calmObserver

remember your own country, france, old ussr, iran... ~ you cannot govern, in the long run, without consent of the people.

then you need to read more. try The Shock Doctrine or online No law for oil or Behind the Scenes, US Tightens Grip on Iraq's Future.

here's one of the problems eagle. american people think they are pure good while their government goes around the world p.o. people ~ i.e. they don't know themselves. couple that with thier ignorance of islam and we are sure to loose everytime

calmObserver

you seem to have a good grasp of the situation. one point i would add is the u.s. never intended to have elections rather, they were forced into it by the grand ayatollah sistani.

Hotduck

No ones forcing anything most of the people in Iraq want the elected government to work and the people who don’t nine times out of ten have ties to Saddam’s old government or AQI or other radicals. Stop acting like everyone in Iraq hates the USA it sure seamed like most of them are willing to work with us to help make this government work.

The U.S needs to stay to help with security we will slowly pull back when the people of Iraq can do it themselves. They don’t all hate us, it is not the all out civil war that some claim it is. Most Iraqi just want to be safe and free and are army is helping them do that.

__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes

LiveUninhibited

Actually, I think they do mostly hate us, like much of the world, and while most of them may be glad that Saddam is gone, they also want us out of there as soon as possible.

Everybody seems so concerned about the fate of Iraq. We went in there at first because we thought the country did not have the right to have WMDs. No WMDs. Then it was about Iraqi freedom. Wow they're so much better off now aren't they? We've killed more people than Saddam (we've killed around a hundred thousand), and who knows how many indirectly through the destruction of their infrastructure and destabilization of the region.

In a 2004 poll, which was the only poll I found, about a third of the Iraqi people believed that "the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger." And that was years ago!

Meanwhile we spend trillions on Iraq. That money was taken from American taxpayers to be spent on Iraq while our economy is on the brink of recession! I know Americans are generous, but we have our own problems and American tax dollars should be spent to benefit America. The Iraqi war did not accomplish that, and if it accomplished anything at all, it was not worth trillions of dollars. In order to help the American economy, we should immediately set a withdrawal date about 2 months in advance and stick to it. That will force them to sink or swim. And quite frankly, if they sink, then so be it.

The only viable long-term solution I see is for Iraq to split into 2 or 3 countries, depending upon if the Shia majority and the Sunnis can learn to get along. None of them like the Kurds, so they'd have to be separate. And obviously they'd have to find a fair way to split the oil resources.

Hotduck

They do not all hate us if the did violence would not be down and most of the troops their would say they hate we should leave. The rest of the world does not hate us either they have a pro-America president in France, Germany and the UK, Israel likes us and so dose Iraq and Afghanistan.

Look the fact is there are people in Iraq who are working with us and are fighting the same emery is we are fighting. Those people really do want this elected government to work and to leave them now would not only be the wrong thing to do for are interests but also for are morels as well.

And they share oil already

__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes

Shiva_TD

I happen to be reading a book on America between 1775 and the ratification of the Constitution in the 1780's and I think I see the problem in Iraq.

When the United States was formed it was a bottom up development whereas in Iraq the US imposed a top down approach. We imposed a "democarcy" without the buy-in of the people at the local level and instead are attempting to force it upon them from a national level. We see the problems related to this in places like Basra where the people simply refuse to submit to the demands of Baghdad.

I'm still learning (aren't we all) but it appears to me that first you have to have government at the local level and then the local governments need to work together to form a national government. As I have noted before on this thread to impose a government from the top down required a tyrannical government because it must force its will upon the people. If you want truly representative government then it starts in the communities and then develops from there.

By way of example I will cite the fact that the US government was not created by the People but instead by the independent States of America. The people already had government at the local and state levels for several years before the United States government was formed.

Just something to think about.

nerv14

That would be a last resort, but i think maybe a system similar to the states in America could be set up where each section could have added power to run itself with some strong federal power to separate oil revenues.

Eaglefish

Remember USSR, China, almost all of the ME, much of Africa, much of Rusia's former satellites. The govts need no, and have done without, "consent of the people." Iran had a "people's" revolution and got the mullahs. Now the "consent" of the people is ignored. In most of these countries consent of the people is a pipe dream. There is no "people" with any consensus to shape anything.


Whatever govt Iraq has and will get will be without the consent of the people. The US certainly pressures the Iraqi govt to become a functioning govt that caters to US needs, but there is little evidence the pressure is creating anything viable.

Eaglefish

Obviously there are some hiccups, when the troops are infiltrated by the group you are trying to fight.
From today's NY Times.

Hotduck

Yeah the police still have a lot of problems but the armies gotten a lot better and many of the locals are really turning against the radials.

Also I far as this whole the USA cannot “force” democracy on people argument I have two problems with it.

1. Dictatorships on force on People Saddom came to power because he threatened the last person in charge and stuck fear into the rest of Iraq. They tried to stand up in the 90s but they did have the manpower to bring him down without help from the USA. Anyone who excepts the Iraqi people to have brought down Saddom by themselves is being foolish. Also No one wants to live under a Dictatorship most people want to be safe and free

2. The U.S has helped democracy come about in Japan and Germany after WW2, and the fact is their seams to be enough support in Iraq for the elected government to work

__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes