Iraq liberation without the US

  • News
  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date
  • #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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').
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,091
7,853
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
I wont 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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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.
 
  • #7
!

Pengwuino said:
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.

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, 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.

Absolutly

THis makes more sense now.

A perfectly fair way is via voting.
 
  • #9
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
84
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,092
17
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,092
17
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:
 

Related Threads on Iraq liberation without the US

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
105
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
91
Views
9K
Top