Peace Breaking Out All Over

[Pangloss]

As many of you know, I wasn't a fan of the invasion of Iraq. But it's interesting to look at some of the changes that have taken place since that invasion.

 

- Elections in Palestine

- (Local/Limited) Elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time

- Elections in Iraq

- Syria opens a dialog with Israel for the first time since... the 1973 war (?)

- A massive democracy movement breaks out in Lebanon

 

Obviously our invasion of Iraq was not the direct cause of all of these events. But you can just as easily make an argument that none of them might have happened were it not for that invasion and the pressure it's brought to bear on Middle Eastern governments.

 

I'm curious what you guys make of all of this.

[TimeTraveler]

As many of you know' date=' I wasn't a fan of the invasion of Iraq. But it's interesting to look at some of the changes that have taken place since that invasion.

 

- Elections in Palestine

- (Local/Limited) Elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time

- Elections in Iraq

- Syria opens a dialog with Israel for the first time since... the 1973 war (?)

- A massive democracy movement breaks out in Lebanon

 

Obviously our invasion of Iraq was not the direct cause of all of these events. But you can just as easily make an argument that none of them might have happened were it not for that invasion and the pressure it's brought to bear on Middle Eastern governments.

 

I'm curious what you guys make of all of this.[/quote']

 

It could be a good thing, I hope it is a good thing.

 

But there are some concerns I have:

 

Are you absolutly sure those elections all over the middle east are a good thing?

 

Can you be absolutly sure that an anti-American or anti-modernizing party won't rise into power?

 

Can you be absolutly sure that they won't share in the goals of other middle eastern terrorists by wanting the US out of the middle east?

 

Can you be sure that a terrorist party won't be elected into power?

 

Before the Iraqi war the terrorist cells were small and unmotivated. Sure they wanted to fight against the modernization of the middle east but they were attacking in the middle east. They assassinated the president of Egypt in iirc the 70s or 80s with a big uprising and shootout in the city. Shortly after they were arrested, many terrorists were and similar groups were oppressed and detained all throughout the middle east. The people were not standing for it, a few managed to survive for periods of time here and there. Then when the US backed the afghan against the soviets, we did it with money, not troops. We spent somewhere near a billion dollars in weaponary and mercenaries for people in the area to push back the soviets.

 

Many terrorists were freed from the prisons of the middle east, including the leader who would later make bin Laden is right hand man, and this guys 300 terrorist buddies. These were the guys who made the uprising in Egypt and killed the President of Egypt. Anyways they took off to fight in Afgan with a bunch of other mercenaries, funded by US dollars filtered to them by the CIA. After these guys eventually drove the soviets back ( Mostly because the soviets were having major financial issues and could not afford to continue to fight) these terroists claimed it was their victory. They used it as a marketing tool in a way to recruit more terrorists (or in their eyes, freedom fighters to push back the modernization of the middle east). They grew quick after that but then began to fall off, they got more and more desperate and began killing in the most brutal of ways to try and gain attention to their cause.

 

Their methods became so brutal that their cause began to crumble, they were getting smaller and smaller and more desperate. They changed their target from the anti-modernization of the middle east to the direct cause of their hatred. The people who were modernizing the middle east, they declared war on the US. OBL was a follower shortly after the push back of the soviets and became close to the leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri (The now alleged right hand man to OBL).

 

Anyways how do you know groups like these won't get into power somewhere?

 

How did Saddam get into power?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saddam Hussein 'Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti (Hussein also spelled Husayn and Hussain; Arabic: ÕÏÇã ÍÓíä ÚÈÏÇáãÌíÏ ÇáÊßÑíÊí; see Note 1 regarding the use of the name 'Saddam' within this article; born April 28, 1937 2) was President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. Born into a poor family in a village near the town of Tikrit, he joined the revolutionary Ba'ath Party, which espoused secular Arab nationalism, economic modernization, and socialism, at the age of twenty. He later played a key role in the bloodless Ba'ath Party coup on July 17, 1968.

Regularly working 18-hour days between 1968 and 1979, Saddam was a rising star in the new regime. Iraq's first Ba'athist president, the frail and elderly General Ahmed Bakr, delegated power to him. Saddam tightly controlled conflict between government departments and the armed forces at a time when many organizations were considered capable of overthrowing the government, and Iraq's economy grew at a rapid pace in the 1970s. 3

 

Saddam formally assumed the Iraqi presidency in 1979. He maintained power through the devastating Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the first Gulf War (1991), which both corresponded with a sharp decline in living standards and the human rights situation. While hailed among some sectors of the Arab world for standing up to the West and his unflinching support for the Palestinians, the United States continued to view Saddam with harsh scorn following Iraqi defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. He was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and was captured by U.S. forces on December 13, 2003.

 

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/e...am_hussein.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Now that we have attacked Iraq twice, killed many innocent civilians, threaten Iran and Syria, protect Isreal,and continued to modernize the middle east rapidly, is it possible that these groups won't attract more members or inspire other radical groups in the area who might try to get into power to uprise against the US and modernization?

 

Is modernization so important that we push it on them so fast or don't give them time enough to adapt. Are there other ways to modernize(Such as things that don't stand against traditions), maybe help with localizing agriculture instead of sweat shops. Maybe we should put a leash on our corporations.

 

Sorry I am rambling, anyways the point is; it is hard to predict what these democratic elections in the mid east will bring. I hope it brings good, I really do. But even if it does it won't stop terrorism. And it could prove to make things worse, it could get someone into power who makes Saddam look like a nice guy.

[Sayonara]

Can you be absolutly sure that an anti-American or anti-modernizing party won't rise into power?

Can you be absolutly sure that they won't share in the goals of other middle eastern terrorists by wanting the US out of the middle east?

So what if they do?

 

You don't kick-start democracy by force or threat of force in other countries under the guise of freeing the people from tyranny' date=' then complain because you don't like what they do with that freedom. That's called hypocrisy.

 

[i']I[/i] want the US and UK out of the Middle East. Does that make me a terrorist? Anti-American? Anti-democratic? A deeply bad person? No. The democratic status of a nation is not defined by what its people want or believe.

 

If we've learned anything over the past few years, it's that calling things you don't like "Anti-American" is a complete farce.

 

Is modernization so important that we push it on them so fast or don't give them time enough to adapt. Are there other ways to modernize(Such as things that don't stand against traditions), maybe help with localizing agriculture instead of sweat shops. Maybe we should put a leash on our corporations.

This seems a lot more rational to me. Even so, we simply have to accept that certain things cannot be predicted or controlled. It is not up to us to determine the "right" course of action for other countries, especially those we claim to be helping towards democratic civilian governments.

[john5746]

As many of you know' date=' I wasn't a fan of the invasion of Iraq. But it's interesting to look at some of the changes that have taken place since that invasion.

 

- Elections in Palestine

- (Local/Limited) Elections in Saudi Arabia for the first time

- Elections in Iraq

- Syria opens a dialog with Israel for the first time since... the 1973 war (?)

- A massive democracy movement breaks out in Lebanon

 

Obviously our invasion of Iraq was not the direct cause of all of these events. But you can just as easily make an argument that none of them might have happened were it not for that invasion and the pressure it's brought to bear on Middle Eastern governments.

 

I'm curious what you guys make of all of this.[/quote']

 

 

Based on this evidence, let's invade Korea! They admit they have WMD. This will cost many lives, but will eventually bring democracy to China!

 

Maybe there is an easier way? The longest route isn't necessarily the most difficult or costly.

[atinymonkey]

Peace! Stability! Democracy! Murders! Lawlessness! Terror! Anarchy! Fear!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4310365.stm

 

Whooo! Go team warmonger!

[Pangloss]

Are you absolutly sure those elections all over the middle east are a good thing? (etc)

 

Excellent question(s)! Wish I had an answer.

 

Nice post. And I share your hope, even if we're just a couple of goofy optimists.

 

 

You don't kick-start democracy by force or threat of force in other countries under the guise of freeing the people from tyranny, then complain because you don't like what they do with that freedom. That's called hypocrisy.

 

Perhaps, but I think that threat of force has only been one of the methods used. Walk softly and carry a big stick, remember? You can make a case that we wielded the big stick too soon, but you cannot make a case that we never tried diplomacy at all.

 

Even so, we simply have to accept that certain things cannot be predicted or controlled. It is not up to us to determine the "right" course of action for other countries, especially those we claim to be helping towards democratic civilian governments.

 

Well put.

[syntax252]

Post #2

 

Hey timetraveler, are you copying jshaber on Glocktalk, or is it the other way around?

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=349353&perpage=25&highlight=&pagenumber=6

[Sayonara]

Perhaps, but I think that threat of force has only been one of the methods used. Walk softly and carry a big stick, remember? You can make a case that we wielded the big stick too soon, but you cannot make a case that we never tried diplomacy at all[/i'].

I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself, and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling.

 

Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most.

[TimeTraveler]

Hey timetraveler, are you copying jshaber on Glocktalk, or is it the other way around?

 

Hey Syntax, same person. I took your advice from PNAC thread and took my debate there to see what kind of response I could get as I wasn't getting much feed back or discussion on that topic here. Do you respond to threads in the political section there? If so whats your user name?

 

Take care.

[TimeTraveler]

So what if they do?

 

You don't kick-start democracy by force or threat of force in other countries under the guise of freeing the people from tyranny, then complain because you don't like what they do with that freedom. That's called hypocrisy.

 

I want the US and UK out of the Middle East. Does that make me a terrorist? Anti-American? Anti-democratic? A deeply bad person? No. The democratic status of a nation is not defined by what its people want or believe.

 

If we've learned anything over the past few years, it's that calling things you don't like "Anti-American" is a complete farce.

 

Im not calling things I don't like anti-American, I'm calling groups, parties, or organizations that hate America and American ideals enough to declare war on America Anti-American (Al Qaeda for example) We can't be sure we are not breeding more groups similar AQ in the middle east. The ideals from AQ stemmed from about 40+ years ago, its impossible to predict what impact we may be having on people 40 years from now.

 

"So what if they do?" Well it could potentially put people in more danger from terrorists. And I completely agree that we can't use force or threat of force and then complain about what happens when democracies form. We should not be threatning the use of force or forcing democracy. We should not even be in the middle east. It is not our land it does not belong to us. If acts of Genocide take place we should step in, to protect the innocents. But we should not be bullying our ways onto people period.

 

Its all about corporate greed, they need to expand to other nations to expand their profits. I say they need a leash and their profits should have restrictions. I veiw corporations as more powerful than governments, and when they are driven purely by greed that really scares me to what the future will bring.

[syntax252]

Hey Syntax' date=' same person. I took your advice from PNAC thread and took my debate there to see what kind of response I could get as I wasn't getting much feed back or discussion on that topic here. Do you respond to threads in the political section there? If so whats your user name?

 

Take care.[/quote']

 

You should be able to figure that out.......

[syntax252]

I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself' date=' and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling.

 

Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most.[/quote']

 

Judgeing by the turnout for the recent election in Iraq, and that under the threat of death, I would say that if democracy is being "forced" on the people of Iraq, they are certainly willing to have it imposed upon them.

 

I can't think that the people will not be better off choosing their leadership than they were submitting to the biggist and baddest thugs in the country..

[Pangloss]

I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself' date=' and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling.

 

Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most.[/quote']

 

 

You misunderstand the purpose of the big stick. It's not about telling other people what to do, but rather telling other people what WE are going to do, at least in so far as protecting ourselves and our national interests.

 

By the way, you get three guesses what nation we learned that from, and the first two don't count. ;-)

 

I do agree that we shouldn't meddle in other nations' affairs as a general rule. I don't agree that "democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it". Sure that happens sometimes, but not always, as China may soon demonstrate (if it hasn't already).

 

At any rate, the purpose of diplomacy with regard to Iraq was not to solve the problem of "lack of democracy in Iraq", but rather to solve the problem of a "destabilizing regime in Iraq with weapons of mass destruction". The effort to democratize Iraq came after the war, and as a consequence of it, but it was not the cause.

[Pangloss]

By the way, NY Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman had an interesting related point in his column the other day:

 

Thanks to eight million Iraqis defying "you vote, you die" terrorist threats, Iraq has been reframed from a story about Iraqi "insurgents" trying to liberate their country from American occupiers and their Iraqi "stooges" to a story of the overwhelming Iraqi majority trying to build a democracy, with U.S. help, against the wishes of Iraqi Baathist-fascists and jihadists.

 

(Requires login, but not email confirmation, so if you want to read it just go to http://www.nytimes.com and go to the columnists page and click on Friedman's link.)

[Pangloss]

Another note of interest from yesterday in Iraq:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=541819

 

ABC News has half a story on this, at the above URL. Apparently the weekend attack that killed 130-ish workers waiting to apply for police jobs has prompted an estimated 2,000 Iraqis to take to the streets in protest over terrorism in their country. Good for them.

 

The story is not being widely reported. As you can see from the URL below, the New York Times did not include the demonstration in its regular report on events in Iraq today:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/01/international/middleeast/01cnd-iraq.html?hp

 

None of the major network news shows carried it on their 6:30pm broadcasts last night.

 

The Times did pick up an AP Wire story on the event, but that story is no longer available, having "scrolled off the wire", I suppose.

[atinymonkey]

I think it is very much early doors to make assertions as to the future stability of Iraq. When they start to be truly independant rather than under military occupation, the events within the country will carry more merit.

[syntax252]

I think it is very much early doors to make assertions as to the future stability of Iraq. When they start to be truly independant rather than under military occupation, the events within the country will carry more merit.

 

But you would agree that things are rather better than predicted to be at this point--would you not?

[atinymonkey]

But you would agree that things are rather better than predicted to be at this point--would you not?

 

No. Not unless you are a necromancer.

 

And stop trolling me.

[[Tycho?]]

I think it is very much early doors to make assertions as to the future stability of Iraq. When they start to be truly independant rather than under military occupation, the events within the country will carry more merit.

 

Indeed. We'll know how these events turn out many years from now.

[Pangloss]

I'm not familiar with the phrase "early doors".... is that a British thing?

 

Anyway it's a valid point.

[atinymonkey]

Ah, sorry. The term 'early doors' refers to the period of time after a pub opens to the public and before it's license allows it to serve alcohol, normally from 10am until noon. It's colloquial usage is used to reference a time frame when nothing meaningful can be done or decided (in the original context, you can't drink in the pub so it's pointless to enter).

 

On a side note, I do hope that the democracy in Iraq will last and create a stable government. It would be a firm base for an overall stability in the middle east. However, past indicators point towards that enduring peace becoming a rather fleeting aspect of the political scene. Hopefully, the balancing act the occuping forces are using to introduce the democracy while withdrawing will be successful.

[Sayonara]

Judgeing by the turnout for the recent election in Iraq' date=' and that under the threat of death, I would say that if democracy is being "forced" on the people of Iraq, they are certainly willing to have it imposed upon them.

I can't think that the people will not be better off choosing their leadership than they were submitting to the biggist and baddest thugs in the country.. [/quote']

Ten out of ten for evading the point.

 

 

You misunderstand the purpose of the big stick. It's not about telling other people what to do, but rather telling other people what WE are going to do, at least in so far as protecting ourselves and our national interests.

I do not misunderstand its purpose at all - I am decrying the readiness of nations to wield it without more discretion, and to wield it so readily outside their own borders.

 

If I stand on my front lawn shaking a stick at some local ragamuffins, I'll be considered within my rights since they were throwing stones at my windows. If, however, I chase them down the street with a stick, I will be arrested for causing a public disturbance and threatening actual bodily harm. The analogy may be crude, but the same principles are supposed to be observed in international law.

 

But then, as I have said many times before, I don't really consider wading into random countries with the army o' death and toppling governments to be defensive measures. How crazy I must be. Perhaps I am some kind of liberal and don't realise it.

 

 

By the way, you get three guesses what nation we learned that from, and the first two don't count. ;-)

I don't see how that's relevant. Were these the days of the Empire I'd likely be making similar points.

 

 

I do agree that we shouldn't meddle in other nations' affairs as a general rule. I don't agree that "democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it". Sure that happens sometimes, but not always, as China may soon demonstrate (if it hasn't already).

You disagree in the sense that you don't think democracy has a tendency to arise, or in the sense that you don't think the nation has to be ready?

 

Picking out one example of a nation that hasn't achieved democracy is fairly unproductive, seeing as I said "tendency", and also because of inconvenient words like "yet".

 

At any rate, the purpose of diplomacy with regard to Iraq was not to solve the problem of "lack of democracy in Iraq", but rather to solve the problem of a "destabilizing regime in Iraq with weapons of mass destruction".

It's not the diplomacy itself that's the problem, it's the implementation. Let's not shoot the messenger.

 

The effort to democratize Iraq came after the war, and as a consequence of it, but it was not the cause.

I don't think I implied that to be the case, but if I did it wasn't intentional.

[Pangloss]

I do not misunderstand its purpose at all - I am decrying the readiness of nations to wield it without more discretion, and to wield it so readily outside their own borders.

 

If I stand on my front lawn shaking a stick at some local ragamuffins, I'll be considered within my rights since they were throwing stones at my windows. If, however, I chase them down the street with a stick, I will be arrested for causing a public disturbance and threatening actual bodily harm. The analogy may be crude, but the same principles are supposed to be observed in international law.

 

But then, as I have said many times before, I don't really consider wading into random countries with the army o' death and toppling governments to be defensive measures. How crazy I must be. Perhaps I am some kind of liberal and don't realise it.

 

 

Fair enough, and I generally agree with the sentiment.

 

But how would you have handled, say, Hitler annexing of the Sudetenland, etc?

 

I imagine you have a response, and knowing you it's likely an intelligent one, but let me just preceed it by pointing out that not all Americans are as smart as you or (at the risk of sounding immodest) me. So they tend to view the above sentiment as weak. Right or wrong, that's the kind of mentality we have to work around here.

 

 

You disagree in the sense that you don't think democracy has a tendency to arise, or in the sense that you don't think the nation has to be ready?

 

I disagree in the sense that I don't think democracy has a tendency to arise. I raise China as an example because I think it shows that, for example, economic success is a stronger motivation for change than freedom. Most people care more about food in their bellies and TV sets in their living room than voting rights or freedom of travel. China is proving this on a daily basis.

 

China may ultimately prove me wrong and you right (and I'll be the first one to cheer). But every indication at the moment is the opposite. It's about to become a nation with a middle class as large as the entire population of the United States (or most of the EU combined), and they're too busy buying cars and refridgerators and making 0.9 (preferably male) babies per family to even think about taking to the streets.

 

So any revolution in China won't come from the proletariat, it'll come from the bourgeoisie, but only after a long period of exploring their current status. Who is to say what steps the CP will take to stave off any negative trends down the road, just as they have somehow managed so far?

 

Does this not serve as a potential proof of my refutation that democracy does not necessarily have a tendency to arise?

[syntax252]

No. Not unless you are a necromancer.

 

And stop trolling me.

 

Well OK' date=' if you [b']insist[/b] on being among the last to regain conciouseness....

[syntax252]

Originally Posted by Sayonara³

I don't really feel that I need to. Wielding the stick at all is questionable in itself, and to a certain degree so is diplomatic meddling.

 

Democracy has a tendency to arise when the society is ready for it. Our attempt to enforce democracy could be catastrophic, and it will most likely hurt them the most.

********************

 

To which I replied......

 

******************

Judgeing by the turnout for the recent election in Iraq, and that under the threat of death, I would say that if democracy is being "forced" on the people of Iraq, they are certainly willing to have it imposed upon them.

 

I can't think that the people will not be better off choosing their leadership than they were submitting to the biggist and baddest thugs in the country..

*******************

And then you come back with this?

 

 

 

Ten out of ten for evading the point.

 

 

 

 

Tell me---what was the point then, since you seem to think I missed it.