Bush supports democracy for Iraq

PH01

The first middle eastern country, besides Turkey and Israel, to have a democracy - that's good enough to support a war in Iraq isn't it?

President Bush lays out scenario for post-war Iraq

US President George W. Bush has claimed a war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will help spread hope and democracy across the Middle East.

Proposing his plans for a post-war Iraq in a televised speech, Mr Bush said the United States would lead in destroying Iraq's suspected chemical and biological weapons, and provide security "against those who try to spread chaos or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq".

Mr Bush said in case of war, the United States would act quickly to protect Iraq's oil facilities from sabotage.

"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more," he said. "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions".

His speech was partly aimed at answering Arab states and European allies who oppose the prospect of war, fearing it could further destabilise the Middle East.

Leaders of the Arab League's 22 members are to hold a summit at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on Saturday.

League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said there was a general consensus against war, which he said could unleash chaos in the Middle East.

Earlier, the United States said its warplanes on patrol over Iraq had attacked two air defence communications installations in the south, a day after striking what the US military said were missile systems in the north and south.

An Iraqi military spokesman said the Western planes had targeted civilian installations. He did not mention casualties.

In the latest anti-war protest in the United States, hundreds of thousands of people called and faxed US leaders in a "virtual march on Washington" on Wednesday, jamming the White House switchboard and many congressional telephone lines for several hours.

Typedef

Israel is a plutocracy, not a democracy.

MagicBusDriver

Israel is a democracy. It is the only decent place in the middle-east

PH01

When I said Israel I was only joking.;)

But if Saddam is toppled from power by the US then the following free elections would be unprecedented in the Arabic world.

shotamoose

Originally posted by PH01
The first middle eastern country, besides Turkey and Israel, to have a democracy - that's good enough to support a war in Iraq isn't it?

Not if it involves bombing the place into dust, no. And while I'd like to see democracy in Iraq, I don't think Iraq would survive as a united entity if it was genuinely democratised. The US knows this, which is why they're not really serious about democratising Iraq, just as they weren't serious about democratising Afghanistan. Oh, and they've agreed to let Turkey occupy the Kurdish protected zone in Northern Iraq, the one part of the country which actually has democratic institutions at the moment.

The Saint

I think that they will eventually put democracy inplace in Iraq after the Americans write the constitution and put nice trade agreements in place. As for the Kurds, I hope they get to keep their autonomy. I dont think the Turks will do anything serious in Kurdistan coz the EU will be watching them very closely and if they do slip up it will be bye bye membership.

bonkey

Originally posted by PH01
But if Saddam is toppled from power by the US then the following free elections would be unprecedented in the Arabic world.

Wont Iraq just follow the same plan as Afghanistan - an interim government followed by democratic elections at an appropriate time.

Which would mean that anything happening in Iraq is hardly unprecedented.

jc

Johnmb

They won't put democracy in place as that would involve letting the people decide their own future. They have already agreed with Turkey not to allow the Kurds to form their own country, or to let them control the money from oil in their regions, so no democracy for the Kurds. There isn't a hope of the US allowing the Shiah in the south to break away and form their own country, as they would form a commonwealth with Iran, so no democracy for the Shiah. All that is left is the Sunnis, who will have to be armed well enough to keep the Kurds and Shiah in line. That is the situation as it is now. All the US will be doing will be replacing one dictator with another. Fair enough they might go through the motions of an election, but just like in Kuwait, only a certain few will be allowed to vote, and fewer still will be allowed to run for election. That is not democracy.

The Saint

I think it would be better to have a UN run interim government with no oil contracts being done until after free and unhindered elections, something I cant see happening.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Wont Iraq just follow the same plan as Afghanistan - an interim government followed by democratic elections at an appropriate time.

Which would mean that anything happening in Iraq is hardly unprecedented.

jc

Probably will do (If a war ever happens) and look at whats happening there.

But I fear that what is briefly outlined in Johnmb's post will become a reality. I am not sure of the demographic breakdown but I believe about 15% of the population have 90% of the wealth i.e. the Sunnis. Recipe for disaster IMO.

Cork

Originally posted by PH01
When I said Israel I was only joking.;)

But if Saddam is toppled from power by the US then the following free elections would be unprecedented in the Arabic world.

I think that it would be very welcome. Iraq would then be an example for other states who currently are ruled by dictators and royal families.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Iraq would then be an example for other states who currently are ruled by dictators and royal families.

Of course it would....just like Turkey is already an example, as (to be honest) is every functional democracy in the world.

In other words, its not really gonna send any sort of message to anyone that they havent already received, so its unlikely that it will make any difference.

A far stronger message will be sent by how democracy comes about....it is a message that says "if you dont switch to what we say, you may find an army knocking at your door soon".

In other words, it wouldnt matter if Saddam was replaced by some bigger despot - the same message would be sent : do what we say or else.

It has nothing to do with democracy, only superior firepower.

jc

dathi1

First and foremost.
Bush will not restore democracy to Iraq.
After the interim dictatorships are established by tribal votes (as in Afghanistan) the oil fields will be handed over from an American occupation force to whoever will guarantee oil supply democratic or not.
In northern Afghanistan the Kurds will be shown who's boss by the Turks....and as stated above in another post...if you think the EU will have an input into this. Have a look at this mornings news on RTE radio: 400 journalists have been forbidden by Turkish authorities from entering Kurdistan as we lead up to a war. The "buffer zone" will head for Kirkurk where a sizable Turkish minority live and will be annexed into a wider Turkish region.
Bush's daddy established the no fly zone above the 42nd parallel to prevent the Kurds from controlling the oil wells one degree below that level in 1991. He also done a U-turn on arms supplies to aid the Kurdish uprising to prevent the same thing happening. This led to 1 million Kurds tracking across mountains starving and cold.
The same will apply this time around. There is no way that a democratic or semi autonomous Kurdish state will get rights to oil fields in its territories as long as the Turks and US are around.

The Sunni centre of Iraq will get its own US military approved democratic dictator for oil supply guarantees.

The Shia south will end up the same way even after the revenge reprisals against the Sunnis and Iraqi military in Basra.

Resolution 242 36years on?? Palestine will wait regardless of the preconditioned regime change that Israel / Bush wants.

Overall their dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.. But Bush(+his dad) and Rumsfeld's(Laos/Cambodia) track record on Democracy installation is sh.ite.

Victor

Originally posted by PH01
The first middle eastern country, besides Turkey and Israel, to have a democracy - that's good enough to support a war in Iraq isn't it?

What about Iran?

The Saint

"Have a look at this mornings news on RTE radio: 400 journalists have been forbidden by Turkish authorities from entering Kurdistan as we lead up to a war. "

Do you have an internet source for this, I cant find anything.

dathi1

"Have a look at this mornings news on RTE radio: 400 journalists have been forbidden by Turkish authorities from entering Kurdistan as we lead up to a war. "

I heard it this morning on RTE Radio One Morning Ireland at 8:30. ish there is a audio link (RealPlayer)http://wwa.rte.ie/rams/radio/morningireland.smi

The Saint

I've checked all of the news sites and have seen nothing about it. I'll take a listen to your link.

The Saint

The link doesnt work dude.

dathi1

Well i cant help RTE's server problems.. But I did hear it this morning on RTE radio 1. The jest of the story was that they managed to get their reporter Fergal keane through to Kurdistan despite the fact that the Turkish Military were preventing up to 400 journalists from crossing into Kurdistan...... and he done his report.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Johnmb
They won't put democracy in place as that would involve letting the people decide their own future. They have already agreed with Turkey not to allow the Kurds to form their own country, or to let them control the money from oil in their regions, so no democracy for the Kurds. There isn't a hope of the US allowing the Shiah in the south to break away and form their own country, as they would form a commonwealth with Iran, so no democracy for the Shiah. All that is left is the Sunnis, who will have to be armed well enough to keep the Kurds and Shiah in line. That is the situation as it is now. All the US will be doing will be replacing one dictator with another. Fair enough they might go through the motions of an election, but just like in Kuwait, only a certain few will be allowed to vote, and fewer still will be allowed to run for election. That is not democracy.

The ethnic make-up of Iraq is a lot more complex than that. Saddam's own region/tribe is another one seriously worth considering. Presumably the al-Bu Nasir will be considered a stronghold of pro-Saddam sentiment - this is, of course, because the most powerful people in Iraq at present come from this tribal area (Saddam likes to appoint friends) and because Saddam has done most for this area in terms of state provision for the this population. It's unlikely that more than 15 of Saddam's closest friends/colleagues will be indicted by the ICC so many of his other cronies will be, presumably, still quite powerful in that region. I'll be interested to see how this is dealt with as eagerly as the Kurds.

SloanerF1

This all assumes that there is a democracy in America itself!

Admittedly, I certainly know how to put the cat among the pigeons!

Éomer of Rohan

I piss on America 'democracy.'

Read up on Cleisthenes, Aristeides, Demosthenes or PEricles and you will understend democracy.

Demos - People
Kratein - Rule

That does not happen in the US, in Britain or anywhere in the world. America least of all the countries that claim to be democracies.

Read Michael Moore.

Read any article by independent press on the Bush election.

Democracy? Ha!

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I piss on America 'democracy.'

Read up on Cleisthenes, Aristeides, Demosthenes or PEricles and you will understend democracy.

Demos - People
Kratein - Rule

That does not happen in the US, in Britain or anywhere in the world. America least of all the countries that claim to be democracies.

Read Michael Moore.

Read any article by independent press on the Bush election.

Democracy? Ha!

Well thats hardly, good language for the message you are trying to put across..
Democracy is a relative thing.
It represents freedom of expression as much as governance.

Britain is a democracy, yet Maggie Thatcher was Prime minister, for ten years there whilst her party had a minority of the popular vote for most of that time.
Thats First past the post for you.

Meanwhile in Ireland democracy means proportional representation, which meant the previous administration depended on independent TD's for support, so their constituents got better representation than others even though they represented a minority of voters.

Bush got elected President, while his opponent nationally had more votes, again, due to the system there.

In those three countries, many, many do not vote at all, if they did they could make changes, but rather crib, when they shouldn't as they don't make their point where it matters.
In those three countries people *can* vote tactically for change if they want, but in most cases the *people* who have that right don't or just don't bother, they have the right and they are all people.

So what exactly is your point there about American Democracy in particular ÉOMER??
I've been there several times and to be honest, while it has it's share of problems as Western Countries go, it's not Hell.
For anyone prepared to work, and use initiative, it's a place where Irish immigrants, for instance, have made tonnes of money and in many cases brought it back here with them...nothing wrong with that is there??
mm

DadaKopf

So Athens was a democracy even though only men could vote and people could own slaves?

You know, the Greeks thought they were the zenith of civilisation - they had democracy and military might. Everyone else was obviously inferior and stupid because they didn't have democracy and could only manage to say "ba ba ba ba ba" - barbarians. So the Greeks went and civilised democratised them. Alexander the Great forged the most expansive empire that ever existed (in relative terms; he colonised nearly all of the known world). Eventually it became obese and slipped into plutocracy and subsequent sickness and death.

Or is that America?

I'm not sure many people could dispute the notion that democracy in its purest definition is, ideally, the fairest thing of all. The difference is in implementation. Most of the time it's the product of many, many compromises in which the rich and powerful are essentially bought off by being forced into a new regime for the greater good by the bigger gang while being permitted to continue getting richer and more powerful. Presumably, we're expected to think that just because we vote that it means everything's fair and equal.

Cork

Originally posted by SloanerF1
This all assumes that there is a democracy in America itself!

Admittedly, I certainly know how to put the cat among the pigeons!

Since - the US wlection. Geogre W. increased his mandate by gaining control of both houses.

Washout

Bush does support democracy for Iraq but at he has a price to put it in place...

Whatever Saddam does ffrom now on in its just not going to be good enough for him.

DiscoStu

ever since 9/11 there was nothing he could do anyway. remember that rummy called for bombing iraq before they knew who done it.

America has had a thing against Iraq & Iran for over a decade, so things won't change once they invade.

As for when Bush takes over, do you really think American forces will leave? Afghanistan had no Natural resources for America to take, so they weren't too interested in staying there, but they'll place a large Garrison in Iraq. They already have troops in Japan, Germany, & many other countries, so they'll jump at a chance to place troops in Iraq.

Democracy? Maybe on the outside, but it'll in fact be an occupied territory.