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

News Iraq will be the only Constitutional Democracy in the middle east?

  1. Dec 12, 2005 #1
    So in Bush's speech today he said that if Iraq goes well, it'll be the only Constitutional Democracy in the middle east.
    What about Turkey, Lebanon and the UAE? I mean, am I just missing something? These countries are all Democratic, right? Do they somehow not have constitutions?
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 12, 2005 #2
    they are all under control of the "evil doers" so according to Bush, tehy do not count.
  4. Dec 12, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I was under the impression that Israel was democratic, as well. Maybe Bush considers Turkey a part of Europe now; the others I cannot explain.
  5. Dec 12, 2005 #4
    It sounds better the way Bush said it, regardless of "reality".
  6. Dec 12, 2005 #5
    To be fair to Bush, I was wrong in the wording of the first post of the thread. What he actually said was "When the new Iraqi government takes office next year, Iraqis will have the only constitutional democracy in the Arab world."

    But then, that necessarily includes Turkey...

    AND, to be fair to Bush, the CIA World Factbook says that the UAE isn't a democracy.

    But I could'a sworn they were. Is it the case that the individual Emirates are democratic, and that the Federal Government is just run by the elected representatives from each Emirate?
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2005
  7. Dec 12, 2005 #6
    Bush doesn't like to get bogged down in details. Like Stephen Colbert, he's more concerned with the truth, not the facts. :uhh:
  8. Dec 12, 2005 #7
    If only he could truly be like Stephen Colbert. Then maybe we wouldn't have this bear problem in America.
  9. Dec 13, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Turks are not Arabs, but I guess you've got him on Lebanon.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2005
  10. Dec 13, 2005 #9
    I agree with posts above that Bush is using marketing tactics, such as "the largest natural bridge in the world." And as stated above, the biggest question is whether Iraq is a democracy at all. But then the Bush regime is notorious for premature claims...for example, the war is not over.
  11. Dec 13, 2005 #10
    actually, Turkey is full of Terkman, not arabs.
  12. Dec 13, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Heh..if Bush is a moron for his statement ..then what does your statement about turkey being an arab country make you?
    Bush seems to have the capability of surrounding himself with intelligent and capable people. Even if you don't agree with their policies, anyone who's ever had to manage a company or organization realizes that is one of the most important components of leadership and management.
  13. Dec 13, 2005 #12
    A 17 year old kid who didn't know that Turkey wasn't arab. I tend to think that Presidents of the United States should be held to a higher standard than High School Seniors, but maybe I'm hoping for too much...
    Exactly what criteria do you use to judge that he's surrounded himself with intelligent/capable people? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz were all dead wrong in their predictions about the Iraq war, and they all used false intelligence to back it up. Are these the smart people you're talking about? The people who said they doubted the war in Iraq would take 6 months? The people who said Iraq's oil revenue would more than pay for the war and the reconstruction? The people who said we'd be greeted as liberators? The people who promised the insurgency was in it's last throes? The people who rejected the notion of a substantial international coalition, and decided doing it alone would be the best idea? The people who've been doing such a brilliant job of training the Iraqi military/police forces during the nearly 3 years we've been there?

    Either these guys are great at being dead wrong, or great at lying.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2005
  14. Dec 13, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    wasteofo2, you are not a fool. You are a person who is capable of critical thinking. Even if you are not of voting age, you can be a force for political change, if you will volunteer to help get the word out, or perhaps take older people or disabled people to the polls so they can vote. If you live in a state that that has a caucus system PLEASE attend the caucus meetings in your town, exert your rights as a voter, and you may very well become a delegate that helps elect the next presidential candidate from the party that you align with. Our electoral system has been diluted over the years to ensure that the two-party system will dominate and that huge special-interest contributors can trump the desires of the common citizen. If you care to reverse this, you can (or at least you can help to do so!).

    My local paper refused to run this as-is and insisted that I edit it very severly, then finally ran it as a "letter to the editor". It is quite telling that the US print media was afraid to run comments like this in 2002. We are not so far removed from totalianairism as the Bush-Cheney "democracy team" would have us believe.

  15. Dec 13, 2005 #14
    Dead on with the investment tips.

    Halliburton went from like 30 to 70 throughout the course of the war.
  16. Dec 13, 2005 #15
    I think the biggest mistake that Bush did was hire Dick cheny vice president.
  17. Dec 14, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That does not include Turkey. It necessarily excludes Turkey. Turks (like Iranians, Afghans, etc.) are Muslim but not Arab.
  18. Dec 15, 2005 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No, the UAE is not a democracy. The representatives from each emirate are appointed by the ruler of each emirate.

    Yemen and Lebanon would both seem like democracies to me, though. Although you could say Syria's occupation of Lebanon has made Lebanon's own government irrelevant in the past. The effectiveness of Yemen's government as a democracy has been hampered by the difficulty in uniting the North and South into one country after a long struggle. Kuwait is pretty close to a democracy, even though it's technically a constitutional monarchy.

    In general, the smaller states had moved faster towards democratic governments than the bigger states, such as Egypt, etc. The form of government isn't always as cut and dried as its seems, since rulers of smaller states have generally felt pressure to answer to their populace. Qatar isn't a democracy at all, but it approved a new constitution in June and it's ruler is very responsive to the 'advisory' powers of the legislature (anything the legislature does can technically be overruled by the monarchial ruler).

    The small states tend to fly under the radar, but I would imagine you would hear a lot more about them if Iraq succeeds as a democracy. The timing would be very good for claiming Iraq has been the spark that spread democracy even if at least half of those democratic movements were well under way before Iraq was invaded.
  19. Dec 15, 2005 #18
    Parts of Iran speak arabic, are are thought of as Arabic, Afgahanistain certainly isnt arabic...
  20. Dec 16, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think the results of Iraq's election will be very interesting, regardless of whether or not they're the first democracy in the Arab world. They really have a challenge ahead, regardless of how things turn out.

    Sunni Arabs will continue their insurgency against Americans, Kurds, and Shi'ites unless Allawi wins power - in which case they'll limit their insurgency to attacking just Americans. Muqtada Al-Sadr will continue his insurgency unless devout Shi'ites win and implement a theocratic government. Al-Zarqawi will continue to kill Shi'ites and Americans regardless of what happens in the election and continue to claim he leads al-Qaida, in spite of the fact that bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders are fundamentalists that want theocratic governments (who says we aren't winning the war against bin Laden - you know he's weak when he has to embrace al-Zarqawi and hope begging will bring him more in line with bin Laden's fundamentalist goals).

    I'm not even sure what the best result to come out of the elections would be. I guess an Allawi led government would at least be tolerated by most Iraqis, which would mean we'd be dealing with two specific problems - Al-Zarqawi and Al-Sadr - instead of a general civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

    Maybe the best outcome would be several small minorities with no dominant group in power. The only way any group could get anything through government would be through deals with an opposing group. Then again, gridlock might make things so inefficient that the entire population would defect to the first 'leader' that promised to get the lights turned back on. We'll wind up with another dictator in power.
  21. Dec 19, 2005 #20
    You're only 17? No way, you're way to conservative to be that young.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook