MasterKalif
Posts: 648
Joined: 5/24/2004
Status: offline
|
I personally will give my two cents here. Saddam was not helped to power by the United States....he is the descendant of a long downward spirall that Iraq has been in since the overthrow of the legitimate Hashemite monarchy in 1958....which led to military nationalists to power who founded a republic on blood...such as hanging the prince's bodies from lamp-posts, etc. In 1963 another coup ovethrew those military leaders, whereby the previous dictator's body was dragged through the streets of baghdad. Then the Ba'ath (Socialist Reawakening) party gained power, losing it briefly in a coup....Saddam became known as a simple "hit" agent for the regime, rising through his inteligence of exploiting opponent's weaknesses and such...eventually to vicepresident of the party, and then maneuvering himself to the presidency in 1978. So that you get a clear-cut picture, this regime was very similar in structure to the communist party in the soviet union. Once as president, starting on his nomination day, he had several "opponents" within the party murdered...shown on state tv. Over time he has shown to be nothing but a tyrant, like many of those around the world which go on ignored.
now I dont disagree with the US policy of the 1980's of showing friendliness to the Saddam regime which was statist, and anti-religious, because it was needed to buffer an even worse regime led by the Mullahs in Iran, after the shameful overthrow of the Shah (who was pro-western and allowed women rights...)...hence Saddam was a "lesser evil". The US however did wrong in allowing it to arm itself with its support, as well as transferring technology on biological weapons, and things like that.
Having said that....I am against the US "invasion" of Iraq for many practical reasons. The most obvious one for me is that Bush is ignorant in stating that "democracy" western style as we know it can be implemented in a few short years in a country that has never experienced democracy, except "bloody", violent dictatorships. In a society like Iraq, in order to have "democracy" take hold, it would take at least one or two generations for it to take hold...this means that in order to achieve even that, we have to look at the bigger picture. First is to create security by force...this means ruling by decrees, shooting those who loot, etc...much like a dictatorship...the sad thing is that a society like that needs it as they dont understand any other way of authority. Security also goes beyond creating flimsy local police forces, but by creating a military elite, a special forces type of elite unit that can act to control extreme situations, and then eventually a regular hierarchized army. Once security has been reached, start extensive reconstruction using oil sales. Once that has taken place, restart and support private enterprises...and then most importantly for democracy to take hold...create educational institutions like in the United States (all the while having the US military act like a dictatorship in place with limited freedoms for security reasons), such that a new generation of people can grow under order and can therefore desire democracy and will eventually mature to understand its obligations and duties as citizens and not subjects of a dictatorship. Education is key. Then once this has taken place, the new leaders will be ready to themselves take control and not only have the US forces out completely, but also to prevent dictatorships from emerging in such society. This is obviously such a long road, that a serious proposal for this would take at least 20 to 30 years.
Since I dont see this happening, and I don't see any serious motive for this to happen, the war, I hate to say it, is a wasted effort, and God I hope I am proven wrong. Toppling Saddam has led to a power vaccum, where remnants of people who are angry and hungry want to fight against US forces...keep in mind these are not Saddam loyalists, but religious extremists supported by countries like Iran...I also dont see a benefit for the United States by having cheaper oil...on the contrary. I also see death and hatred on both sides (US and Iraqi) as they see friends and family die...this is a volatile situation that will stay with those people involved forever. I think 2,500 is too many deaths, for no forseable results....I say the US will have to remain longer to save face internationally, but they should get out before it worsens. I also hate that they used a ploy to attack Iraq with lies about "weapons of mass destruction" when all they had to say was that they disliked the regime, it could pose a danger to the middle east, and that they wanted Saddam out for reasons of US national security in the region (no US mainland proper)....that to me would have been more acceptable. Keep in mind all of you that I wish, pray for success for this dangerous and tricky enterprise for the United States, particularly for those who have died for this cause of spreading democracy.
I just dislike this war, and do not want to see more people suffering.
my two looong cents 
< Message edited by MasterKalif -- 6/16/2006 12:19:08 AM >
|
deaths in Iraq hit 2500 - 
Profile
RE: deaths in Iraq hit 2500 - 
RE: deaths in Iraq hit 2500 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread