Was Bush right all-along?

Dinner

Neuro wrote:

we have to question WHY the US wanted to get rid of him. Was it?

A: Because the US believes that everyone has a right to freedom/democracy etc.

B: That by getting rid of Saddam the US would get a foothold in the Middle East allowing it to excerpt control over the region and thereby guarantee oil supplies that are absolutely critical to the US economy.

Where is answer C: All of the above.

No matter what the motivation for the war, which by the way I dont believe was only oil, I will always support it, because if on the off chance it was only about oil then they at least are trying to do a good deed along the way.

Thats just me and I dont expect anyone to be convinced just because of what someone said on the internet.

Boggle

You could always argue that perception of intent is much more important than the intent itself. Regardless of what bush intended, there is a perception that his motives were ill-founded among much of the world outside Iraq (including here). To be honest, if we have reason to doubt him, how do you reckon the rest of the Muslim world feel about his actions?

While few would argue that Sadam was a good leader, I don't believe anyone would argue that he was the worst leader in the world. By this logic, then why choose iraq first if there were no personla/financial motives??

Hairy Homer

TomF wrote:

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along

Ironic that you should raise Lebanon as an example to start off this article. Because until the recent assassination of Hakiri, it could be held up as an example of the peace and prosperity that can be generated with the presence of an alien and not entirely welcome army overseeing things.

Syria has been the power broker in Lebanon for years and its presence there has resulted (eventually after many years) with a reduction of tension and a return to the peace and prosperity for which Lebanon was famous until the 1970s.

But, let's face it, a foreign army isn't going to be welcome for ever, especially if it has long-standing bitter enemies in the population at large.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of Syria's scheming in Lebanon but if you want a role model for how an invading army can bring a TEMPORARY peace, the Syrians are your boys.

Funny the Yanks don't seem to see it that way.

galactus

Iraq car bombing causes carnage

This is no-one's definition of peace.

Neuro

Boggle wrote:

While few would argue that Sadam was a good leader, I don't believe anyone would argue that he was the worst leader in the world. By this logic, then why choose iraq first if there were no personla/financial motives??

It's further proof that Bush's stated intent (freeing an oppressed people) was not his true intent (securing a power base in the Middle East).

And as you say, while his stated intent and his actions are incongruent, his true intent and actions are not!

Neuro

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't think hosting a meeting on an airforce base in Ohio for Slobodan Milošević, Franjo Tuđman (both alleged war criminals) and the Prisident of Bosnia four years after the start of the war seriously constitutes intervention.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

vibe666

the problem there though is the same everywhere else the US 'intervenes' i.e. air strikes.

you don't see US peacekeeping forces in yugoslavia or chechnya now do you? it's all down to the UN now that there's nobody left to shoot.

the US is nothing more than a playground bully. only the first to help when it comes to blowing sh1t up and getting it's own way, but nowhere to be seen when genuine good needs to be done.

Flukey

Let's look at the reasons we were given for the war and see how they completely do not stand up to scrutiny. First of all let me state clearly that I am as glad as anyone that Saddam was gone. Also I am not in any way anti-American or pro-Saddam, a common mis-placed accusation thrown against anyone that opposed the war. Instead of addressing the issues, that is what people do and try to dismiss our points that way. America is a wonderful country with wonderful people and many wonderful things about it. As you will see it is only the people in power and their foreign policies that are at fault. Those that oppose the war are against the foreign policies of America in the Middle East, not America itself. I don't agree with every single policy of every Irish government, as I am sure you don't, but does that make us anti-Irish?

First of all, this war was decided on long before GWB even came to power, trying to finish the job his Daddy started. Also the first US cabinet was full of people tied to oil companies, so whatever about the French, they had a huge interest in Iraqi oil. Did you know there is a tanker out there which was named after one of the oil company Chevron's senior people? The tanker is called Condoleeza! One guess as to who it was named after. Also one of the first thing the invading troops did was to go in and secure the oilfields, telling us that this was only being done in case Saddam would try and set them alight. Yeah, right!

We all remember how Osama Bin Laden was public enemy number 1 and then suddenly with a bit of jiggery pokey, GWB suddenly out of nothing put Saddam into that position and overnight Osama was forgotten. This war was planned long before 9/11 but those events gave GWB a perfect excuse to launch it, but he'd have found another one. We were told of the great ties between Osama and Saddam, which in actual fact were about as close as those between Osama and GWB!!

