I recall collounsberry pointing out that iraq was once ruled by the turks as part of the ottoman empire, and don’t particularly like the idea of being so once more.
yes. I don’t think implementing it would be naive, but to think that you can implement it without a government to enforce it seems naive to me. Not everyone is going to follow it just because it exists.
Short version: Yup, Randy, the Arabs in Ottoman territory were subjects of the ruling Turks, and were encouraged by the British (see Lawrence of Arabia) to revolt as part of the allied WW1 strategy. Coupled with the rise of indigenous Turkish nationalism under Ataturk, the Arabs had even more reason to be wary that the Turks might want to reclaim their old territory, and the areas immediately adjacent to the new borders of Turkey certainly had the most reason to be wary.
Given the Turkish troop concentration on the Iraqi border, next to Kurdistan and its oil fields, that distrustful attitude certainly could not have reversed.
I’ll have to agree with blowero on this one. Just because Saddam and his regime were ‘bad’ doesn’t automatically mean that the US occupation is ‘good.’ The clear dichotomy of good versus evil that is so often played upon in Hollywood blockbusters doesn’t exist in the real world. Many Iraqis may have hated Saddam and his cronies, but most of them (except the Kurds) hate the US just as much, if not more. That’s what all of you ‘liberators’ need to understand. To understand how some of the Iraqis may be feeling, imagine if Hitler had been removed from power in Germany, only to be replaced by Satan himself. I’m not saying this is a just analogy, but I’m saying that that’s how many Arabs feel. What’s that saying again… ‘the lesser of two evils…’?
Perhaps some Kuwaitis might want to administer Iraq. On second thought…
Just goes to show how ununinted the Arab world is. Expand that to the Islamic wrld and there are even MORE issues. Somewhat of an exageration, but the Israeli/Palestinian issue is about the only thing they DO agree on. Take that out of the picture, and the disunity will be even worse.
That’s true. And if Bush continues his current course, we can look forward to an equally dis-united Western world as well.
Suppose that you are part of a big family that is ruled by a nasty, abusive dad. Sure the garbage goes out on time but it’s because he rules with his belt and the back of his hand. We’re not talking a spanking once in a while, we’re talking violent beatings.
Eventually the cops show up and haul dad off to jail. Wonderful, the rest of the family will sleep a little easier and the neighbors probably feel better as well.
OK, in this case of clear-cut “good guys” and “bad guys”, how long is the family going to put up with a squadron of police officers living in the house and telling them how to run things?
Maybe because we invaded and destroyed their country.
Democracy is messy. There are no countries where everyone marches in lock-step with the same beliefs, unless they are totalitarian.
So from that standpoint, protests in Iraq should be music to our ears.
And protestors are always more visible than the ‘silent majority’. Now, it may be that the majority of the people don’t want us there, but that’s not evidenced by protests in the streets. After all, in the U.S. hundreds of thousands marched against the war - it made the front page of all the papers. But that masked the fact that the war is supported by about 70% of the population.
The irony of all this, of course, is that the U.S. will have spent tens of billions of dollars, damaged its relations with any number of allies, and angered a lot of other nations, all in order to get rid of a secular, brutal dictator. In its place, we’re very likely to end up with another Islamic republic, along the lines of Iran. Gee, won’t that be an improvement. :rolleyes:
Remember, the Shiites are in the majority in Iraq, so if you believe in true democracy, and they vote to establish an Islamic republic, who’s to say they can’t have one?
The last time a Western power ruled Iraq (and then ruled it through a puppet “monarchy”) was when it was under the League of Nations “mandate” to the United Kingdom. Imagine all the worst abuses you can that attended the Pax Brittanica. Most of them happened in Iraq. The “king” installed over them was a foreigner–from the Hijaz in Arabia. The idea was that he could be “neutral”. The result was that he was completely dependent upon his British leashmasters.
Likewise, the British dealt with popular uprisings by expedient methods like mustard gas. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml)
Some excerpts:
After 1930, nominal “independence” was granted, but the UK still held military bases and insisted on the exclusive right to train Iraqi military–essentially making them a satellite of the British army, although that failed as a revolt during WWII illustrated. After the war, an outright British puppet was installed as prime minister and he ran things until 1958.
The longer we stay there, the more we will remind people of how the British did things, the more we will be seen as the new colonialist power.
We Americans have remarkably short memories. Most of us are completely ignorant of the horrid dog’s breakfast that was made out of the “Middle East” by France and the UK after WWI.
First I am assuming that these protestors are Iraqi , and not some arabs from another country that just want to forment dissent against the occupation forces.
Second , Saddam knew if it came to a slugfest with America he would lose , evil despot that he was , he was practical in some respects. His whole mantra several days before basically the war ended ,was that the occupiers would eventually have to leave , and that the people are the ultimate power, yadda yadda.
So these individuals may be what are called “stay behinds” , whose job it is , to encourage dissent , media circus’s , and eventually direct action in a prelude to an re-invasion of territory.
Then there is the people themselves , while saddam was ultimate dictator , he did require a certain amount of foot soldiers and lieutenants to get his policies implemented, these people are now out of work ,and probably needing a new job, very dissatisfied with an american govt.
Then the downtrodden , who now are able to put the hurt on the former lieutenants and such , who may have been told , no you can’t go kill abdul , his wife , his kids , his cats and dogs , his budgie and whatever else they may desire , also may have a bit of a problem with an american administration.
Declan
We’re Number One! We’re Number One!
It would be ironic, considering that the previous regime wanted Iraq and Kuwait to be united under a common government.
Your a dumb fucking cunt who deserves nothing but a fucking axe in the brain.(yes im very bored)
Chav: Shouldn’t that be “You’re”? The post makes more sense that way.
Actually, Collounsbury says that Iran is presently in better shape than any other country in the region. They have been under an Islamic republic since the late '80s and the seeds of democracy have grown there. Now the majority of the people are too young to remember the Shah of Iran or about taking American hostages. They are getting tired to the Ayatollahs methods of ruling and change is in the air. The lesson is that they did it themselves and free from any of our help. We do not need to force democracy on Iraq, because it will either fail or have to be supported by us (which is the same as failure).
Also the Kuwaitis do not know how to do anything, since they are paid by the state and all work is done by workers from other countries.
Rather, the Ba’ath is no longer in control, rather than destroyed. A major concern I have is that the Republican Guards and Saddam feyadeen(sp?) have simply disappeared into the population. After decades of being in charge, it seems to me that they will still be a force to be reckoned with in the future.
Bob
Perhaps the Iraqis are afraid of history repeating itself. Kind of like the noises we are making now about having a “footprint” in Iraq.
While that may be true, I was thinking not about what might be best for the people of Iraq, but rather, about the U.S. government’s motivations for the war. I think the administration is thinking that it can somehow finagle the installation of a democratically-elected Iraqi government that will be pro-Western and not anti-Israel (at least not virulently so).
An Islamic republic might work out reasonably well for the people of Iraq, but it wouldn’t be likely to be pro-Western and/or pro-Isreal, so it’s hardly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al., had in mind. Therein lies the irony.