You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Things I Don't Understand about Iraq
- Thread starter SamHouston
- Start date
...and I give you Japan.
Boy, it really gives 'em hives when you bring up Japan.
Didn't a couple of Japanese soldiers finally surrender in the late eighties?
Conceal Carry
New member
Well i have a very different point of view and most of you may fnd it controvertial.... Iraqi's wer living peacfully in their own way before we invaded that country...and remember we did not go there to bring (enorce)democracy to that country...a democracy of western style...which they didn't required or desired.....we invaded to get rid of Saddam...their leader for years....because "WE" thought and propagated that he is a bad guy....not the Iraqi's ....we invaded to get the WMD's ..... that "We" thought and propagated that he posses in great numbers to be a security concern...... and despite all the lies and false promises our ignorant governament made to the suppressed people of that country...they didn't started fighting / killing us from the day one......remember what we did in Abugharib.... remember the innocent people we killed.. the young girls we raped....the holy places we destroyed / violated....
think from their point of view.....Saddam was bad guy....unfortunately the reality is we have been worse......and then very naivly we ask why do they fight /kill us........why shouldn't they.......think if some oter country invades our homeland to get rid of Bush saying he is a bad guy ..... trying to enforce their way of democracy or dictatorship or kingdom in our country.....killing our old an dyoung...raping our sisters and daughter.....tell me honestly who amongs us will lay low...... patriotism is good, but be very realistinc... after all they are also being patriotic aren't they?
This is my honest analysis you may not agree with me....
think from their point of view.....Saddam was bad guy....unfortunately the reality is we have been worse......and then very naivly we ask why do they fight /kill us........why shouldn't they.......think if some oter country invades our homeland to get rid of Bush saying he is a bad guy ..... trying to enforce their way of democracy or dictatorship or kingdom in our country.....killing our old an dyoung...raping our sisters and daughter.....tell me honestly who amongs us will lay low...... patriotism is good, but be very realistinc... after all they are also being patriotic aren't they?
This is my honest analysis you may not agree with me....
Let's keep our terminology straight guys.
A straight Democracy is an inevitable failure. The US is a Representative Republic, which is a form of the more generic term democracy. Note the COTUS does not use the word 'democracy'.
Democracy is a generic, not specific, term for a form of government folks. Let's not lump them all together and think we are comparing like creatures.
Liberty is a normal human desire. A Representative Republic may not be the only form of government that fosters liberty, it's possible that some new version may work. But SO FAR that one has.
As for other governments being oppressive AND a democracy, well again, not the same creature as a Representative Republic and let's not forget ole' Ben Franklin's quote when asked what government had been formed "a republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."
In short, liberty, democracy, and a Republic are not the same thing. Using them as synonyms causes misunderstanding and also reveals misunderstanding.
Liberty and the concept of Federalism (local to central government) is what Iraqis are being motivated by, not forced into. It is the promise made to them in exchange for there allience from the beginning, not something being shoved down their throats.
A straight Democracy is an inevitable failure. The US is a Representative Republic, which is a form of the more generic term democracy. Note the COTUS does not use the word 'democracy'.
Democracy is a generic, not specific, term for a form of government folks. Let's not lump them all together and think we are comparing like creatures.
Liberty is a normal human desire. A Representative Republic may not be the only form of government that fosters liberty, it's possible that some new version may work. But SO FAR that one has.
As for other governments being oppressive AND a democracy, well again, not the same creature as a Representative Republic and let's not forget ole' Ben Franklin's quote when asked what government had been formed "a republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."
In short, liberty, democracy, and a Republic are not the same thing. Using them as synonyms causes misunderstanding and also reveals misunderstanding.
Liberty and the concept of Federalism (local to central government) is what Iraqis are being motivated by, not forced into. It is the promise made to them in exchange for there allience from the beginning, not something being shoved down their throats.
BoringAccountant
New member
think from their point of view.....Saddam was bad guy....unfortunately the reality is we have been worse......and then very naivly we ask why do they fight /kill us........why shouldn't they.......think if some oter country invades our homeland to get rid of Bush saying he is a bad guy ..... trying to enforce their way of democracy or dictatorship or kingdom in our country.....killing our old an dyoung...raping our sisters and daughter.....tell me honestly who amongs us will lay low...... patriotism is good, but be very realistinc... after all they are also being patriotic aren't they?