Let's deal with the weapons. First of all, were they any? We know the answer to that one. Then any weapons that did they did have and the technology to make more, were supplied by who? Yes, principally the USA amongst others, not least Britain. In about 1983, the then Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and his deputy George Bush, sent an envoy to Baghdad, to supply Saddam with arms. The envoy was one Donald Rumsfeld! Why didn't the USA invade Britain as they are known for definite to have WMD's? Equally why did Britain not invade the USA as they are the country that have most of them?

Another charge against Saddam was that he was a threat to his neighbours and had invaded some of them. He invaded two. Kuwait, we all remember. The other was Iran, which they invaded with the full blessing and encouragement of the USA, which is why the aforementioned visit to Baghdad happened. So they can only really complain about the invasion of Kuwait. Incidentally the USA also gave its support to one Osama Bin Laden when he was fighting with the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion of Iraq. If Kuwait's main export was something like rice and not oil, the allies would not have said anything about that invasion either. Meanwhile another Middle-Eastern nation, Israel, known to have weapons of mass destruction, again supplied by the US, has invaded every country bordering it. Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. Are they not a threat to their neighbours? Iraq was accused of defying UN Resolutions. They did indeed. Israel however, has defied dozens of resolutions and no threats were ever made against them. America and Britain and other nations that are known to have WMD's have invaded many countries and America itself is the only country to have ever dropped 'the bomb.' There are many countries around the world that do have weapons of mass destruction and have invaded countries, but America has not said a word about. Saddam was also accused of proliferating arms, while it is the USA which is the country in the world most responsible for sharing and selling weapons technology. Another small reason for the war, as with the original Gulf War, was to act as a shop window for arms to countries that might be interested in purchasing them.

Saddam was called a dictator, as he certainly was. He got to power though with the help of America, particularly with that of the CIA headed up by George Bush. He was accused of attacking his people particularly the infamous gassing, again a valid charge, but at the time, although it was well known about, America and Britain hardly batted an eyelid over it. Saddam was correctly vilified for killing his own people but ironically, now GWB has moved in and is doing the job for him! Any Iraqi that has lost family members in the past 2 years, won't be consoling themselves with the fact that Saddam is gone and will not see GWB as being any better than him.

He was accused of starving his people, because of the sanctions. The sanctions were of course put in place by the UN and supported by the USA who constantly refused to remove them. They obviously were not going to effect Saddam as he was never going to starve, so what were the purpose if they were only going to hit those that they were supposed to help? So the USA was far more responsible for the poor state of the country than Saddam was, though he had his part.

There are many countries out there that are a lot harder on their people than Iraq, like Saudi Arabia, but their regimes get the full backing of the USA. Saddam as we said was installed by the USA and they have installed plenty of others, often in place of democratic governments, while they claim to want to bring democracy to the world. The dictator, General Pinochet was brought to power in Chile in 1973 with the assistance of the USA in place of a democratically elected government. President Salvador Allende was overthrown with the help of the CIA, a fact admitted later by the USA. He was shot on the steps of the Presidential Palace, by a man in a Chilean army uniform. This was possibly one of the CIA agents involved in the coup that were dressed in Chilean soldiers uniforms. Pinochet, also a pal of Margaret Thatcher, went on to commit some huge atrocities against the people, but nothing was said. Henry Kissinger has a lot of blood on his hands over this amongst other things. Some of the countries and regimes supported by the USA make Saddam look like a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize! As for democracy, we all know that GWB himself was not elected in the 200 election and only got in through his pals in the supreme court, effectively mounting a coup to take power. There were no international calls for him to stand down or threats to invade and return the democratically elected President Gore to power. When that type of thing has happened anywhere else, the USA itself is the first country to start calling foul! It is ironic that the supposively two greatest democracies in the world have heads of state that were not elected and only got the jobs because their fathers held it before them! Democracy was to be brought to Iraq. Since the recent Iraq election Saudi Arabia had a very limited one, in which women were not allowed to partcipate in. There was no outcry over that.

I could go on, but basically every charge levelled against Saddam could be levelled against the USA, Britain or many of its friends and nations they have supported to a far greater extent, but nothing has ever been done to about those countries. Once again I am glad that Saddam has gone, which is the only positive thing to have come out of this war. If the main objective was to get rid of him, why did they not all pack up and go home the day after he was toppled, in April 2003? We were told the war was over in May 2003, from the deck of an American aircraft carrier, but they are still there and still fighting and killing the people they were supposed going in to liberate. While some of them may be, those they are fighting are largely not the outlaws and supporters of Saddam that they are portrayed as. Most are just ordinary people trying to get rid of the invading forces in their supposedly liberated country!

So in short, not one of the reasons we have been given for the war stand up to any scrutiny and also have not been applied as reasons to attack countries to which these reasons would be very appropriate, including the USA and Britain themselves! Saddam is gone, which is good, but an invasion and occupation was nto needed for that. Today we had the biggest terrorist atrocity since Saddam left, although of course the whole idea of getting rid of him was to stop terrorism. It has continued to get worse and the same mistakes are being made over and over again. Every allied bomb dropped or shot fired is more encouragement for the terrorists and makes it easier for them to point to the allies as the bad guys and swell their own ranks. Far from being a war on terror, this is a war for terror, as the longer it goes on, the more terrorism we are getting and there is a lot being stored up for later use, possibly a bigger 9/11. So apart from Saddam going, not one of the objectives given for the war has been achieved, but then maybe a lot of the ones we weren't told about have been!!!

Operation Iraqi Liberation. (amongst other things!)

Dinner

vibe666 wrote:

only the first to help when it comes to blowing sh1t up and getting it's own way, but nowhere to be seen when genuine good needs to be done.

Except when marines are the first to put boots to ground to deliver food and water after the tsunami, except when they are always the first to be called upon when something goes wrong and still are criticised.

Yes they are never around to do good. :rolleyes:
*sigh*

Dinner

Flukey wrote:

Operation Iraqi Liberation. (amongst other things!)

Just a small point, but wasnt the actual operation called Operation Iraqi Freedom rather than Liberation. I'm not trying to be a smartarse just wondering if it was changed to suit that phrase.

Flukey

That is what it was called publicly Arabel, yes, but as we all know the public reasons given were not up to much.Operation Iraqi Liberation is far more appropriate.

Dinner

Right so it was just made up then.

m1ke

Most of the arguments against the war in iraq on this thread, even the more well thought out ones can be summarised as follows: US actions are hypocritical, therefore wrong. And that even though it is possible that many good things may result from US actions in Iraq, the end doesn't justify the means.

I don't feel that this sort of attitude can help solve world problems, it just paralyzes any possible positive action. This is perhaps why Bush resorts to constantly lying about his domestic policy(i'm also willing to accept the fact that he's a total plank who is being played by his officials). Perhaps if we could overcome this collective psychological barrier as europeans we wouldn't have turned a blind eye to the waves of genocide, disease, poverty and countless millions of people who have died as a result of our inactions in the last few short years. Europes heritage has always been that of war, genocide and holocaust... the only thing that has changed between 1945 and now is that we drown it out by covering our ears and getting on our collective high horses and lecturing the US about who is hypocritical and who isn't hypocritical. At least the US is trying to stabilise one region(the middle east) in the world... if iraq can be stabilised it will provide a base from which the rest of the region can be stabilised, the palestinians can get some form of justice and syria and iran can look into what their future will be like if they don't take the route libya has and cooperate.

popinfresh

Of course the US is gonna invade Iran, it's only a matter of time really. If the motives of the US is to "spread freedom" (the propegandic reason), then their current attitude towards Iran says blatently that they want to invade Iran. On the other hand, if the invasion of Iraq was economy based, then it makes sense that they are gonna invade Iran. It's really that simple.
However, I find what the US is saying ATM to be quite interesting. Whereby they're not preparing the nation for invading Iran. I think they'll treat Iran differently than Iraq. To invade Iran they're gonna need a bit more of a clever way of doing it. I.e. They tell Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities (secretly of course) Inevitably Iran will strike back, then the US invades Iran "in defence of Israel"

Easy Peasy Lemmon Squeezy :cool:

mr_angry

I think its unfair to say that Europe isn't trying to stabilise the Middle East, especially when they are trying to find a peaceful resolution to the concerns in Iran. The EU are clearly going for the "carrot" route whereby they offer Iran improved trade agreements etc., whereas the US are going with the "stick" approach whereby they demand sanctions and possible military intervention. Unfortunately, the two sets of actions are so disjointed, neither may have the desired effect, and the two sides are so opposed in what they think is the best approach, the issues are unlikely to be resolved.

I think it would be untrue to describe Bush's actions in the Middle East as "correct". Firstly, the basis of the invasion was the "45-minute deployment of WMDs". Seeing as these were never found, its hard to justify the case in hindsight. True, they could have been dismantled, buried, and hidden, but in my world its a case of innocent until proven guilty, and hence the burden of proof was on the coalition - a burden they failed to make good on. However, I have no problem with the deposition of a man like Saddam, but the methods employed to do so, and some of the baggage that came with it was something I found very difficult to stomach. There were good and bad points to the invasion - I'd find it hard to say it was fundamentally a good or a bad thing.

Secondly, I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the Middle East as "stable". And if you can't do that, I fail to see how you can credit Bush with making it stable. If anything, I think there are even tougher times ahead in our lifetime, and it will take an unimaginable amount of courage from the people of that region to overcome their problems and create a better future. I think its important to recognise the bravery of the civillian population - its not Bush who's out there amidst beheadings and car-bombs, and its not him who risks being hit by some kind of bombing as he protests in Lebanon. Credit where its due.

m1ke

I think its unfair to say that Europe isn't trying to stabilise the Middle East, especially when they are trying to find a peaceful resolution to the concerns in Iran.

I wonder how effective the EU carrot would be without the big US stick in the background.... in brief, on Iran, the EU are definitely the junior partners. But I think there US is going to pursue its foreign policy goals through mostly soft power in the next 5 years, they can't manage so many consecutive wars... but no doubt in a few years they'll go after their next objective.

I think it would be untrue to describe Bush's actions in the Middle East as "correct".

Ok so your definition of justification for war wasn't met here.... well mine wasn't either. However, I got over it and now want the US to be even more pro-active because they're succeeding at what they're doing.

Secondly, I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the Middle East as "stable".

I don't think anyone in their right mind would describe the world as a stable place. Just look at the last couple of years: massive genoicde in Rwanda, gulags in north korea, war in the Balkans on Europes doorstep, genocide in Darfur(happening right now yet we don't hear jack about it)... the list just goes on. I say give the US some time to stabilise the place, it's not going to be perfect but if they manage to create a viable political unit there, it will have been worth it. So I say give them some time before judging them, there are some really good possibilities.

I think its important to recognise the bravery of the civillian population - its not Bush who's out there amidst beheadings and car-bombs, and its not him who risks being hit by some kind of bombing as he protests in Lebanon. Credit where its due.

I think the civilian population have very little to do with it... they're just trying to survive, like I would be if I was an Iraqi. It's leadership (both US and Iraq and allies in cooperation), Iraqi civil society. I think when most people praise the courage of the Iraqi people etc.., they're really just channelling their feelings about the positive things occuring in Iraq away from people who deserve credit i.e the US(not just bush, but everyone involved and on the ground inc. military and civilian aid workers and security gaurds all doing their bit in Iraq atm).

ionapaul

As happy as I am that Saddam and his murderous regime is gone, that the Iraqis are on the road to a better future and that things seem to be looking up in the longer-term in the Middle East, I can't bring myself to give credit to Bush or his administration. They didn't remove Saddam or promote democracy for atruistic reasons, but for selfish ones - the same reasons every single country (including Ireland, or even those wonderful Scandinavians!) does anything foreign policy related. The positive things that may result are by products of the US following its national interest in the Middle East. Hopefully (in the longer term) it can be seen as a 'non-zero-sum' game: the US will have a strong ally in the region and a military base while the Iraqis will have a democratic government that does not gas, rape or murder their own people en masse.

Of course, in the shorter term, it will be tough as the insurgency, made up of ex-Baathists and Sunnis upset at losing the dominance enjoyed under Saddam and foreign terrorists (that is what they are) sponsored by Syria and Iran, will be hard to defeat. Think of how hard it was for the British to combat the IRA, who may have had 10% support in the island of Ireland - the insurgency surely has the same level of support (but not much more) in Iraq.

