Shiva_TD

What is the difference between Saddam using the force of the military to impose his government upon the Iraqi People and the US using the force of the military to impose the Iraqi government it created upon the Iraqi People. Both represent the tyrannical imposition of a government upon the people.

You note the primary difference in that the US helped Japan and Germany but it has mandated a democracy in Iraq through the force of arms. There is a huge difference between helping a nation establish a government and forcing one upon them with military might.

The majority of Iraqis believe that the US imposed government is both inept and corrupt. A large percentage of Iraqis (Sunnis of the former Baath party) we denied any representation in establishing or participating in the US imposed government. There is obviously a substantial percentage of the Iraqi population that does not agree your simplistic views that the Iraqis support the government we have imposed upon them.

Eaglefish

Apples and pears. Japan and germany had long histories as nations. Iraq is a country with three major religious groups, and within each religious group are more major tribal divisions. The fighting in Basra is a good example of this. It is not just a fight between Al Sadr's Mahdi army and the Iraqi forces. Basra has a number of sectarain divisions and political militia groups. The port facility, for example, is run by the Dahwa party/group, another shia group. Whether these groups are "criminal" or "militia" with Al Sadr or rogue elements is unclear.

Anyway in a microcosm this is the problem in a country held together for decades by a brutal dictatorship. By beheading it we created the inevitable unraveling of these pent up forces, and I seriously doubt if any "democratic" govt can unite by force. These groups have to be negotiated with, which means deals have to be made, and we Americans are going to have to go along, for the sake of stability.

Hotduck

Because the USA does not want to rule Iraq, we are giving them a chance to control their own lives and not live in fear. The U.S cannot wait to leave Iraq in fact when we first invaded Iraq we went out of are way to make sure it did not look like we were taken over Iraq. The USA is not forcing anything we are giving people a chance in freedom.

In addition, stop acting like a democracy and a dictatorship are one in the same democracies let human beings truly live their lives dictatorships do not. You cannot force democracy on people you are just giving people a chance to live their lives.

As far as Japan and Germany go doubt we used force, and stop acting like most of the people in Iraq have rejected democracy 11 million people voted under the threat of people killed. They have a constitution at one point they were losing 100 soldiers a day. The government although not perfect is sharing oil and passing laws their not all rejecting democracy most of them are trying to make it 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

Shiva_TD

It was not up to the United States to "give people a chance in freedom" in Iraq. Please read the US Declaration of Independence. Only the people living under a tyrannical regime have the right and duty to overthrow their government. Only they can determine if that government is tyrannical, not an outside nation. Of course we did not invade Iraq to free the Iraqi People so the whole argument it moot. "Freeing Iraq" was an after thought so any arguments to that effect are nothing but bullshit.

Tyranny is tyranny regardless of whether the government is a dictatorship or a so-called democracy.

And 99% of the people in the former USSR voted in their elections but when the people aren't given a choice the election don't mean jack-shit.

Let me ask you a question, when the Iraqi's voted for their Constitution what other form of government was offered to them on that ballot? People love to argue that the Iraqis had a choice but I say when there is only one box to check on a ballot that is not a choice.

pedex

some curious actions taken by the US with regards to Iraq:

complete indemnity for US forces and contractors

Bush admin passes legislation and executive orders protecting themselves from war crimes

all nationalized industries in Iraq privatized and Iraqi employees laid off

military which was trained and perfectly capable disbanded

standard jobs of the occupying power left undone

US does and end around the Iraqi parliament to renew the UN political cover for the continued occupation followed by an expected status of force agreement to follow later in 2008----the US has a history of violating and reneging on these

almost all industries opened to outsiders with zero regulations or force of law in effect to maintain oversight

seems to me this is how you totally screw a country, and do so on purpose, the existing Iraqi military could have been left in place as well as its govt which does not in any way preclude a new and different govt from emerging afterwards

there's a multitude of things the US could do but has not, like for example taking in the million plus refugees and giving them help getting jobs and places to live in the US, yet Syria et al have stepped up even while on the "terrorist" nation list the US maintains !!

actions vs rhetoric, the US fails, pretty obvious too

Shiva_TD

The more I follow the events in Iraq the more convinced I become that the whole concept of creating a government from the top down doesn't work. Government needs to originate with the People and not at the top. You cannot create a government and expect the People to comply with it except by the use of force and if force is used then all you have done is create a tyrannical state. All tryannical states will eventual fail because the People do not support them willingly. For a government to truly succeed it requires the support of the People and you can not force that from them.

Joe Biden almost had it right in that first a People must establish local government that they believe in and support. The local governments then become a part of a regional government based upon the consent of the governed. Finally, a national government is formed to unite the regional governments. Without this support from the bottom up any government will fail. That is what we see in Iraq today. The national Iraqi government is failing because it is attempting to force its power upon the people as opposed to the People delegating that power to the national government.

In a serious sense we are no better than Saddam because Saddam controlled the country by force from the top as opposed to exercising power based upon the consent of the People. We are attempting to do exactly the same thing.

Hotduck

How did you accept them to overthrow Saddom? The king of England did not use WMDs to gas people. He lived far away so it was a lot easier to get together and overthrow him. Live in reality how did you except the Iraqi poeple to get together and take Saddom down? An they did stand up in 90s but the U.S did not back them up

Also your right we went into Iraq because we sow Saddom as a threat.

Therefore, even if I accept your theory that the people of Iraq did not want be freed it really would not matter because I sow Saddom as a threat.

An go ask people that have lived under a dictatorship and then a democracy I bet you they will say theirs a difference.

TD do you really believe there are people in this world who want to live in dictatorships? Come on TD all people want to be free to live their lives dictatorships do no allow them to do that. It is unnatural to live like that no would choose to live under a dictatorship

__________________
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

TeaSea

"How did you accept them to overthrow Saddom? " - Hotduck
They could've just waited for him to die of natural causes, and they would've been much better off much sooner.
Saddam was never perceived as a real threat to the U.S. (other than threatening our oil supply), but our administration wanted very much to get the American public to believe he was a threat.
You can say that democracy is better than dictatorship, and I won't disagree, but if you say that social disintegration, mayhem and chaos is better than dictatorship, that's different. Give me dictatorship any day over that.
Here's the thing about military action. It is designed to destroy. It is not designed to create. We destroyed Iraq's organization and stability, the good right along with the bad. Now several factions are engaged in hostilities and all the American military can do is try to support whichever faction(s) they think are the least bad. Obviously, there is no military solution.

Shiva_TD

I will once again, as I often do, refer to the very ideals established in 1776 which made America different than all other nations preceeding it.


Whether a People are willing to live under a dictator or unwilling to submit to the tyranny of a dictator, or any government for that matter, is the responsibility of the People and not outside nations. Only the people living under a government of any kind can determine if that government is destructive to their rights and liberty. We, Americans, can say that Saddam was a tyrannical dictator but we do not have the right to say that for the Iraqi People. Only they had that right.

As our own Declaration of Independence goes on to say it is the People of a nation that have both a Right and a Duty to overthrow a government which they determine to be tyrannical. Even in such cases of tyranny the People will long suffer the abuse before overthrowing such a regime and, if they determine that their government is tyrannical beyond endurance then not only do they have a Right but also a Duty to overthrow it.

The facts remain that Saddam's Iraq never presented a direct threat to the United States. Iraq was not about to invade or attack the United States and had no plans to do so. It is also true that the US had no right to intervene in the sovereign affairs of Iraq and, whether the Iraqi People lived under tyranny or not, it was not the United States right or responsibility to make such a determination nor to intervene between the Iraqi People and their government.

Of course these conclusions are merely based upon the Ideals upon which America was founded so those that don't support American Ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence are welcome to argue these points.

.

Hotduck

After he died his sons would have taken over, and they were said to be even more evil. The people of Iraq could not have taken down Saddom without the help of a stronger nation like USA that’s just fact

Look, we can keep having this debate about weather the U.S has a right to free other nations or we can deal with the real question of this thread and that is should we leave now? The answer no the government of Iraq seams to be getting stronger and the people more secure.

The best thing for the USA to do in terms of its morels and its security is to help the people of Iraq beat back the same radiales we are fighting all over the world. TD and I can debate forever what we think the USA’s role in world should be and believe me there is no one better to argue with.

However, the answer to the question asked is we cannot leave the people of Iraq the chose and violence that will fill that power vacuum if we leave without a strong Iraqi government will be horrific. The friends we made in Iraq will feel stabbed in the back again and are allies would not trust us to finish other missions we commit to and Iran and AQI would have victory a base and even more oil money.

__________________
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