It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

U.S. officials rethink hopes for Iraq democracy


www.cnn.com

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   
lol i know this isnt funny stuff... but how can anyone argue FOR the war in Iraq when now our own officials say a democratic govt over there isnt going to work...

what? not everyone wants to be like the US? Impossible!

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Gah. We went over there to get rid of a dictatorship, and now it sounds like we're just going to let them go back to that. Glad to know that the administration is willing to just waste lives, money, and friendships for a goal we're not even going to stick through to accomplish.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   


We went over there to get rid of a dictatorship.


Wrong. The reason we went to Iraq was not to get rid of Saddam.




As for democracy in Iraq. In my opinion it is impossible. Their culture and way of thinking about other democracies, especially the U.S. is in general a "turn off" from democracy.

They lived quietly under a brutal dictator for decades and fight hard against the people that just want to give them what the democracies of the world have.


In Iraq the fight (among Iraqis) is about wether Sunni or Shiites are gonna have all the power...the fight should be Iraqis kicking out the Syrians, Iranians, Jordanian, and who ever else is not there to help them. The people of Iraq just seem to be waiting to see who gives up first...then theyll praise whoever is left.


Its all quite irrelevant in the end anyways, we helped out Saddam, then we killed him, we will just do the same thing to who ever comes next.



[edit on 22/8/07 by Pfeil]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The reason you went over to Iraq is pretty clear, it was to secure access to the oil for your major energy companies, and to create permanent bases in the middle east.

America is going to be in Iraq for years to come and it's only going to get worse for all parties. Yet at the same time if they leave i can only see a genocide occuring on the sunnis or kurds or any other minority.

It's already getting pretty close to that now


[edit on 22-8-2007 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pfeil


We went over there to get rid of a dictatorship.


Wrong. The reason we went to Iraq was not to get rid of Saddam.


Well that may not have been the true motivation for our higher-ups, but that's what got a lot of people behind this war. It's the main reason why I gave any moral support to the invasion of Iraq, because in my opinion it was worth it to help out the Iraqi's considering Sadamm's past actions.

I won't try to justify what the administration did with Iraq, but the idea of them just giving up on the Iraqi's having democracy is just depressing.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well that may not have been the true motivation for our higher-ups, but that's what got a lot of people behind this war. It's the main reason why I gave any moral support to the invasion of Iraq, because in my opinion it was worth it to help out the Iraqi's considering Sadamm's past actions.

I won't try to justify what the administration did with Iraq, but the idea of them just giving up on the Iraqi's having democracy is just depressing.


Actually, the ONLY reason we invaded were to find weapons of mass destruction. After we couldnt find any WMDs, we changed our plan to liberate Iraq and remove Saddam.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The only acceptable form of government is Democracy, Consensus being the
purest form, which fortunately and unfortunately happens rarely.

However the actions of this administration in regards to handling the Iraq War have been
so dismal that it is going to take decades of minor social engineering to bring about
a completely stable and Democratic country without our assistance/being there.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78

Originally posted by Pfeil


We went over there to get rid of a dictatorship.


Wrong. The reason we went to Iraq was not to get rid of Saddam.


Well that may not have been the true motivation for our higher-ups, but that's what got a lot of people behind this war. It's the main reason why I gave any moral support to the invasion of Iraq, because in my opinion it was worth it to help out the Iraqi's considering Sadamm's past actions.

I won't try to justify what the administration did with Iraq, but the idea of them just giving up on the Iraqi's having democracy is just depressing.





Well to me thats a backwards way of thinking. There are plenty of nations that are under the same conditions as Iraq was and some are even worse. Many of the nations in Africa are under some kind of dictator or under some kind of warlord in-fighting strife thats resulting in the deaths of many civilians. You have kim jong-il in North Korea killing all his people with starvation and executions if they step out of line. Threatening everyone with nuclear weapons. Rwanda, Darfur, Sudan, Cuba, and half the world would have/can benefit from a invasion for the same reasons that you have given moral support for the Iraq war.


The people in Iraq have to get together and fight for democracy, thats all there is to it. There is nothing wrong with a civil war in Iraq if its for a change to democracy and not at all for religious killing. But that isnt happening. Allied troops are being attack and blown up while the general populace, for the most part, is doing nothing one way or the other. There are no pro-democracy militias trying to clean up their nation and with the exception of the US built/backed Iraq Military there is no non-Allied Coalition action going on in Iraq. Nothing at all from the Iraqis...even the Iraqi government is losing support from the very administration that set it up.


