How can you bring Democracy to Iraq?

After doing some readings, I thought it might do me some good to whip out the poli-Sci texts books I bought, then never read. It seems that they go through a great deal of Islamic history in socio-political matters; Islam is a faith that needs to liberate itself, any pressure put on it by foreign elements hinders it in "defensive-mode", and it will, in utter vehemence, do ANYTHING to obtain the status qou.


This is a war that will never be won; as long as the U.S. forces don't allow that country it's inalienable right to self-determination, it will spiral into oblivion. We are already seeing the hubris of Bush and cadres: these men cannot understand that democracy is something of which the entire populace must be educated on so that a 'few elite' do not control the large majority. Iraq will never become a democracy, not when Islam is present. History dictates this: Islamic faith has always had the last word in sociopolitical matters, and will never waver to any political ideology that does not pay homage to Allaws world and Muhhameds teachings. If not democracy, then go the way of the Singapore during it's devoloping years and adhere an "Authorative capitalist" goverment, with the U.N. as a "big-brother" system. Iraq is not praticularly the intelectual edifice in the world; most Iraqies have a meager education, and those who do, don't seem to have much say over the fundamentalists whose mottos seems to be: "might equals right; why you say? becuase we learned from big-brother United States that passive soft diplomacy never prevails over the might of necluear weapons...

Remember Algeria in 1962? The FLN (NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT) ruled the country as an Islamic state revolved around a Marxist-oriented Goverenment.....What happened to them?
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.nationmaster.com...
www.cia.gov...

After a century of rule by France, and in the wake of 1948 elections rigged by French colonists to reverse the sweeping victory of a Muslim political party in 1947, Algerians fought through the 1950s to achieve independence in 1962. Algeria's primary political party, the National Liberation Front (FLN), has dominated politics ever since. Many Algerians in the subsequent generation were not satisified, however, and moved to counter the FLN's centrality in Algerian politics. The surprising first round success of the fundamentalist Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in the December 1991 balloting spurred the army to intervene and postpone the second round of elections to prevent an extremist-led government from assuming power. The Algerian army began a crack down on the FIS that resulted in a continuous low-grade civil conflict between Islamic activists and the secular state apparatus. The government later allowed elections featuring pro-government and moderate religiously-based parties, but did not appease the activists who progressively widened their attacks. Operations by the activists and the army resulted in nearly 100,000 deaths during the decade-long conflict. The government gained the upper hand by the mid-1990s and FIS's armed wing, the Islamic Salvation Army, disbanded in January 2000. Many armed militants of other groups surrendered under an amnesty program designed to promote national reconciliation, but small numbers of armed militants persist in confronting government forces and conducting ambushes and occasional attacks on villages. Issues facing the winner of the April 2004 presidential election include Berber unrest, large-scale unemployment, a shortage of housing, the presence of a group in the southern regions of the country that kidnapped European tourists in 2003, as well as the need to diversify Algeria's petroleum-based economy. Algeria assumed a two-year seat on the UN Security Council in January 2004.

Bush and company are very stupid, these are not men of academia hence this idiotic fiasco to bring "freedom and liberty" to Iraq.

According to Adam "Smith" the Goverenment has three duties:

To defend against foreign attack
To establish an administration of justice
To provide goods and services that are not profitable in a free society, but have collective benefits(such as beauty, clean city -- and something which he never mentioned: social services), and to insure that all individuals pay a fair share towards them.

This is all the Iraq goverenment needs so far untill it can self-determine a further discourse involving political parties and representation of the populace justly. This should NOT be entailed as a responsibility by the U.S. goverment, as it is already in conflicts with it's own system of "DeMOCKracy" and just representation by members of the goverment; The U.S. has taken a course down theocracy and fascism lane, and has remained adamant, vehementy mind you, in insuring that it has "ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY". I'am privy to such authority, where as I believe that the "best government is the ones that governs the least".

Well, enough of this rant, it was not much, but something I thought about while working and going through some texts; which I should be, being that I have my Final for Poli-Sci coming up !

Deep

Democracy, by definition, cannot be "imposed" on a populace, it must originate with them in order for it to be a true democracy.

In my opinion, it is impossible for the U.S. and Coalition to bring democracy to Iraq.

Instead, they can only do their best to try to establish conditions favorable to democracy. The rest is up to the Iraqi people.

Unfortunately, the Coalition isn't the only group of foreigners imposing its will on the Iraqi people -- as extensively reported on ATS and elsewhere, terrorists and "freedom fighters" from throughout the Middle East are flocking to Iraq to "defend" it.

Thus the people of Iraq are faced with trying to create a workable, representative government while being subjected to the horrors of hosting a proxy war. But they are no strangers to war. Not at all.

So will Iraqis ultimately gain control of their government? Only time will tell. A lot more is likely to go wrong than go right.

Whatever happens, it won't be an easy road, but at least there's a chance they can have more say in their lives than Saddam, Uday or Qusay.

I agree. We need CANNOT give them democracy, we need to, as you stated, "try to establish conditions favorable to democracy" and prevent those external elements of dissent in coercing thier own agenda upon the populace.

Though I do not support the war, I do support a more viable method of Goverment in the Middle East that justly represents the native populace. It's become quite evident that, quite literaly, "idiots" planned this war; we see this on an everyday basis in Iraq. Something to the extent of this should have been planned "years" ahead with a multi-tude of intellects ranging from every sphere of life: Philophers, political philosophers, sociologists, pyschologists, theologians, political scientists, economists, teachers, military experts, etc etc etc.

Georgy boy is not exact the 'brightest' cookie in the presidential jar..


I can't fathom how a man who barely understands the definition of "Sovereignty, can bring it to a country such as Iraq?

Bush on "Sovereignty" : www.ebaumsworld.com...

Deep

That's the funniest and saddest video I've seen in a while.

If the desire is to cut off the insurgency at it knees and get the Iraqi people onboard with elections, capitalism and democracy then there is a simple step to be taken that would go a long ways towards those goals.

The U.S. should cajole the Allawi government to set up "oil accounts" for each and every Iraqi citizen. As part of the registration for these accounts Iraqi's of voting age can also register to vote in the upcoming elections.

The existence of these "oil accounts" would set the insurgents directly in opposition to the peoples welfare not only because they would be against sabotage of the infrastructure but also because stability is needed for new investment in the development and production needed to fund these accounts.

I think the foreign and domestic opposition would be hard pressed to counter such a beneficial step taken for the people and that the average Iraqi would be motivated to turn in anyone that so directly works against their future.

The "oil accounts" would provide the base of savings to support a viable banking system where the citizenry could obtain loans to open businesses and drive a consumer economy.

This would in essence involve every Iraqi in a stable future for their country by "investing" them directly in the outcome.

A program like this already exists in a limited form in Alaska for natives of that state to share in the oil profits made in the production of that states oil fields.

A similar program could also be set up for Palastinians and Israelis as offshore fields are developed in the Mediteranian.

Money of course will not solve all problems social or religious but I surmise that a people directly invested in their economic future will be much less apt to undermine that future by supporting violent political movements.

Well if we see how democracy is working in Afghanistan only the main cities have a (democratic) government the rest of the country is rule by war loards and the traffiqing of opium, but because it brings money nobody is complaning to much. Humm Capitalism.

Now in Iraq, only the few that wants the democracy so they can "capitalize" of the resources of the country are the ones screaming for democracy, but the rest are fighting against it.

And is nothing like afghanistan after all.



[edit on 20-11-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by marg6043

Now in Iraq, only the few that wants the democracy so they can "capitalize" of the resources of the country are the ones screaming for democracy, but the rest are fighting against it.

And is nothing like afghanistan after all.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by marg6043]

Sometimes small thoughts made by small thinkers can be made in very few words

For someone that derives a direct and quantifiable benefit from that dreaded capitalistic system so often potrayed as evil and oppurtunistic I thought someone like yourself would appreciate the "share the wealth" suggestion made earlier - alas you are so wrapped in dogma you have failed to remove the blinders so depended upon.

