The Iraq Effect (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

FirmhandKY -> The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:50:57 AM)


The Iraq Effect
If Saddam Hussein were still in power, this year's Arab uprisings could never have happened.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011, at 12:32 PM ET

Extract:

The most heartening single image of the past month—eclipsing even the bravery and dignity of the civilian fighters against despotism in Syria and Libya—was the sight of Hoshyar Zebari arriving in Paris to call for strong action against the depraved regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. Here was the foreign minister of Iraq, and the new head of the Arab League, helping to tilt the whole axis of local diplomacy against one-man rule. In May, Iraq will act as host to the Arab League summit, and it will be distinctly amusing and highly instructive to see which Arab leaders have the courage, or even the ability, to leave their own capitals and attend. The whole scene is especially gratifying for those of us who remember Zebari as the dedicated exile militant that he was 10 years ago, striving to defend his dispossessed people from the effects of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons.

...

As it is, to have had Iraq on the other scale from the outset has been an unnoticed and unacknowledged benefit whose extent is impossible to compute. And the influence of Iraq on the Libyan equation has also been uniformly positive in ways that are likewise often overlooked.

...

Hoshyar Zebari happily cited as precedent the no-fly zone that for a long time protected northern and southern Iraq from Saddam Hussein's helicopter gunships. But he knows perfectly well that the logic of this is inexorable. Every day, Saddam's ground forces fired on those planes. Every day, the post-Kuwait cease-fire agreement became more frayed and breached. Every day, it became plainer that Iraq was the miserable hostage to the whims of a single tyrant.

So, how much of an effect does and did the nascent democracy of Iraq have on the initiation of the current unrest in the Middle East? 

Will it play out with much real change, or will the religious fanatics hijack the movement to more open societies? 

Why, or why not?

Firm




popeye1250 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 1:19:33 AM)

I wish them well.



Politesub53 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 3:38:17 AM)

I did wonder why they left Saddam at the helm after the first Iraq war. That would have been the time for regime change. The big danger then was Iran stepping in to fill the void.

The problem with any of this is no one knows how it will turn out. The west certainly didnt know how Iraq and Libya would end up when we first started supporting Saddam and Gadaffi. The same can be said of current events.

If anything the biggest influence on what is going on is the internet, as many of the young and educated can see possible alternatives to these dictatorial regimes. In time they will all fall, China included.



Louve00 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 5:22:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


So, how much of an effect does and did the nascent democracy of Iraq have on the initiation of the current unrest in the Middle East? 

Will it play out with much real change, or will the religious fanatics hijack the movement to more open societies? 

Why, or why not?

Firm




Since I can't begin to understand the thought process of the middle easterners, I have no idea how it will play out.  I didn't even put Iraq's democracy up for consideration as the reason for Egypt's decision to revolt.  Iraq never revolted against Saddam.  We did! LOL 

But it did occur to me that Egypts success in ridding their dictator may have been the example other nations decided to try to "free" themselves of the tyranny they're living in.  Although we have yet to see how Egypt will fare as a result of their revolt.

I wouldn't bet a nickel as to how it all plays out, but I bet it could have an effect on a lot of people besides the middle east. 



Edwynn -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 6:01:10 AM)




FR


As to the article referenced in the OP:

All I can see here is yet another angle or tactic in the (unfortunately) never ending effort to retroactively justify or in some way legitimize a wrongful invasion.

In the first place, there is no parallel whatsoever between an invasion by a foreign power of a repressive regime and a domestic confrontation of a repressive regime, and it is difficult to imagine that same invasion which was considered by many in the Arab world at the time to be an invasion of the whole region as being in some way an "inspiration" of any sort.

There could be lots to choose from in European history alone of examples where an inherently unstable and untenable political or societal condition was held in place for decades, then finally confronted openly seemingly all at once. There is oftentimes another event that's occurred somewhere in the neighboring time period that one - could - use as some putative 'cause' as one to the other. The possibilities are endless, but normally such attribution as historians might settle upon require a bit more convincing connection than  what is being proposed here. 

One could possibly argue that inevitable events (and is difficult to describe the current situation in the ME as anything but inevitable given the outmoded authoritarian regimes in place) might have been hastened by a year or two by way of Iraq, much of a stretch as even that probably is, but I think the continually emerging awareness especially via the internet, etc. as pointed out above, which didn't really tell them anything they didn't already know concerning the respective governments, helped people learn that they were not alone in their thinking and that many more people thought likewise than had been the case before, and facilitated networking capabilities that years ago would have required much more difficult secure communications modes and essentially impossible logistics.


Trying to co-opt the brave actions of a repressed people into something politically useful for foreign interests that historically have either put into place or aided and abetted such authoritarian regimes is not becoming, to say the least, and quite unlikely to succeed (outside of media puppets, in any event).








rulemylife -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 6:24:31 AM)

This pretty much sums up what nonsense this article is:


But even with his fangs drawn, Qaddafi remained a filthy nuisance. As the New York Times reported in a brilliant dispatch last week, he forced Western oil companies to pay the $1.5 billion fine levied on him for Lockerbie.


To suggest Bush's invasion of Iraq was the basis for what is now happening in Libya is beyond ridiculous.

It was Bush who negotiated this settlement.








mnottertail -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 7:52:07 AM)

I thought it was due to the virgin St. Wrinklemeats singlehandedly destroying the Soviet Union, myself.



DomKen -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 9:10:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So, how much of an effect does and did the nascent democracy of Iraq have on the initiation of the current unrest in the Middle East? 

Will it play out with much real change, or will the religious fanatics hijack the movement to more open societies? 

Why, or why not?

Anyone who thinks what is happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Yemen etc. is in any way a result of US action in Iraq is a complete and utter fool.

Iraq has only the barest facade of Democracy and is still really in the midst of a simmering inter ethnic civil war. Maybe we should ask the provincial government in Tikrit how the Iraqi democracy is progressing, if any are still alive.

The real credit for all this lies with Mohamed Bouazizi who committed a powerful act of protest.



ashjor911 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 9:56:26 AM)

Hey OP
you are 100% tru....
If that man was still in power these actions today were never heard in the first place.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 11:32:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00



  Iraq never revolted against Saddam.  We did! LOL 



You do understand that is the point of the article/OP, right?



willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 11:36:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


It was Bush who negotiated this settlement.




It was the lawyers for the families of those killed who negotiated the settlement.



Louve00 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:00:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

You do understand that is the point of the article/OP, right?


a) So, how much of an effect does and did the nascent democracy of Iraq have on the initiation of the current unrest in the Middle East?

b)  Iraq never revolted against Saddam.  

Since we are talking about countries revolting against their own countries leaders, not a country going to war with another nation.....no, I don't understand that logic.  (Unless YOU think the Iraq war started with the people of Iraq revolting against Sadam and then I have to question your understanding!)

Edited to add...Well, after I did look at it from the point of view that Iraq, as an Arab Nation, plans to attend and gives its support of Qadaffi stepping down.  I can only think they are trying.  To assume it's a reflection of the way America built them back up and taught them, then yea...they believe in democracy.  Perhaps an assumption.  Perhaps the effects of remodeling them were effective.  But to wonder if Iraq's democracy has anything else to do with other countries wanting freedom.  I doubt it.  I think its long coming and about time they revolt against decades of dictatorship.  But I am not about to assume that the American War against Iraq taught, as a result of the end, that to the rest of the countries over there. 



DarkSteven -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:00:32 PM)

I have wondered why so many Middle East countries all revolted at the same time. I sure hope that it wasn't Iran meddling quietly.

That said, I find it ridiculous to postulate that an event thst happened eight years ago could have no effect till now.

The neocons' wet dream used to be that when Saddam was toppled, the entire Middle East would fall towards democracy like dominoes. It didn't happen then, and it'not happening now.



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:01:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


So, how much of an effect does and did the nascent democracy of Iraq have on the initiation of the current unrest in the Middle East? 

Will it play out with much real change, or will the religious fanatics hijack the movement to more open societies? 

Why, or why not?

Firm




Iraq never revolted against Saddam.  We did! LOL.


