Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by RebelSean
. There'd have to be many circumstances in which we leave Iraq. Of course we shouldn't leave the country as is with no set government, but I think that the Iraqi people should decide what type of government they have.

---

are you even informed? they DO have a government

quote:

---

Originally posted by Voldemort

quote:

---

Originally posted by RebelSean
. There'd have to be many circumstances in which we leave Iraq. Of course we shouldn't leave the country as is with no set government, but I think that the Iraqi people should decide what type of government they have.

---

are you even informed? they DO have a government

---

Indeed, but it's not a stable government .

Americans really hate communism. The civil rights movement was hindered in the 70s when white Americans feared blacks were involved with communism. Democracy may seem great, but it doesn't work everywhere (i.e. where religion heavily influences norms and values). Remember there is no such thing as true direct democracy .

I know I'm bringing back a really old thread but I had written up a reply that I'd like your views on. I wrote it down on notepad since my net died then forgot about it until I was clearing off my desktop

---

I would like to say something someone once told me. I don't really agree or disagree with it. I'll post my views a bit later.

What he said was..
"Could we say that the US is the new UK? In the sense that like UK (a better term might be 'the british empire') took over parts of the world in the olden days. The current United States is doing the same.

Democracy means letting the masses decide on what is to happen, right? Why take action unilaterally? Lets turn the clock back to the 19th of March, 2003. Did the US go to the UN before declaring a war against Afghanistan? I thought the UN was formed after WW2 to stop such things. Stop countries from saying 'fuck this. I'm going to war with you. Die.' Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly ain't an expert in history

OK you did have the Taliban regime in the Afghanistan. They were creating problems to world peace as you said. OK fine, we believe you. I don't really think asking the UN first would have made a huge difference. Any other country doing this would tons of sanctions on them. Was the same done with the US? I certainly didn't see an adverse effect.

Lets move on to something even more disturbing. The Iraq war. Did you, this time around, consult the UN? No. You justified the war with claims of them having WMDs. Did you find any? To this day, did you? Certainly you don't need these many years. Of course, my knowledge on this fact might be inaccurate.

So basically you went to war because the prime minister was doing inhumane acts (I believe there was some genocide). Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a similar situation prevelant in Zimbabwe? Oh I get it. Not enough incentive to attack them. Not a strategic enough position to make a base on.

I believe that the US has bases on a lot of countries around the world. Clearly its using its status as a super power to a huge advantage. Its location "far away" from other countries who took a major part in the WWs is the reason for this power, I would say.

The UN? What UN? If something had to be done, it would have been. I would say that the UN is just another thing that the US controls. Its more like the US is a mob trying to get whatever it wants however it wants. Call it paranoia, call it what you want, but it is clear that they don't always take decisions with consultancy. Defy me, I screw you.

Hope for a better peaceful world where everyone is at par seems bleak. This is just a nightmare waiting to happen.
As Einstein once said, 'I don't know what World War 3 will be fought with but I know that World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.'"

Of course, when I heard this.. it left me thinking. Sadly I didn't have enough knowledge on the subject to know right from wrong or even to comment but I'm hoping someone here does.

As for them pulling out of Iraq, its a tricky situation.
a) You pull out and the country doesn't stand up on its feet, you have to go back and start again.
b) You don't pull out, the world will be on your back (for the right reasons..)

I say they follow a third option 'c'.
c) Bring the country up to a stable state. Announce a date of pulling out well in advance. Keep a probation period. If things start getting worse (you don't expect everything to get better overnight.. might take time), then come back in and support the government.
The people who are still fighting will hopefully realise that when foreign troops move out, they should start a democratic process to get the country back to its feet. Here's to hoping it happens

An eternal optimist hoping the world will be a safer and peaceful place to live in,
JA

quote:

---

Originally posted by wolfeboy100

quote:

---

Originally posted by ShawnZ

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shippo
As much as I was against the war in the first place, even I wouldn't stand down from the 9/11 disaster.

---

dude, that was afghanistan, not iraq.

---

it wasn't even Afghanistan, it was Al qaeda

---

dude, Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. You can't compare a country to a group of terrorists.


I voted Yes but agree with Adeptus. They can't come out instantly. Then God knows what will break loose. This would mean mobs would get a very big playground. Not good for the rest of us. U.S needs to put money into this until everything is settled and the way they are trying to 'fix' it now is not going to work. Untill all the people with guns are dead. I think they need to find another perspective to go by.

I think this war shouldn't have started so I voted yes. It is unfair that Americans kill so many people and no one gives a fuck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basilis
I think this war shouldn't have started so I voted yes. It is unfair that Americans kill so many people and no one gives a fuck.

---

I agree, we should have never declaired war on Iraq, but your statement that "American's kill so many people and noone gives a fuck" is very bold and naive . The American people had nothing to do with declaring war on Iraq, President Bush had the ability as commander and chief to do it without approval from the senate or house. We're not the only country that went to war with Iraq. So pointing the finger to "Americans" in general is not the way to go my friend.

Sorry for not mentioning that I meant Bush. He is the crap of America. Not you people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
Democracy may seem great, but it doesn't work everywhere (i.e. where religion heavily influences norms and values)

---

I'm not sure that I agree with that. It may be true that if religion significantly influences people's views that laws should remain static because they are given by a higher power and are thus not open to debate. However, very few religions give clear advice over every single issue imaginable, especially in regard to new issues that arise due to new technology (eg. genetic engineering). Thus, some sort of decision making process needs to be in place to make rules regarding technology, and democracy is often an effective way to do that in large population states. Also, in Poland, the democratic reforms of the late 1980s and early 1990s were largely directed by the Polish Solidarity Campaign which was endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church, so democracy and religion can be entirely compatible. In fact, I would say the reason democracy isn't really working in Iraq is because it has been imposed rapidly instead of gradually. Westernised Mass Democracy is something that evolved over a long period of time, after the Saddam regime, Iraq can hardly be expected to transform itself into a democracy overnight.

Iraq's government is clearly not able to do a lot of effective governing. I personally do not buy the views of those who claim that Iraq is now able to police itself, and that its own army can keep order. However, I also believe the presence of coalition forces is encouraging violence, but not causing the presence, and attacks, carried out by insurgents. I can see the situation in Iraq calming down (slightly) if the U.S. troops pulled out, but then, shortly after, we'll see a campaign launched against the weak Iraqi government, which may, or may not, be effective.

Pulling out of Iraq will be a gamble. It could stop violence, or it could simply allow it to go on unchallenged. The truth is no one knows for certain. The two extremes of 'pull out as quickly as possible' and 'stay there for the long term' seem, on the whole, to be unworkable solutions. What needs to be drawn up is a flexible, region by region withdrawal that can be extended, or reversed if needs dictate, on the basis of insurgent activity. That would also give time for the Iraqi government to stabilise and for its army to train and strengthen. In turn, a small, but long term, UN presence could be maintained in Iraq to help the government and army.