one of the more urban societies, one of the more educated and one that is more used to commercial transactions- this weighs in well for democracy. As for welfare, maybe. But there have been democracies with little social welfare, and with the revenue from oil, the government does not get into the "Taxes for social services" equation for now. The problem with that, unless you have that question you don't get restraint on government.

The indelible ink is one of the dumbshittest things in those elections, and a major turn-off to vote, especially for Sunnis. A coincidence? Yeah right. I guess "some" people don't really want to see too much Sunni voting.

So you think this is an intentional move to disenfranchise the Sunnis?

Yeah, except that a massive cross-religion veto means the constitution would need to be either drawn up by a genius or redrafted ten gazillion times. Slowness causes trouble, too, more unhappiness and insurgence.

But caution given these problems could be a good thing, in that the different groups are pushed to compromise. I don't know about this. I think that the more the Iraqi's take care of their own security and public order, the better.

The US should not have demobilized the Iraqi army, but that's spilled milk.

I thought it one of the heights of hipocrisies of this war that we were supposed to cry about every dead Western soldier, then listen to disinterest to civilian casualty numbers and never hear about Iraqi soldiers.

I'm sorry but Iraqi soldiers are no different from German soldiers during WW II (though the Iraqi army wasn't threatening the world like the German one was); sure a number of them were bound to be assholes supporting Saddam, but I have no doubt the larger number of them were people just trying to make a living or somehow forced into this situation.

Even if I were to adhere to the general call of "a civilian life is worth more than a soldier life", which I have my doubts about, that would mean I should care first about Iraqi civilians, then Iraqi soldiers and only then the neglible number of Western soldiers killed.

I think the problem there is that no one really knows the accurate figure. Are we just talking about combat deaths or deaths due to reduced social services due to conflict. Messed up.

Also; conventional phase of the war. Notice how Dubyah can declare a war won on April 2003, then have people say he just meant "convential phase of the war" 2 years later, and nobody actually seems to notice. You Americans rock at revisionist history. I mean 2 years. DAYM that's fast.

Dubyah is a dick. The problem is that he's got so much of the country eating out of his hand. But that's another problem. 3 years and 51 more weeks adn counting!

Part of this is still 9/11 but the guy thinks he's got a popular mandate when most americans still disapprove of the job he did.

Fucking gay marriage bullshit. Prejudice is alive and well.

Remember that this doesn't mean all those 200K are actively working at insurgency. Of course they will be soon enough.

No but this is probably a crappy estimate, but it does signal that the insurgency is growing.

Imagine a figure that is double that, or triple that. Americans will be fighting their way out of Iraq. It's called an imperialist disaster.

Increasingly, the Coalition (minus leaving countries, heh), is now facing up more and more with a representative force from *all* layers of society. This means you're fighting people from everywhere. You can't fight a people, not unless you want to go genocidal.

And what is the US to do if the war grows- call up the draft? It would be a political disaster either way. This is the result of not thinking it through.

Was watching Platoon on DVD the other day, and someone expressed the notion that hopefully Americans will learn before being sent on another bullshit war. Apparently the lessons get forgotten.

Look at the wording. Bush knows damn well who's going to win and that he can count on their support. Democracy my ass.

(good thing too, ey, hehehe)

US interests have destroyed democracy before- another lesson from Vietnam when we orchestrated a coup against our own guy.

And the plot thickens.

 

[John Uskglass]

Iraqi officials are saying 72%, that's higher then any American election I can think of. And again, Kharn, we CANNOT assume that every Shia and Kurd in Iraq voted, while the Sunnis did nothing.

This could very well be a turning point. I'm slightly optimistic at this point.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7475959

Defiant Iraqis Vote in Their Millions Despite Bombs
Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:46 AM ET

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Some came on crutches, others walked for miles then struggled to read the ballot, but across most of Iraq millions turned out to vote Sunday, defying insurgent threats of a bloodbath.

Suicide bombs and mortars killed at least 33 people, but Iraqis still came out in force for the first multi-party poll in 50 years. While in some areas turnout was scant, in most places, including violent Sunni Arab regions, it exceeded expectations.

