Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Democractic Republic Government In Iraq?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Democractic Republic Government In Iraq?
Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 4782
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 06, 2003 11:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, right or wrong, or some shade in between, it's inevitable that the US will win in the current conflict. The real question is what will we do next? Will we try to force our "values" on the Iraqi people, or will they freely accept? And how can we have a free Iraq with armed Americans all over the place and with such anti-American sentiment in Iraq? It seems like a very big problem to me. I mean, I do concede that the Saddam regime is illegal (since he commits crimes against humanity and resists being part of international ethics, decorum, and law), but will the replacement be sufficient to guarantee individual rights for all?

------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:18 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interesting question... & a very difficult complication for the West to overcome.

My own Personal opinion is that,

- We should baby the UN & the Security council into getting some credit in the reconstruction to get everyone back onboard.

- We need to somehow incorporate Arab states into the formulation on the Iraqi gov't, but that presents some diffcult questions
----First, the reason to incorporate them is to quell the discontent among Arabs in All Mid-East countries, but the people watching their gov't take part in the forming of a new gov't in Iraq might be misconstrued as condoning the War.
----Second, almost all these regimes are monarchies, dictatorships, & totalitarian as well, so who are they to set up a gov't.

Personally, I think working thru the UN inviting diplomats from moderate Arab states such as: Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar & other small somewhat liberalized gulf state to be the figurehead that presents the planned gov't to the world.

I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to get them onboard, I mean every country, especially the smaller less signifacant ones, want notariety & recognition. This will be their way to get it, not to mention this could also become a bonding tie between the UN (the West), & the East(Arab League) that could lead us into a new age.

But that could be a silly little dream.

In reality, what I believe will happen is the US will want to have a fair amount of control over who's put into power & how it works, but the Great Tony Blair, whom I have more & more respect for every day, will be our right-hand man bridging the pond & humbling us into rekindling with the UN & Europe... If it wasn't for Great Britan & Blair, we would be lost in my opinion, they humble us & dog gone it! We need humbling!!!

As for the people, I don't think a lot many people give enough credit to the Iraqi people.
Iraq is one of the most sophisticated countries in the Middle East, tons of infrastructure, a strong economic base, skilled workers, the biggest middle class in the Middle East. So I think bringing them into a liberal democracy economically will be easy, politically it will be difficult, because they are SO used to totalitarinism they won't know what to do, like Russia... but if the UN is there & supports them vigorously throughout the following decade, & getting US troops outta there at the soonest possible feasible time, the faster the country will heal & the quicker the people will clasp onto their new republic, become a part of specially Arab version of a Democratic system. It can't be the system that works like the US's, it'll have to be a custom-fit Arab version of Democracy like what is in Turkey or Lebanon.

But that's just my two cents

IP: Logged

Aphrodite
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:30 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Randall,

Historically, U.S. intervention has not worked out to the best advantage of the locals in third and fourth world countries. Examples are Eritrea vs. Ethiopia, Congo, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Land is a tangible asset and people will fight to the death for it. It is hard for the U.S. public to maintain consistent media interest and education of territories so far away. What has typically occurred in the past are that ideologies infiltrate the populations and bands of people will develop nationalist groups. Fights break out amongst the people and resentment forms against the "patrolling" government. Eventually, underground coalitions develop and the whole cycle starts over again.

This is just what has historically happened in the past.

Aphrodite

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:43 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
double-post

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:43 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is incorrect Aphordite, I would not speak of that as fact!

1) Iraq ISN'T a 3rd or 4th world country if you didn't know. 3rd/4th world countries are not developed Iraq is quite developed & has a sizeable middl-class.

2) HISTORICALLY, there ALSO have been many successes of US intervention forming Democracies.
-Germany
-Japan
-Philipines
-South Korea
-there's one more but I can't rememebr right now

And Afghanistan, I thinked you are making a ruched judgement on that one, so far I think we're doing an alright job, it DEFINENTLY isn't a failure.

Furthermore, your examples of failures are not examples of full US support. Congo...? Ethiopia...? Those situations are not even in the same ballpark as Iraq when measuring the scenario, it REALLY doesn't compare.

Aphrodite, I agree in Third World countries the US hasn't been successful in regime-building, examples: Latin America...
But they were 3rd world countries not even established as a solid economy, AND we weren't in full control of the country w/ military forces, AND we genreally wanted simply a regime that was in our back pocket, that won't succumb to Communism, but now it's different.