Do you have a solution to offer? other than turn tail and run or would it be better to remain with ones head in the sand

PS:Just realize its very hard to cover ones posterior when ones head is in the sand. Yours is showing with true panache right now.

Originally posted by Phoenix
PS:Just realize its very hard to cover ones posterior when ones head is in the sand. Yours is showing with true panache right now.

Well Phoenix your use of worlds will make the weakest run, but I am not, so stop the melodrama and co'mon down my dear member and show what you have, can you bring democracy to Iraq?

Obviously Mr. Bush in the white house is doing a horrible job at it.

Perhaps if half of the population comes down and die as "casualties" may be the elections will be won by allawi "occurs" with a sweet sweep and democracy will be in action.

Dream on Phoenix. dare to dream the dream of the naive. I may have my head in the sand but you are right next to me.

Marg I prefer to believe the glass is half full rather than half empty. I am far from naive when offering solutions rather than carping about things I have no control over.

Your words are empty as long as you offer nothing as a solution other than dogma.

Get yer head out and be part of the solution rather than a shill for the apologetic.

Requirements for democracy are individual freedom to practice ones life as you see fit as long as you cause no harm to others with your actions. This altruistic ideal has no chance whatsoever without a strong economic engine enabling people to worry about things other than survival.

Why have you no blame for those that will deny this to the Iraqis whilst grilling the Bush administration for ending the Saddam regime.

Recent news accounts from insurgents captured in Iraq say Saddam set up these cells in 2001 and there is now no dispute about Syrian and Iranian meddling in Iraqs affairs. For these reasons it is not any longer acceptable to claim the insurgency as the will of the people - in fact that assertion is so far from the truth as to make it farfetched.

The average Iraqis desires are not very far removed from yours or mine in that they want to bring up their children to be better off and at peace - that is something that was demonstatably impossible for the average Iraqi under Saddam since the day he took power - unless of course one was part and parcel part of his nightmare regime.

Sure Phoenix and the sun raises every day in the east, now if you believe that Mr. Bush is doing a fantastic job in Iraq, and he is sure to bring democracy in that country keep dreaming, and if you believe you can do a better job with your hopes then you most be better man than Mr. Bush himself.

Phoenix most people by now has realized that the "Iraqi liberation" was everything but that.

Originally posted by marg6043
Sure Phoenix and the sun raises every day in the east, now if you believe that Mr. Bush is doing a fantastic job in Iraq, and he is sure to bring democracy in that country keep dreaming, and if you believe you can do a better job with your hopes then you most be better man than Mr. Bush himself.

Again Marg you just write off the Iraqi people in support of your anti-war stance.
The time for that stance is far in the past - reality now requires solutions not blame. I know you have professed troop support in lieu of policy support and that position is just fine with me, what I do ask is support of the Iraqi people by having positive ideas that will help in their future.

Here is an article about what the people of Iraq think for your reference,

The Truth About Iraq

Other polling data are equally promising. The vast majority of Iraqis�72 percent�see the same benefits in democracy as Americans do: the hope of peace, stability, and a better life. Most polls show that a no less sizable majority of Iraqis (75 percent) are moderate democrats and want to vote for their leaders rather than have religious clerics appoint them.

Some 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to prevent the more than 19 million Iraqis who want democracy from achieving it. Michael Moore (who, despite what Fahrenheit 9/11 might lead you to believe, has also never been to Iraq) might call the insurgents freedom fighters, but make no mistake: they're not fighting for anybody's freedom. They seek to oppress, whether through another Baathist-style dictatorship or a theocracy. More than 60 percent of Iraqis say that the foreign insurgents intend to destabilize their country, while 70 percent think that, regardless of their origin, the insurgents are only prolonging the nation's internal troubles.

So you see Marg its not just my dreaming, it is also a majority of Iraqis dream.

Do you really know the truth about Iraq, do we really know what the middle east people wants?

Guess what, if the 70 something percent of Iraq really wanted democracy and wants the US with open arms US will not be in the mess we are right now.

