Assuming that there is a war and the US is victorious, what do people think will happen to Iraq afterwards?
The US has been encouraging Kurdish and Shi-ite factions to rebel against Saddam Hussein. Will the US partition Iraq between the arabs, the kurds and the shi-ites? Will the US hold free democratic elections and risk a violently anti-US government coming to power, or will they support a "friendly" military dictator? Will the US be able to disengage quickly from Iraq (given that it evidently plans to pick up construction and oil contracts which will run for years and years) or will it remain as an army of occupation for a decade or more. Will islamic fundamentalism increase or decrease in the region as a result of what will appear to be a war of conquest?
I'm not sure that we or our leaders are fully prepared for the consequences of victory.
Mick 😕
Originally posted by mikadoMick,
Assuming that there is a war and the US is victorious, what do people think will happen to Iraq afterwards?
The US has been encouraging Kurdish and Shi-ite factions to rebel against Saddam Hussein. Will the US partition Iraq between the arabs, the kurds and the shi-ites? Will the US hold free democratic elections and risk a violently anti-US government c ...[text shortened]... m not sure that we or our leaders are fully prepared for the consequences of victory.
Mick 😕
This is a good question. I would suggest though that the fundamental point is that nobody has an answer. Bush & Co are not going to war because they (or anyone else) has a better solution to the problems of Iraq than rule by Saddam. This fact alone should be enough to demolish any idea that the war has a moral justification.
If the US win the war and topple Saddam, they will install in power whatever forces are to hand who will work with the Americans and accept occupation of their country by US troops. Will this be democratic ? No. Democracy is not something imposed from the barrel of a gun. It comes from a people travelling on their own journey to self-liberation and coming up with their own solutions as to how they should be governed.
The fact that the Middle East is awash with military dictatorships, radical Muslim movements (fundamentalist is a loaded word as they are no more fundamentalist in their beliefs than Bush himself), and liberation stuggles such as the Kurds and the Palestinians - all these problems are a direct consequence of intervention in the region by the US, Britain and other imperial powers over the last century. If other countries stop trying to control the Middle East for oil, then liberation, freedom and democracy may at last become something more than distant aspirations for the long suffering Arab people.
Nick
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]1) He has weapons of mass destruction and has/will use them.
Obviously it would not be morally justifiable to attack a country merely for possessing weapons of mass destruction. This would be analogous to me attacking my neighbor for possessing a gun. Similarly, it can't be the case that we're justified in attacking Iraq merely because they have used weap ...[text shortened]... d hate us. This would be analogous to me attacking my neighbor because he has a gun and hates me.
With neighbours like that it seems to me like you should move.......
Seriously.......I'd be the first to stand and applaud if was Saddam was ousted, most of the world would ! I'm concerned about the precedent of a pre-emptive strike. What does the US say when India decides it doesn't like the weapons Pakistan has and shoots first.....or China, Russia, North Korea....take your pick !!??
Originally posted by ROOMS2004The US government has demonstrated time after time that they have no problem with adopting a hypocritical position. I dont think they would hesitate to condemn another country for doing what they are proposing to do.
I'm concerned about the precedent of a pre-emptive strike. What does the US say when India decides it doesn't like the weapons Pakistan has and shoots first.....or China, Russia, North Korea....take your pick !!??
(And of course the Canadian government would waffle for about two weeks and then follow the lead of the US, as usual.)
Originally posted by mikadoIdeally what would happen would be something akin to the wicked witch of the west getting doused and there being a complete sense of gratitude that Saddam is gone. Perhaps naive, but probably the hope is that in time there will be democratic reforms. As for all the factions, just look at this country and its history. We had our period of slavery, prejudice (still do to some extent). We have numerous cultures, races and religions that get along fine. So hopefully when this is over we can say to Iraq, "welcome to the human race." Kirk
Assuming that there is a war and the US is victorious, what do people think will happen to Iraq afterwards?
The US has been encouraging Kurdish and Shi-ite factions to rebel against Saddam Hussein. Will the US partition Iraq between the arabs, the kurds and the shi-ites? Will the US hold free democratic elections and risk a violently anti-US government c ...[text shortened]... m not sure that we or our leaders are fully prepared for the consequences of victory.
Mick 😕
I think the absence of a strong, albeit despotic government, in the area will cause enormous problems for the entire region. Saddam himself admits that it is his brutal methods of control that allow him to keep a population split amongst a majority of Sunni muslims, a controlling Shiite minority and a large kurdish population together. When his government is gone, the unifying force will no longer be there. A democratically elected government is almost certain to be sympathetic to Sunni Muslim Iran, a situation which I imagine the Bush administration would prefer not to have. In addition, our ally Turkey has a substantial kurdish population concentrated along the region bordering Iraq. If Iraq were to fall, that population combined with the Iraqi Kurds are likely to revolt and try to form an independent kurdistan.
Without the secular bulwark of Iraq to their North, and replacing it with a religious Sunni Muslim regime sympathetic to Iraq could also seriously destabilize the current secular (and extremely unpopular) Saudi Arabian government. Were it to be overthrown and replaced with another Sunni Muslim government, they would be in a position to combine forces with a now Islamic Iraq and Iran, making a new superpower in the region, hostile to Israel and to the US, and with substantial resources under their control.
While I admit that this is all only speculation, I believe that it falls within the realm of possibility. Is this the outcome that Bush has in mind?