IP: Logged

Aphrodite
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:46 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Lost Leo,

You've got your interpretation and I've got mine

Cheers,

Aphrodite

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:49 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey Aphrodite I meant to add the last part too, but i accidentally sent it before, just wanted to show I agree wit you on some points

IP: Logged

N_wEvil
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
or failing that iraq turns into a corporate-dominated McOil factory..

IP: Logged

Aphrodite
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 01:58 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi Lost Leo

I had read that current Iraq GDP estimates are in their 1940s levels, and qualified as 4th world status. But I haven't got the exact source on me at the moment. Apologies for that.

As for sizable middle class, that is news to me.

Truthfully, I am not up to date on the economic status of Iraq's civilian populations. Wouldn't know exactly where to get the source of that data accurately since the country is closed off from the rest of the world.

Anywho, thanks for the replies. I was only mentioning third and fourth world countries. None of the ones that had already been industrialized prior to U.S. occupation.

Aphrodite

IP: Logged

Jaqueline
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 02:15 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have been reading a lot of speculations on the composition of power in occupied Iraq.

" The Guardian " affirmed that there's a dispute inside the American government.
According to " The Guardian ", the government will have 23 ministries, each one led by an American. Each minister will have four Irakis counselors chosen by the USA.

Colin Powell, defends that the military control is substituted soon by the United Nations, to give an international legitimacy to the postwar period, solution that doesn't please the Pentagon.

London, also doesn't agree with the idea of giving the interim government of Iraq to American.
Blair declared in the Parliament, that Iraq should be returned to the Irakis quickly, and he insisted on the need of involving UN in the transition. This is the vision that should prevail - for the good of all.

The Department of State and the Pentagon also diverge on how to organize the American government in Iraq. The winner in the internal front is, again, Paul Wolfowitz, "THE" extreme-right's thinker. His protected are already choosing their positions.

The first attempt was naming James Woolsey, former-director of CIA, for the administrator's of the occupied territory position; now, he should be the minister of the Information.

There's an idea of giving the Iraq government to the retired general Jay Garner - owner of a company of weapons and emphatically pro-Israel.
A group of retired military and American former-ambassadors are already being named for the administration of the country. All belonging to the group that " The New York Times " defined as "true believers", the ardent defenders of the new ideology of Washington. According to The New York Times, when Garner arrives to Baghdad, " he will be responsible for everything that is not with the military ones: provisioning of the country, reconstruction of the infrastructure and the creation of what the administration Bush has been calling "democratic government".

As we can see, the great fight is not happening in the streets of Baghdad, because the final American victory was always guaranteed.
The great fight is happening in the negotiations between Europe and the United States on how to institutionalize the invasion of Iraq, if it will be an occupation purely American, if we will see the UN subordinated to the American generals, or if the UN will be allowed to use the name of "United Nations".

Anyway, the biggest looser in this war was the " right ". And I hope that the people of Iraq will not be the second. But they, at least, know how to separate homeland and government, they know the difference between liberator and invader and they are trying to live the every day life, even when the sky tumbles on their heads.
On another hand, the world no longer knows, what is "right" and what is "force".

The war of Iraq made varied damages to the World Order .
Iraq is not a new Afghanistan.

In the fight against Osama, US didn't have the approval of UN... but, the world saw that the United States were wounded and understood the pain.
In Afghanistan the other parties, the Alliance of the North, the deposed monarchy, the Afghan exiles, joined to organize the new government.
Bin Laden stayed, alive or dead, in his cave and the world began to take care of life.

But, if an American general assumes the government of Iraq, the world will think: " Where is the so published liberation of Iraq ?"
Could the world continue gathering around a treaty that that was not respected ? Could the world continue to respect an institution that was disrespected ?
How to continue reading a torn letter ?

An American general pro-Israel in the presidency of Iraq, ministers and mayors American, while the owners of the land will just be accepted in the third STEP.... it will be, if it happens, THE RAPE OF THE INTERNATIONAL RIGHT.

THE UNITED STATES WILL WIN THE WAR IN NEXT DAYS OR HOURS, BUT THE WORLD ALREADY LOST THE WAR OF IRAQ.

Jakie

"I may disapprove what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire


IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 02:35 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jakie, I agree that the US needs to relinquish control to the UN.

I also agree that UN control is desparately need to institutionalize & give legitimacy to the New Iraqi Congress.

Great Ideas! Love them! But Jakie one thing...

Can't we be optimistic ? Where's the Leo in you ?

IP: Logged

Harpyr
Newflake

Posts: 0
From: Alaska
Registered: Jun 2010

posted April 07, 2003 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Harpyr     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's hard to be optimistic when the US is so good at setting up puppet governments. Hard to imagine Iraq being any different.

We should have a puppet icon..it would get alot of use in this forum.

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 04:51 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
-Germany
-Japan
-Philipines
-South Korea

None of these are puppet governments?

They all have executed their sovereignty after war & designated their independence.

None of them sided with the US on THIS war, a puppet regime IS NOT going to happen this time, not in Iraq.

The whole world is watching, they will have sovereignty & assert their independence as well.

Just watch, if this works , Iraq can be a model for all Middle Eastern states to liberalize democratically.

Of course, without, the invasion & human rights violations stuff...

Personally I believe the US is BAD at setting up puppet governments! When they set them up in Latin America the counter-balance Soviet power they all failed... So I would say the US is bad at setting up puppet governments!

HEY Everyone?

Anyone notice as the war comes to a close and without any Major setbacks, disasters, or prophecized atrocities; that the activists who claimed such awful occurences would happen if the US went forward with this policy, have become increasingly bitter & pessimistic towards current events & post-war policy?

Just an observation... maybe I'm wrong, does any one else see that?

IP: Logged

Jaqueline
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 06:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Countries that suffered an American occupation per years didn't have guaranteed a democratic future...

A country whose tyrannical government oppresses their people and takes possession of the local wealth and that constitutes a threat for the national interests of the United States and the safety of American.
Iraq in 2003 ?
No, Haiti in 1915.


Any similarity of itinerary of the Caribbean neighbor's definition for the American government with the current Iraq crisis is not mere coincidence: along the history of their international relationships, the United States frequently justified invasions of other countries under the flag of the protection to their citizens and the promotion of democracy ...

However, in the first half of the XX century, Washington invaded and occupied for long years neighboring republics - Haiti, Nicaragua and Dominican Republic - leaving a legacy, that many historians nothing sees of democratic.

Historically the United States -as any other government- don't have friends, they have interests, and that is the posture that orientated the American occupations of countries in Latin America.

And even after one century, the practices of Washington follow similar patterns.
If in 2003 president George Bush tries to legitimate the attack to Iraq with this new doctrine, in which the USA has the right to attack any nations that he judges to be a threat, in the beginning of the XX century, the White House had the Monroe Doctrine.

With that unilateral authorization, the American marines disembarked in 1912 in Nicaragua, in 1915 in Haiti and in 1916 in Dominican Republic, leading off occupations that lasted among eight years, as in the Dominican case, and 21, in Nicaragua.

And Washington supported dictatorships in the area……

For long years in that those countries were directly submitted to Washington, however, they were not warranty that the American troops left planted the roots of the democracy after their exit.
On the contrary.
According to historians, the national guards , trained and equipped by the USA in Nicaragua and in Dominican Republic, were instruments used by their commanders to take the power, establishing durable dictatorships with the approval of Washington.

In Nicaragua, in 1936 - three years after the American exit -, general Anastasio Somoza established a family dictatorship that would only be dropped in 1979 by the Sandinist Revolution.

In Dominican Republic, general Leonidas Trujillo took power in 1930 and only with his murder in 1961, the people were able to have free elections.

In Haiti, the dictatorship of the family Duvalier also governed with the blessings of Washington from 1957 to 1986.

In Nicaragua and in Dominican Republic, Somoza and Trujillo eliminated any democracy track and established authoritarian regimes counting with strong support of successive American governments.

quote:
An unusual picture of the occupations was made in 1933 by the major-general Smedley Butler, recently-left of the marines' of the United States , in which he served between 1898 and 1931.
Winner of two Medals of Honor of the Congress, in a famous speech, Butler said he had past most of his career " being a bully of high class for the great corporations, Wall Street and the bankers ". And he continues: "I helped in the rape of half dozen of Central American republics for Wall Street benefit", said him, mentioning among other, Haiti, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua.

Also, I want to say something about what happened in my own country in the next post.

IP: Logged

Lost Leo
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 07:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Small, undeveloped, & partially occupied countries of Latin America do not compare to developed, economic players such as Japan, Germany, Korea, Taiwan, & then of course Iraq.

You're comparing apples to oranges...

Yeah the US didn't do well in Latin America, but that's because of outside factors:

1) We went with regimes that would hold power against Communist aggression, not for necessarily democratic states.

2) The countries of South America historically have little effect on the global economy
(EXCEPT for your native Brazil which has MUCH potential & natural resources, but a corrupt & disorganized elite, that exploit your country's wealth to line their own pockets)
so we didn't fully committ to an enduring democracy

Your comparison is from a different era, The Cold War Era, & doesn't really apply to the unique situation in the MIddle East.

IP: Logged

Jaqueline
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 07:06 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A little after assuming the government, Fidel Castro began a land reform program and the nationalization of the American companies, besides taking to judgement Fulgêncio Batista's main collaborators. The measures surprised the United States, that started worrying with the directions of the new regime of Havana.

Inside the strategy of avoiding the appearance of " new Cubas ", United States went back the attention to the largest and more important country of Latin America, Brazil.

The construction of hydroelectrics, the installation of the automobile industry and the creation of Brasília ( our Capital), during Juscelino Kubitschek's government, between 1955 and 1959, had stimulated the appearance of great concentrations of urban workers, that were organized in unions to demand their rights.
Inside that context, a labor leader's ascension seemed to mean a threat to the traditional interests of the Brazilian/American dominant groups.

In a first moment, the crisis was outlined and a new president was elected. In 62, however, the central syndical summoned general strikes for better work conditions and to demand a nationalist and democratic ministry of the government.

With financial support from US, the Brazilian military, through a coup d'état, took the power on March 31/ 64. Then, several legal devices imposed the censorship to the press, they suspended the democratic freedoms and turned illegal the opposition parties, the unions and the class associations.

Agents of the political police, pursued and arrested the opponents of the military regime. All of the operations were described as " war " measures against what the rulers called "international communism". Thousands of opponents were tortured or murdered. Several of them disappeared forever.

The consolidation of the military regime happened in December of 68, when the president, general Arthur da Costa Silva, signed the Institutional Act number 5. THE AI-5 gave to the government the power to annul political mandates, to decree the recess of the Congress, to impose state of siege and to suspend the individual warranties.

In January of 76, the death of a famous journalist that had been opposed to the military regime, forced the government to speed up the liberalization of the regime.
Then, the government began a process that they called "democracy... slow, gradual and safe". In 1979, finally, the amnesty was decreed to the political prisoners and exiles.

Starting from 1983, the movement called "Direct Elections Now", for the re-establishment of the popular vote for the President election, took millions of people to the streets of the main capitals. The dictatorship weakened little by little, finishing its period in 1985, when I finally could choose, after 21 years of dictatorship the president of my country.

In Chile, CIA collaborated with a coup d'état against president Salvador Allende, in 1973. Chosen with the votes of his people in 1970, Allende was accomplishing the land reform and promoting a series of social programs, as literacy, improvement of the system of health and basic sanitation. But...he was nationalizing several North American companies...huge mistake...

In consequence, a campaign against Allende, stimulated by Washington resulted in the military coup in September of 73. After armed confrontations, the president of Chile was found dead in La Moneda's Palace, the Chilean government's official thirst. The power passed to the hands of a military committee led by general Augusto Pinochet. In a climate of strong repression, Pinochet dissolved the political parties and pursued the opponents of the new regime.

In the first half of the 70's, Brazil and Chile were the main countries of South America where invigorated dictatorships. In 1976, however, Argentina joined the group.

For seven years, the Argentineans lived under a repressive military regime that would pass to the history as the period of the "dirties war" undertaken by the dictatorship against their opponents.

Well Lost Leo, with such a curriculum of promotion of democracy, even the most optimist of the leos has the right to be a little concerned...

And you're right, the war comes to a close and we didn't see any weapon of mass destruction from Iraq...what we see is the famous national guard soldiers with holes in their helmets, struggling with rifles of the XIX century...

The threat, seemingly, was not so threatening as some said...

Jakie

"I may disapprove what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

IP: Logged

Jaqueline
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 07:24 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maybe I'm comparing apples to oranges...for one single reason...the apple remains the same, what've changed is the orange

Your comparison is from a different era, The Cold War Era, & doesn't really apply to the unique situation in the MIddle East.

Well...as Oscar Wilde once said: "One's past is what one is. It is the only way by which people should be judged."

Jakie

"I may disapprove what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire

IP: Logged

theFajita3
unregistered
posted April 07, 2003 11:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I do hope they get a better government and the brutal ways stop. I do hope women get more rights there too and can do something about if there husband disfigures them with acid!

------------------
food is the only art that nourishes!

IP: Logged

Oxychick
unregistered
posted April 08, 2003 10:29 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
interesting to see what will happen.

at NewEvil's post about McOil...LOL

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a