Theocratic Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter sid_galt
  • Start date
  • #26
502
1
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe.
It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?

Skyhunter said:
He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation.
Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.
 
  • #27
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
sid_galt said:
Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.
Well said, and we are still working on this in the U.S.
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.
Agreed if for no other reason than he was able to keep the country from splitting apart. And though some infrastructure/oil production was not being well maintained (I'd like to know why this is the same case with refineries here in the U.S.), they had water, electricity, and people could go about their lives without fear of insurgent violence.

The Iraqi people voted, the Iraqi representatives are working on the constitution, and hopefully the next election will take place in a reasonable time frame. If all factions aren't included, if groups feel they aren't represented, there will probably be a civil war. Isn't this what anti-war people warned of from the beginning? But as I said above, a civil war would have been very likely if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam themselves. Then there probably will be another intervention, but hopefully an international peace-keeping effort.

Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?
 
  • #28
Skyhunter
sid_galt said:
It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?
I don't believe he had people shot dead on "arbitrary whims."

My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.

I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.

And to believe that we are there now for ideological reasons is ridiculous.

If this were the case why did the US support Saddam in the 80's?

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?

The key members of this administration were involved then as well as now.

sid_galt said:
Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.
I am not sure what point you are making here. Having a good education system in your country to me is a philosophically sound principal, since the roots of philosophy stem from the first university.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
356
3
Skyhunter said:
My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.
Oh was that what you meant. I was refering to the Early saddam years when the Ba'ath party was still influencing events and was indeed progressing towards a more

don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.
Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?
I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.
 
  • #30
Skyhunter
Smurf said:
Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.
The Iran Iraq war started in 1980.

Smurf said:
I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.
Ruthless is probably a better description, and his regime became more and more so as he gained western support by invading Iran.

No, the US did not officially support Iraq before 1982.

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]
1980
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]
1982
Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]
 
  • #31
Informal Logic
SOS2008 said:
Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?
If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell? :rofl:
 
  • #32
Skyhunter said:
I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
 
  • #33
Art
Informal Logic said:
If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell? :rofl:
I think the punishment should fit the crime so how about forcing them to live in an Islamist theocracy for 20 years or so? :biggrin:
 
  • #34
356
3
TheStatutoryApe said:
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
Saddam formally succeeded in 79, but was already de facto ruler by mid 70s anyways.
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
Compulsory Free Education, Supporting families of soldiers, free hospitalization for everyone (including women), subsidies to farmers, built roads, promoted non-oil industries (so they didn't have a dependant economy), brought electricity to nearly every city in Iraq. UNESCO didn't give him an award for nothing.

Like it or not, genocide simply didn't happen untill the US got involved.
 
  • #35
Skyhunter
TheStatutoryApe said:
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
July 16, 1979 he officially took over. However President Bakr was weak (sound like any current president you know?) and Saddam was the real power in the Baath party from 1975.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
Like I said I don't want argue this point because he was a ruthless dictator who committed crimes against humanity. He was especially brutal to the Shia and Kurds. What he did to the wetlands in the Tigris Euphrates valley was unconscionable.

My point however is that the Iraqi people have suffered, and are suffering now because of US policies toward Iraq these past 15 years. I never said he was good for Iraq, I was just saying that as the horrors of the past fade, and stories are retold, the Iraqi people may begin to yearn for the old days when they had food, water, and electricity.
 
  • #36
Skyhunter said:
July 16, 1979 he officially took over. However President Bakr was weak (sound like any current president you know?) and Saddam was the real power in the Baath party from 1975.
Yes, he was cementing his position as the next leader of Iraq.

Skyhunter said:
Like I said I don't want argue this point because he was a ruthless dictator who committed crimes against humanity. He was especially brutal to the Shia and Kurds. What he did to the wetlands in the Tigris Euphrates valley was unconscionable.
Why would you say that Saddam is not as bad as we have heard and then say you don't want to argue it?
Skyhunter said:
My point however is that the Iraqi people have suffered, and are suffering now because of US policies toward Iraq these past 15 years. I never said he was good for Iraq, I was just saying that as the horrors of the past fade, and stories are retold, the Iraqi people may begin to yearn for the old days when they had food, water, and electricity.
Not just US policies. Several countries have exploited and abused Iraq.
Also there are plenty of people in this country that yearn for the old days when blacks and women had no rights. There's even, supposedly, a movement for an all out race war. Does that mean it was the wrong thing to do to give these people their rights? Does that mean that our country is any worse off now just because some people liked it better the way it was?
 
  • #37
Skyhunter
TheStatutoryApe said:
Why would you say that Saddam is not as bad as we have heard and then say you don't want to argue it?
I said it because the media has only given us one side.

I don't want to argue it because it is like arguing for Saddam, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I admit that I don't really know what anyone here has heard, therefore my statement was inaccurate and I wish to retract it. I apologize to anyone I offended with my thoughtlessness.
 
  • #38
Skyhunter said:
I said it because the media has only given us one side.

I don't want to argue it because it is like arguing for Saddam, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I admit that I don't really know what anyone here has heard, therefore my statement was inaccurate and I wish to retract it. I apologize to anyone I offended with my thoughtlessness.
I'm not accusing you of arguing for Saddam. I made a similar argument once stating that we screwed Afghanistan by taking out the Taliban so I understand how you can make your arguement while not necessarily supporting Saddam. I may pick apart your arguement if I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say.

And no need for apologies, I'm not offended.
 
  • #39
Investing in Iraq

sid_galt said:
I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?
Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea. To further elaborate the form of investment, my friend would like to establish an investment broker firm to engage in further investment, in an attempt to gain property and use it for developmental purposes.

I, myself, do not know much about the finer points of investment however i do understand some basic concepts and i feel my friend is trying to hard to make an impossible dream of financial fruitation occur. Due to my lack of objective knowledge in Iraq and its trends and economic patterns, is there any resources or economic papers to support my friends prediction that this will be a functional and rewarding business to attain? or perhaps contrary indications? I do not want to disprove him, quite the opposite, but i am aware of money wastage and he may incurr more of it than he deserves.

Regards

A.Christ
 
  • #40
356
3
Waaay to high a risk. There's no saying what Iraq is going to do in the near future. They have somewhat of socialist past, they might nationalize all industry in a couple weeks. If I were him I'd let iraq set a precedent for it's self before I decide to invest there.
 
  • #41
Art
AntonioChrist said:
Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea. To further elaborate the form of investment, my friend would like to establish an investment broker firm to engage in further investment, in an attempt to gain property and use it for developmental purposes.

I, myself, do not know much about the finer points of investment however i do understand some basic concepts and i feel my friend is trying to hard to make an impossible dream of financial fruitation occur. Due to my lack of objective knowledge in Iraq and its trends and economic patterns, is there any resources or economic papers to support my friends prediction that this will be a functional and rewarding business to attain? or perhaps contrary indications? I do not want to disprove him, quite the opposite, but i am aware of money wastage and he may incurr more of it than he deserves.

Regards

A.Christ
The economy in the north of the country in the Kurdish controlled areas is currently thriving and the political situation is very stable. Property prices there are rocketing due to sky high demand with major construction projects everywhere. So perhaps your friend is correct in terms of an investment opportunity.
Kurds Seek Economic Lift-Off with New Airport

By: Seb Walker

June 2, 2004

SULAIMANIYA, (Southern Kurdistan) (Reuters) - Hidden behind hills on a highway leading to the Iraqi town of Sulaimaniya, a futuristic glass and steel building is nearing completion against the unlikely backdrop of the rolling Kurdish countryside.

The terminal is the first stage in a nearly $40-million project to build Iraqi Kurdistan’s first commercial airport out of the airfield that in 1988 sent Iraqi planes to drop chemical weapons on the Kurds of Halabja killing more than 4,000 people.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/3-6-04-kurds-economic-lift-airport.htm [Broken]
Economic success

Take the town of Suleimaniya. Its skyline is dotted with cranes. Everywhere you look bulldozers are at work.

We can go where we like when we like, which is not possible in Baghdad or elsewhere in Iraq.

"Things are booming. The price of land is ridiculous. It's just going up and up and up," says businessman Bettin Saleh, who has two shops in a new mall.

"People have money, people are spending it, they feel it's safe to spend - and build for the future."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145110.stm

Or there are always the rich niches :smile:
Amid blasts, Iraq glass salesmen smile
Wednesday 17 August 2005, 15:12 Makka Time, 12:12 GMT

Salesmen travel around replacing shattered car glass

Amid the destruction wrought by car bombs over the past two years in Iraq, there are some merchants who, by dint of their trade, have done well out of the mayhem, and glaziers fit that profit-from-misfortune group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
retort to 1984 comment

Informal Logic said:
If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell? :rofl:
I haven't read that particular book, however i have read Orwell, is that statement to justify Bush or is it a satirical rhetoric? Also are those statements supposed to be taken as the truth or as null-truths as it were?
 
  • #43
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
AntonioChrist said:
Hi, i have a friend with some contacts and money who is under the assumption that taking his pounds and business from England to Iraq is a good idea.
It depends on the business. If it's selling explosive belts, there might be some business there :tongue2:
 
  • #44
To Smurf

Smurf said:
Waaay to high a risk. There's no saying what Iraq is going to do in the near future. They have somewhat of socialist past, they might nationalize all industry in a couple weeks. If I were him I'd let iraq set a precedent for it's self before I decide to invest there.

High risk it will be, i fear too high, he is neither a violent man nor terribly business/ cut throat orientated, a computer nerd with money burning through his pocket with muslim friends, not too sure he will be able to deal with the reality of a potentially volatile political and social climate.

Especially when theres millions at stake.

i know for a fact if i was a business man from Iraq, and he was using my money in a high risk venture which went pear shaped i would not have far to look or go to exact a personal Jihad on his arse.

I think i should research more and have a basis for argument before i have an opinion to express.
 
  • #45
thanks dude, went to site looks like a good source for info

Art said:
The economy in the north of the country in the Kurdish controlled areas is currently thriving and the political situation is very stable. Property prices there are rocketing due to sky high demand with major construction projects everywhere. So perhaps your friend is correct in terms of an investment opportunity. http://home.cogeco.ca/~kurdistan3/3-6-04-kurds-economic-lift-airport.htm [Broken] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145110.stm

Or there are always the rich niches :smile:
thanks dude, went to site looks like a good source for info
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
sid_galt said:
It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?
Are you talking about Iraq or London?
 

Related Threads on Theocratic Iraq

  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
4K
Top