Blub2k4

Does this site www.newamericancentury.org not validate all the tin foil hat theories?
It is the site of conspiracy theorists dreams!
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm is their statement of principles and here is the list of signatories:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

It's all there in black and white, I dont know why the debates tend to go on so long.

Neuro

ionapaul wrote:

As happy as I am that Saddam and his murderous regime is gone, that the Iraqis are on the road to a better future and that things seem to be looking up in the longer-term in the Middle East, I can't bring myself to give credit to Bush or his administration. They didn't remove Saddam or promote democracy for atruistic reasons, but for selfish ones - the same reasons every single country (including Ireland, or even those wonderful Scandinavians!) does anything foreign policy related.

Exactly! But then, all human action is borne out of self-interest.

ionapaul wrote:

The positive things that may result are by products of the US following its national interest in the Middle East.

It's really a form of reciprocal altruism (which really isn't altruism at all) and it's for this very reason that the US will never take an interest in Africa and other parts of the world like it; intervention there would not benefit the US in any immediate or substantial way.

ionapaul

One of the reasons the US gets such criticism for its foreign / economic / whatever policies is that becuase of the immense power and influence it holds, the policies can result in massive changes to the lives of millions of people. US corporations are attracted to Ireland for a variety of reasons, invest here = our economy booms and the standard of living of millions shoots up. US imposes economic sanctions = starvation may result. US gives military aid to Isreal = military hardware is used against Palestinians (not getting into the right or wrong of that issue).

Every nation's actions can be seen to indirectly or directly cause similar effects, just on a different scale. Irish farming industry (with massive government assistance) sells food to Arab dictatorship for said dictator's army = indirectly facilitates oppression of population. I suppose the trick is to walk the line between serving national interests and creating long term problems - again, a 'non-zero-sum' game should be played, in that in the long run, a peaceful, harmonious and economically open world is better for the US and everyone else on the planet.

My worry is that what is best for the US and the world is not what is best for George Dubya and his administration and backers - therein lies the problem

delop

TomF wrote:

The seeming development of a Kiev-like, popular, long-term street-demonstration against Syrian occupation of Lebanon and the recent popular success of elections in Iraq make it look to me that Bush was right all-along to put a very large and very aggressive American (read "democratic") presence into the middle of the Arabic Middle East.

Tell that to the dead childeren of Iraq... The Americans will be your friend untill you stand in the way of their interests, they have even admitted it publicaly thoughout different administrations, i.e. the cost is worth the prize of world control.. hegemony!!!

bonkey

TomF poses what appears to be an interesting question, but - to be honest - is simply providing yet another empty vessel to be filled with the rhetoric of whichever side you happen to subscribe to.

When Bush invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, many critics pointed to the significant death toll and infrastructural damage as irrefutable proof that this was all a bad idea. "Wait", said the supporters, "as these things take time".

Now, we are beginning to see the opposite. The ongoing violence, unrest, oppression etc. are disappearing into the background noise of non-news-worthy daily reality, and so they become less central to discussions. In their place we get to see other events which - currently, at least - appear to be (at least partially) motivated or encouraged by the actions that Bush initiated. And they seem - currently, at least - to be positive signs.

And now what do we see? Those that told us to wait until events unfold before passing judgement one way or another are now ebginning to stand up and applaud the beginnings of something as proof or a strong indication of success.

Maybe they are signs of success, but what happened to the caution that we should wait for events to unfold before passing judgement? Isn't it convenient how its only correct to do that with events which are not congruent with one's viewpoint???

So, this would seem to be just another example of one side or the other cherry-picking a moment in time and identifying the aspects of that moment which suit their side of things, and asking whether or not these aspects justify a judgement on the whole affair. As such, I think that as a question, it carries no more - or less - import than those which looked at the situation immediately post-invasion, or those which looked at the prisoner-abuse issues and asked whether or not this one issue, at one point in time, was sufficient to cast a judgement on the whole affair.


I do think, however, that there is merit and import in looking at this question in a slightly different light. Lets assume that the outcome from all of this is an improvement in Middle Eastern stability, in HUman Rights, and in all the glorious humanitarian aspects which the PTB's claim are their driving reasons for doing all of
this.

Does it mean that Bush was right? I guess that depends on how you define what right means...

Is a doctor right to wilfully play god with a patient who has not given consent? To take a critically ill person who is unable to make their own decisions, and arbitrarily decide to try out an unproven treatment in the belief that it will help the patient.

If the patient lives, does that make the doctor's actions any more acceptable? Is it fine to encourage willful, potentially-lethal behaviour on the grounds that as long as it turns out ok, you've done nothing wrong?

Indeed, isn't that effectively what TomF is suggesting just by asking the question - that its the end, rather than the means, which determines "rightness" ??? That Bush could be right merely because it would appear that his stated desired outcome could be coming to pass.

Personally speaking (well...ok...personally writing) - thats a bit too Machiavellian for my tastes. I don't think you can divorce the result achieved from the methods employed when judging an action.

jc

mycroft

Arabel wrote:

Right so it was just made up then.

No it was the original name for Operation Iraq Freedom. The changed the name from liberation to freedom when someone pointed what the intials stood for.

Honestly to be a fly on the wall for that conversation

ionapaul

Great post, bonkey - I agree with most of what you say. Time will ultimately tell whether the invasion of Iraq is seen to be a positive or negative event in the context of Middle Eastern history. It is too early for those expecting success to proclaim their 'victory' over those expecting failure, just as it was much too early for those expecting failure to proclaim their 'victory' last year. Even in the modern world, history doesn't move *that* fast!

m1ke

US foreign policy in the middle east is definitely based on self-interest and its good to see that so many of the people on this thread recognise that all actions are more or less self-interested, even Irelands and that it's just a matter of scale. I can understand why people become very annoyed by Bush's claim to hold moral authority when in actual fact, the war has nothing to do with moral authority... war never has. However, it is possible that war for reasons of self-interest can be a good thing. I think there is a recognition in the US that they need to stabilise the middle east, sort out Israel and Palestine and have a base from which to spread universal values of freedom, democracy etc.... these are all self-interested reasons and they are LONG TERM SOLUTIONS. In the past the US looked to short term solutions, such as upholding Sadam and his like. These long term solutions can make things better for everyone: America can get its oil, sell its products and Iraq can get stability, a modern economy and improved freedom. Once you stop saying what is moral and what isn't moral, who is being hypocritical and who isn't being hypocritical and move onto asking: does US self interest co-incide with Iraqi self-interest... then you can say whether something is justified or not.

vibe666

Arabel wrote:

Except when marines are the first to put boots to ground to deliver food and water after the tsunami, except when they are always the first to be called upon when something goes wrong and still are criticised.

Yes they are never around to do good. :rolleyes:
*sigh*

yeah, that does make up for all the atrocities they commit. how silly of me.

Dinner

*ahem*

vibe666 wrote:

the US is nothing more than a playground bully. only the first to help when it comes to blowing sh1t up and getting it's own way, but nowhere to be seen when genuine good needs to be done.

My Bold

Flukey

The USA is a powerful country. People are not jealous of their power, it is how they use it that is the problem. The "it's bad now but it will all work out in the end" argument just isn't good enough. These are real people we are talking about. It's of no value to the people that have suffered through this. It is also storing up trouble for later. A bit like Ian Paisley used to be for the IRA, George W(arrmongerer) Bush is the best recruitment officer Al Q'aida and their ilk have ever had!

Of course the Middle East has problems that need sorting out, but this approach isn't the right one. The families of the innocent people that have died from allied troops certainly won't be sending Bush a Thank You card. The people won't go rooting around in the rubble of their house that was just destroyed to find a kettle to make cups of tea for the troops responsible for destroying it. Democracy in the Middle East would be good, but it will go down far better if it is encouraged rather than being imposed. We know what democracy is and understand its benefits, but many of the people over there are illiterate, never mind their ability to understand what democracy is. Throwing a ballot paper in front of people and asking them to pick a few names from it looks good, but how real of an election was it, in terms of what we understand? There were pages and pages of names on those lists. It would have taken ages just to read through them. Most people would not know who any of them were, so it was like picking a horse for the Grand National, a total random selection.

Before they can have elections they first need to educate the people, then educate them about democracy. Then the people have to come up with their own form of democracy, not something imposed upon them. The outside world can certainly advise and assist and act as consultants, but if it is really going to be democratic then it has to be the way the Iraqis want it. What America is saying they want to do is very noble, but it is their approach that is at fault. People are likely to rebel against it, and that is what is happening.

popinfresh

[edit] was goin off topic, started a new thread