Will war in Iraq be "justified" if "democracy" takes hold ?

To listen to some people, "democracy" is taking hold all over the Middle East. From the elections in Iraq to the uprisings in Lebanon, the people are speaking up. And that's all you need for a democracy, right?

As we now know, we went into Iraq - an illegal invasion by all international definitions - on a pack of lies. We were going to get rid of Saddam's WMDs and his nuclear capabilities. After we got there and there was nothing to find, not even an enemy army, we had to find another excuse for being there. How could we occupy a nation without some "reason"? So it then morphed into "we are fighting so the people of Iraq can be "free" and live in a "democracy" What a load of happy horseshit!

But, if Iraq does turn the present chaos into some form of democratic government, does that justify George Bush's invasion of that country? Do the lies no longer matter? Because things turned out better than anyone hoped, does that make everything all right? George Bush will then have redeemed himself?

He wasn't a threat -- he was a contained enemy. A president with genuine leadership skills -- rather than a pre-set agenda -- could have ended Saddam's reign without the loss of 1500 American lives and the lives of countless Iraqi civilians.

This is the great unmentioned: there were many ways of ridding Iraq of Saddam. Actually getting the inspectors back in the country was a good first step.

The MSM, a branch of the republican party, never mentions this aspect.

It wasn't about sending Saddam candy and flowers or bombing a country illegally, it was about: what to do about Saddam. I have no doubt that much of Iraq's population wasn't thrilled with the bastard, but I doubt they voted to have their cities leveled, their children murdered, their grandmothers tortured, their resources plundered and the mullahs plus Chalabi, take over their country.

Democratic forces brought down the Iron Curtain from within those countries because those forces lived within those countries. Political change starts within the human heart.

The MSM fails to mention by design that there were alternatives, choosing instead to insist that we are either for Saddam or against him. It is the failure of constructive dialog and an agenda-driven media that permits this ludicrous lie to continue.

Never mentioning the obvious, that there were other alternatives, suits both the Democrats who backed the vote for war for political reasons, and the republicans who benefit politically from the charade and love the war. Apart from your post, I don't expect a return to sanity any time soon.

... cheers! :toast:

Amazing how the whole issue has been crammed into an either/or discussion, isn't it?

People wearing ornaments and fancy clothes,

carrying weapons,

drinking a lot and eating a lot,

having a lot of things, a lot of money:

shameless thieves.

Surely their way

isn't the way.

~Lao Tzu

Not too many Zen-lemmings.

That is, if real, independent democracy takes hold there, no, it will not justify the war, since that is not the reason we went. And even if it were, you'd have a hard time convincing me of that.

If democracy does spread through out Iraq then you can believe this whole fucking country will be jumping up and down begging shrub to invade another country. "westernize them arabs"

To the right wing, it won't matter, but to us--what if they do pull it off, and they create a working democracy. Let's acknowledge up front, that this is unlikely. Odds are high that the status of women for example, will decline incredibly. And the most likely end point is a theocratic strong man who does what we tell him.

But if a democracy really was created, I would be happy for the people of Iraq. And I would count the invasion of Iraq as over all, a success. But I would not excuse President Bush both for the deciets used to guide us into war, nor for the boneheadedness that marked much of the campaign (The lawlessness right after the invasion, Abu Ghraib, and so on).

Does the overall success swallow up the clear errors? Not for me, but my guess is for most Americans it will.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

"And I would count the invasion of Iraq as over all, a success...."

Bear in mind that I am a bloodthirsty monster, so my view of human life may not be the same as yours.

All kidding aside, my view is that if the average Iraqi (male or female) in the year 2012, looks around and says, "You know things are a hell of a lot better than they were under Saddam Hussein" than I will take that as a success.

I don't think that's very likely though.

Bryant Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I might just move there. It would be nice to live in a democracy again!

Democracy was not really what Bush had in mind for Iraq. In fact, even the idea of government at the consent of the governed (which is what they'll really get, not true democracy) is not what the neocons bargained for when they launched the invasion of Iraq.

The plan for Iraq was a state that would be open to allowing western transnational corporations to expropriate the natural resources and realize the profits. There would be no benefit to the Iraqi people. As in other Middle Eastern countries, that can only be done with a brutal, authoritarian regime. What the Bushies had in mind was something not as brutal as Saddam, but it was a government more responsive to Washington and Wall Street than to cab drivers in Baghdad or stevedores in Basra.

The elections were held only because Ayatollah Sistani insisted, backed with the credible threat of mass demonstrations and civil unrest if the Bushies did not permit them. Bush and his neocon aides wanted a byzantine series of caucuses that they could control to select the transitional government. Allawi, their man in Baghdad (but only because Chalabi was completely discredited) would no doubt have remained in power. With elections, as imperfect as they were, we at least got to see how well Allawi represents the Iraqi people; his slate got a whopping 14% of the vote to finish a poor third.

There's more than one insurrection in Iraq. The Sunnis are resorting to armed resistance, but the Shias, owing to their numbers, resorted to something that had a closer resemblance to a free and fair election than Ohio and Florida have, if only because their numbers made it impossible for the Bushies to fix it. That is their insurrection.

The Shia and Sunni may descend into civil war in spite of this. They have reason to fear other and don't agree on much. But they do seem to agree on one thing: Bush and his war profiteering friends should leave their country.

and THAT doesn't set too well with Turkey, because the Turks fear the Kurds will then start giving them trouble in the south and east.

:evilfrown:

If the Sunnis and Shias go to civil war, an independent Kurdistan would best serve the Kurdish people. It may be best for them in any event, but there would be no mistake about it in that event.

There would be almost no reason for the Kurds to take sides in a civil war in the rest of Iraq. They suffered under Saddam, which was nominally Sunni rule; their position in a Shia-dominated Islamic Republic would be tenuous. They took advantage of having de facto autonomy from Saddam after the War of 1991 to make economic gains that would be lost by taking sides in a civil war.

The only thing that might possibly involve the Kurds in a civil war would be the status of Karbala. If the Kurds remain in a federated Iraq, they will insist that Karbala be under their jurisdiction. If fighting breaks out, either the Sunnis or Shias (possibly both) might have other ideas about that.

Let's not kid ourselves. It isn't now, either.

A democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

What the recent elections appear to call for is a kinder, gentler version of an Iranian-style Islamic Republic. In Iran, a council of tweleve stuffy old mullahs determine who is fit to run for parliament. Only after they approve the candidate do the voters choose. That's not democracy.

If Sharia becomes the basis of civil law, whose Sharia is it? No doubt the interpretation of Sharia differs from Muslim to Muslim. It is always dangerous to make religious belief, properly a private matter, into public policy.

Also of concern will be the status of women in such a state. There's nothing democratic about a state that limits the voice of women in civic affairs and dictates social mores to them.

Nevertheless, what Bush and his friends had in mind for Iraq was even further removed from democracy than this. It was simply a papered-over submission to foreign rule. The invasion of Iraq was not a war against Saddam. It was a war on the very same Iraqi people whom Bush claimed to have "liberated." The purpsoe was to take Iraq's natural wealth and distribute it to his corporate coronies and establish a government that would be compliant with foreign demands. It was gunboat diplomancy with cruise missiles.

to do with Iraq. Nothing. Dude got assassinated. Dude's admirers are mad.

Unless it was us that assassinated said dude.

Remember Iraq was a Secular nation. Will it remain so? I have my doubts....Iraq will never be a success until the Iraqi people do just what they wish without the US telling them what to do.

No because freedom for the Iraqi people was not the goal for the Bush Administration. Bush was even against having the elections. First, Jay Garner was fired and replaced by Paul Bremer because Garner called for elections in 90 days and did not want to implement the rules the Bush Administration wanted to implement. It was Sistani who pushed for and demanded the elections.

The lies still do matter in that the war never would have happened without them. The real problem is that things may not turn out better, they may turn out worst.

Then we have to look at what is going on in the Middle East. How much freedom are the people getting. Yes there have been elections and will be some other elections, but what types of election are these.

There have always been uprising in the Middle East. The uprisings are not the result of the war in Iraq.

democracy is winning. It is as much about a war of propaganda as it is about a war of car bombs and death.

invasion of a disarmed, UN compliant nation. It is still against our constitution and national and international law.