John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
o rly?Lt. Col. Gonzalez said:
Japan, Germany, etc...
Iraq- a turning point ? to peace or civil war?
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Japan, Germany, etc...
I do not believe that civilization can be forced upon another. Every nation, culture, and ethnicity, must go through the horrible birthing process from barbarism.
I think this is to instill the importance of the rule of law over lawlessness, civilized behavior instead barbarous acts, Life over death.
Civilization is a thin and fragile veneer, easily broken and discarded.
Only those who have suffered the "trial by fire" fully know and understand its value.
I think this is to instill the importance of the rule of law over lawlessness, civilized behavior instead barbarous acts, Life over death.
Civilization is a thin and fragile veneer, easily broken and discarded.
Only those who have suffered the "trial by fire" fully know and understand its value.
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
John Uskglass said:
I suppose the fact that the Japanese still deny committing any atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans (which combined were as bad as the Holocaust for the Jews) as a show of them moving forward as a Democracy?
:arrow: ,
The Vault Dweller
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
WEAK. VERY WEAK. They have a functioning parlimentary. Just because they are fucked over as a culture and need some massive UN based national Psychiatrist program does not mean that they are not a democracy.
You mean the Americans?
Wooz said:
Wait...the US is a democracy? Since when?
The US democracy is kind of like having two royal houses change the seat of ruling every 4-8 years. Not exactly original.
You're right. I fell for the "fucked over as a culture and need some massive UN based national Psychiatrist programme" thing.
Wooz said:
You should've guessed it's not the US when he said "functional parlimentary [sic]"
Unless you count lobbies as a form of parliament.
Josan
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Well, Bush is enjoying his little victory but there are definately problems brewing. First, all the media we get is filtered by the Republican Administration. I'm willing to be there are for more than 36 casualties and second, as others said, no matter who wins the "election" there are going to be some pretty pissed of Iraqis.
Kharn said:
I'm sure CC percieves the US parliament as "functional", and its government "Democratic". My original post based on his, I consider my questioning of his reasonment legitimate.
Whew. What an imbroglio.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Its kind of hard to have a functional parliament when we don't have a parliament. We have a Congress.
Christ.
Christ.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Yeah, well, say that when your a part of the Greater Caliphate of Almanyye and we are living the life in the Republic of Gilead.Kharn said:
Seriously dude, did you read Jonathan Strange?
SimpleMinded
Vault Fossil
Josan said:
Aye, its gross the way American television blared nothing but constant displays of success in the election. It's almost ridiculous the way they try and spew out these praises of the Americans actions in the elections. According to my Government teacher, the casualties are at 44 and even though 50% of registered voters voted... only 27% of the population registered :-\. Sounds like the news stations here are just giving the figures that sound good and disregarding the rest.
John Uskglass said:
No, only heard of it through the pipelines.
Bradylama said:
True, another ass-backwards part of the American system.
lilfyffedawg said:
Yes. People seem to forget once again that initial reports especially can hardly ever be trusted. It is harsh, but remember how the initial death count of 9/11 was way off? (5000) Or that female PoW in Iraq that was represented as a hero and turned out to be little more than a moron?
And how the guards at Abu Ghraib (or whatever) were charged with torture, not the officers, or Rumsfeld and Gonzalez for that matter?
Or how we went to war over WMD and ended up fighting for the oil and Halliburton contracts?
Or how we gave every militant Moslem a great recruiting tool?
But anyways, for all of its faults the American system of democratic (to use the term in its current American political manifestation) rule worked well and survived unadulterated for 230 years. It is only in the recent past with its massive changes that the founders couldn't have been expected to see have things begun to break down when power (inevitably) began being concentrated in the hands of an elite.
I agree that things need to change, starting with the influence of money and religion in governnment, but I submit that as the world's first large and diverse working democracy (again, lets not beat that dead horse) it worked pretty damn well for a long time.
Now for the slavery counterargument...any takers?
Or how we went to war over WMD and ended up fighting for the oil and Halliburton contracts?
Or how we gave every militant Moslem a great recruiting tool?
But anyways, for all of its faults the American system of democratic (to use the term in its current American political manifestation) rule worked well and survived unadulterated for 230 years. It is only in the recent past with its massive changes that the founders couldn't have been expected to see have things begun to break down when power (inevitably) began being concentrated in the hands of an elite.
I agree that things need to change, starting with the influence of money and religion in governnment, but I submit that as the world's first large and diverse working democracy (again, lets not beat that dead horse) it worked pretty damn well for a long time.
Now for the slavery counterargument...any takers?
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I hope that the elections in Iraq go well, it will be interesting to see what the outcome is. On the other hand i can see that it will be hard to unite a people made up of tribal groups and various religions, that often conflict with one another and still hold grudges from happenings from hundreds of years ago. The American people for the most part are willing to "forget" past hardships in order to move on, but this attitude isnt shared in the Middle east.
welsh
Junkmaster
You guys are getting off topic here.
I agree with Murdoch- the US system, even with it's many flaws, still works as a democratic system. We can argue whether other democratic systems are better or not, what's wrong with it, or what can be improvied, but generally speaking it's worked.
CCR- your article doesn't really help you much but only raises the point that other middle eastern countries and watching the elections as a novel experiment. Fair enough, but whether other countries will attempt democratic reform might be another matter, or whether there will be pressure for democracy from social groups that actually gets addressed. So one election does not lead to a wave of democratization.
Ok, so democratization has occurred in waves (Huntington's The Third Wave makes that argument, and there is proof of it in the wave of democratizations that occurred in Africa during the 1990s) but there are other issues.
The question of the election is less about the turn out of Kurds and Shiites- which was expected. Rather, it has to do with the notion of establishing a viable public order. If the Sunni's get disenfranchise because of their low turn out, there is little reason for them to not continue fighting. This is true especially if those who won office despite to exploit public office for their own gains. Historically, this is the trend, and creating democracies in societies in which a society is divided fairly clearly into large ethnic blocks is tough.
Case in point- Nigeria- another large population divided along three major ethnic groups and an oil exporter. AN alternative, Yugoslavia- held together because of the power of a single authoritarian leader- Tito, and when he died it went to hell.
In contrast- consider for instance Japan- largely homogenous, and Germany, also fairly homogenous- but also states that had strong industrialized economies, understood how to create capital, valued education and modernization, had either gone through some democratization or had experience with democracy, and were considered to be 1st world countries of their time. Installing democracy there was relatively easy.
The key issue is whether one creates a public order that the constitutent members will stick too. This means that no single viable elite plus capable social group has the willing and ability to overthrow it. In essence, democracy needs to be scene as the only game in town, and no group is willing to leave the table of democratic interaction because the costs are too high.
That is not the case in Iraq today- not with elites leading strong insurgent groups and nearly 2/5 of the population off the democratic process.
I agree with Kharn's point and some of the others that things are likely to get more difficult and contentious in Iraq- but that's the nature of democracy too. Democracy is not about there not being debates or feuds or even conflicts- rather, democracy is about those aspects of contentions being contained in processes that sustain the political order. Whether you debate the immigrant issue in the US or in Europe, doesn't matter. You can disagree on policy and still agree on maintaining the constitutive order.
The problem in Iraq is whether they will be able to create an order when 2/5 of the population is not represented and significant social groups seek to overthrow that order. Under those circumstances democratization is very difficult and rarely succeeds.
You are missing the point here Kharn. We can argue about whether much of the world outside the G-8 exists in neo-colonial relationships and that's a consequence of being low in relative power in the heirarchy of nations.
What I am arguing is that, if you don't accept democratization, than what? I am not arguing for either a parliamentarian model or a presidential model- but rather the basic notion of a government beheld to a society and subject to regular free and fair elections- the creation of government as fudiciary to society.
Like it or not, much of the world has democratized, and even though those countries have gone through upheavels and reversals, generally the trend has been towards democracy.
One noted political scientist- Adam Przeworski, makes the argument that once a society makes a certain per capital living and is democratic, it will not reverse to alternative forms. Much of the world hasn't reached that per capital income level (I think it was about $6K when the article was written but I think it's higher now- standard of living increases).
This is not to say that democracy is perfect, but when you have states around the world, from different cultural traditions, embrassing democratic governance, you've got to think that democracy is more than a product of christianity or the enlightenment. Even if we accept that Christianity and the enlightenment were the founding principles of democratization, neither is a necessary or sufficient condition for democracy to happen.
As if cultures were made in stone and were unchangeable? Culture changes on a regular basis. Already the culture of Iraq has changed with the deposing of the B'aath party. There are arguments that globalization speeds up cultural change- the spread of Michael Jordan sneakers, the export of brazilian soccer players to Europe or Japanese baseball players to the US, the development of Russian rap- all speak to the changing natures of cultures. Does all culture change- no, but change is regular.
Does that mean liberal democracy- I don't know. I admit to having a hard time grasping the idea of illiberal democracy.
Is democratic governance the best for the Iraqi's? That's another issue. But the thing about the voting on Sunday- the Sunni's didn't vote because people were threatening them with violence. If one were to say the election was not successful, the blame for that has to do with those who threaten the violence.
I will accept that the ideological reasons for those who threaten violence may be more than opposition to democracy. Hell, probably most of it was against imperial occupation- fine. But the end result is a denial of an individual from their right, if temporarily granted, to vote. This is despotism.
True, but maybe the reason why there is terrorims or radicalism has to do with the failures of democracy during the Cold War, when the US supported dictatorship as a means of establishing political order. So perhaps democracy was frustated when it could have flourished.
Leaving the question- if not democracy, than what? Dictatorship has generally not worked in the middle east. Theocracy is another name for dictatorship with a religious label. What do you have as an alternative?
You assume that war and conquest are not natural conditions of human nature? That powerful states don't use power to make the world in their image?
The fact that the Japanese and the Germans had democracy rammed down their throats doesn't make them less democratic. Likewise, even those states that have become democratic without western liberal cultures- you're Thailands, Kenya, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil (sorry South Americans- but I am considering South American more a consequence of Catholic Hispanic culture- a shady variation I agree).- Even in those countries populations prefer to have democracy maintained if not restored when it is put in jeopardy. Even in repressive states which are not historically western or Christian, you have seen the political opposition take either a communist- marxist bent, or a liberal-democratic bent.
A few folks have argued here that people have to make democracy on their own- that's bullshit. Would Europe have changed in the 19th century as it did without the Napoleanic conquests? Could the US have won against England without the support of France (remember 1/3 of the population was loyalist and 1/3 was non-aligned)? That many of the parts of the world have moved towards democracy due to pressure from international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank demanding "good governance" (translated- democratization)- has pushed those countries towards democratic reforms.
I agree with you Kharn. Dictatorhsips have done fairly well with capitalism- often better than with communism. South Korea's economy was defeating North Korea's by the 1980s and it was still a dictatorship. Pinochet might have been a prick, but he got the Chilean economy back on track.
Furthermore, democracy can even roll back economic advances- and is one of the reasons democracy often fails. Democratic demands for services can't be answered if the government's treasury is bankrupt.
That said, but the ability of dictatorship to use it's political power to dominant markets in ways that suits itself rather than the state, is one of the reasons why, in the long-term, it is hard for dictatorships to survive for long with capitalism. Each time a dictator dies or is removed creates a cascade of insecurity that undermines commercial interactions. Give a dictator the chance to monopolize and privatize wealth, and often they will- leading to bankruptcy of the state. Empires of Spain and France fell, and governments like Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu in Zaire and others suffer this trend.
That's just silly. Not with 2/5 of the population out of the system and a viable insurgency at work in some of the major cities.
The problem with the election is that not everyone is "in" the new government that should be. While the Sh'ites and the Kurds can say they have a representative (sort of) state, the Sunni's can't, and have no reason to participate.
In that sense, regardless of the turnout- which was as expected in most of the country, I would argue that the election was a failure. The people you needed to vote didn't. Whether the process of democratization will get fucked because of it, depends on what happens over the next year.
So yes, it's another year of bloodshed and war.
I agree that there are other people with grievances to pick up the gun, and there are other reasons why the insurgents might be fighting the americans- imperialism, occupation would stand out, as would religious reasons.
And there are plenty of reasons why people in democratic states have taken up the gun as well. Sri Lanka has elections and a civil war. The Basques are still shooting up in Spain, the IRA fights in England- so people have real grievances to fight a democratic order. But the thing is this, if you launch a campaign of terror with the aim of forcing people to stay home and not vote, you are basically taking away their rights to control their destiny through your exercise of violence. At what point will you stop exercising that violence? That is despotism.
CCR is being foolish and flag waving. Kind of like the "We found the WMD's" post.
I think that the idea that the elections went well in some regions and not in others, spells big trouble in the days ahead. Either this insurgency will be defeated or it will defeat democracy in Iraq. That the terrorist campaign basically kept the Sunni's out of the vote will have dangerous consequences in the months ahead.
It's simple- the Kurds and Shi'ites were expected to vote, it was the Sunni's that had to be part of the came, the ones you had to get to the table. They 2/5 are not represented. That's a problem.
I agree with Murdoch- the US system, even with it's many flaws, still works as a democratic system. We can argue whether other democratic systems are better or not, what's wrong with it, or what can be improvied, but generally speaking it's worked.
CCR- your article doesn't really help you much but only raises the point that other middle eastern countries and watching the elections as a novel experiment. Fair enough, but whether other countries will attempt democratic reform might be another matter, or whether there will be pressure for democracy from social groups that actually gets addressed. So one election does not lead to a wave of democratization.
Ok, so democratization has occurred in waves (Huntington's The Third Wave makes that argument, and there is proof of it in the wave of democratizations that occurred in Africa during the 1990s) but there are other issues.
The question of the election is less about the turn out of Kurds and Shiites- which was expected. Rather, it has to do with the notion of establishing a viable public order. If the Sunni's get disenfranchise because of their low turn out, there is little reason for them to not continue fighting. This is true especially if those who won office despite to exploit public office for their own gains. Historically, this is the trend, and creating democracies in societies in which a society is divided fairly clearly into large ethnic blocks is tough.
Case in point- Nigeria- another large population divided along three major ethnic groups and an oil exporter. AN alternative, Yugoslavia- held together because of the power of a single authoritarian leader- Tito, and when he died it went to hell.
In contrast- consider for instance Japan- largely homogenous, and Germany, also fairly homogenous- but also states that had strong industrialized economies, understood how to create capital, valued education and modernization, had either gone through some democratization or had experience with democracy, and were considered to be 1st world countries of their time. Installing democracy there was relatively easy.
The key issue is whether one creates a public order that the constitutent members will stick too. This means that no single viable elite plus capable social group has the willing and ability to overthrow it. In essence, democracy needs to be scene as the only game in town, and no group is willing to leave the table of democratic interaction because the costs are too high.
That is not the case in Iraq today- not with elites leading strong insurgent groups and nearly 2/5 of the population off the democratic process.
I agree with Kharn's point and some of the others that things are likely to get more difficult and contentious in Iraq- but that's the nature of democracy too. Democracy is not about there not being debates or feuds or even conflicts- rather, democracy is about those aspects of contentions being contained in processes that sustain the political order. Whether you debate the immigrant issue in the US or in Europe, doesn't matter. You can disagree on policy and still agree on maintaining the constitutive order.
The problem in Iraq is whether they will be able to create an order when 2/5 of the population is not represented and significant social groups seek to overthrow that order. Under those circumstances democratization is very difficult and rarely succeeds.
Kharn said:
You are missing the point here Kharn. We can argue about whether much of the world outside the G-8 exists in neo-colonial relationships and that's a consequence of being low in relative power in the heirarchy of nations.
What I am arguing is that, if you don't accept democratization, than what? I am not arguing for either a parliamentarian model or a presidential model- but rather the basic notion of a government beheld to a society and subject to regular free and fair elections- the creation of government as fudiciary to society.
Like it or not, much of the world has democratized, and even though those countries have gone through upheavels and reversals, generally the trend has been towards democracy.
One noted political scientist- Adam Przeworski, makes the argument that once a society makes a certain per capital living and is democratic, it will not reverse to alternative forms. Much of the world hasn't reached that per capital income level (I think it was about $6K when the article was written but I think it's higher now- standard of living increases).
This is not to say that democracy is perfect, but when you have states around the world, from different cultural traditions, embrassing democratic governance, you've got to think that democracy is more than a product of christianity or the enlightenment. Even if we accept that Christianity and the enlightenment were the founding principles of democratization, neither is a necessary or sufficient condition for democracy to happen.
As if cultures were made in stone and were unchangeable? Culture changes on a regular basis. Already the culture of Iraq has changed with the deposing of the B'aath party. There are arguments that globalization speeds up cultural change- the spread of Michael Jordan sneakers, the export of brazilian soccer players to Europe or Japanese baseball players to the US, the development of Russian rap- all speak to the changing natures of cultures. Does all culture change- no, but change is regular.
Does that mean liberal democracy- I don't know. I admit to having a hard time grasping the idea of illiberal democracy.
Is democratic governance the best for the Iraqi's? That's another issue. But the thing about the voting on Sunday- the Sunni's didn't vote because people were threatening them with violence. If one were to say the election was not successful, the blame for that has to do with those who threaten the violence.
I will accept that the ideological reasons for those who threaten violence may be more than opposition to democracy. Hell, probably most of it was against imperial occupation- fine. But the end result is a denial of an individual from their right, if temporarily granted, to vote. This is despotism.