Personally im more worried about how americans have forgotten all about osama, how this administration led us into two illegal wars while the entire world except for the UK was saying dont do it and americans are fine with that, how only 1/3 of americans support the administration but there are no calls from the public for impeachment. The whole "he is our president and we should support him" is quite terrifying. Failure in Iraq does not concern me at all. When we leave they will do what they want.



[edit on 22/8/07 by Pfeil]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pfeil
You have kim jong-il in North Korea killing all his people with starvation and executions if they step out of line. Threatening everyone with nuclear weapons...Darfur, Sudan...


In the cases of those countries there is one simple reason we have'nt done
anything about it.

PRChina.
They have a powerful military, which while we would win in a war with, it would
cost many hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives, and could strike us
a good blow economically.




Personally im more worried about how americans have forgotten all about osama,


Most people realize that we have bigger fish to fry so to speak, plus he may
not even still be alive.

And if he is, the place he's most likely in we could'nt get to him without starting
a whole new war with a country with nuclear weapons no less.




how this administration led us into two illegal wars while the entire world except for the UK was saying dont do it and americans are fine with that,


Afghanistan was a completely legitimate war and one that the world supported
and one we won.

The average Afghani is better off now than they were before.

The legality of the Iraq war is more philosophical than practical, it was technically
not a war in the beginning, and the Congress approved of it, so the only thing it would be going against is UN treaties.
Mind you I'm not saying those are'nt important and need to be followed or something like that.




how only 1/3 of americans support the administration but there are no calls from the public for impeachment. The whole "he is our president and we should support him" is quite terrifying.


He has a year left in office.

Apart from that we can't impeach him anyways.
1. Even if the process was started right now, it would most likely be the month or two
before he left office that it would actually be done.
2. While the Democrats do have the majority in the Senate, they don't have the
numbers needed, even with the few Republicans that would side with them to actually
impeach him.

And most of the people don't support him because he's the president.
In fact you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who supported him simply just
because he is the president.




Failure in Iraq does not concern me at all. When we leave they will do what they want.


We won the war in Iraq and than we lost it because of the current administrations
idiocy and the American publics support of it.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
US officials are now willing to settle for any government that can function and provide security.



Like the one we deposed, but maybe with a different mustache at the top? Business as usual: they buy our weapons to subjugate their citizens while allowing our companies to bid on contracts in their country - the poor of both places continue to get poorer while still managing to hate the poor of other countries thanks to diversionary tactics?

Whew...



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Well the comments can be equated with US military and civilian leaders giving up and admitting defeat . No doubt the American right will ignore these comments much like both sides of the Iraq war argument ignore the facts that don't suit there case. No doubt the comment will become another weapon in the political armoury of those who seek political gain from ending the war in Iraq.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
US officials are now willing to settle for any government that can function and provide security.


I think the United States is just looking for an exit strategy now. I'd be surprised if the next President continues the campaign in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
From OP's article, last paragraph


The U.S. government has long cautioned that a fully functioning democracy would be slow to emerge in Iraq. But with key U.S. senators calling for al-Maliki's removal, some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.


Whoa!

Removing the entire "democratically" elected officials by force?

Now that is bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, American style. It gives the saying "beware the Greeks bearing gifts" a whole new dimension.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Pfeil
 


So sad you dont get it........

For the first time in 40 years the tribes have the freedom to hate each other again. Freedom and democracy does not equal peace...never has. Dont confuse the issue..........Peace is a seperate and fleeting thing..



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   


the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.


oh dear, not very friendly!

we use to do that sort of thing when we had an Empire, then we got bored and developed a new hobby...



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Here an article CNN posted today:


CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- A powerhouse Republican lobbying firm with close ties to the White House has begun a public campaign to undermine the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, CNN has confirmed.
This comes as President Bush is publicly taking great pains to reiterate his support for the embattled Iraqi leader.
Source


Hmm, lwt me get this right? Bush is already having affiliates try and delegitimize the Iraqi PM that he put into power? Didnt we do this to Castro? oh wait, no, we tried to assasinate him.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
democracy aint all that bad.. i believe no two democratic countries have EVER gone to war with each other in the history of democracy thats gotta count for something



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join