So obviously is less much less than the 70 something of people in that country that claims that they wants US in their land.

Open your eyes, US will not be fighting so much in that country if that 70 percent was real and in our side.

That was an interesting article Phoenix as was your recomendation on starting an economy in Iraq revolving around the oil industry, though, I do ponder the corruptability of such an endevour; as we have already seen, the U.N. failed to keep tabs on the "OIL-FOR-FOOD" programe in Iraq, and this consequently led to billions of dollars in revenues being allocated to "x" places or persons. I, personaly, do not see the U.N. as a corrupt organization, nor do I see it, in it's current form, as plausible institution to observe and play "big-brother" to the Iraq goverment (no matter what ideology it adheres), that is, unless, it is granted MORE power, politicaly and military wise.

One thing I find odd about that "statistical report" is previous numbers clashing with those prescribed here: 5000 dead children, 750, 000 "tortured", "Some 20,000 to 30,000 insurgents, many from outside Iraq, are trying to prevent the more than 19 million Iraqis who want democracy from achieving it", "More than 60 percent of Iraqis tell pollsters that the government has done a good job since the June 28 handover"; these all same a bit exagerated don't you think? It's also pro-Bush and makes hints at the fallacies of the former Kerrey campaign and some cheap shots at Micheal Moore: it's outdated don't cha think ? I also remember a poll from "Fox" insinuating that 43 percent of Iraqies still perfered Saddam over Bush..

With the idiocy of this current administration in handling this war and domestic affairs at home, I'am privy in it's ability to handle those of another less fortunate country; George Bush's foriegn and domestic policies are delterious to America and the international community (maybe except Canada 'economicaly'), and the American Governments Middle Eastern policies have failed, to let alone bring stagnation, if any progress in a positive and productive manner. They can lie out of thier teeth all they want (in a much anticipated and predictable Machiavellian manner), but the world, with the advent of the internet among many other things, is catching on to thier lies and scandals.

I'am happy that the Iraqi people have thier freedom of "Self-Determination", but, it's been much more atrophic to allow the United States to grant them freedom to them, than it has for them to fight for it on thier own.

Deep

ZeroDeep, all good points especially about the subject of corruption. The "oil accounts" I spoke of would be for the individual and as far seperated from government control as is possible. There of course would be room for creative accounting on the front end but assuming Iraq goes to free elections then a method of redress is possible.

As far as mid-eastern policy and its success or failure is concerned we will have to remain in respectful disagreement.

The polling cited in the article stands whether or not the author expressed dislike of Kerry and Moores approach to the issue. Your post comments likewise show a bias against Bush but that doesnt neccessarily discount your facts eh.

The polling is based on work by Steven Moore,
www.thetruthaboutiraq.org...

After working in Iraq for nine months doing focus groups and polling and advising Ambassador Bremer on Iraqi public opinion, Steven Moore returned to the United States in May 2004. Upon returning, he was astounded to find how sharply his experience in Iraq differed from that being communicated on television.

Mr. Moore helped develop Iraqi capacity for public opinion research. After conducting more than 70 focus groups in 13 Iraqi cities, and having a hand in writing and analyzing nearly a dozen public opinion polls, Mr. Moore is a leading expert on Iraqi public opinion.

Now if more recent and reliable polling was available I certainly would use it and/or be interested in it.

I agree, but, I have a liable reason to realize that President Bush has a countenance towards Christian ethos and yet vehemently duresses Islamic fundamentalism or even the slightest disposition og governing bodies in the Middle East to rely on Islamic teachings. What is the difference between violent fundamentalists who coerce thier values on another, than those who overty do it through educational and governing bodies? One, at first, brings social disruption against foriegn elements, and has dire implications on society; the other, through passive means, tends to 'slowly' indoctrinate it's 'ethos' on the populace through educations and governing instiutions, for example: Cristian Science, Banning homosexual marriage, not allowing sexual rights to women, not being in favour of abortion for reasons vaugly stated and manipulate through savy political speach.

I don't like Bush, fine, I can admit it with great disparity: He has carried this war like a child carrying a baby bottle: milking it in absolute visceral desire and occasionaly drop it on the ground for his mother (U.N., and those advisors of his) to put back in his mouth.

So, yes, I am biased; but, on that note, I'am also do agree that the article you prescribed may use 'facts' to tell a tale -- whatever tale it can manipulate by the findings. I'am not brushing it off, but also denoting that many use these very tactics in thier writings, I, aswell, am guilty of this.

#, I have to leave. Look, I'll finish this when I get home.

Deep

ZeroDeep I respect our differences and have to aknowledge your point of view however misguided it may be. (we're not all religious) Please don't paint to broad a brush when infering all republicans are of a certain ilk.

I am further to the right than most making me a libertarian that also believes in foreign policy and all that that entails. This also makes me believe in our rights - all of them! as afforded in the constitution.
Basically its no business of the government to deny or approve of religion or any other right emumerated to the states period.

Now back on subject the Iraqi situation is not reversible in that we cannot just pullout. So policy disagreements about how we got there in the first place are now irrelevent.

What is important and should be at the forefront of all of our minds is how to make this a success no matter your base political leanings, this is what will save american lives and prevent that oft worried about draft mentioned so frequently.

Or would you rather agitate for defeat which will guarantee more lives lost and a longer recovery for the Iraqi people.

The time for partisanship is long gone if solutions are to be made for the Iraqi's and our soldiers welfare.

The idea that Bush is the patron saint of democracy, bringing his gift to the poor inhabitants of Iraq, who previously didn't know a thing about democracy is a LIE. The iraqi people have a long and proud history of fighting for democracy, not at the barrel of a gun but by the march of the masses.

Originally posted by General Zapata
The idea that Bush is the patron saint of democracy, bringing his gift to the poor inhabitants of Iraq, who previously didn't know a thing about democracy is a LIE. The iraqi people have a long and proud history of fighting for democracy, not at the barrel of a gun but by the march of the masses.

And what long tradition can you link to that supports what you say or are you exspessing an opinion of your own.

To say on the one hand Iraqis knew nothing of democracy is patently false and on the other hand to say that the majority of Iraqis are being forced at the point of the gun to embrace democracy is the only lie to be found on this thread.

Democracy in Iraq? thats unbelievable! Can you guys imagine a Muslim State in the USA?

think about it!

greetings!

Originally posted by Phoenix
[And what long tradition can you link to that supports what you say or are you exspessing an opinion of your own.

this one:

British troops occupies Iraq during world war one, and britain pretty much ruled iraq until July 1958, until a popular revolt overthrew the british-backed monarchy. As early as 1920 there was widespread uprising, due to the harshness of british rule. Over the period of british rule, they faced over 40 seperate, major rebellions. With the rapidly growing working class, concentrated in strategic locations suchas the port of Basra, the railway workshops near baghdad and in textile and cigarette factories, the Iraqi Communist Party emerged. In 1924, the first Marxist study circle was formed by a student of Baghdad's law school. It was amongst the youth that the communists first built a following. In 1927, the first demonstrations saw 2,000 people take to the streets. This grew to 135,000 by 1958. It took immense dedication to sustain an underground party that was repeatedly broken up by arrests, torture, shootings and executions. The first decisive show of working class militancy cam in March 1937, when the workers of the port of Basra struck. Soon, they were followed by the labourers of the Baghdad cigarette factories and those of Iraqi Petroleum Co. in Kirkuk. In all, 20,000 workers struck.

A major revolt broke out in 1948 in opposition to the Portsmouth agreement which guaranteed continuing british domination in Iraq. Under ICP leadership, crowds armed with huge canes clashed with police. After days of protests, the government backed down. Despite hundreds being shot by police, the protests continued, and the prime minister fled to britain.

This was all before the Ba'ath party took power, largely because of the ICP holding back at the last moment, allowing the nationalists, led by Abdul Qasim, to take powe

The iraqi people know how to fight for their freedom. Its not as if they need to be shown the way.