Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EnigmaticHat]

From an american point of view maybe, but as an outsider (and one that is dependent on the US Army for part of its security), I'd prefer having someone to keep the US in check. Frankly, you guys already decided you have the right to bomb anyone that look like a supporter of Al-Qaeda anywhere in the (third) world. You invaded Irak for no real good reasons. You're dangerous for God's sake.

This.

As an American, some of the discussions about Iraq just scare me.  People talk about how we created a democracy there like it makes up for all the destruction we caused.  Its like, hey, we launched an unprovoked attack on your country that killed hundreds of thousands of your people, but at least we imposed our superior culture on you, right?  And then Michelle Bachman gets applause for saying this on a nationally televised debate.

[Sheb]

At this point I should qualify my posts and say that yup, it could be worse than America. I would really be scared if Russia ever has the kind of power America has now. But that doesn't mean I want an American hegemon: basically I want several superpower keeping each other in check so that no one decide it can blow up my country because we did the diplomatic equivalent of looking funny at them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People talk about how we created a democracy there like it makes up for all the destruction we caused.  Its like, hey, we launched an unprovoked attack on your country that killed hundreds of thousands of your people, but at least we imposed our superior culture on you, right?

What? Democracy is a political process, not a culture. The Iraqis are still Iraqis. Forcing people to adopt foreign cultures is something that was almost impossible to do even in the age of colonialism, much less today.

[Sheb]

Gotta agree with MSH here. The implication of your post (That Iraqi culture is somehow predisposed toward dictatorship) is quite insulting to Iraqi.

[Josephus]

All things are technically cultural, dude. American democracy isn't distinct from American culture - it can't be, by its very nature. He's not implying that Iraqi culture is predisposed towards dictatorship, he's saying that the American invasion attempted to impose a rather American political process (not that democracy is inherently western) on a different culture. I'd propose an "Iraqi-style democracy", but I don't know much about that part of the Middle East.

As an American, some of the discussions about Iraq just scare me.  People talk about how we created a democracy there like it makes up for all the destruction we caused.  Its like, hey, we launched an unprovoked attack on your country that killed hundreds of thousands of your people, but at least we imposed our superior culture on you, right?  And then Michelle Bachman gets applause for saying this on a nationally televised debate.

My issue with the American invasion of Iraq is that while it very definitely removed a bad piece of work from power, it also resulted in a large amount of partisan violence (an inevitable result) and caused destabilization in the region that will last for quite a long time. Not getting into the motives behind the attack (whether they were noble, but misguided or downright villainous) that alone is a pretty big problem.

[Sheb]

The other issue is that you just invaded a country for no real good reasons, despite the whole world telling you not to (Even countries that were technically part of the coalition usually had something like 90% of their population opposed to the war).

You do realize it's a bad thing, do you?

[kaijyuu]

The implication of your post (That Iraqi culture is somehow predisposed toward dictatorship) is quite insulting to Iraqi.

Countries with long histories of dictatorships ARE predisposed to dictatorships. Hell, just look at the entire history of post colonial South America. You use what you're used to.

A point of contention would be whether to call that a "cultural" issue or not. I would, since I lump politics under the umbrella of "culture." But if you don't, then it's not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

On the other hand, South America is today almost entirely composed of democracies. Level of corruption may vary.

[kaijyuu]

Yeah but it took a long while and was incredibly bloody. Point is, you won't switch from dictatorship -> democracy in a few years. Not like the US was planning (or not planning, it seems), anyway. Further exacerbating it is the fact an outside force is enforcing a new government system; that always goes over well.

[Josephus]

On the other hand, South America is today almost entirely composed of democracies. Level of corruption may vary.

I do believe the problem is that 'democracy' has, in the public imagination, taken the form of some kind of magic cure-all for a given society's ills.

I remember the intense focus they gave to hastening an Iraqi election - the first democratic election after Saddam's removal! Particularly, I remember thinking: yeah this 'voting' thing is sure gonna appease all those dudes who currently still wanna murder each others' shit OH WAIT NOPE PEOPLE DON WORK THAT WAY

[penguinofhonor]

Yeah, I wouldn't say their culture is predisposed to dictators, more that it's adapted to dictators and is now used to dictators.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I do believe the problem is that 'democracy' has, in the public imagination, taken the form of some kind of magic cure-all for a given society's ills.

I remember the intense focus they gave to hastening an Iraqi election - the first democratic election after Saddam's removal! Particularly, I remember thinking: yeah this 'voting' thing is sure gonna appease all those dudes who currently still wanna murder each others' shit OH WAIT NOPE PEOPLE DON WORK THAT WAY

I don't think it's entirely out of the question that a democratic system can help with that. People are less inclined to start murdering one another if they believe they can change things peacefully and legally. The issue here is that some of the Iraqis never stopped trying to kill one another.

[Josephus]

I don't think it's entirely out of the question that a democratic system can help with that. People are less inclined to start murdering one another if they believe they can change things peacefully and legally.

Not necessarily. In a lot of cultures, particularly the one I come from, the quickest way for regime or political change has always been

a) bribery
b) shooting people

This is especially common in places that suffer state failure, or worse, where the state is actively oppressing its members. Democracy is definitely a useful tool, but it can and will be overshadowed in places where political power comes in 5.56x45mm packages. (and machetes)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I said they were less inclined, and bribery, while a bad thing, is not violent.

At least I don't think it is. I guess you could throw gold bars at the head of the person you are trying to bribe, that would be fairly violent.

[Josephus]

bribery, while a bad thing, is not violent.

Certainly, but it's also not democratic the way we understand it today.

Also consider the fact that the people who will become less inclined to shoot each other are the ones that are reasonable. There is always a shortage of reasonable people in these conflicts; firebrands with guns tend to overshadow them.