News The Future Of The Middle East!

  • Thread starter Mattius_
  • Start date
1
0
Ok, when Iraq becomes democratic, Im thinking democracy will spread like wildfire to the rest of the Middle East...

Would the war in Iraq still be wrong even if there were no WMDs?

*If your answer is that it is still wrong, be prepared for a wave of demogoguery...
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
When? I think you mean "If".

If by Wildfire, you mean those things they had in SoCal, I disagree.

If you mean that easy listening song by Michael Murphy, then yes, democracy will spread in the Middle east just like that song did.

Njorl
 

Zero

Good answers Njorl!!
 
0
0
The middle east becoming democratic is like leading a horse to water.

You can do it, but you cant make him drink...

...unless you strap a siphon to his mouth and force the water in.

I think the world AND the administration has lost focus here. The intention was never about "democracy in the Middle East." This is a selling point that was concocted in order to sooth the teeming masses long after the assault began. It's oroginal purpose was to justify an invasion that was already justified (remove Saddam before he could burn the world).

This is a perfect example of how an administration promulgates serious mistakes by catering to popular (er, media) opinion. I am disheartened because the admiration I had for the administration sprang from the fact that they initially promoted policy that was sound, regardless of public opinion. Now, they are going in circles, losing focus, trying to please all the crybabies, and getting absolutely nowhere.
 
1
0
You can do it, but you cant make him drink...
I would like a very thurough explanation as to why the middle-east wont embrace democracy... That is, unless you retract your statement. Thx
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,086
1,088
Without speaking for Ganshauk, cultural intertia is going to slow down any democratic "wildfire" in the ME; the only "popular" political movement in the area in the past century was the Pan-Arab game --- where is the UAR today? You're looking at a culture that has exhibited an unbelievable stability over the past two (or more) millennia --- rapid, radical change is not too likely an event.
 
1
0
Without speaking for Ganshauk, cultural intertia is going to slow down any democratic "wildfire" in the ME; the only "popular" political movement in the area in the past century was the Pan-Arab game --- where is the UAR today? You're looking at a culture that has exhibited an unbelievable stability over the past two (or more) millennia --- rapid, radical change is not too likely an event.
This is a strong point, but...

Wasn't China considered to be stable until Mao?
Wasn't Yugoslavia under Tito considered to be stable?
Wasn't Catholocism stable in France before reformation?
Wasn't South Africa considered to be Stable before Mandella?
Wasn't Italy before the renaissance considered to be stable?

I think we all might be surprised by the power of freedom.
 

Bystander

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,086
1,088
"Stable" is a lousy word to use, but what I meant was that there has been no real change in livelihoods or lifestyles in the area --- the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, British, French, and whoever else have come and gone, along with assorted religions, strongmen, political movements, you name it, but there has been no real change at the "sand roots" level.

China stable under Mao? Really? Which 5 year plan, great leap, or cultural revolution are you talking about?

Yugoslavia under Tito? The Balkans haven't been stable since at least the days of Imperial Rome --- Yugoslavia as an artificial construct of Versaille was about as stable as old dynamite --- not a question of going off, just a matter of when.

Pre-reformation Catholicism in France? I'd have to hit the books, but what I recall is a damned near endless bloodbath --- stable in a way --- .

S. Afr. pre-Mandela? Another stick of overage dynamite.

Pre-rennaissance Italy? No such thing --- Italy is a 19th century emergence.
 

Zero

Originally posted by Ganshauk
The middle east becoming democratic is like leading a horse to water.

You can do it, but you cant make him drink...

...unless you strap a siphon to his mouth and force the water in.

I think the world AND the administration has lost focus here. The intention was never about "democracy in the Middle East." This is a selling point that was concocted in order to sooth the teeming masses long after the assault began. It's oroginal purpose was to justify an invasion that was already justified (remove Saddam before he could burn the world).

This is a perfect example of how an administration promulgates serious mistakes by catering to popular (er, media) opinion. I am disheartened because the admiration I had for the administration sprang from the fact that they initially promoted policy that was sound, regardless of public opinion. Now, they are going in circles, losing focus, trying to please all the crybabies, and getting absolutely nowhere.
What I find interesting is that while we interpret things completely differently, we kind of agree on some of the basic facts. We both agree that Bush decieves the American people to get his way, although the idea that Iraq was a threat is laughable.
 
354
0
I think Iraq was a threat, just not immediate. However, I do know that there was awful stuff going on there and now there is at least less of it, so I think so far so good. I do also disagree, the whole middle east will not become democratic, I think it will be an uphill battle just to keep Iraq democratic when it 'is'. 'is' indicating that for ex.: China is technically a democracy, but any idiot can tell that it is merely so only in the letter, not the spirit, of the definition of democracy. How democratic is it if someone has a gun to your head or if the only guys running for president are corrupt?
 

Zero

If Afghanistan is any idication, democracy is unlikely in Iraq...the current draft of their constitution declares Afghanistan as a theocracy...and democracy and religion don't mix.
 
354
0
I never hear about Afganistan anymore, and have gotten the impression that we have left it's people on their own, and I do not like that, but I also hear that there are still troops there. I'm a little fuzzy on this, will have to do some research. So they're drafting a constitution? Pretty soon they'll be ruling the world and I still won't be sure if they even have started their gov't yet.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
Originally posted by Mattius_
This is a strong point, but...

Wasn't China considered to be stable until Mao?
Wasn't Yugoslavia under Tito considered to be stable?
Wasn't Catholocism stable in France before reformation?
Wasn't South Africa considered to be Stable before Mandella?
Wasn't Italy before the renaissance considered to be stable?

I think we all might be surprised by the power of freedom.
China was in a state of near constant uprising or civil war for about 100 years before Mao.

Yugoslavia was considered very unstable, held together only because Tito had such power.

France had many heretical uprisings, the Albigensians/Cathari and many populist communal sects, before the reformation.

South Africa had significant unrest before Mandela. He was a product of the unrest, not an instigator.

Italy was constantly torn between the Pope and the Emperor for 400 years before the Renaisance.

So, in short, no to all of your suppositions.

Njorl
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
While I don't think that democracy will spread, I do think there will be one very large benefit for the US if Iraq becomes democratic.

The US will always want a foothold in an oil producing nation in the middle east. When the Shah of Iran fell, we increased support to Saudi Arabia. We have always supported despotism there. We aid a King in Jordan, and a dictator in Egypt. If we establish a democracy in Iraq, we will be able to cut off support to despots without harming our foreign policy significantly.

It will not be easy. If Iraq becomes truly democratic, it will be hard to be elected if you have a "pro-American" reputation.

Democracy will certainly not spread like wildfire, but, we will at least be in a position to stop funding those who actively suppress it.

Njorl
 
137
0
Originally posted by Njorl
While I don't think that democracy will spread, I do think there will be one very large benefit for the US if Iraq becomes democratic.
It will not be accepted internationally.
And by the way US violates the Hague Regulations:

Bremer's reforms are illegal?
Bring Halliburton Home by Naomi Klein
"
But the "Troops Out" debate overlooks an important fact. If every last soldier pulled out of the Gulf tomorrow and a sovereign government came to power, Iraq would still be occupied: by laws written in the interest of another country, by foreign corporations controlling its essential services, by 70 percent unemployment sparked by public sector layoffs.

Any movement serious about Iraqi self-determination must call not only for an end to Iraq's military occupation, but to its economic colonization as well. That means reversing the shock therapy reforms that US occupation chief Paul Bremer has fraudulently passed off as "reconstruction" and canceling all privatization contracts flowing from these reforms.

How can such an ambitious goal be achieved? Easy: by showing that Bremer's reforms were illegal to begin with. They clearly violate the international convention governing the behavior of occupying forces, the Hague Regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, both ratified by the United States), as well as the US Army's own code of war.

The Hague Regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." The Coalition Provisional Authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance. Iraq's Constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet two months ago, the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now-infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100 percent ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100 percent of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream."

Order 39 violated the Hague Regulations in other ways as well. The convention states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031124&s=klein [Broken]
--------
Centre for Public Integrity (CPI). http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.aspSpecial [Broken] Report
U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Postwar Reconstruction
(WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003) — More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaign of George W. Bush—more than $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1
0
So, in short, no to all of your suppositions.
And if and/or when the middle-east falls to democracy, I wonder where the attributions will lie?

I knew when I posted those examples, that someone would try to correct me. Seriously, I wonder if when the middle-east succombs to democracy, what other false reasons people will give for the collapse of tradition.

Your reasons are sensible, and granted it was probably an accumulation of things, but It is my belief that freedom was the chief factor.

Why do people try to cover up the true pinnacles of humanity?
 
354
0
If you knew someone was going to correct you, are you claiming you knew those were false and were just waiting for someone to say you're wrong, or are you convined you are right despite the fact that Njorl seems to know what he's talking about (I don't know if he's right, I'm not a history buff)?
 
1
0
If you knew someone was going to correct you, are you claiming you knew those were false and were just waiting for someone to say you're wrong, or are you convined you are right despite the fact that Njorl seems to know what he's talking about (I don't know if he's right, I'm not a history buff)?
If you read my post critically, you would have observed that although njorls points are valid, I believe the primary variable is freedom.
 

Zero

Let's talk freedom...Iraq won't have it for a long time. America's first goal is stabilizing the oil exports.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
Originally posted by Mattius_
If you read my post critically, you would have observed that although njorls points are valid, I believe the primary variable is freedom.
Are you trying to claim that China became free under Mao? Or that Italy became free in the Renaissance? How about you get your encyclopedia and look up the Borgias, the Medici's, Francesco Sforza, Bernabo Visconti and a few other Renaissance tyrants.

Njorl
 
0
0
Originally posted by Zero
What I find interesting is that while we interpret things completely differently, we kind of agree on some of the basic facts. We both agree that Bush decieves the American people to get his way, although the idea that Iraq was a threat is laughable.
We agree on many things, bro. But not this.

Bush may (or may not) have decieved the American people. Are you so aristocratic in your thinking to believe the "American people" actually matter to the fate of Iraq?

"Liberals are actually closet aristocrats."
- Frank Herbert

Bush says what he says (or any administration for that matter) to sway the "American People" to cough up the dough to make the world a safer and more stable environment which improves the chances of the "American People" to survive. It may not be popular. The only judgement we should make is "is it effective?"

All presidents lie. Thank god. If they didnt, we would all crap our britches at least three times a day. It would be impossible to manage a population exceeding 275 million souls if government told you about everything that was really happening. Most of the people on this board could probably handle the truth, but could they handle the solution?
 
0
0
Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf.
 

Zero

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf.
I get what you are hinting at...but there is absolutely no indication that any of your apocalyptic fantasy had even the slightest chance of happening...unless you change 'virus' to 'effects of global warming'.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Sorry for the double post.

I forgot to mention that I dont think Saddam was a threat. If we hadn't have toppled his government :

I think that I would, at this very moment, be called up for training as a captain in an artillery unit due for shipment in 2 years and 5 weeks to the Middle East. I would be shelling demoralized and burned infantry under a softly glowing green sky in a radiation suit of 2nd hand quality. Alot of my brigade would be coughing up thier lungs while trying to load thier howitzers, impeding progress immensely.

Meanwhile, back home, the piles of bodies that succombed to the virus would be plowed unceremoniously into the hudson, chesapeake, and gulf.
Halirious. Sadly even the US government disagrees with you nowadays.
 

kat

12
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Halirious. Sadly even the US government disagrees with you nowadays.
FZ, David Kay is the voice of the US governments opinion on this as he was and still is responsible for investigating, on the ground the facts of this issue..and quite frankly you are far far off base to say that it disagrees with what he outlines. I know I asked you in a prior thread, but I will ask again...Have you read his report, in FULL?
 

Related Threads for: The Future Of The Middle East!

  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top