-mike
Originally posted by kirksey957if ur patriot missile was as amazing as u made out, u wouldnt have had any problems. but rather than admit failure, blame someone else.
4) I would only say that if the US violates a UN resolution by attacking Iraq, at least they were more honest and up-front about it than Iraq has been. They were forewarned. At least more than the Israel's that died from the scud missles in '91.
Thanks for the debate, Boby. Kirk
what would happen if america went in with out UN support ie in vilation of UN charter?
wouldnt it be funny if america was sanctioned as a result. just something to think about.
Originally posted by nktwildOK, let me see if I get this right. If someone tries to shoot me and say my neighbor tried to prevent it from happening, but failed, then I should have had a better neighbor and that it is really my neighbor's fault?
if ur patriot missile was as amazing as u made out, u wouldnt have had any problems. but rather than admit failure, blame someone else.
what would happen if america went in with out UN support ie in vilation of UN charter?
wouldnt it be funny if america was sanctioned as a result. just something to think about.
And yes it would be funny if Bush was sanctioned by the UN, but not as funny as what Bush would tell Kofi Anan.
And for the record let me say that a weapon of mass destruction is a bullet pointed at me. Kirk
Originally posted by bolshevikBy this standard, Japan and Germany wouldn't be considered democracies.
[. Will this be democratic ? No. Democracy is not something imposed from the barrel of a gun. It comes from a people travelling on their own journey to self-liberation and coming up with their own solutions as to how they should be governed.
Nick[/b]
I don't claim to know how things will go in a postwar Iraq, but I don't think it's fair to say that a government originally instituted by force will always be inherently undemocratic.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroMandatory democracy. An oxymoron? 😀
By this standard, Japan and Germany wouldn't be considered democracies.
I don't claim to know how things will go in a postwar Iraq, but I don't think it's fair to say that a government originally instituted by force will always be inherently undemocratic.
Originally posted by legionnaireSaudia Arabia is indeed mostly Sunni (I think), but Iraq has a majority of Shiites and a Sunni-controlled government, while Iran is a mostly Shiite country with a clerical Shiite government. In fact I think one of the differences between Sunni and Shia is that Shia approves of a powerful role for clerics, whereas Sunni does not support an established church. I certainly don't think Iraq would combine with Iran, given their war in the 80s, and I doubt Saudi Arabia would be too friendly to either of them.
I think the absence of a strong, albeit despotic government, in the area will cause enormous problems for the entire region. Saddam himself admits that it is his brutal methods of control that allow him to keep a population split amongst a majority of Sunni muslims, a controlling Shiite minority and a large kurdish population together. When his governm ...[text shortened]... t it falls within the realm of possibility. Is this the outcome that Bush has in mind?
-mike
Just a thought here:
In all those three pages of debate, someone mentionned "many educated minds, few solutions".
Is educated debate what is really needed to resolve this situation?
I think that the word leadership has been missed out of the debate. In this life, there are no perfect decisions - you can never be sure what is right and what is wrong. Whether we attack or not, we need a strong leader. (Go read Antigone on this point).
I don't find either Bush or Blair are leaders. I don't feel reverence to them. They haven't proved themselves in any way. They have never put their own lives on the line. They can't appreciate war. They can't appreciate death.
Anyone who has ever had to be the leader, even in the weakest sense of the word (eg boy scouts, or simply as a classroom teacher), will understand how difficult it is to make the "right" decision, how difficult it is to do the best for those who follow. They will also understand that there are some very fortunate (and very rare) people who have the experience and magnetic charisma to make the best of a situation. We need a few of those people in government at this minute.
[..the word leadership has been missed out of the debate..we need a strong leader..I don't find either Bush or Blair are leaders..They haven't proved themselves in any way..They have never put their own lives on the line..there are some very fortunate (and very rare) people who ...[text shortened]... tuation. We need a few of those people in government at this minute.]i think Blair is all right. hes better then most leaders in my opinion. and i think that the above post is aimed at imaginary characters that dont exist. (Jack Ryan springs to mind😵) ...and no im not english and have no reason to like him either!
cheers,
Con
ps and please dont talk to me about needing strong leaders. America, Iraq and Israel (to name but a few) have strong leaders - they dont do anything for me and mine though..
pps i reread my post and it makes me sound like a complete muppet. so dont mind me. my personal opinion is that bush should go back to school and everyone else should go home. oh and i read your profile and got a great laugh out of it 🙄
ppps spot the edits..😛
I believe such leaders do exist, but commonly do not have the financial and political power to do so. I would also speculate that the lack of power to win office may greatly be affected by the fact that these people ARE great leaders, and have done more for the people around them than they have for themselves.
As for us having great leaders, I do not feel I can form an educated opinion of other countries. I can say that it is my opinion that Bush is a HORRIBLE leader! He lacks very BASIC elements needed to lead well, an example being his poor ability to articulate. Call me crazy, but I would think my leader should be able to speak the language of the country he was born in atleast as well as your average person, if not much better. I know kids who speak much better than him! Most of all I would criticize Bush for ignoring the will of the US people. His office exists to serve the peoples goals, but I beleive he sees that the people exist to provide his office to attain HIS goals. I may have to live with the consequences of his actions, but I will never acknowledge him as being fit to lead so much as a zoo tour, let alone my country.