Many cheered with joy at their first chance to cast a free vote, while others shared chocolates with fellow voters.

Even in Falluja, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people turned out, confounding expectations. Lines of veiled women clutching their papers waited in line to vote.

"We want to be like other Iraqis, we don't want to always be in opposition," said Ahmed Jassim, smiling after he voted.

In Baquba, a rebellious city northeast of Baghdad, spirited crowds clapped and danced at one voting station. In Mosul, scene of some of the worst insurgent attacks in recent months, U.S. and local officials said turnout was surprisingly high.

That said, there were also areas of the Sunni heartland where turnout was scarce and intimidation appeared to have won.

One of the first to vote was President Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni Muslim Arab with a large tribal following, who cast his ballot inside Baghdad's fortress-like Green Zone.

"Thanks be to God," he told reporters, emerging from the booth with his right index finger stained with bright blue ink to show he had voted. "I hope everyone will go out and vote."

In the relatively secure Kurdish north, people flowed steadily to the polls. One illiterate man in Arbil, 76-year-old Said Rasool, came alone and was turned away, unable to read the ballot paper. He said he would return with someone to help.

Even in the so-called "triangle of death," a hotbed of Sunni insurgency south of Baghdad, turnout was solid, officials said.

In mainly Shi'ite Basra, Iraq's second biggest city, hundreds queued patiently to vote. "I am not afraid," said Samir Khalil Ibrahim. "This is like a festival for all Iraqis."

A small group cheered in Baghdad as Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, a descendant of Iraq's last king, went to the polls.

Western Baghdad polling stations were busy, with long queues of voters. Most went about the process routinely, filling in their ballots and leaving quickly without much emotion.

Others brought chocolates for those waiting in line, and shared festive juice drinks inside the voting station.

Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said, leaning on his metal crutches, determination in his reddened eyes.

In Sadr City, a poor Shi'ite neighborhood of northeast Baghdad, thick lines of voters turned out, women in black abaya robes in one line, men in another.

Some of the first to vote countrywide were policemen, out in force to protect polling centers from attack, part of draconian security measures put in place by U.S. and Iraqi officials.

In Samarra, a restive Sunni-Shi'ite city north of Baghdad, only about 100 people voted at one of two polling sites. One woman, covered head-to-toe in black robes, kept her face concealed, but said she had voted with pride.

In nearby Baiji, some people were unable to vote because electoral officials failed to turn up. "We are waiting for the manager with the key," said an election worker, apologizing.

"VOTE FOR HUMANITY"

In the shrine city of Najaf in the Shi'ite heartland, hundreds of people walked calmly to polling stations. Security around Najaf, attacked before, was some of the tightest.

Shi'ites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq's people, are expected to win the vote, overturning years of oppression. In Kirkuk, Kurds turned out in force, as expected, but Arabs and Turkmen appeared to boycott, angered by what they saw as voting rules that favor Kurds.

By the end of the day in Baghdad, voters were running to polling stations to get there before polls closed at 5 p.m. (1400 GMT). Some old women were pulled along by young sons. One of the biggest surprises was Mosul, a mixed Sunni Arab and Kurd city in the far north, where U.S. army officers said they were surprised to see long lines at many voting centers.

Baghdad's mayor was overcome with emotion by the turnout of voters at City Hall, where he said thousands were celebrating.

"I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love," Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.

 

[Brother None]

Iraqi officials are saying 72%, that's higher then any American election I can think of.

Actually....

They originally put it at 72 percent but later backtracked, saying possibly eight million had voted, which would be a little over 60 percent of registered voters. Election commission spokesman Farid Ayar acknowledged, however, that "the numbers are only guessing."

And affirming that America is a pretty shitty democracy doesn't make Iraq a good one.

And again, Kharn, we CANNOT assume that every Shia and Kurd in Iraq voted, while the Sunnis did nothing.

Don't be anal. Of course the Sunnis did something, but it is already, on this very early stage, very clear that they did a LOT less voting than the other two parties.

While in some areas turnout was scant, in most places, including violent Sunni Arab regions, it exceeded expectations.

Many cheered with joy at their first chance to cast a free vote, while others shared chocolates with fellow voters.

Even in Falluja, the Sunni city west of Baghdad that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a steady stream of people turned out, confounding expectations. Lines of veiled women clutching their papers waited in line to vote.

"exceeded expectations" means little if expectation are low. Also, reports seems to be contradictory

Blame Canada

But polls were largely deserted throughout the day in many cities of the Sunni Triangle north and west of the capital, particularly Fallujah, Ramadi and Beiji. In Baghdad's mainly Sunni Arab area of Azamiyah, the neighbourhood's four polling centres did not open at all, residents said.

same at SFGate

Most importantly, this later Reuter article actually discounts yours, by for instance referring to Falujah slightly differently:

Even in Falluja, the battle-scarred Sunni city that was a militant stronghold until a U.S. assault in November, a slow stream of people turned out, confounding expectations.

(reply to welsh later)

 

[John Uskglass]

More proof that Kharn is misguided in his cyniscism on this topic.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/internat...artner=homepage

This could be a major turning point in Islamic history.


Voting, Not Violence, Is the Big Story on Arab TV
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

Published: January 30, 2005

MMAN, Jordan, Jan. 30 - Sometime after the first insurgent attack in Iraq this morning, news directors at Arab satellite channels and newspaper editors found themselves facing an altogether new decision: should they report on the violence, or continue to cover the elections themselves?

After close to two years of providing up-to-the-minute images of explosions and mayhem, and despite months of predictions of a bloodbath on election day, some news directors said they found the decision surprisingly easy to make. The violence simply was not the story this morning; the voting was.

Overwhelmingly, Arab channels and newspapers greeted the elections as a critical event with major implications for the region, and many put significant resources into reporting on the vote, providing blanket coverage throughout the country that started about a week ago. Newspapers kept wide swaths of their pages open, and the satellite channels dedicated most of the day to coverage of the polls.

Often criticized for glorifying Iraq's violence if not inciting it, Arab news channels appeared to take particular care in their election day reporting. For many channels, the elections were treated on a par with the invasion itself, on which the major channels helped build their names.

Far from the almost nightly barrage of blood and tears, Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera, the kings of Arab news, barely showed the aftermath of the suicide bombings that occurred in the country.

Instead, the channels opted to report on the attacks in news tickers, and as part of the hourly news broadcasts, keeping their focus on coverage and analysis of the elections themselves. And the broadcasters spared no expense to provide an entire day of coverage from northern to southern Iraq.

"There was a fear that some broadcasters will overdo coverage of violence, but we chose not to play that game," said Nakhle el-Hage, director of news and current affairs at satellite channel Al Arabiya, which is based in Dubai and is one of the most popular channels in Iraq. "We were expecting violence and when something happened, we put a news flash but then continued our coverage."

News directors at Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar and has been banned from operating in Iraq since last summer, were also keenly conscious of the risks of overplaying the violence.

Ayman Jaballah, the deputy chief of news at Al Jazeera, said the channel would get news of the attacks from wire services and put them in the ticker, "but they will not take over the show."

"We will give them their fare share of coverage," he said, "but we won't just report violence for the sake of it."

For many Arabs, the surprisingly strong turnout on election day proved a singular opening, one that made the daily debate on TV screens more nuanced. On Al Jazeera, especially, many Iraqi guests lauded the process even as analysts from other Arab countries and Iraqis tied to the former government of Saddam Hussein decried the election for having occurred under occupation, and for having been centered on sectarian issues.

"Things used to be a negotiation between political parties where you scratch my back and I scratch your back," noted one commentator, Abas al-Bayati on Al Jazeera. "Now, this new government will approach all the parties as having the backing of the people. It will have legitimacy." And that legitimacy should allow the government to face down the insurgents, he added.

With the relative lack of violence, many nerves appeared calmed. Iraqis, especially, may have been emboldened by the coverage.

"What was important is that the satellite channels were taking us throughout the region, and also showed everyone how Iraqis outside Iraq were adamant and focused on voting," said Imad Hmood, editor in chief of Jordan's Al Ghad newspaper. "That was very important for people, especially Iraqis, to see."