In support of willbeurdaddy:

1991 uprisings in Iraq

The 1991 uprisings in Iraq were a series of anti-governmental rebellions in southern and northern Iraq during the aftermath of the Gulf War. The revolt was fueled by the perception that the power of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was vulnerable at the time; as well as by heavily fueled anger at government repression and the devastation wrought by two wars in a decade, the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. United States also played a role in encouraging the uprisings, which were then controversially not aided by the U.S. forces present on Iraqi soil.

...

Although they presented a serious threat to the Iraqi Ba'ath Party regime, Saddam managed to suppress the rebellions with massive and indiscriminate force and maintained power. They were ruthlessly crushed by the loyalist forces spearheaded by the Iraqi Republican Guard and the population was successfully terrorized. During the few weeks of unrest tens of thousands of people were killed. Many more died during the following months, while nearly two million Iraqis fled for their lives. In the aftermath, the government intensified the forced relocating of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Iraqi marshlands, while the Allies established the Iraqi no-fly zones.

Firm



mnottertail -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:05:27 PM)

Couple of things, they want freedoms, and freedoms and democracy are not in any wise equivalent concepts, and they don't want democracy.

Ja, I am wondering how the alternative would have worked, if the idea is that Saddam would have marched troops into Libya to back Mo, that is some heavy shit folks are on, the scenarios (if we accept the absurd notion that the first clause would have happened) that would have eminated from that would also have saved us a trill or better. 



flcouple2009 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:14:12 PM)

Funny, 

You left out these bits


On February 15, 1991, President of the United States George H. W. Bush announced on the Voice of America radio saying: “ "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations." ” On the evening of February 24, several days before the Gulf War ceasefire was signed in Safwan, the Saudi Arabia-based Voice of Free Iraq radio station, funded and operated by the CIA, broadcasted a message to the Iraqis telling them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.[1] The speaker on the radio was Salah Omar al-Ali, a former member of the Ba'ath Party and the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. Al-Ali's message urged the Iraqis to overthrow the "criminal tyrant of Iraq":



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:20:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

Funny, 

You left out these bits


On February 15, 1991, President of the United States George H. W. Bush announced on the Voice of America radio saying: “ "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations." ” On the evening of February 24, several days before the Gulf War ceasefire was signed in Safwan, the Saudi Arabia-based Voice of Free Iraq radio station, funded and operated by the CIA, broadcasted a message to the Iraqis telling them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.[1] The speaker on the radio was Salah Omar al-Ali, a former member of the Ba'ath Party and the ruling Revolutionary Command Council. Al-Ali's message urged the Iraqis to overthrow the "criminal tyrant of Iraq":

"Funny" how?

I gave the link, and an extract to support the point that the Iraqis did revolt against SA.

The entire (almost unreadable - please clean up your post) paragraph you posted was summarized in the sentence

"United States also played a role in encouraging the uprisings, which were then controversially not aided by the U.S. forces present on Iraqi soil."

Which is in my extract.

Other than attempting to inject some kind of snide remark into the thread, I don't see the point of your post at all.

Firm



flcouple2009 -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:30:33 PM)

I'm not cleaning up anything,  it is a direct quote form the article.

You do not like the quote because it contradicts your silliness.  The people rose up because we called for it and encouraged them. 

Then if you do remember

We stood by and watched them crushed.  There is much truth to Louves post that we were the ones who revolted and not the people of Iraq.







mnottertail -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:37:47 PM)

And Nixon was not actually impeached does not convey that he was actually guilty, which is a more accurate depiction of the situation.

The uprisings (remember you and me talking about this? as well as me talking to someone who was going over there who I have a great measure of respect for (and bottom line I said regardless do your bit)) were based on the fact that there was in the case of the south implicit (and in the case of the north (which don't quite do it justice because they mean Kurds) explicit support (and all that entails) of the United States.  Which at the time, I said look at the Mountaniards or any number of other countries we promised that shit to, we would lose interest and walk off with you being fucked, and that is just what we did.  



FirmhandKY -> RE: The Iraq Effect (3/30/2011 12:57:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

I'm not cleaning up anything,  it is a direct quote form the article.

You do not like the quote because it contradicts your silliness.  The people rose up because we called for it and encouraged them. 

Then if you do remember

We stood by and watched them crushed.  There is much truth to Louves post that we were the ones who revolted and not the people of Iraq.

You obviously did not read for understanding.

Firm



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02