Political Forum - US & World Political Discussion Forums - View Single Post

honestiago · 05-07-2008, 12:09 PM

How has it been a bloody disaster? I concede that the initial handling of it was inept/

True. And it continued to be inept due to the lack of clear goals for the invastion. If you'll remember, it was initially about self-defense (WMD). Then it turned into toppling Saddam. Then it turned in to establishing Democracy. What is it now, anyway? Seems to be about saving face now.

but we are slowly starting to see stability in the region,

The region was much more stable before we invaded it. It might not've been democratic, but it was stable.

we've seen the fall of a dictator

And the rise of...what? Fundamentalist factions? How is this preferable? We've tolerated (even funded) other dicatators before. What made Saddam so special?

and, not only that, once we are able to leave, we'll hopefully have created another democracy in an area which lacks democracies.

You're ignoring history here. A strong Democracy demands, at its core, a strong middle class. You can institute martial law, you can set up a governmental style, but you can't create the economic conditions necessary for Democracy to work unless the indiginous people have a true stake in their country. Jobs, infrastructure, roads, businesses would do a LOT more toward reshaping the Middle East than a top-down military action. And since when is Democracy the next logical step toward prosperity? Many countries have historically prospered under strong, central (sometimes brutal) leadership. A progressive dictator might be preferable to a backwater, inefficient democracy. You might be able to at least establish strong national identity, an economy that fosters democracy, and eventually, a natural move toward the people gaining power. This idea that we have to spread democracy at the point of a gun is limited, at best. The bloody disastor was assuming that pointing those guns at the right people would foster democracy. I think we can safely say the results have often been disastrous, with much time, capital and human life wasted to achieve something that could've been brought about in other ways. Maybe slower ways, but more impactful and safer.

05-07-2008, 12:09 PM	#34 (permalink)
honestiago Conscript Join Date: May 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 15 Country: Country:	I assume this is an Iraq war comment How has it been a bloody disaster? I concede that the initial handling of it was inept/ True. And it continued to be inept due to the lack of clear goals for the invastion. If you'll remember, it was initially about self-defense (WMD). Then it turned into toppling Saddam. Then it turned in to establishing Democracy. What is it now, anyway? Seems to be about saving face now. but we are slowly starting to see stability in the region, The region was much more stable before we invaded it. It might not've been democratic, but it was stable. we've seen the fall of a dictator And the rise of...what? Fundamentalist factions? How is this preferable? We've tolerated (even funded) other dicatators before. What made Saddam so special? and, not only that, once we are able to leave, we'll hopefully have created another democracy in an area which lacks democracies. You're ignoring history here. A strong Democracy demands, at its core, a strong middle class. You can institute martial law, you can set up a governmental style, but you can't create the economic conditions necessary for Democracy to work unless the indiginous people have a true stake in their country. Jobs, infrastructure, roads, businesses would do a LOT more toward reshaping the Middle East than a top-down military action. And since when is Democracy the next logical step toward prosperity? Many countries have historically prospered under strong, central (sometimes brutal) leadership. A progressive dictator might be preferable to a backwater, inefficient democracy. You might be able to at least establish strong national identity, an economy that fosters democracy, and eventually, a natural move toward the people gaining power. This idea that we have to spread democracy at the point of a gun is limited, at best. The bloody disastor was assuming that pointing those guns at the right people would foster democracy. I think we can safely say the results have often been disastrous, with much time, capital and human life wasted to achieve something that could've been brought about in other ways. Maybe slower ways, but more impactful and safer.