True, but maybe the reason why there is terrorims or radicalism has to do with the failures of democracy during the Cold War, when the US supported dictatorship as a means of establishing political order. So perhaps democracy was frustated when it could have flourished.
Leaving the question- if not democracy, than what? Dictatorship has generally not worked in the middle east. Theocracy is another name for dictatorship with a religious label. What do you have as an alternative?
You assume that war and conquest are not natural conditions of human nature? That powerful states don't use power to make the world in their image?
The fact that the Japanese and the Germans had democracy rammed down their throats doesn't make them less democratic. Likewise, even those states that have become democratic without western liberal cultures- you're Thailands, Kenya, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil (sorry South Americans- but I am considering South American more a consequence of Catholic Hispanic culture- a shady variation I agree).- Even in those countries populations prefer to have democracy maintained if not restored when it is put in jeopardy. Even in repressive states which are not historically western or Christian, you have seen the political opposition take either a communist- marxist bent, or a liberal-democratic bent.
A few folks have argued here that people have to make democracy on their own- that's bullshit. Would Europe have changed in the 19th century as it did without the Napoleanic conquests? Could the US have won against England without the support of France (remember 1/3 of the population was loyalist and 1/3 was non-aligned)? That many of the parts of the world have moved towards democracy due to pressure from international institutions like the IMF and the World Bank demanding "good governance" (translated- democratization)- has pushed those countries towards democratic reforms.
I agree with you Kharn. Dictatorhsips have done fairly well with capitalism- often better than with communism. South Korea's economy was defeating North Korea's by the 1980s and it was still a dictatorship. Pinochet might have been a prick, but he got the Chilean economy back on track.
Furthermore, democracy can even roll back economic advances- and is one of the reasons democracy often fails. Democratic demands for services can't be answered if the government's treasury is bankrupt.
That said, but the ability of dictatorship to use it's political power to dominant markets in ways that suits itself rather than the state, is one of the reasons why, in the long-term, it is hard for dictatorships to survive for long with capitalism. Each time a dictator dies or is removed creates a cascade of insecurity that undermines commercial interactions. Give a dictator the chance to monopolize and privatize wealth, and often they will- leading to bankruptcy of the state. Empires of Spain and France fell, and governments like Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu in Zaire and others suffer this trend.
That's just silly. Not with 2/5 of the population out of the system and a viable insurgency at work in some of the major cities.
The problem with the election is that not everyone is "in" the new government that should be. While the Sh'ites and the Kurds can say they have a representative (sort of) state, the Sunni's can't, and have no reason to participate.
In that sense, regardless of the turnout- which was as expected in most of the country, I would argue that the election was a failure. The people you needed to vote didn't. Whether the process of democratization will get fucked because of it, depends on what happens over the next year.
So yes, it's another year of bloodshed and war.
I agree that there are other people with grievances to pick up the gun, and there are other reasons why the insurgents might be fighting the americans- imperialism, occupation would stand out, as would religious reasons.
And there are plenty of reasons why people in democratic states have taken up the gun as well. Sri Lanka has elections and a civil war. The Basques are still shooting up in Spain, the IRA fights in England- so people have real grievances to fight a democratic order. But the thing is this, if you launch a campaign of terror with the aim of forcing people to stay home and not vote, you are basically taking away their rights to control their destiny through your exercise of violence. At what point will you stop exercising that violence? That is despotism.
CCR is being foolish and flag waving. Kind of like the "We found the WMD's" post.
I think that the idea that the elections went well in some regions and not in others, spells big trouble in the days ahead. Either this insurgency will be defeated or it will defeat democracy in Iraq. That the terrorist campaign basically kept the Sunni's out of the vote will have dangerous consequences in the months ahead.
It's simple- the Kurds and Shi'ites were expected to vote, it was the Sunni's that had to be part of the came, the ones you had to get to the table. They 2/5 are not represented. That's a problem.
ComradeDTA
First time out of the vault
Ahem...I think the topic of Iraq isn't about "freedom" or "democracy" but more oil routes from Russia and oil from Iraq...seeing as how they have no intentions on liberating anyone...the American mentality is more along the lines of "war for profit" not "war for freedom" this is blatenly obvious seeing how they are killing Iraqi civilians every day and have basically done NOTHING to make democracy there...hell if i lived there i wouldn't even want democracy if all it brings is death and destruction...so if you didn't know before you know know, U$A is Empire of Lies and Dollar.
Aaaarrrgh!
ComradeDTA
First time out of the vault
i'm sorry?