"In the end the coverage was a success - not perfect, but a success under the conditions," he said.

The daylong reporting of the election process, details on the personalities and almost step-by-step guides to the voting were a significant departure from what the Arab news media has produced in some time.

Perhaps the most ambitious effort came from Al Arabiya, which had eight satellite trucks broadcasting from across Iraq, as well as numerous video phone links from Mosul, Baquba, Ramadi and elsewhere, and live feeds from neighboring countries. To give particular emphasis to elections coverage, Al Arabiya also built a special studio for the event. Al Arabiya executives did not disclose the total outlay for the effort, but said it was significant.

"We think this is a very important event, not just in Iraq but in the Arab world," Mr. Hage said. "It's the first real democratic event in the whole region and it deserved the attention." Giving the event such special attention, Mr. Hage said, would help build Al Arabiya's brand as a critical news source, if not expand its viewership.

For Al Jazeera, covering the elections proved more complex, but the channel had just as ambitious an agenda. Al Jazeera's offices in Iraq were closed more than six months ago and it was prohibited from operating in the country. But, the channel devised ways of providing broad coverage nevertheless, using journalists still on its payroll to provide reports by telephone, as well as freelance and wire film. In addition, the station was able to broadcast live footage from Erbil, in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. It also made use of correspondents based in neighboring Jordan, Iran, Syria, Turkey and elsewhere.

"We are not feeling as if we are missing out on coverage," said Mr. Jaballah. "We focused on depth and neighboring offices. But if I had the option of working internally, I may have brought on more people."

But some analysts warn that the most important part of the election is far from over. Counting of ballots, begun this evening, was expected to take up to 10 days.

"There's been a collective decision to treat this as a gigantic event," said Gordon Robison, director of the Middle East Media Project at the University of Southern California's Center for Public Diplomacy. "It is, but unlike a British or American election where you get the results at the end of the day, you will be waiting a while. I'd hate to be the anchor who has to exchange banter all that time."

 

[Brother None]

Re: Iraq- a turning poin ? to peace or civil war?

Perhaps it comes from enlightenment scholars but perhaps you are giving ideology more voice than the other mass changes of history. We could argue that democracy, and liberalism, are also the result of religious dissent and the development of commerce, creation of new merchant classes.

Do keep in mind I'm referring to liberal democracy, not democracy as a whole. And I believe democracy in a broad sense has more universal values than liberal democracy does. I am not saying make Iraq something other than a democracy, I'm saying don't make it a *liberal* democracy.

Yes, and no- I mean democracy has been a regular theme of western states from the days of the UN. Ok, so the French did come out and say, "Oh you Africans aren't ready for Democracy, you'll have to stay under neo-colonial dictatorships and live in a state or relative poverty for the next few generations." Is that a better way to go?

That is a false argument, welsh. You are stating this as if those are the only two options; liberal democracy or colonialism.

A bit oversimplified- but the success of democracy has generally come with adapting to the environment. German democracy is not French democracy, and while Japan and Korea might be based on the German civil code, their democratic developments are not like those in Europe. Democracy is less an iron wrought system of institutions but a body of principles about elected governance and politicians that owe fiduciary relationships to citizens, who are more than just subjects.

EXACTLY. Japan is a country with a fuedal history very similar to that of Europe despite not being part of it. It's isolation as an island meant its development could stay remarkably seperated from that of the Asian landmass.

Germany is a country that has a strong Christian and protestant history as well as having shared in the Enlightenment and Industrialisation.

For these two countries that share so much with the basic countries of liberal democracy (France, England and the US) one already had to adapt democracy, quite heavily in the case of Japan.

So what makes you think one can come into Iraq and say "we have a system of liberal democracy, it will work for your country". Sure it might, but why in Frith's name would it be the ideal system for such a country? If you force such changes on them, you might change the uniqueness of their culture. My communist side says this is desirable, but somehow this hardly seems like something a liberal democrat would want.

