babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » What should be done in Iraq?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What should be done in Iraq?
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 02 September 2003 11:25 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm curious. What do people think should be done in Iraq. I totally opposed the war, but it happened and now we have to deal with the consequences. What are the options?

1. The US just pulls up stakes and unilaterally withdraws all forces from Iraq and leaves the country to dissolve into total anarchy.

2. The US makes a deal with Saddam whereby he is reinstated as leader and given full powers to restore his police state and the US withdraws.

3. The US stays and boldters its forces and just grins and bears it while more and more casualties mount.

4. The US asks the UN to take over, but maybe the UN doesn't want to since they are also a target And no countries in the UN want to commit any troops.

any other options? What would you do if you were President of the US and you had to deal with the situation and there was no way of retroactively UNinvading Iraq.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 September 2003 11:37 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think there is a problem, first of all, with continuing to look at what is happening in Iraq from the perspective of the Americans. We've all been trained to do that, but I think we have to untrain ourselves. Actually, in the best of all possible worlds, the Americans would start training themselves to do that, which would make them smarter administrators ... but I digress into fantasyland ...

The problem is that Iraq is close to civil war already, and a war among more than two groups. It may be that this conflagration simply cannot be stopped.

I think that nations that still believe in and support the UN should be soliciting information and advice right now from people who know Iraq and any/all of its groupings from the inside. We have to start thinking through what is happening there on the basis of real information rather than U.S. propaganda.

I'm sure that there are many people at the UN who are trying to do this right now. The major obstacle in their way is obviously the U.S. admin. I don't know whether we can stop the worst. I seriously doubt that the U.S. can.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 September 2003 11:53 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The question is more this: Can a civil war between the Sunni and Shi'a groups be prevented at this point? If so, then how? Continued US occupation, UN intervention, complete withdrawl, or some other option?

Saying that a US pull out will lead to anarchy implies that Iraq is not in a state of anarchy now. It most certainly is. At present, Iraq is in danger of being led by whomever finds the safest bunker, or builds the largest army, as is the case in Afghanistan now.

The US putting Saddam back in power is a non-starter, for Iraqis, Americans, and the UN, so I don't know why that suggestion was even made. It will never be an option...one thing that has been made clear during the occupation: the majority of Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam. Remember that the US bombed the shit out of the country ostensibly to remove him from power.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 September 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's no good way out. Which is why they shouldn't have gone in in the first place. But that's another story.

The least bad option is to turn over control to NATO, the UN, or some other international force. The sooner the U.S. is not seen as the "occupier," the better it is for all concerned.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 September 2003 12:41 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saying that a US pull out will lead to anarchy implies that Iraq is not in a state of anarchy now. It most certainly is.

No it isn't. It's in a state of chaos. Anarchy is order.

The solution to the current mess? I'm not sure, but the US military is certainly no answer.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 02 September 2003 10:44 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Potato, potato. Call it despotism if 'anarchy' offends your sensibilities. Under a despotic, fractured regime the warlord with the biggest army wins...and at this point, that warlord lives in Washington. If he pulls out and no other group steps in (UN, preferably), the Sunni, the Shi'a, and the Kurds will likely face a bloody civil war, possibly backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other local interests. Not good. Thank you Georgie for your completely boneheaded idiocy. Thank you America for sort of electing such an inept buffoon. And thank you Britain for the legacy that led to this conflict.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 03 September 2003 01:07 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Probably the best thing would be for the Americans to throw off their uniform, turn their weapons into tools and help the Iraqies to rebuild their community. Everyone admires courage, no one likes a faceless individual hiding in a uniform, pointing a gun and following orders.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 September 2003 02:15 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Potato, potato. Call it despotism if 'anarchy' offends your sensibilities.

It's more of a potato, oyster parallel. My sensibilities aren't offended, but this common misuse of the word 'anarchy' is innacurate. One could just as well say "communism" and be as precise.

Speaking of the commies, I heard they were making a resurgence following Saddam's departure, but I haven't heard much about them since. Apparently many Shias supported the communists, which gave Saddam further reason to be intolerent of them.

Remember why the Yanks supported the Ba'ath in the first place? Yup. They were good commie-killers, just like Suharto, Pinochet...


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 September 2003 02:24 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sooner or later, the United States must admit that it has made a terrible mistake in Iraq, and it must move quickly to undo it. That means the United States must yield not only command of the occupation force, but participation in it. The United States must renounce any claim to power or even influence over Iraq, including Iraqi oil. The United States must accept the humiliation that would surely accompany its being replaced in Iraq by the very nations it denigrated in the build-up to the war.

The War is Lost. Facing the Truth about Iraq


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 03 September 2003 03:34 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
What would you do if you were President of the US and you had to deal with the situation and there was no way of retroactively UNinvading Iraq.
If I was George Bush. I would nuke those f*****g Arabs to oblivian. Including Saudi Arabia and Syria. Then I would get Halibuton to run the Oil operations. Offer free land to any American or Israeli who wants to live in these waste lands of Dessert with no accompanying history. Hand out reconstruction contacts to companies who headquarters are in the southern belt of the U.S. Then I'd force any surviving Arabs to work for food and shelter only. Bus transportation will be provided. Give CNN exclusitivity on coverage of "Iraq, The American Era". DO you want to know what I'd do to the Palestinians, or is that a different issue?

That's if I were George Bush


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 03 September 2003 03:37 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
There's no good way out. Which is why they shouldn't have gone in in the first place. But that's another story.

The least bad option is to turn over control to NATO, the UN, or some other international force. The sooner the U.S. is not seen as the "occupier," the better it is for all concerned.


Sure drag the rest of the world into this corporate war. So what is the occupying banner you are suggesting? You fail to denounce such illegal occupations, but suggest replacing (relieving) them.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 September 2003 04:02 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You fail to denounce such illegal occupations, but suggest replacing (relieving) them.

What is the other option? Watch from the sidelines as hardline clerics take over and try to convert Iraq into a despotic theocracy? Civil war? As much as I hate to say it, the result of a civil war would be worse than the current occupation. I doubt that the currently appointed Iraqi council would survive two days absent an international presence...not on this day, anyways. Whatever government comes after Saddam must coalesce from the will of the Iraqi people, and cannot be a government that arrives through force of arms (local or foreign).

Despite the desire to deny any legitimacy to the illegal acts of the Bushites, this denial would only punish the Iraqi people further. The only option that I see left is to fix dubya's mistake. As citizens of the world, we do have a responsibility to protect Iraq from destructive forces, both within and without, while their society and infrastructure are rebuilt. Kick the Americans and their coalition of the weasels out, and bring the UN in as a leader in the rebuilding, not as a puppet.

Are there other options?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 September 2003 04:14 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Blind_Patriot:
Sure drag the rest of the world into this corporate war. So what is the occupying banner you are suggesting? You fail to denounce such illegal occupations, but suggest replacing (relieving) them.

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: Blind_Patriot ]


Oy vey, as they say.

Anyone familiar with my posts knows that I was, and am, a vehement opponent of this war. But I was trying to address the thread question in terms of the current political reality. At least until January 2005, the American administration is not going to turn around and bring all the troops home. That's why I said the least bad (and realistic) alternative was for the American troops to be replaced in large part by an international force.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 03 September 2003 04:19 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Anyone familiar with my posts knows that I was, and am, a vehement opponent of this war. But I was trying to address the thread question in terms of the current political reality. At least until January 2005, the American administration is not going to turn around and bring all the troops home. That's why I said the least bad (and realistic) alternative was for the American troops to be replaced in large part by an international force.

