News Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

[Pengwuino]

So many people on this forum contend that liberating the Iraqis was stupid and that they did not need to be freed by us. Some also contend that the UN was planning on making them free within a few years.

Please explain these positions with facts and not opinions. I am sure many people want to know how Iraq was suppose to be a free nation without US intervention.

Any deviation from the question asked will be noted (as I am sure many peoples immediate response will be something a level up from 'the us sucks, the war is wrong').

 

[russ_watters]

Some also contend that the UN was planning on making them free within a few years.

I'm not sure I've ever heard that...

There had, however, been a movement (from The Coalition of the Unwilling, mostly) to try to normalize relations with Iraq for some time prior to the war (dating back to Clinton's term - and to his credit, he resisted it).

 

[Pengwuino]

I won't name names ;)

 

[False Prophet]

So many people on this forum contend that liberating the Iraqis was stupid and that they did not need to be freed by us.

I can only give an oppinion here as based on logic; the only factual evidence I have is the dictionary.

"free"

Are we talking about a culture and a people free to have their own government, or to be told which kind of government to have?

 

[False Prophet]

Or in other words, the truly democratic thing would be to have a vote of the people as to what kind of government they would like to have, not what leader in an already presumed democratic republic. If the idea that this is what the people truly want is true, than they would vote for it for sure!

 

[Pengwuino]

Scratch that, let's just say "free" means the opportunity to choose their government and its type (dictatorship vs. democracy) without being intimidated into choosing one type or the other.

 

[False Prophet]

!

Scratch that, let's just say "free" means the opportunity to choose their government and its type (dictatorship vs. democracy) without being intimidated into choosing one type or the other.

How sure are you for this region of the world? What other forced democracies in the middle east can serve as examples? Like when I compared it to communism, democracy in ME sounds great on paper. Whether it works in this region so far, is unproven as insurgency/terrorism is still prevelant.

Remember Sec. of State Rice's pathetic appeal of democracy towards Egypt last Monday? Her speech about the ideals of democracy met with silence!

Edit: By democracy I mean true democracy not psuedo-democracy meaning having more than one canditate!

 

[False Prophet]

Scratch that, let's just say "free" means the opportunity to choose their government and its type (dictatorship vs. democracy) without being intimidated into choosing one type or the other.

Absolutly

THis makes more sense now.

A perfectly fair way is via voting.

 

[BobG]

So many people on this forum contend that liberating the Iraqis was stupid and that they did not need to be freed by us. Some also contend that the UN was planning on making them free within a few years.

I've never heard of UN plans to liberate Iraq.

Your first sentence misrepresents the opinion of many people on this forum. A more accurate description is that a lot of people don't see Iraq's form of government as having an impact on their own country. Of course, that would tend to automatically disqualify their answers, since an opinion like that is based more on a lack of facts showing any connection between Iraqi's form of government and life in America (other than the fact that changing the government required American troops).

 

[Pengwuino]

And how was that suppose to happen?

IRT BobG

So are you trying to say that no one has a plan because no one cared seeing as how it was not their own country? And this is not getting Iraq to be American, its about how anyone was going to turn Iraq from what it was into what most people think of when they think of a democracy.

 

[False Prophet]

My biggest objection was that this "liberation" caused a region with less violence to become a region with more violence and more terrorism. It wasn't this way with Saddam's regime (although still bad i concede!) excluding war with Iran so aside from the gas attack that is so frequently referenced, yet so long ago*
there wasn't all this terrorism and death. Foreign insurgents/terrorists weren't there. The Jihad was not as strong.

*as I have gathered, this is the primary evidence of why Saddam is an evil man and we needed a Regime change. Yes I admit that his rise to power and dictating protocol were nothing resembling democratic and were also more oppressive to the people. My problem is, if this is why he's such a bad guy for this reason, why no intervention back in 1988? Remember how U.S.A. reacted to Milosavec and anti-Albanian genocide in 1999 at Kosovo? Maybe that's an irrelevant example so you can chuck it out the window. But the gas attack is not relevant in 2003 when the invasion began if it wasn't dealt with at the time.

-Aside from this and the Iran/Iraq war there was not this degree of carnage and bloodshed in the region. This given the "democracy" U.S.A. is installing in the country.

 

[Pengwuino]

Your avoiding the question. How were the iraqi people suppose to become a people that chose their government if US intervention was out of the question.

 

[False Prophet]

They didn't "choose" their government in either case. The first thing they "chose" were which elected officials in a democratic republic.

 

[False Prophet]

The rise to power of Saddam was not different than the rise to power of Democracy in our current age. Both were by force. We should really examine the violence level between the two.

 

[False Prophet]

I cited Muqtada al-Sadr in the other thread and I'd like to use him again. This is an issue that wouldn't have been the issue that it was without coalition occupation of the region, an example of one way this "liberation" has bread more violence.

The bloody uprising was an act of insurrection caused by the U.S. shutting down their newspaper (wouldn't free press be an idea of democracy by the way*) then issuing an arrest warrant because he's an assassination suspect.

*"At the end of March 2004, Coalition authorities in Iraq shut down Sadr's newspaper, Al Hawza, on charges of inciting violence..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

Further edit:

is THAT considered "democracy"?

 

[Pengwuino]

You are really doing a nice job of staying off subject. Please answer the question posed.

 

[False Prophet]

WHat question? You've asked so far this thread:

"And how was that suppose to happen?" I don't know what "that" refers to and one other question to BobG.

 

[False Prophet]

Your avoiding the question. How were the iraqi people suppose to become a people that chose their government if US intervention was out of the question.

Answer:

They weren't. Coalition forces have not arranged this and will they? Maybe in a utopia they can ACTUALLY choose their government.

 

[Pengwuino]

Did you even bother looking at the original post?

 

[False Prophet]

Newsflash: there was no question in the original post! But to defend these postions, and answer your initial post like I tried to do before, I can say Iraq did not need to be "freed" at all. They weren't freed. They were forced into one type of government. Now they're forced into another type of governement. Same thing! Only now more violence! What else do you want from me? I at least addressed your initial post. The "need" to be "freed" or how else can it be done question is quite irrelevant compared to the current day war in Iraq

 

[Pengwuino]

Incredible topic dodging skills being displayed by you. If your answer is that the Iraqis did not to be freed, then that is your answer. Quite narcassitic, but i suppose something resembling an explanation to say the least.

 

[False Prophet]

Did you mean "narcissistic" as in love with myself? If so please explain this! Or what other word did you mean? Topic dodging? I responded to your original REQUEST, but still there was no question!

 

[False Prophet]

Are you trying to make up technicalities to dance around actually addressing the things I said in response to your initial post?

 

[vanesch]

So many people on this forum contend that liberating the Iraqis was stupid and that they did not need to be freed by us.

Question: why did the Iraqis need to be "freed" in the first place ? I mean, that's *their* business, no ?

A priori, I think mixing in in the internal affairs of others is something you don't do. There are a few practical exceptions to that rule, on the condition that the violation of that principle is met with success. For instance, toppling, or helping to topple, a nasty dictator, with some subversive actions, or a limited military intervention (say, throw a bomb on his house), when there is already a massive underground resistance movement can, in some cases be tolerated IF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE that this will be appreciated afterwards. In all other cases, you stay out of it.
Long term hard dictatorships are always a hell when you try to lift them, because it usually leads to civil war. You don't want to get mixed into that, it is an issue a population has to take up by itself.

 

[vanesch]

Question: why did the Iraqis need to be "freed" in the first place ? I mean, that's *their* business, no ?

In fact, it is funny that hardline "republicans" who stand for the "laissez-faire" mentality, without social care etc... and absolute freedom of individual initiative without mixing in or helping for INDIVIDUALS want to have a very "social" view between nations, where "strong and good ones" should impose their "social security" to other nations (liberate them, insure democracy etc...).

 

[kaos]

Question: why did the Iraqis need to be "freed" in the first place ? I mean, that's *their* business, no ?

A priori, I think mixing in in the internal affairs of others is something you don't do.

Exactly, is sovereignity of countries a respected concept anymore or borders are merely some lines on a map that the US don't give a $h!t bout.

 

[Rev Prez]

My biggest objection was that this "liberation" caused a region with less violence to become a region with more violence and more terrorism.

By only two indicators--the incidence and lethality of terrorist and insurgent attacks. To catch up with 600,000 executions over twenty years, you'd have to have 2500 Iraqi deaths a month. Either way, you're essentially arguing that its better to accept Hussein than to take the bloody risks associated with military intervention.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Question: why did the Iraqis need to be "freed" in the first place ? I mean, that's *their* business, no ?

It is their business, but we didn't go over there simply to liberate Iraq. We went over there because it is the US's strategic interests to have a stable democratic Iraq in a region flooded with oil.

 

[Rev Prez]

In fact, it is funny that hardline "republicans" who stand for the "laissez-faire" mentality, without social care etc... and absolute freedom of individual initiative without mixing in or helping for INDIVIDUALS want to have a very "social" view between nations, where "strong and good ones" should impose their "social security" to other nations (liberate them, insure democracy etc...).

Nonsense. Has the Republican party disavowed institutions of law enforcement and defense in order to preserve an orderly and fair market at home? What about American strategic primacy is necessarily repulsive to the laissez-faire instinct, especially if power expands and secures the market?

Rev Prez

 

[vanesch]

It is their business, but we didn't go over there simply to liberate Iraq. We went over there because it is the US's strategic interests to have a stable democratic Iraq in a region flooded with oil.

That was obvious to anyone from the beginning, but... did it work out as (not) planned ? (which was also obvious from the beginning).
Wouldn't it have been simpler to deal with Saddam then ? Lift sanctions, give him money, weapons and praise, and ask him to keep the region stable ? Train his soldiers, send in troops to help him...) I'm sure he'd be willing to do so. After all, with a democracy, you never know who people are going to elect. Better have a faithful dictator (which he was, btw, until he misunderstood the "US permission to invade Kuweit")
After all, working with a US-stabilized dictatorship is much more sure as an investment than any talk about "freedom": look at Saoudi Arabia.

 

[vanesch]

What about American strategic primacy is necessarily repulsive to the laissez-faire instinct, especially if power expands and secures the market?

Ah, yes, if you consider going on a robbery trip part of the market mechanism

 

[False Prophet]

By only two indicators--the incidence and lethality of terrorist and insurgent attacks. To catch up with 600,000 executions over twenty years, you'd have to have 2500 Iraqi deaths a month. Either way, you're essentially arguing that its better to accept Hussein than to take the bloody risks associated with military intervention.

Rev Prez

Please explain the nature of 600,000 executions, cite a source or tell me what it represents/who was killed.

Lets say in 2000, 2001 2002 and the months immediatly prior to the coalition invasion, Huessein was executing 2500 Iraqis per month?

 

[Rev Prez]

Please explain the nature of 600,000 executions, cite a source or tell me what it represents/who was killed.

600,000 is from the Documentation Center for Human Rights in Iraq. If you prefer, we can also use 290,000 figure from HRW [1] and get an average of 1200 dead a month for the past twenty years. Using Iraq body count's totals [2] that gives us a rate of 690 dead a month.

Rev Prez

 

[Burnsys]

600,000 is from the Documentation Center for Human Rights in Iraq. If you prefer, we can also use 290,000 figure from HRW [1] and get an average of 1200 dead a month for the past twenty years. Using Iraq body count's totals [2] that gives us a rate of 690 dead a month.

Rev Prez

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

 

[russ_watters]

In fact, it is funny that hardline "republicans" who stand for the "laissez-faire" mentality, without social care etc... and absolute freedom of individual initiative without mixing in or helping for INDIVIDUALS want to have a very "social" view between nations, where "strong and good ones" should impose their "social security" to other nations (liberate them, insure democracy etc...).

Don't you have it backwards? Republicans want people in other countries to be free. Sounds downright liberal to me.

The question is: why don't liberals want people in other countries to be free? I mean - domestically, liberals will give people all the help they need and then some. So why not internationally?

 

[ron damon]

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

 

[rachmaninoff]

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

Why so?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

 

[vanesch]

Don't you have it backwards? Republicans want people in other countries to be free. Sounds downright liberal to me.

The question is: why don't liberals want people in other countries to be free? I mean - domestically, liberals will give people all the help they need and then some. So why not internationally?

Yes, the paradox works both ways But you could understand the international "laissez-faire" mentality of liberals, in that the more you give and spend elsewhere, the less you can give at home, so there's a balance: you cannot help and interfere in unlimited amounts.
However, it is harder to explain the international "liberal" attitude of conservatives: after all, it doesn't cost any money to let others lead their own life without interfering, so you can "laisser faire" in unlimited amounts, which, you would think, would provide conservatives with unlimited satisfaction

 

[ron damon]

Why so?

Because human and state actions obey different laws and rules, and produce vastly different consequences. Specifically, what is done every day to preserve your safety and well-being could not be justified on an individual basis. History is her own maiden.

 

[Burnsys]

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

But it was only 20 years ago, and beside the state it was Donald Rumsfeld who did it... and he was well aware of the 1200 killings a day... so it's not an exuse for the invasion if it wasn't before...

Just like if states should not have memory...

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, the paradox works both ways

Well, part of the reason why I'm a republican is that the way I see it, it only works one way:

But you could understand the international "laissez-faire" mentality of liberals, in that the more you give and spend elsewhere, the less you can give at home, so there's a balance: you cannot help and interfere in unlimited amounts.

That's not an "international laissez-faire" attitude, that's an "international I-don't-care" attitude.

However, it is harder to explain the international "liberal" attitude of conservatives: after all, it doesn't cost any money to let others lead their own life without interfering, so you can "laisser faire" in unlimited amounts, which, you would think, would provide conservatives with unlimited satisfaction

See, this is what people just don't understand about conservatives. Bush's "compassionate conservative" thing got ridiculed because people don't understand the 'give a fish/teach to fish' parable: Republicans really do want to help people, but helping people does not mean giving handouts. For example (and on this, Bush failed...) unemployment compensation is a handout: it does not help people find jobs. I know that for a fact after watching my roommate use his government handout to fund a vacation and then enable him to do virtually nothing for a year. For foreign aid, (the African aid thread), simply throwing money at the problem does not actually help fix it (well - unless you're a socialist who thinks that forced equality is really the way it needs to be). Giving a fish requires a perpetual handout otherwise the benefit is lost. But the "teach to fish" thing is a once and done real solution: If Bush actually succeeds in making a democratic Iraq, after a 5 or 10 year comittment, we may never need to send troops to Iraq again, permanently fixing a problem area that has been a big problem for decades.

And laissez-faire doesn't mean doing nothing it means doing only what is necessary to set up the conditions for the market (or the political climate) to take over. In precisely the same way that the market needs some protection against monopolies, dictatorships are extremely hard to break out of and outside help is virtually always required.

So I guess the question comes back to: do the Iraqis deserve help or not?

 

[klusener]

If Bush actually succeeds in making a democratic Iraq, after a 5 or 10 year comittment, we may never need to send troops to Iraq again, permanently fixing a problem area that has been a big problem for decades.

That's a very big if and one that most people around the world would disagree with too. You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a very big if...

Yes, that's true.

...and one that most people around the world would disagree with too.

Also true. But:

You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

Well, I have the same facts to go on as everyone else: historical facts. One key historical fact is that about 60 years ago we turned an expansionist, miliraristic, imperialist dictatorship with no democratic tradition and a racial hatred for pretty much everyone else in the world into a peaceful, prosperous, stable democracy by conquering it and remaking it in our image.

We did it before and we can do it again. Is it guaranteed to work everywhere? No. But it is very possible. About the only thing guaranteed is that if we didn't try, Iraq would have been guaranteed to live under Saddam until he died.

 

[Rev Prez]

Whait a minute! and was rumsfeld doing bussines with saddam and helping him while he was killing 1200 people a month?? damn, what level of Hypocrisy.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was helping Stalin and doing business with the bastard while he was executing hundreds of thousands a month.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Some 63 years ago, an American Democratic president did business with a man who had killed about 20 million people. He even affectionally called him "uncle Joe". Would you rather he hadn't dealt with him?

You can't apply the morals of humans to the actions of States. It would be utterly irresponsible (and superficial) to do so.

Beat me to it.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

But it was only 20 years ago, and beside the state it was Donald Rumsfeld who did it... and he was well aware of the 1200 killings a day... so it's not an exuse for the invasion if it wasn't before...

If I read you correctly, you're claiming that because FDR dealt with Stalin 63 years ago he's not as culpable as Reagan dealing with Hussein 20 years ago, and that hey FDR didn't know about the brutality of Stalin's regime. The first point is absurd on its face, and the 1937-38 executions were public knowledge.

Rev Prez

 

[ron damon]

You don't have statistical evidence or facts to back up your assertion so it's nothing more than an opinion of a crazy Republican dude in a physics forum.

Like those crazy liberals who held that Germany and Japan could be made into peaceful and progressive democracies, while Truman wanted to reduce them to a state of subsistence?

The US has done it again and again. The second and third world economies today are the product of thinking analogous to the rationale for invading Iraq. Look at South Korea. Remember how it was? The north Korean region was then the industrialized part, while the south was backward and poor. Today South Korea is part of a very select crew of nations building the first fusion reactor :

The US has worked miracles before. There is no "statistical evidence or facts" to indicate she can't do it again...

 

[Burnsys]

If I read you correctly, you're claiming that because FDR dealt with Stalin 63 years ago he's not as culpable as Reagan dealing with Hussein 20 years ago, and that hey FDR didn't know about the brutality of Stalin's regime. The first point is absurd on its face, and the 1937-38 executions were public knowledge.

Rev Prez

No. you where the one who bring FDR, i am talking about rumsfeld, i never mentioned FDR, and i never mentioned reagan. I was talking about rumsfeld helping saddam houseing while he was killing 1200 a month and when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on iranians to "Keep stability in the region"

My point is same as vanesch, it doesn't matter if they are cruel dictators, if they use chemical weapons, if they invade other countrys, if they are democracies or dictatorships,if they are comunist or capitalists... all that matters is if they "have american interests as a priority" or said in another way, if they are US puppet goverments or not.

That was obvious to anyone from the beginning, but... did it work out as (not) planned ? (which was also obvious from the beginning).
Wouldn't it have been simpler to deal with Saddam then ? Lift sanctions, give him money, weapons and praise, and ask him to keep the region stable ? Train his soldiers, send in troops to help him...) I'm sure he'd be willing to do so. After all, with a democracy, you never know who people are going to elect. Better have a faithful dictator (which he was, btw, until he misunderstood the "US permission to invade Kuweit")
After all, working with a US-stabilized dictatorship is much more sure as an investment than any talk about "freedom": look at Saoudi Arabia.

 

[vanesch]

The US has done it again and again. The second and third world economies today are the product of thinking analogous to the rationale for invading Iraq.

No, not really, and although for some this is difficult to understand, all the difference resides there: "moral authority".
Japan and Germany had agressed the US, and they lost, which means that the winner, which defended himself, had moral authority. Someone who defends himself always has higher moral authority than the agressor (whether for the "right" or "wrong" causes).
That, plus the fact that it wasn't just the US, it was almost the whole world (being in a large international coalition also gives moral authority) who wanted Japan (not Germany, it was already a democracy) to have a "regime change" helped a lot. Also the fact that they knew they couldn't do anything: they got 2 nukes on their head!

Under such a pressure of moral authority, it was possible to convince people to adopt "the other way".

But that's totally lacking in Iraq. The US is the agressor ; you don't have the world's approval ; you don't have this crushing overmight. In other words, you don't have an once of moral authority in Iraq.

Look at South Korea. Remember how it was? The north Korean region was then the industrialized part, while the south was backward and poor. Today South Korea is part of a very select crew of nations building the first fusion reactor :

Yes, but again, you had moral authority, against the big bad commies.

The US has worked miracles before. There is no "statistical evidence or facts" to indicate she can't do it again...

Well, there are a lot of failed situations in South America, there are quite some failures in Africa (but who cares), and in the middle east (think of Saoudi Arabia, again, and many Gulf states: rich, but not necessarily democracies!)

 

[Rev Prez]

i am talking about rumsfeld...and i never mentioned reagan.

Is it your intention to separate Rumsfeld's actions on behalf of the Administration that sent him from Reagan?

I was talking about rumsfeld helping saddam houseing while he was killing 1200 a month and when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on iranians to "Keep stability in the region"

And two people have already brought up FDR and Stalin. Do you have a problem with those two buddy-buddying it up as well?

Rev Prez