Iraq Regains Sovereignty

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
I ask you, why specifically would they not have been able to give Iraq sovereignty a while ago?

I didn't pay that much attention to NPR.

All I can say is that Iraq wasn't ready yet. You can't instantly jump from dictatorship to democracy. Look what happened in the French Revolution when they tried to quickly and drastically change not only the government but also society (much like Iraq). Did it work? No.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i think the current administration wants to ensure a permanent US military presence in iraq (though they would prefer it under the name of NATO)... much like what we still have in germany... not 100,000 troops, but not just 100 in an embassy either

if we had allowed elections and complete sovereignty a year ago... which we could have if it was a priority, the elected government may very well have asked us to leave completely

i hope i'm wrong... but, as i said, time will tell

First - if it's okay with iraq - what is wrong with us retaining military presence in Iraq? We have a huge military presence in Afganistan too. I also seriously doubt if we allowed elections last year - that they would have asked us to leave. The majority of Iraqis have known that if we left sooner and even leave now - that chances are their country will end up in civil war.

You just seem to view all this as a bunch of conspiracy theories - without looking at what it takes to bring a country from 50 years of dictatorship into a democracy. I completely disagree that it could have been done last year. I think the timeline makes sense in what is trying to be accomplished.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
All I can say is that Iraq wasn't ready yet. You can't instantly jump from dictatorship to democracy. Look what happened in the French Revolution when they tried to quickly and drastically change not only the government but also society (much like Iraq). Did it work? No.

Nope - it gave them Napolean and Europe a huge mess to deal with. Of course we can't complain too much - it got us the Lousiana Purchase.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Nope - it gave them Napolean and Europe a huge mess to deal with. Of course we can't complain too much - it got us the Lousiana Purchase.

haha

They went through 8 or so different forms of government in about 10 years, and then Naopleon came. France was so tired of chaos and bloodshed and nobody controlling anything a military dictator looked really good.

[Mercutio]

This could also be compared to the English Civil War (hereafter ECW).

In brief,


The main cause of the ECW was James I and Charles I abusing their power (forcing loans, collecting ship money, not calling Parliament in 15 or so years, hurting Puritans, etc.). When Charles I was finally forced to call Parliament due to lack of money, they quickly made him sign a document prohibitting Parliament from not being called. A while later (he still abusing power), they chopped off his head. Oliver Cromwell (leader of the Roundheads, the political party against the monarchy [as opposed to the Cavaliers]) was made Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Things went...sort of ok...but still not wonderfully or anything. He died, his son took over, and did a terrible job. Parliament asked Charles I's son, Charles II, to come back. He took the throne (this was called the Restoration). Then James II ascended the throne. He...didn't do so well. Parliament asked him to leave, and, fearing for his life, he did. They then asked William of Orange (Dutch) and Mary (English) to rule. When W&M were ruling, Parliament had them sign many many important documents such as: Habeus Corpus Act (no illegal arrest/imprisonment), Act of Settlement (no Catholic on the throne, such as James I&II were), and...drumroll...the Bill of Rights. This resulted in England having the gov. they do today--a constitutional monarchy. Now, this was not too drastic a change (like the Fr. Rev.), however it took time. They needed to get the right people up top first (W&M) and then figure out what their problems were and how to fix them (such as the documents I listed).

They didn't just jump right in.


Anyone feel free to correct historical errors.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
First - if it's okay with iraq - what is wrong with us retaining military presence in Iraq? We have a huge military presence in Afganistan too. I also seriously doubt if we allowed elections last year - that they would have asked us to leave. The majority of Iraqis have known that if we left sooner and even leave now - that chances are their country will end up in civil war.

the question is, "is it okay with the people of iraq"... if they do have elections, and they do ask us to leave, would you be willing to accept this?

You just seem to view all this as a bunch of conspiracy theories - without looking at what it takes to bring a country from 50 years of dictatorship into a democracy. I completely disagree that it could have been done last year. I think the timeline makes sense in what is trying to be accomplished.

there is no 'conspiracy'... i think the bush administration is acting unilaterally... you can't have a conspiracy without conspirators

the US keeping a foothold in iraq, even against the will of the general populace, is arguably good for US security... however, it is not necessarily good for democracy and stability in the middle east

in the past, we have tended to act in our own self-interest... often in very positive ways, like during WWII... other times we have supported dictators... the ousted saddam one among many, in the name of security... i am not arguing whether this is good or bad... it is simply a fact

the quesion in my mind is will we do what is best for democracy in iraq, even if it means a short-term compromise of security?

[Mercutio]

Keeping forces in Iraq is good for the general welfare of the populous. It is not merely done to protect the U.S.

They may not want us but at this point they still need us, and probably realize that. I may not like having someone occuping the U.S. (who would like to have another country occupy them?), however I would recognize they need to be here if it would be better/safer in the long run.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
the question is, "is it okay with the people of iraq"... if they do have elections, and they do ask us to leave, would you be willing to accept this?