I understand where you're coming from. However, one of the major problems with an international force replacing the US forces is that these are the same international forces who didn't support the attack in the first place. Now they're supposed to bail the Americans out of this mess? I don't imagine they'll find many takers.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rebecca West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1873

posted 03 September 2003 04:20 PM      Profile for Rebecca West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a thought. Why not ask the Iraqis what they need? I'm sure most would say "personal safety, clean drinking water, food, medical care and shelter for myself and my family". The US military is not only incapable of delivering these things, they have actively engaged in eliminating them for the Iraqi people for over a decade. Perhaps an Iraqi-led coalition, with support from a non-partisan international element (if any such thing could exist) might provide some of these things.

As for the political battle, that's also up to the Iraqi people. Guaranteed they'll be in a better position to decide what they want if they're not terrified for their families' safety and well-being.


From: London , Ontario - homogeneous maximus | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 September 2003 04:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by evenflow:


I understand where you're coming from. However, one of the major problems with an international force replacing the US forces is that these are the same international forces who didn't support the attack in the first place. Now they're supposed to bail the Americans out of this mess? I don't imagine they'll find many takers.


I agree. But the only other alternatives are continuing the current policy, which is leading to disaster, or pulling all the troops out, which won't happen. It's a mess. I'm certainly not defending it. Perhaps an pan-Arab force would be best, rather than relying on any western forces, even if they were willing to do it.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 03 September 2003 04:54 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What should be done is allowing Iraqis to have free and fair elections to create their own government. That is what the Iraqi people want.

What the US wants is to set up its own puppet leadership to do its dirty work. But first it needs to get rid of all possible sources of resistance. I think that is still going to take a little while. But don't worry, once they've bought off or killed enough people and gained complete control (establishing "peace" and "democracy") the occupation will end soon enough.


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 03 September 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've resisted posting on this thread because tho i wrack my brain i can't think of a 'happy ending' here. Damned if the us does pull out, damned if they dont'. It's like in the old movies when someone gets shot with an arrow - are you better to pull it back out or push it thru?

But one thought did occur to me regarding this:

quote:
What should be done is allowing Iraqis to have free and fair elections to create their own government. That is what the Iraqi people want.

Do they? I don't know if they DO know what they want. More accurately, i'm not sure they have access to enough information to make an informed choice.

I agree that the initial gov't will be 'american picked'. I think that the structure will probably allow for free votes in the future. I hope the americans allow that process to happen naturally. But as stupid as it sounds i think that the american presence at least allows for the possibility for the knowledge infrastrucutre to be built that would allow for iraqi's to make an informed choice.

I realize fully that the americans are going to control information for a bit, but even so, i suspect it's more than they've got to work with right now. I haven't been over there, so maybe i'm dead wrong, but it seems like if the americans were to pull out now all you'd be doing is setting up the iraqi's for another dictatorship.

I'd say this is more a concern and a thought than an opinion on my part, or a firm conviction. I don't know whats best for the iraqi people. Which is why I wasn't gung ho about a 'war of liberation' to begin with.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 03 September 2003 06:01 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And today's arrogant asshat statuette goes to...

quote:
Do they? I don't know if they DO know what they want. More accurately, i'm not sure they have access to enough information to make an informed choice.

That's right, Dr. Schweitzer. Iraqis are just too ignorant to govern themselves, so the benevolent Pentagon will just have to do it for them.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 03 September 2003 07:57 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:
Do they? I don't know if they DO know what they want. More accurately, i'm not sure they have access to enough information to make an informed choice.

The astounding absurdity of your statement leaves me utterly speechless.

The rest of it is equally patronizing to Iraqis. Why don't you fly out there and pat a few heads just to complete the whole picture?

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 03 September 2003 08:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:

I don't know if they DO know what they want.

I figger they long for the vanished gardens of Cordova.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 03 September 2003 09:15 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

The astounding absurdity of your statement leaves me utterly speechless.

The rest of it is equally patronizing to Iraqis. Why don't you fly out there and pat a few heads just to complete the whole picture?

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


So you are certain that the school system centered around hero worship of Saddam has tuaght Iraqis the fundamentals of democracy?

The US needs to put the country back together and then pull out later. Just like denazification in Germany, or the rebuilding of Japan.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 03 September 2003 09:42 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So you are certain that the school system centered around hero worship of Saddam has tuaght Iraqis the fundamentals of democracy?

Hey, not so fast. Can you say that our school system has done any better?

That aside, we have

quote:
The US needs to put the country back together and then pull out later. Just like denazification in Germany, or the rebuilding of Japan.

It's rather obvious that the US is both incapable and unwilling to do the former. They break stuff, they don't fix it.

Your assumption is that the US invaded to liberate Iraqis; and assumption that is proving to be pretty naive. There is no comparison to be made between post-WWII and Iraq, unless you consider the setup of the Vichy government by the Nazis as an example for the Americans to follow.

What should happen? Since every western nation can't keep their grubby hands off the silverware, the only role the west(I mean the US) can play is writing massive reparations cheques and staying the hell away.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 September 2003 09:51 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we should probably let the Bushies twist slowly in the wind for a few years. They went in against everybody else's advice and were contemptuous of the surrender monkeys?

Be my guest, fix it yourselves, but don't let Canadians be killed as a result of your flawed policy.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 03 September 2003 11:36 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by satana:
What should be done is allowing Iraqis to have free and fair elections to create their own government. That is what the Iraqi people want.

What the US wants is to set up its own puppet leadership to do its dirty work. But first it needs to get rid of all possible sources of resistance. I think that is still going to take a little while. But don't worry, once they've bought off or killed enough people and gained complete control (establishing "peace" and "democracy") the occupation will end soon enough.


Sure, the Bushites want peace "but make no mistake" they want no democracy for Iraq. I'm not sure what stance you have for the wishful reality of a democracy. But I do know that some babblers actually have convinced themselves that this is the "mission", to rid the world have Saddam Hussien, who dared to oppose American Imperialism and bring Democracy.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 04 September 2003 12:22 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:


Do they? I don't know if they DO know what they want. More accurately, i'm not sure they have access to enough information to make an informed choice.


Uh...this may come as a shock, but people used to hold elections long before CNN, dear Foxer. In fact, they may have actually been something like democracy then, and not the prix fixe menus that characterise elections of late, but that's another story...

quote:
I agree that the initial gov't will be 'american picked'. I think that the structure will probably allow for free votes in the future. I hope the americans allow that process to happen naturally. But as stupid as it sounds i think that the american presence at least allows for the possibility for the knowledge infrastrucutre to be built that would allow for iraqi's to make an informed choice.

This assumes that the 'knowledge infrastructure' that would be fomented under U.S. tutelege would be unbiased and not reflect U.S. interests. Phooey!

Moreover, this 'informing' is already going on in the form of CIA psych-ops all over Iraq. In particular, the CIA has a new, fresh model of the old 'Radio Free Europe' type in place in Iraq that plays hip music and disseminates American 'cultural values' over the airwaves. I bet that's one station that is - curiously - never effected by the frequent blackouts that have been occuring in Iraq for months....

You are trying to have it both ways: Iraqi self-determination but only after we Western folks 'inform' them on just how to determine themselves. There is a distinct stench of imperial hubris and arrogance in your words, Foxer.

Oh, those poor, uninformed Iraqis, how will they ever know what they REALLY want without our help?

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 04 September 2003 12:23 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:

The astounding absurdity of your statement leaves me utterly speechless.

The rest of it is equally patronizing to Iraqis. Why don't you fly out there and pat a few heads just to complete the whole picture?

[ 03 September 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


Take up the White Man's Burden...

Amen, Doc.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 September 2003 12:28 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't know if they DO know what they want. More accurately, i'm not sure they have access to enough information to make an informed choice.

Well, then cancel all elections. Because certainly the average person on either side of this border lacks the information to make an informed choice.

Last I heard, most American's still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used them and most Ontarians thought Ernie Eves handled the black out crisis well simply by virtue of being on TV.

If having enough information is the criteria for elections, then maybe that explains the last presidential election down south. The Republicans only did what was right by removing the choice from the voters.

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 12:47 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Doc and all the others who were so rude to my post - you are acting like a bunch of 1st grade morons.

Doc - why don't you tell me all about the education in iraq - or how information has been spread there - or if all the people in all the regions feel the same or have the same information?

You don't know a damn thing, but you spout off like you do. I at least admit I DON"T know.

You should all consider working for the US army and Bush. HE knew what they wanted too didn't he. Shame on all of you for being such stuck up morons that you can't imagine that there might be a lack of cohesive communications and they may be getting rather scattered news.

Seeing as you're all so wise about what the iraqi's want and what their situation is, why don't you get off your asses, go over there and tell them. Oh, that's right. Someone already did. And that's working out REAL well.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 September 2003 01:09 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Russians got indoctrinated into believing a whole lot of bilge about the way their one-party state should operate. Yet they had free, multiparty elections in 1993 and regular elections since then. They sure as hell didn't need any help from "us".

Propaganda, when made rather in-one's-face, tends to have a curious effect of actually provoking a backlash as it did in the Soviet Union. Putting pictures of a leader up everywhere and demanding that everybody do things the way he insists on would probably provoke a similar one in another country.

Don't be so quick to misunderestimate the willingness of Iraqis to vote for people not affiliated with Saddam Hussein.

Furthermore, you talk like Iraqis are uneducated. They're not. Just because a regime inculcates a cult of personality of a leader does not obviate the fact that any country with an oil infrastructure like Iraq's needs scientists, engineers and doctors. In short, it needs a well-educated populace anyway.

And well-educated people are sometimes even more likely to dislike propaganda being shoved in their faces all the time and given the first opportunity, will either leave the country or if said leader is no longer in power, will agitate for reforms to restore a proper democratic method of choosing leaders.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 01:29 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Russians got indoctrinated into believing a whole lot of bilge about the way their one-party state should operate. Yet they had free, multiparty elections in 1993 and regular elections since then. They sure as hell didn't need any help from "us".

Sure doc - 80 years later they got a free vote. Plus, the mafia and criminal elements there now have unbelievable power. And i suppose how many trillions of dollars in loans isn't 'help'.

You need to REALLY read what i said, instead of reading INTO what i said.

What I said was i don't know if they have the knowledge right now. That not only includes potential lack of understanding about different electoral systems, but even more importantly it means a lack of awareness of all the issues they face, an inability to communicate with each other in different parts of the country and to listen to what potential 'candidates' want, and a host of other problems. Some areas are still struggling with power.

Some may feel that an elected leadership ISN'T what they want - they may feel that the church should rule. Others may be violently opposed to that. I wonder if half of them have even heard of all the members of the 'provisional council'. Right at this moment in time, as they worry about food and power and attacks and bombs, do they even have TIME to think about what they really want for gov't representation, either in the form or the people. Until infrastructure is restored, and people are not struggling to fill their stomachs, there's going to be a problem with that. I'm not talking about 'cnn' when i say infrastructure.

Hey - maybe they do all understand the issues, agree and understand on what form of gov't they want (republic, or more like ours, or whatever) and perhaps they do know the people who would run, or have sufficient means of listening to the potential candidates to form an opinon. Maybe i'm dead wrong. All i said is I'm not SURE they're in a place to make any kinds of decisions. It may be better if the americans do restore basic services and rebuild their communications and other infrastructure and when people have food and power, THEN vote. In the meantime the americans ensure that some other despot doesn't take over before they're ready.

And even THAT i'm not sure about. I started my post off saying i'm not sure WHAT is best - there's all kinds of problems with waiting too, there's all kinds of problems if the americans stay or go. But if you think it's 'arrogance' to say "I don't know if it's that cut and dry" then you need to buy a new dictionary!

(sorry for the rant at the end, but geez!!!)


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 September 2003 01:40 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Some may feel that an elected leadership ISN'T what they want - they may feel that the church should rule.

Oh come on! The Papacy finally gets de-fanged in the West, and you suggest it might be a possible government in the Orient?

Absurd.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 04 September 2003 03:01 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clearly, some believe that this insane situation calls for insane solutions.........

Rebecca's right. Get people secure in their homes, give them actual reasons to believe things can get better, then you can sit down and rebuild the political infrastructure.

George W. Bush doesn't see fit to use this as a domestic policy. I doubt he'll be using it in his foriegn policy.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 03:17 AM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh come on! The Papacy finally gets de-fanged in the West, and you suggest it might be a possible government in the Orient?

Absurd.


Is it indeed. And who do you think ran afghanistan until about a year or two ago? And that was after the russians brought 'freedom' to afghanistan, taught women to read, gave land to the people, etc.

You've got a pretty short memory there kabong!


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 September 2003 08:00 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Onde of the beautiful things about information, Foxer, is it is all meaningless if you don't look it up. Which is of course the problem with information here in the west. We wait for it to come to us. So we all know that Britney kissed Madonna but then we don't know what a quick google search will tell us:

"The short and long-term reconstruction of Iraqi education is an enormous challenge for post conflict Iraqi society. After three wars and 13 years of comprehensive sanctions the Iraqi education system has deteriorated to just a bleak image of what it was like 15 years ago. In the beginning of the 1980s Iraq had one of the best education systems in the Arab world. Gross Enrollment Rate for primary schooling was around 100%. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions were of international standard, staffed by high quality personnel.

The quality of Iraq's educational system was initially worsened as a result of Iran-Iraq War (1980-88). The primary enrollment, for instance, had gone down to 85% in 1988. Following the sanctions in the 90s the quality of the education system decreased dramatically. In 2002 the literacy rate among females in the 15-45 year group was only 45% and for males 71%. Drop out rates are very high. Between 40-50 % of children drop out of primary school between grades 1 and 6. In intermediate school 30-40% drop out between grades 7 and 9. The number of buildings dedicated to primary schools has decreased from 9,092 in 1989/90 to 7,572 in 1997/98. Meanwhile the country has experienced the demographic growth from about 17 million in 1990 to 26 million in 2002. Over the same period the number of pupils enrolled in primary education level grades increased from 3,743,684 to 4,244,243. According to Ministry of Education estimates (1999-2000), 6,648 new primary and secondary schools needed to be constructed to meet the demand of population growth and eliminate double shifts and 5,940 schools required rehabilitation or maintenance."

Click

Iraqis are probably better informed than the Americans who will tell them who they can elect and when.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 04 September 2003 08:10 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Foxer, I have been to Iraq and I have spoken with many Iraqis and I'm only saying here what I've learned from them.

Iraqi people don't want an immediate withdrawal of the foreign occupation. After destroying the previous government and its infrastructure, leaving everything the way it is is probably the worst that could happen. It would result in chaos and the people are well aware of that.

Iraqi people are very well educated, they know the Ba'th party fed them a lot of bullshit (US propoganda there is ridiculous compared), and are well aware what is going on around the world, in their own country, and what it all means. They know what they want, they have a right to freely choose their own government, no one else has a right to tell them what that should be. They are willing to accept a interm governmenet that could only serve for a few months until free elections can be organized. They don't what the Ba'th party back and they certainly don't want an American appointed government. But they also know that realistically the US will never allow them to have their own government. And they all expect a lot more trouble ahead for everyone because of that.

Right now, their main concern, besides clean water, gas, electricity, and phone lines is security.

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: satana ]


From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 04 September 2003 10:35 AM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:
Doc and all the others who were so rude to my post - you are acting like a bunch of 1st grade morons.

You can bluster all you like but I think you got what you deserved on this thread. It's the height of arrogance to presume that Iraqis need to be protected from their own ignorance until some outside authority decides that they're "ready" for self-determination. That ain't democracy.

As Wingnut's post suggests, and as other reading I've done bears out, Iraq has a highly urbanized population that, at least until the full weight of sanctions hit, was quite literate and highly educated. There may be power outages and other problems, but many Iraqis have access to foreign media even today. (When the lights went out in North America recently, Iraqis heard about it rather quickly, and found it quite amusing.)