But you discount the possibility of values transending borders. Since the 18th century we have lived in an increasingly globalized world based on basic accounting practices. If you buy Weber's Protestant Ethic- it all starts with those damn Calvanists. I don't buy it, but the idea that rational capitalism spreads because it's a superior form of social institution holds weight. Feudalism spread with the collapse of Rome, leading to mercantilist empire builders (not just in Europe but elsewhere), which broke down due to bankruptcy or exhaustion from war into democratic states which slowly enfranchised more of their populations and released their colonies- this has been the history of much of the world and is still going on.

Sure, but the world isn't an egalatarian state with equal values everywhere yet. If anything this whole war on terror thing proves that, especially since it seems to concentrate a whole lot on muslim terrorism and all forms of muslim radicalism.

Don't use Weber on me, I can't stand the man.

That said, since almost all countries to which the model "mercantalist empire breaks down = democracy" applies are Western countries, most other countries had democracy shoved down their throat.

*If* you were to argue democracy is the natural way of development for everyone than why exactly are we forcing it down people's throats rather than just fostering the necessary conditions?

Maybe, but like I said, I discount the notion of values and think that democracy has more to do with control over markets and protection of private property that the espousing of values. Of so market control and private property- might be western values? Doubtful.

Only partially. Capitalism as a system has more to do with market control and protection of private property than democracy does and in the end capitalism is not fully dependant or intertwined with liberal democracy. It can be mixed with other forms of government.

Of course you discount the fact that Iraq has been on a war footing for over two decades, China is huge with one of the largest population fueled in large part by FDI, Israel is an expat country that is constantly on a security footing, India has ethnic problems and cultural divisions like no other place on earth, and that Japan adapted both democracy and capitalist economics in a surprisingly fast period in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and still had to go through it's period of mercantilist conquest.

It is hard to make comparisons over countries without paying some attention to the countries variations. That China has outpaced Japan has a lot to do with the adoptation of that countries economic system. What if China was democratic? Who knows what would happen. And yet, in many ways China is still behind both Japan and Taiwan in issues of quality of life, standards of living and high tech goods.

(...)

And compare the populations? Tunisia and Libya- small population rentier states. Brunei has a great standard of living but everyone works for the Sultan.

I don't think anyone believes that democracy is the be-all, end-all for prosperity and social peace. Indeed, dictatorship might also bring with it greater social order as there is less restraint on the dictators repressive power. But there is also less to restrain the dictators monopoly power.

That last bit is exactly my point and exactly why I made those ass-backwards comparisons. There *are* people who truely seem to think along the lines of "now Iraq is a democracy, we will have no more trouble". I just simply countered that line of thinking by showing not all liberal democratic states are capitalist paradises.

That said, the insurgents will have to face a new problem, those who use violence against democracy essential support despotism. This is the message that should be broadcast. As bad as US occupation has been, the insurgents are not offering a better alternative.

Says you. Heh, just kidding.

I think the logic "those who use violence against democracy essentially supprot despotism" is a bit oversimplified. There are other reasons to use violence against "democracy" (how exactly can you use violence against an idea? Nevermind). Minorities that disagree with things being forced upon them by majority-governments, for instance, might either be just because they're a part of opressed nations (Palestine, Chechna, the US Revolution etc. take your pick) or unjust because they're just being assholes (Palestine, Chechna, the US Revolution etc. take your pick).

Also, fighting against an American-sponsored pro-American yay yankees government does not automatically make one a supporter of terrorism or despotism.

So you think this is an intentional move to disenfranchise the Sunnis?

I would say not only is it likely, but it also seemed to work.

But caution given these problems could be a good thing, in that the different groups are pushed to compromise. I don't know about this. I think that the more the Iraqi's take care of their own security and public order, the better.

The US should not have demobilized the Iraqi army, but that's spilled milk.

The Iraqis are incapable of taking care of their own bussiness, not only because they lack the force but because they have to work by rules prescribed by another country and based completely on that country's own ideals, which doesn't necessarily work for them.

I think the problem there is that no one really knows the accurate figure. Are we just talking about combat deaths or deaths due to reduced social services due to conflict. Messed up.

Bullshit. The biggest problem is that people back home don't care for Iraqi dead, they only care for good old rich west folk. Harsh but true.

And what is the US to do if the war grows- call up the draft? It would be a political disaster either way. This is the result of not thinking it through.

Was watching Platoon on DVD the other day, and someone expressed the notion that hopefully Americans will learn before being sent on another bullshit war. Apparently the lessons get forgotten.

Chris Taylor: Didn't make much sense, I wasn't learning anything. I figured why should just the poor kids go off to war and the rich kids always get away with it.
King: Oh, I see, what we got here is a crusader.
Crawford: Sounds like it.
King: Shiiit, you gotta be rich in the first place to think like that. Ever'body know, the poor are always being fucked over by the rich. Always have, always will.

Dubyah never went to the war, so he could hardly have learned from it.

Heh, a Dubyah-instituted draft. Considering his own history in warfare, I wonder what kind of draft that would be. A good old-fashioned civil war style draft, I guess:

"Sign the draft or pay $10,000 dollars"
"I thought this was a free country?"
"It is! It's your own choice! Either sign or pay!"

More proof that Kharn is misguided in his cyniscism on this topic.

Actually no, Raven King, we're talking past each other on this issue.

You're being positive on the fact that this election went well and to you that means now the troubles are over.

I can be positive on good elections too. See? Yay elections. At the same time I see worrying reports about Sunni votes and I don't exactly see why this election should by way of miracle solve all Iraq problems.

 

[John Uskglass]

WOWHOO! SOMEONE GOT MY LITERARY REFERANCE!

Did you like the book Kharn? See my topic on the subject.

 

[Roshambo]

Re: Iraq- a turning poin ? to peace or civil war?

I can be positive on good elections too. See? Yay elections. At the same time I see worrying reports about Sunni votes and I don't exactly see why this election should by way of miracle solve all Iraq problems.

I only see more problems arising.

The current US govt overseeing a foreign election. Wow, that one's easier to spot from a long ways off than Jeb Bush in the 2000 elections.

 

[John Uskglass]

A congomerated Shi'ia party appears to have won a plurality of the votes, thus they will have the most amount of say in making the constitution. Allawi's party got around 20-30 percent of the vote.

 

[Bradylama]

As long as they don't sell oil in Euros...

 

[Gonzalez]

I think that what Americans don't seem to understand is that democracy is not something you export to other countries, but that other countries earn for themselves.

Did an exterior party made the US independent from the English domain? No, the colonists did it themselves, fighting and dying for it.
Were democracy and a centralized government something easy to maintain? No, the US had a civil war where a lot of blood was shed in a process that made the United States of America the country that today is.

Now, after many years of struggle, and many suffering, the United States managed a very stable democratic government.
Did Iraq gone trough that process? No, the Iraqi people did not take Saddam's dictatorship away and instituted democracy, the US did it for them.

In Argentina we had only 22 years of democracy since the last dictatorship, but we are not going back to a dictatorship because we earned real democracy, we shed a lot of blood and suffered a lot for it, and we did it ourselves without any exterior help.

Let me ask you this question: Is it probable that Iraq goes back to a dictatorship or some other kind of government after the US troops leave Iraq? I guess that take us back to the original question, and the answer is that we are still wandering, we are not sure, and that is because in the bottom of our heads we know that this is just not going to work.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I think that what Americans don't seem to understand is that democracy is not something you export to other countries, but that other countries earn for themselves.

Did an exterior party made the US independent from the English domain? No, the colonists did it themselves, fighting and dying for it.

Thanks Gonzalez. Thats just what I was thinking.

You cant have a Democracy (with people in control) unless the people are responsible enough to know how to use the power properly. As with most Democracy's they become wise to how to use that power through their own struggles for freedom. Im worried the Iraqi's may not be able to "handle" it and respond to their free choice with a "Democratically elected Dictatorship" which is no worse.

We'll have to see though...so far things arent too bad. Yet everyone must remember. Its not really whether they vote as much as how people will agree or disagree with the government it creates. What if the Sunni decide to form their own small break-away nation?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller