Could Iraq Have Achieved Freedom Without US Intervention?

  • News
  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
In summary: 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.Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It seems like many people on this forum are more interested in the idea of liberating Iraq than making sure that Iraqis get the opportunity to choose their own government without American interference.
  • #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,123
20
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').
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Pengwuino said:
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).
 
  • #3
I won't name names ;)
 
  • #4
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
  • #5
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!
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
!

Pengwuino said:
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!
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #9
Pengwuino said:
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).
 
  • #10
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
They didn't "choose" their government in either case. The first thing they "chose" were which elected officials in a democratic republic.
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
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"?
 
Last edited:
  • #16
You are really doing a nice job of staying off subject. Please answer the question posed.
 
  • #17
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.
 
  • #18
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #19
Did you even bother looking at the original post?
 
  • #20
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
 
  • #21
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.
 
  • #22
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!
 
  • #23
Are you trying to make up technicalities to dance around actually addressing the things I said in response to your initial post?
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
vanesch said:
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...). :rolleyes:
 
  • #26
vanesch said:
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.
 
  • #27
False Prophet said:
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
 
  • #28
vanesch said:
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.
 
  • #29
vanesch said:
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...). :rolleyes:

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
 
  • #30
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #31
Rev Prez said:
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 :smile:
 
  • #32
Rev Prez said:
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?
 
  • #33
False Prophet said:
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
 
  • #34
Rev Prez said:
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.
 
  • #35
vanesch said:
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...). :rolleyes:
Don't you have it backwards? Republicans want people in other countries to be free. Sounds downright liberal to me. :rolleyes:

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?
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
9
Replies
298
Views
69K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top