Lest we forget the gassing of the Kurds and the numerous mass graves discovered...pretty naive opinion to have, but hey you are entitled to it.
Liberty and the concept of Federalism (local to central government) is what Iraqis are being motivated by, not forced into. It is the promise made to them in exchange for there allience from the beginning, not something being shoved down their throats.
and if they should not want it what other option would we accept?
Don't kid yourself, we have an agenda that requires the nation form a gov't we agree with. If that were not the truth then we could just let the majority there set the rules and walk away claiming it is now a "democracy."
Unregistered
Moderator
Liberty is a normal human desire.
This is an assumption, based on your world perception.
I generally agree with what you said otherwise.
This is my honest analysis you may not agree with me....
What do you base your analysis on? Have you ever been to Iraq?
Unregistered
Moderator
This isn't my argument, but going to Iraq is not necessary. If that was the case, then almost no one in Washington, including Bush, would have much grounds for any decision making.
Unregistered said:No means to resist? Surely you jest. We have been fighting the Iraqis for 5 years now....
I would say they are doing a pretty good job at resisting us, and if they can resist us, then resisting some 3rd world chump of an Ayatollah or Dictator should be easy.
Allow me to clarify; I am referring to established Arab autocracies in which the population is in full submission.
The "chump" of an autocrat controls all access to education, communications (media), and weapons. It should be obvious that cowed Arab populations -- such as Iraq under Saddam -- lack the means to resist established dictators.
Unregistered
Moderator
Why can they not resist their own leaders, if they can resist 130,000 of the finest soldiers the world has ever seen?
Musketeer said:As it is the democracy in Japan is dominated by the agendas of the Zaibatsu who really run the country.
I won't lower the tone of the discourse by referring to your response as a joke, but this statement cannot be supported. The power and influence of the zaibatsu was largely neutralized during postwar occupation, and companies reorganized horizontally as keiretsu. The new economic freedoms were exemplified by the ascendancy of Soichiro Honda; a maverick and outsider.
... the population of Japan was already cowed to obey the dictates of the Gov't in charge.
Simply insert Iraq and Saddam where underlined.
You did not have Shintoists blowing themselves up in markets full of Buddhists...
I will grant that Japan was a homogenous society and did not present the same challenges as Iraq. However, the example of Japan illustrates that a society and culture as foreign to the United States as could be imagined, was successfully transformed. It is critically important that this same endeavor succeeds in the Arab world.
I love the mantra of "We stay until it is done." It will never be done.
You will get no argument from me that this war has been prosecuted foolishly. Rag-tag militias have resisted longer than the nations we defeated in WWII. Not because they are skilled, but because WE lack resolve.
I say we set a timetable to draw things down and let the Iraqis know it is their job to run their country. If the UN, France, Germany, Russia, Saudi Arabia or anyone else wants to go in there and bring order then do so.
Not those countries. Iranian tanks will be rolling into Baghdad as our last Blackhawk lifts off the roof of the embassy (to update a searing image).
Not those countries. Iranian tanks will be rolling into Baghdad as our last Blackhawk lifts off the roof of the embassy (to update a searing image).
Then the Iraqis better figure out what they want to do. Right now we are doing nothing but handing over blank checks with no limits, accountability, or threat to stop the gravy train.
Right now we are doing nothing but handing over blank checks with no limits, accountability, or threat to stop the gravy train.
Bingo, money is always the key once we remove our support now or in 10 years life will return to the point the people of Iraq want, we may not agree with it but it will be their choice. I will say this again in this high cost modern times we must hit hard if attacked destroy their army and then remove ourselves from the area if the overwhelming need to rebuild is needed send taxpayer money but get our troops out before they become policemen.
Wow Glenn and Alley you do not believe that the desire for freedom, or at least self determination is an innate, or natural human condition.
No, but naivete certainly is!
I think I understated my position when it comes to the innate desire for liberty, personal freedom and self determination.
When I say they are within every human being, I mean in some shape or form. Here is my example.
A farmer, from anywhere in the world, you envision the locale, wants to get up when he wants to, plant what he wants to in his fields, play with his children, and maybe go home and make some more children with his wife. Like most people his idea of freedom is not the ability to vote and choose leaders in some far away land, but to do what he wants on his own land with his crops and livestock. If he wants to eat pancakes three times a day he can, if he wants to slaughter an animal and have a little party with his buddies and have a key party, that is his idea of freedom.
