Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iraq liberation without the US

  1. Jun 24, 2005 #1

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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. Im 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 im sure many peoples immediate response will be something a level up from 'the us sucks, the war is wrong').
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 24, 2005 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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).
     
  4. Jun 24, 2005 #3

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I wont name names ;)
     
  5. Jun 24, 2005 #4
    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?
     
  6. Jun 24, 2005 #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!
     
  7. Jun 24, 2005 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Scratch that, lets 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.
     
  8. Jun 24, 2005 #7
    !

    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: Jun 24, 2005
  9. Jun 24, 2005 #8
    Absolutly

    THis makes more sense now.

    A perfectly fair way is via voting.
     
  10. Jun 24, 2005 #9

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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).
     
  11. Jun 24, 2005 #10

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Jun 24, 2005
  12. Jun 24, 2005 #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.
     
  13. Jun 24, 2005 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. Jun 24, 2005 #13
    They didn't "choose" their government in either case. The first thing they "chose" were which elected officials in a democratic republic.
     
  15. Jun 24, 2005 #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.
     
  16. Jun 24, 2005 #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: Jun 24, 2005
  17. Jun 24, 2005 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You are really doing a nice job of staying off subject. Please answer the question posed.
     
  18. Jun 25, 2005 #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.
     
  19. Jun 25, 2005 #18
    Answer:

    They weren't. Coalition forces have not arranged this and will they? Maybe in a utopia they can ACTUALLY choose their government.
     
  20. Jun 25, 2005 #19

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Did you even bother looking at the original post?
     
  21. Jun 25, 2005 #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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Iraq liberation without the US
  1. US death squads in Iraq? (Replies: 43)

  2. US-Iraq security pact (Replies: 12)

Loading...