BF2S Forums Iraq is not Ready for Democracy: Time to Pull Out

Let them fight amongst themselves, I say. You can't keep controlling them, Iraq has to get onto its own two feet and stand for itself, and restore some sort of a balance to the government. First you sow, then you wait.

-konfusion

You all are as much to blame for this mess as we are.

We just had the balls to enforce U.N. resolutions, which you now resent, just because there really isn't any excuse for the worlds bodies spinelessness.

It wasn't about oil before but for pete sake it's an issue now.

Last edited by ATG (2007-04-19 17:00:22)

ATG wrote:

You all are as much to blame for this mess as we are.

We just had the balls to enforce U.N. resolutions, which you now resent, just because there really isn't any excuse for the worlds bodies spinelessness.

It wasn't about oil before but for pete sake it's an issue now.

The UN needs to be razed to the ground. All it is is a talkshop the US sometimes uses to add the illusion of legitimacy to actions it takes. It vetoes all else.

Spineless. LOL. I'll stand up for MY principles - not the twisted politics of the worlds most elitist politicians. I share no blame for this debacle. They live thousands of miles away from me. I've only encountered an Iraqi twice in my entire fucking life. You supported it - you can take the fucking blame.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-19 17:04:30)

We are in this war because if we werent then the fight would be in our back yards! Hence the whole mess with 911. Its easy for you kids to sit home and point the finger when you just sit back and munch on doritos and are able to walk down the street without any fear of bombs or gunfire (except schools, i.e. virginia tech and columbine). I will consider you opinions when you actually have seen this war or have had a deep conversation with someone who had firsthand. Its sooooo easy to critisize this whole mess but like it or not we need to finish this job or all of those lives wasted will be in vain. Seriously think, all bullshit aside, think of what it will really take to get this job done. It will take easily another 10 years. Ask any service member and they will tell you realistically it is gonna take some time. This world is so bullshit. All they want is a quick fix. And they dont care if it eventually falls apart, they just dont want it to fall apart on their watch.

ChevyLee86 wrote:

nah stay in i dont want to pay $10+ for a gallon of  gas

wow.......just wow

Bertster7 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

You all are as much to blame for this mess as we are.

We just had the balls to enforce U.N. resolutions, which you now resent, just because there really isn't any excuse for the worlds bodies spinelessness.

It wasn't about oil before but for pete sake it's an issue now.

The UN needs to be razed to the ground. All it is is a talkshop the US sometimes uses to add the illusion of legitimacy to actions it takes. It vetoes all else.

I wouldn't go that far. Security council vetoes are a joke, but the principle of the UN is sound. There needs to be an international body like the UN and whatever incarnation it's in it'll be much the same.

The UN could be more effective if all resolutions were voted on, instead of security council members just vetoing them.

QFT

Well, Iraq certainly isnt ready for another despot. . . .

Iraq hasn't EVER had democracy, nor has the middle east (with exception of Israel).  The middle east is a fucked up area of the world.  For the most part Europe, USA, and Asia have let the middle east go unchecked for centuries. . . .

What has that policy of neutrality done for the middle east? honestly? They have modern day weapons in middle eastern countries that still honor/engage in "middle ages" laws and mentalities. . . .Its time for the middle east to get it together! Yes, its going to be extremely difficult for a culture to change their ways.  It is a massive undertaking to change hundreds of years of dictatorship/oppressive mentality that has permiated that region. 

Noble nations are OBLIGATED to challenge oppressive regimes/warlords, in order for the world to be a safer place.  A democratic Islamic State(s) are safer for the world!! No one is saying they need to convert from their religions, we are just trying to guide them into the future.  The future, are ALL people living in relative freedom, and having the abilities to elect their OWN officials. 

We as a collective world could continue living with kings and queens. . . .Judging by the what did the Europeans/Americans did to the monarchy/despot system, its obvious that the alternative was better!! Why shouldn't the middle eastern peoples enjoy the same freedom revolution we enjoyed?  Why not TRY and help get rid of this "revolving door" of chaos in that region?

The only way that chaotic door is shut, is through some form of democracy.  Iraq needs the worlds help to become the first Arab democratic state, and those who dont/cant see the benefit/nobility in that, are dead wrong/misguided.

fadedsteve wrote:

Iraq hasn't EVER had democracy, nor has the middle east (with exception of Israel).

What about Iran, Lebannon, Pakistan, Turkey....

fadedsteve wrote:

The middle east is a fucked up area of the world.  For the most part Europe, USA, and Asia have let the middle east go unchecked for centuries. . . .

Which centuries?

Bertster7 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Iraq hasn't EVER had democracy, nor has the middle east (with exception of Israel).

What about Iran, Lebannon, Pakistan, Turkey....

fadedsteve wrote:

The middle east is a fucked up area of the world.  For the most part Europe, USA, and Asia have let the middle east go unchecked for centuries. . . .

Which centuries?

LOL LOL LOL!!!

Iran is not a republic WHATSOEVER (as it is truely ruled by the Supreme Ayatollah)! Pakistan is ruled by a military general (Pervez Musharaf), and Turkey is teetering on being in Europe. . . .Turkey is questionable as far as being a "Middle Eastern" country.  It is a muslim country, but has adopted very western thoughts, as it used to be part of the Byzantine empire. 

Which centuries. . . ALL OF THEM! The middle east has gone through one dictatorship to the next. . .Whether it be at the hands of their own homegrown rulers or European. . . . Through that process of turmoil no one ruler has wanted to switch to a more democratic process of governing.  As a result the middle east continues to be run as if it is living in past centuries. . . .

edit: Iran was also ruled by the Shah (King in farsi). . . .The Shah wasnt a democratic ruler at all. . . .He was put there by the United States to be a pro-USA monarch. . . .Oh yea. . .Lebannon is ruled by Hezbollah behind the scenes, who is funded/takes direction from Iran. . .

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-04-19 18:21:05)

CameronPoe wrote:

Tired old analogy. Terrorism is not like the clearly defined enemies that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were. Not to mention the fact that the west is now in an unassailable position as regards military superiority. The analogy fails on so many levels. You aren't fighting countries anymore sonny - you're preventing random lunatics here and there from carrying out criminal activities.

PS The UN is a pack of shit, do what you want with it.

Hehe, nice exercise of Godwin's Law there Cameron,

Personally, I think that withdrawal is the best bet. But I don't believe isolationism is going to work. I think we need to go into a country, kill whoever we don't like in charge, and then GTFO ASAP. Let them worry about the clean-up.

Fred[OZ75] wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

LOL LOL LOL!!!

Iran is not a republic WHATSOEVER (as it is truely ruled by the Supreme Ayatollah)! Pakistan is ruled by a military general (Pervez Musharaf), and Turkey is teetering on being in Europe. . . .Turkey is questionable as far as being a "Middle Eastern" country.  It is a muslim country, but has adopted very western thoughts, as it used to be part of the Byzantine empire. 

Which centuries. . . ALL OF THEM! The middle east has gone through one dictatorship to the next. . .Whether it be at the hands of their own homegrown rulers or European. . . . Through that process of turmoil no one ruler has wanted to switch to a more democratic process of governing.  As a result the middle east continues to be run as if it is living in past centuries. . . .

edit: Iran was also ruled by the Shah (King in farsi). . . .The Shah wasnt a democratic ruler at all. . . .He was put there by the United States to be a pro-USA monarch. . . .Oh yea. . .Lebannon is ruled by Hezbollah behind the scenes, who is funded/takes direction from Iran. . .

Pakistan does now have elections and General Musharaf has been elected into his position. Turkey isn't part of the Middle East... it use to rule the whole Middle East (Persia). Iran does have elected bodies, in fact they are currently voting against the current nut case in power with his party losing most of the local election.

Then again how is the US going to bring democracy to another country, you can barely work it out for yourselves. The US is the home of voting irregularities, how did the Iraqis have a chance of getting it right.

Nothing is perfect in this world!!!

Everyone acts like Iraq has to become this instant hub of peace and prosperity. . . Or should become that in the coming months. . .or Iraq is a failure. . .

Bottom line is regime change and stability take TIME!! They take alot of time to settle and grow! Let the seed be planted and sprout for christs sake. . . .

The USA isnt a perfect democracy, and either is Europe. . . .But at least they take care of their citizens, have human rights, promote entreprenurship, and encourage free speech!!

Iraq COULD be a valuable member to the world community if its protected in its infancy. . . .The Democrats want to cut the protecton of the incubator (USA military protection), and all thats going to do is ruin what has been accomplished thus far. . . . I just dont understand why people think its wise to pull out at this stage. . . . Its like throwing your little baby out into the cold with the predators!! And by predators I mean al-Qaeda, Iran, Sadr etc. . . . . Its stands no chance to defend itself against them!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-04-21 13:03:59)

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

W.W.II Clearly defined. Hmm lets have a little hindsight.

Just so easy to develop and fight a war using Airpower.
Just so easy and intuitive to scrap the Battleship Strategies that held sway for almost a century and utilize the Aircraft Carrier in a theater of battle that spanned 7 time zones.

It was so simple and clearly defined, it would have been a piece of cake for " The Worlds Smartest Boy ! "

And Oh gee! did every last German back Hitler? What percentile do you think in 1924 Answer this, or 1932?
What percentile do you think backed him 1935 in 1937 in 1940 ? how about in 1944 or 1945 ?

Did the entire nation of Germany back him whole heartedly the very first day Hitler took power ?
or did the entire nation become a simple clearly defined enemy as far back as the Beer Hall Putsch ?

What you fail to acknowledge in what you just posted is that Hitler had something to offer those whose support he eventually gained (to the point where Germany largely whole-heartedly back him). Islamic terror gives nothing. It is not likely to spread to the extent of fascism in 30s/40s Europe: it will always be a fringe mindset. The vast vast majority of muslims don't feel the desire to blow themselves up or see how that would benefit them or their families and that fact will not change. The people who commit acts of terror have nothing to lose. They are generally destitute and their lives are worthless. If their lives weren't so worthless, if they had something to live for then I'm sure, like most well off muslims, they would be impervious to such a stupid mentality. Affluence breeds apathy. Take the German example: Hitler gave the Germans food on their tables where before there was no food, he gave them order when there had been chaos, he gave them employment when there were no jobs, he gave them the autobahn and great works of national pride, he gave them a sense of purpose and a feel of unity in a time of discord. Radical Islam gives none of these things. It is not a constructive philosophy and will never attract more than impoverished idiots. It doesn't even give unity - they're quite happy killing opposing sects of Islam for their 'cause', whatever that is.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

How many Millions of lives would have been save if someone had the guts, foresight or moral clarity to take him out of power then.

Well the clue was when Germany annexed Austria, which is what I would have regarded as legitimate cause to tackle Hitler but everyone sat on their hands. The US were particularly reluctant to help the Brits out. Sure they were all in with fantastic support after Pearl Harbour but if the Japs had kept themselves to themselves I'd probably be posting this in the German Protectorate of Irland right now. To answer your question about loss of life: millions of lives were necessarily shed in Europe during the world wars - it was the only thing that would iron out territorial disputes and power hierarchies in Europe once and for all: the final stage in the maturing process for the European political map/system. You may have averted some deaths at the time but the tensions would have popped up elsewhere at a later point. The Germans would not sit still forever with the ridiculous Versailles Treaty strangling them. The USSR would have been marauding across the continent if it not Germany anyway. Sometimes wars are necessary and natural. The 'war on terror' is not a war. There are not realistically achievable goals for a start. Beating Germany is a fairly straightforward goal. At least you can find the enemy on the map!

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

So, Not one Japanese civilian was an uneducated farmer, peasant, was Ignorant or un-aproving of the Military actions of the Japanese Army or Navy? Who incidentally, the Emperor didn't always support ( and visa versa) and were strongly at odds with each other to the point where the Emperor survived a Coup's assassination by hiding in a laundry basket. ( conveniently Forget that or never knew it, which ? )

So every single civilian was a die hard Japanese with a meatball scarf tied around his forehead huh? the clearly defined enemies ! Was every last Frenchman 100 percent behind Germany the minute France surrendered since it was clearly defined ?

I never said they all were. But the majority were. That makes a nation a war target. When they elect by popular vote or support in the majority a leader who attacks your nation. The hope would be that those that disagree with the regime will defect to your side. Japanese flew themselves into aircraft carriers and committed suicide rather than be captured for christ's sake. They did so in their thousands. I don't think anyone doubts that the majority of the Japanese believed in the idea of a greater Japan. They certainly fought like they did anyway.

The point you make about the Frenchman is a little retarded and not very applicable to what we're talking about it. They surrendered because they had no option. Their backs were against the wall. That doesn't make them the enemy - you would hope they did would become part of La Résistance asap. I think they were clearly defined enough by the fact they were not in fact wearing German military uniforms. What is acceptable 'definition' for you in the 'war on terror'? A headscarf? A beard? Sallow Skin? A turban? LOL. You really fail at understanding guerrilla warfare. The Japs and Germans fought conventionally - the Fundamentalist Islam movement don't.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

How about the Vichey government and the resistance it put up to both axis and allies ? That's pretty simple and clearly defined!huh?

It's pretty clear. You wearing a Vichy France military uniform? Then you're fair game to take a bullet.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Or how about our relation ship with the USSR in 1940 1941 or 1942 what about 1945 just so simple and clearly defined
or how about Captured Russians who became Nazis pretty clear and simple too.
The Dutch, the Poles, the Checks, The Chetnicks, Franco etc..  shall I continue or do you get the point.

What has your relationship with the USSR got to do with how clearly defined the enemy is? You just don't get it do you? Where is your enemy? What do they look like? Do they wear a uniform? Is there a particular age profile you're looking for? What country are they in? You can't tell them apart from ordinary law-abiding muslims for christ's sake. How hard is that to understand. Really!

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Did no one flee Germany, did his support of 100% of the German population never wane, even in the last years of the war when Germanys fate was sealed?
Did German surrender once a Very rare thing become wholesale mass events ?
Did every German fight on right until the surrender of Donitz and then magically stop ?

A lot of them feared being taken by the Russians and fled to the western front. Huge amounts of Germans fought to the bitter end and by and large stopped when the call came to stop. You aren't going to get that kind of behaviour out of radical islamists. You aren't going to get a man who 'hasn't blown himself up yet' hand himself into the nearest police station because he's a radical islamist and he's sick of Iraq being bombed. The mentality outlives the individual as well - you can kill as many as you like but the mindset will not be killed: ready be picked up by any lunatic at any point in the future. Your solutions are tired and lack understanding of the situation.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Did no Germans become Guerrilla fighters and call them selves Werewolves? did they not perform acts of sabotage and assassinations of officials who cooperated with the allies.

Very small and insignificant. About as much of a threat to us and radical islamists are today - i.e., extremely limited if they are policed properly and intelligence is good.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Was the response of the nations, with it fighting men still in harms way,

to ignore these ruthless, reckless, tactically feeble and hollow attacks because acknowledging their efforts would inspire them to commit more acts of horror against their own people?

When they were caught under arms and out of uniform in a non declared war were they not immediately executed without benefit of trial with the blessing of all Europe?

I'm not sure how they ended up but the analogy isn't great - you are talking about the straggling members of an army of a defeated nation. With radical islam there is no army and there is no nation. There is only the self.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Militarily their army was vanquished long ago. There leader hid in a feces smeared hole. Was he not hung? Did they not have thousands of volunteers for the job of hangman?

Are you talking about Iraq or Germany now? I assume Iraq. I don't get your point. You seem to be confusing the ousting of a SECULAR power in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, with a phony 'war on terror' against, against well I'm not quite sure really. People with headscarves probably according to you. You aren't fighting Saddam's army anymore. Saddam's army surrendered before the US even got started. The attacks that his army engage in constitution but a fraction of the total amount of violence in Iraq now. I really don't get the point you're trying to make with respect to the original argument here.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

This is what World War Two would have been like if we fought it before Hitler annexed the Sudetenland or moved into Alsace Lorrain, Would that have been the clearly defined enemies ! you speak so often of?
Or better yet, if we had had the guts, foresight or moral clarity to take him out of power the very first day he took it.
We had his book "My Struggle " we knew what his plans were, just as we have heard Iranian leaders speak. we know their leanings, teachings, goals, boasts and what the would do and have done when they could.

Anyone can keep their head in the sand ( take the complement because Im not sure that's its actual location ) and stay out of the way as history unfolds without them. We aren't sure we could put you to use in a real fight anyway. " those who stayed in bed, There names are dead. "

While we are at it, if we fought Hitler in 1937 wouldn't a lot of Germans ( Non Nazis ) have fought us just for the fact that we " were on sacred German soil ". Wouldn't a lot of young men fight " just to fight " and show they had balls ? ( I know I lost alot of you with that one ) but some young men are like that. Without Hitler's plans having time to bear fruit in full bloom, (Dachau, Aschuwitz.etc )
would some Allies been less then committed to the fight being Hitler had never really become a world wide threat or villian? Would some allies want to pull out if a set back took place ?

While we are at it can you imagine if one of our allies at the End of hostilities had turned on us and enslaved half of the people we Freed? Like the USSR did?

The Berlin Airlift was seen as a Major victory. Is that how it would play out now in the Media if Bush had to respond to a similar event? Or would it be seen as " a failure of intelegance and planning " by a biased disloyal 5th column who's hold on political power is soley invested in our defeat? ( that's called Treason )

CameronPoe wrote:

The analogy fails on so many levels.You aren't fighting countries anymore

No. You are no judge and are not capable of drawing any proper conclusion at this time nor is anyone for that matter, You however have no grasp of your place and so the answer is

No, you fail on EVERY LEVEL.
You fail to see that NAZISM ( substitute Imperialism, Victory Sicknes, etc. ) started as an idea and
You fail to see that NAZISM was pushed on an unwilling.
A populace kept ignorant and held in check with chants and catchy slogangs. The heady stuff of group think and the loudest voice was sold to the Youth who were naive and full of condescending self assurance, moral superiority and in reality ignorant with so few of life's learning experiences behind them ( Hits close to home does it ? )

It's amazing how you're so obsessed with Hitler. Russia are doing the kinds of things he did in Chechnya and yet you don't bat a fucking eyelid. Why is the middle east so important to you? They're too far away to do you any damage? Or have you not looked at a map recently?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You aren't fighting countries anymore sonny

sonny ? am I the one who looks like some 12 year old french cartoon charictar ?

Quite the comedian. Quite the mature comedian....

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

That's right and we care about this country and this people so instead of doing from 17000 feet with a B24, B29s or B52s ( which we could do ) we are treating it like " criminal activities " ( your words, sorry you tipped your own hand )  So here even you admit the war is over. Thank you for running off so.
Its criminals committing criminal acts against an established democracy. Thanks for the acknowledgment
(Steamed in a circle and cut your own tow line )
Fighting crime is " a tough, thankless, never-ending job and I'm dam proud to be one of them" ( Joe Friday )

I find it funny that you regard Iraq as a democracy representative of the people when the police are infested with Al Qaeda spies, massive amounts of the electorate boycotted the elections and three distinct sets of people want to kill each other and take Iraq or parts thereof to make their own states. Moqtada Al Sadr has a firm grip on the reigns of power there. And you think your democracy experiment worked? LOL. They elected people that hate you ffs. How on earth is that a success? Public opinion in Iraq says 'US TROOPS OUT NOW'. Iraq never attacked you in the first place remember? They never had any WMD either! So per-emption failed. You ceded righteousness and the moral high ground for something that what was obviously not driven by a desire for security - because lets face it: the CIA have issued reports stating that this whole debacle has INCREASED global terrorism. Thanks for that.