Then they ask us to leave. But they HAVEN'T asked us to leave - they have asked us to stay though. It seems it is YOU that does not want us to do what they want. Since you seem to want us out of there.

there is no 'conspiracy'... i think the bush administration is acting unilaterally... you can't have a conspiracy without conspirators

Oh - unilaterally - how? because France and Germany didn't support us? Are we ruled by them - even though there are many other countries who DID support us. We didn't act unilaterally. We just didn't get ruled by two countries.

the US keeping a foothold in iraq, even against the will of the general populace, is arguably good for US security... however, it is not necessarily good for democracy and stability in the middle east

I don't see how that would be good for US security - when it would develop into a Lebanon. But right now Iraq wants us there - for one thing - we are building A LOT. Hospitals, schools, etc. You really think they can do all this by themselves?

in the past, we have tended to act in our own self-interest... often in very positive ways, like during WWII... other times we have supported dictators... the ousted saddam one among many, in the name of security... i am not arguing whether this is good or bad... it is simply a fact

It is a fact - but with all fact comes with a history which people refuse to acknowledge. The times we supported Hussein was when the Soviet Union was trying to control the Middle East. You might remember - we also supported Iran at this time. There is NO Soviet Union anymore. We can work to try making the world a better place now hopefully - instead of trying to contain the Soviet Union and prevent them from world domination.

the quesion in my mind is will we do what is best for democracy in iraq, even if it means a short-term compromise of security?

Democracy isn't going to have a foothold in iraq without us there. Do you really think Al Qaeda will just stop bombing them and everything? Al Qaeda doesn't want a democracy in Iraq because democracy is the worst thing for the recruitment into their organizations. Also - by bringing down Iraq - they can get a new base of operations. So - I don't see there being a question on whether we can risk short-term security in Iraq.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I would recognize they need to be here if it would be better/safer in the long run.

fair enough... but i think this part is still in question

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Mercutio
They may not want us but at this point they still need us, and probably realize that. I may not like having someone occuping the U.S. (who would like to have another country occupy them?), however I would recognize they need to be here if it would be better/safer in the long run.

Well now we are no longer occupying Iraq - anymore than we are occupying Afganistan or Germany. We are working with the sovereign government of Iraq.

[BeardofPants]

I think it's great that the hand-over occurred early, and relatively smoothly. Lets hope for a continued smooth transition to democracy.

To be a fly on the wall when those bastard terrorists found out that the hand-over happened earlier. *snicker*

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It seems it is YOU that does not want us to do what they want. Since you seem to want us out of there.

no, i'm just trying to help you to see the other side of the argument... i understand your pov and am not completely against it... but i think the truth is somewhere in the middle

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
To be a fly on the wall when those bastard terrorists found out that the hand-over happened earlier. *snicker*

I was thinking the same thing. You know they had tons of stuff planned for the 30th and now who are they bombing? They'll be bombing the soverneign goverment of Iraq they were supposedly fighting for. I'm sure they'll go through with their bombings. I'm surprised there weren't some major ones today actually.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
no, i'm just trying to help you to see the other side of the argument... i understand your pov and am not completely against it... but i think the truth is somewhere in the middle

I see the otherdside of the argument - believe me. I just disagree with that argument. You seemed to be saying that we should be out of there now - that we should have had free elections last year, I disagree with that completely.

As for when we should leave - it is up to Iraq and up to the situation at hand. If it's in 1 year, two years, 5 years or 10 - it will be based on the situation. As has been mentioned - we are still in Germany, and WE ARE still in (South) Korea protecting them.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Anyone feel free to correct historical errors.

Well, you did ask

--Charles I as in Anglican church and 6 wives.

That's Henry VIII. Charles I had just one wife, who was a Catholic.

The rest of it is historically accurate AFAIK, but I'm not sure about the parallel - after all, the King of England wasn't toppled by a foreign power or a war, but by a revolution. And though the kings had too much power, they weren't exactly dictators IMO. There was a Parliament, in any case, who had (very limited) powers over the monarchy.

Off topic, and off my own historical area.... oh dear oh dear

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well now we are no longer occupying Iraq - anymore than we are occupying Afganistan or Germany. We are working with the sovereign government of Iraq.

Thanks. Pardon my terminology. . I'll change it in the future.

[Sister Golden Hair]

I guess we're all excited about this. We seem to have forgotten about the temporary 3 post limit.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I guess we're all excited about this. We seem to have forgotten about the temporary 3 post limit.

As I stated before - it was a stupid idea anyway.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As I stated before - it was a stupid idea anyway.

That's your opinion, and it doen't mean you can just blow it off. It is a rule for now at least.

[BeardofPants]

Not me. I only posted once.


.... Oh damn, I just posted again. Tricksy administrator!