As others have suggested, if you're going to set the bar as high as you've attempted to here, then we may as well cancel elections in this country for a few decades because we're not ready for self-determination either.

Edited to fix formatting.

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 04 September 2003 11:56 AM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Get it through your heads, there will never be free elections or an independant Iraqi state. Saddam was their man in the 80's and now they want a new one to pick up where Saddam rebelled. Even if there was "free" elections, the elected government cannot make major decisions itself without consent from the U.S. Basically what it will be is Choose Your Representative To The U.S. Someone to follow the U.S's strict guidelines. There is alot at risk such as Israel and the U.S. oil under Iraqi sand. No Democracy and No Independance/Sovereignty.
From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 04 September 2003 10:10 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds pretty simple Blind Patriot. The US had the exact situation, you outlined, with Saudi Arabia. It cost 'em a couple o' buildings in New York. Rememember? Perhaps, for some, it's a small price to pay. It sure made Bush, who had feet of clay befor Sept 11, one helluva popular guy.

[ 04 September 2003: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 04 September 2003 10:20 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only way to any kind of peace in Iraq is to implement the Road Map; for real and not by making a few insincere gestures as we have seen in the past few months. The road to peace in Baghdad runs straight through Jerusalem.

A fire left burning in Israel Palestine will make any effort for any kind of peace in Iraq, or any other Arab nation, an exercise in futility.

[ 05 September 2003: Message edited by: Pimji ]


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 04 September 2003 11:17 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Meanwhile the Iraqies are actively trying to have their say in the 2004 election in the USA, maybe it is a two way street afterall, and education flows both ways.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 04 September 2003 11:41 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Slim -

quote:
Most of these people don't have an idea of where their food is from (and I mean really know) and probably wouldn't buy it if they knew. Hunting is nothing like the mass production of death (and disease) that is large-scale meat production and the people who participate in that don't have any need for what's being sold.

Do you not read? I never said anything like 'they should be protected'. I said I don't know if they're ready to make an informed decision, and I don't know if they should be forced to make that choice right this second.

And yet you say you KNOW they are? Who's arrogant here?

quote:
As Wingnut's post suggests, and as other reading I've done bears out, Iraq has a highly urbanized population that, at least until the full weight of sanctions hit, was quite literate and highly educated.

I didn't say they were stupid. I said that without a communications infrastructure and a little time to focus on the issues (instead of wondering where there might be some water or if that car over there is going to blow up) they may be forced to make a decision now that will affect their future profoundly. I know that I personally would have a tough time trying to figure out what to vote for if canada had just been invaded, blown to hell, I was worried about what i would eat tonite, and i had limited access to information about the parties, none of whom I knew.

quote:
(When the lights went out in North America recently, Iraqis heard about it rather quickly, and found it quite amusing.)

From american media sources.

quote:
As others have suggested, if you're going to set the bar as high as you've attempted to here, then we may as well cancel elections in this country for a few decades because we're not ready for self-determination either.

You and I will eat tonite, we can discuss the issues here on the net, we can read the papers tomorrow. We can discuss it with out friends, we can watch debates, we can visit the library and read up on it. We can examine parties histories, and look at the performance of the candidates in the past. All i propose is that after being starved for 10 years and living under a brutal regeime, then being bombed and blasted into next week, THEN being denied the basics - food, water, lights, etc, PLUS dealing with everything from the americans shooting up protesters to people bombing the local church from time to time. And wondering if hussein is really dead or isn't, etc it MIGHT just be a little tough to find the time to be 'up' on all the issues.

Look - i never said that anyone other than the iraqis should determine what's best for iraq. I never said they were stupid or idiots. I said it might be hard right now to effectively disseminate information with no infrastructure and survival living. If the americans pulled out right now they'd be forced to make that decision NOW. I say they MIGHT be better off to wait until some of their infrastructure is rebuilt and their situation is MORE stable. Hey - maybe i'm wrong. I never said 'i've been over there and taken a poll'. I said 'i wonder'.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca