Iraq's Future?

[Lord Ovrkill]

Well I have decided to bring a little controversy to the forums. I was wondering what you all think about the future of Iraq. I mean, was removing Saddam really a good move for the people of Iraq.

Well anyway, if you have any political interest you will know that the elections in Iraq were a historic event and soon, the UK elections will take place and the next PM will be decided and with it the future of British troops in Iraq will be decided.

So do you think the elections in Iraq have made the people free, or just open to a new form of dictatorship? Will the next election bring Briton out of Iraq? Well guys what’s your view?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Saddam was certainly not good for Iraq, and the fact that he is now gone is probably a good thing. However history has shown that forced democratization almost never works. Democracy has to be just that, a government of the people, not the government some foriegn power inposes on people. I sincerly hope the elections are successful (ie those elected are acccepted and bring some real democracy to the Iraqi people), but I fear that Iraq will have to defy all that history has taught us for this happen. We should remember that even Saddam and Hitler were elected in popular elections, so elections by themself are no indication of anything.

The problem now is that there are no good option left as alternatives. We are increasingly being forced to choose the least horrible option, and that is incredibly scarry. I only hope we will somehow manage to salvage this mess.

[Lord Ovrkill]

I have to say, I totally agree with you there. That is probably the best answer I have heard from anyone i have spoken so far. There is a reason I am asking, at uni this week we have to debate about this topic and I am after information and opinions to help me form a complete argument.

Well anyway. I do agree with your view and think that it is a well rounded argument. Thus I hope it will help me with this debate

[Luigi300]

Removing Saddam destabilized the entire Middle East. Some eager people will want to show that they can be the next Saddam. Also we're not very popular with a full-scale military invasion over there.

[Hektik sniper]

Well I have decided to bring a little controversy to the forums.

You mean we dont have enough allready?

[Lord Ovrkill]

Well Hektik I guess we do. But I thought I would add too it. And knowing you are al political lovers I thought this one would be great heh.

[Hektik sniper]

Well, I would normally love debating something like this, but im so sick of the iraq issue its not even funny.

[Blasted heath]

Then don't read the thread.

As for the topic; who needs a future when you can have 8bn dollars 'mislain'!

[edd8990]

The Iraq war was a bad idea. Since the war ended, the number of Iraqi deaths per day appears to have gone up, not down. Next, hundreds of people are know so pissed off, they will be more willing to join terrorists.

Another point - what if a fundemental regime gets elected? Like Iran? You will then find pressure once again being put on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And if the new goverment asked the Americans to leave, would they leave?

[schumikimi]

I don't know for sure, but I thought that Saddam Hussein was chosen by the Americans as the leader of the Iraqis after the first Gulf War... But anyway, I think the only one who can be compared to Hitler at this moment is Bush... Cause he acts like he is the ruler of the world, while he was only elected by the American people... Bush started the war against Iraq because of the failure of his father in the first Gulf War... The world was against the invasion all along and still Bush didn't listen... But what was his reason again? Iraq would be creating weapons of mass destruction... but they still haven't been found and they won't be found...
The only country in the world that has weapons of mass destruction we know off is America itself, and they are still creating better ones... So who is the one that we should be afraid of?? A dictator from Iraq or the President of the United States of America???

This is only my opinion, you guys don't have to agree but please do not call me names because of my opinion, cause everybody has a right to have his own opinion, right?

[ODDin]

Regarding the forums - actually, the forum has been pretty dead lately. Comparing with the times when we had 2-3 debates going almost all the time - totally dead.

Anyway, I guess you guys know my opinion regarding the war in Iraq, and there's no need in repeating it all over again (discussed a million times before).
However, when I say the war in Iraq does help fighting world terrorism - that doesn't mean it's good for the Iraqi people.
In fact, post-dictatorship situation is almost always worse than what it was before. It's like when you have a needle in your arm (sorry for the metaphore, but it fits perfectly), you need to cause yourself more pain than what it currently is to get it out. So you're afraid, because you say "no it hurts, but if I try to get it out, it'll hurt even more". Point is, the only way to get rid of the pain totally IS to get it out.
So I don't believe we should stick to number of death as the absolute thing that says the current situation there sucks. It does, badly, but that's not what I mean.

However, Stew is perfefctly right. Enforced democracy is an oxymoron, and history proved that time and time again. So I believe that nothing good will come out of that new found Iraqi democracy. Maybe it'll be, in fact, a better idea for Iraq to be under partial US government - at least for the now. Though I'm not sure if the US would want to get themselves into that.
Thing is, in the case of Iraq, even the "offical" reason wasn't to "help the Iraqi people" - unlike it was in Vietnam. (Hm, that reminds me of a different issue for a debate; maybe I should start it. But not now)
So we should take the well-being of the Iraqi people as a criteria for the war being successful or not. It was not the cause - neither official nor under-the-surface.


(I hope that makes sense and actually leads somewhere, since I'm pretty tired at the time I'm writing this)



P.S. Wrote that before the last post was here. I won't react fully, I'll just make a slight note (that doesn't matter all that much, but it's still not a correct thing): USA aren't the only country in the world that possesses WMDs...

[Rkiver]

I point out that the only WoMD that Iraq could ever been proven to possess were sold to them by the US.

[Lord Ovrkill]

Lets face it america is a country for creating trouble, they sell wepons to terrorists. Then attack the terrorists. Hmmm completing the circle there.

Ah well i guess what ever happen Bush is only in power for another 4 years...

[Mas Tnega]

And the effects can last far longer.

[Lord Ovrkill]

Good point Mas, but we can just hope that when Bush has run out of time that the world will not hold a grudge against the American people for placing a dumb as fuck president in power.... Hope being the key word here.