Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mburbank
Kev; I don't think we can "Democratize" anyone. I do not think Democracy, as worthy a goal as it is, can be imposed from the outside. I especially think a country that invaded another under false pretenses can them.
|
I think you're right, but we invaded. We went it, we bombed it, we toppled the regime, and now the country is in turmoil.
Also, if we were truly forcing these people to democratize, there wouldn't be this issie over constitution deadlines and agreements and stuff. There'd be a constitution. It'd be done.
We're not taking that route though, we're being deliberative, we're providing security services, and we're letting them sort out the kind of government that
they want to build. I figure it's the least we owe them.
Quote:
|
On the broke vs. fixed front, again, what would fixed look like, and how much in terms of lives (ours and theirs) dollars and years are you willing to think it terms of as worth our laudabile goal of democratizing Iraq? Take into concideration that as long as we're there we are far less effective as a hedge against other countries (Iran, Korea, and whoever else may decide now is as good a time as they're going to get to pursue various objectives counter to our interests) and that eventually we'll cripple our economy.
|
This is why and where I think the wrong man is in the White House (well, just one of several reasons). You're right, we can't carry this burden alone, and the longer we are there, the harder it'll be to focus on other things. This is why I think we need a president and a state department that creates a coalition of the realized rather than a coalition of the "willing." We need to impress on other thew nations the fact that this war is coming to all of them too, and that helping the Iraqis succeed isn't just in their interest, it's in the interest of the planet to have a democratized Arab republic of sorts in the middle east. It's in the world's interest to see these people succeed, rather than falling to radical Islam and oppression.
Quote:
|
Maybe I'm being overly pessemistic, but I think if we really intend to be there until Iraq is 'fixed' we are there from now on. I don't think Iraq will ever be fixed with us there.
|
You keep saying this, but i don't really see you appropriately explaining it. How Iraq POSSIBLY be better when we leave, when the likely outcome could be complete collapse and civil war???
Quote:
|
"We can't set timetables" is a reasonable statement. but it begs the question how long are we willing to stay, and what's a ballpark estimate of how long we're talking about. It avoids the entire discussion. They govt. obviously won't engage the topic, but will any of you? Are you willing to stay in Iraq forever? And if that's too tall and order, you're already saying that at some point it woud be worth it to pull out, fixed or not.
|
I again think that you show little regard or faith in the Iraqi people. This is a nation with a shit ton of oil, it's an ancient culture rich in heritage, art, and music. Baghdad is a swinging hot spot potentially. This is a country that already
had one of the larger middle-classes in the middle east. This is a country that
can succeed, and I think wants to succeed.
They do however have in their way the obstacle of terrorism and extremism. You seem to see us as the root of those things, I see us as the barrier against it. I guess we just differ there.
I'm personally willing to see it through in Iraq because it is our responsibility to see it through. Again, you see us as an impediment to that goal, whereas isee us as a necessary component and partner in achieving it. If we withdraw from iraq, it will most certainly fall to radicla fundamentalism. it will most certainly fall into internal conflict, and it will most certainly become another hotbed for terrorism.
The same criticism was brought against Bush for invading Afghanistan-- it was our mistake, we pulled out after the war with the Soviets, etc.
I don't think that we should make that mistake again.
Quote:
|
There was a time when getting out of Vietnam was unthinkable, the ramifications were too huge, what kind of a message would it send?
|
I think we're talking about two different scenarios here. All "quagmire" parallels aside, Vietnam is a poor comparison.
The assumption was that if Vietnam fell, other countries would fall, and like dominos, the world would fall under Communism. This is different. Instead of communism, we're talking about extremism, specifically radical islamic extremism. We don't need to fear that nations will fall to this, because they already have. We're not this time scared of a growing ideolgy being exposed to a weak and vulnerable country.
We're instead the ones, this time around, exposing the new kind of ideology. We're the ones trying to bring something to the Arab world that makes them uneasy and shakes things up. The threat is very clear and very obvious, because they flood over the Iraqi border every day, targeting anybody who will help them push their agenda.
We're not fighting something political, or even necessarily rational and well-planned like global Communism. We're essentially fighting chaos and destruction. We're fighting people who absolutely hate us, and would be willing to kill themselves, along with innocent people, in order to succeed.
Linear Mode