That is all I am saying about the innate desire for personal freedom, not the grandiose ideas of a representative goverment who listens to his well thought out ideas and acts upon them. I am just saying most people have the desire to live out thier own lives as they see fit. I don't think that is just limited to "western ideas".
To me crediting the west with being the only ones with that desire is kinda arrogant and maybe even a little racist or elitist.
When I say they are within every human being, I mean in some shape or form. Here is my example.
A farmer, from anywhere in the world, you envision the locale, wants to get up when he wants to, plant what he wants to in his fields, play with his children, and maybe go home and make some more children with his wife. Like most people his idea of freedom is not the ability to vote and choose leaders in some far away land, but to do what he wants on his own land with his crops and livestock. If he wants to eat pancakes three times a day he can, if he wants to slaughter an animal and have a little party with his buddies and have a key party, that is his idea of freedom.
That is all I am saying about the innate desire for personal freedom, not the grandiose ideas of a representative goverment who listens to his well thought out ideas and acts upon them. I am just saying most people have the desire to live out thier own lives as they see fit. I don't think that is just limited to "western ideas".
To me crediting the west with being the only ones with that desire is kinda arrogant and maybe even a little racist or elitist.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If satisfying basic personal needs, having enough to eat for self and family, constitute 'liberty' - you have come far afield from the discussions of democracy.
Many totalitarian states or theocracies can supply the basic needs tgo most and be pretty horrific on what we consider 'liberty'.
This is a straw man argument constructed after the fact to rationalize the Iraqis not moving to our kind of democracy - which was the claim that they would do.
Many totalitarian states or theocracies can supply the basic needs tgo most and be pretty horrific on what we consider 'liberty'.
This is a straw man argument constructed after the fact to rationalize the Iraqis not moving to our kind of democracy - which was the claim that they would do.
That is all I am saying about the innate desire for personal freedom, not the grandiose ideas of a representative goverment who listens to his well thought out ideas and acts upon them. I am just saying most people have the desire to live out thier own lives as they see fit. I don't think that is just limited to "western ideas".
To me crediting the west with being the only ones with that desire is kinda arrogant and maybe even a little racist or elitist.
I agree and I disagree.
Your description of a desire for personal freedom makes sense. Separate out the ideas of gov't and such and I think it seems correct.
What is missing though is the enlightenment to accept the desires of other when they do not agree with your own. I do not see that acceptance present in the Islamic world. As soon as someone's ideas of freedom differ with theirs it is time to put someone to the sword.
As far as I know the formalization of a society accepting of diversity and protecting the rights of minority viewpoints is a western invention. If I am wrong I would welcome the education.
Is that arrogant? Perhaps. I have some pride in our culture's accomplishments which other regions failed to institute on their own.
Is it racist? No, I don't think so. There is no reason related to skin color that such concepts arrived at through The Enlightenment could not have been developed in other parts of the world outside Europe and America. The reasons were rooted in the regions cultures, religions, and the geography that impacted them.
Is it elitist? Not at all. I see no outside reason any other group cannot embrace the concepts of liberty in their full form, with protections for those you may disagree with included. Certainly America has no problem with a nation adopting such a view point. It is not our place though to try to force such a concept on someone. It must gain acceptance first with those who wish to institute it and it cannot be accepted as an alternative to a bayonet. I do not see significant advancement from the Iraqis or Arabs in developing such a system but that is not because I do not think they should have one. It is because THEY do not agree they should have one.
This might sound stupid but:
Watch Red Dawn again and tell me how bad you feel when the girl blows up the Post Office. By this point in the movie the communists aren't killing people willy-nilly and are trying their best to run the territory they've occupied with their form of government which treats everyone as equals and is obviously the most fair.
I don't think any american watching feels that bad at all about the smiling, unsuspecting young russians blown to bits.
I realize that Red Dawn is just a (great) bad movie but I think that scene helps you understand how Iraqis, Palestinians or anyone with an occupying force in their country probably feels.
Watch Red Dawn again and tell me how bad you feel when the girl blows up the Post Office. By this point in the movie the communists aren't killing people willy-nilly and are trying their best to run the territory they've occupied with their form of government which treats everyone as equals and is obviously the most fair.
I don't think any american watching feels that bad at all about the smiling, unsuspecting young russians blown to bits.
I realize that Red Dawn is just a (great) bad movie but I think that scene helps you understand how Iraqis, Palestinians or anyone with an occupying force in their country probably feels.