I think you are more up on Turkey than I am, but the fact that he chose democracy for his country indicates that he was aware of outside influences
One doesn't follow the other at all. A nation or a person can choose the way of government for a country without outside influences, although it might be difficult for Americans in general to believe that at this point in time :-)
Seriously, I just pointed out that right when it was formed, Turkey was in no way about to accept "influences" from the West, most of whom they fought a long time and had bitter memories about.
My understanding is that it was luck - Ataturk could very well have chosen to be the king of this new country. He chose to install democracy in this newly formatted country. That was their great luck.
He took the country by force, and ruled by an iron hand. Countries loaning money to Saddam have to know that they may not be paid back
Sorry but there is no such thing as "Sovereign debt acquired under regimes other than democracies are not to be paid back". Saddam's regime was recognized as the sovereign state of Iraq by (if I am not mistaken) all countries on this planet (including Europeans and the US). Hence, future governments are liable for repayment of all sovereign debts acquired during his reign.
you think the people of Iraq should repay loans to Saddam that he used primarily for himself?
Morally? Or legally? Or practically?
Morally, and if it were up to me, I would say Iraqis shouldn't have to pay for Saddam's palaces constructed by debts to Iraq. If it were up to me, I would also say the developed world should erase all debts to developing nations, who are crumbling under these debts and should be spending their resources on development rather than interest and principal payment on debts acquired decades ago.
Unfortunately, it's not up to me. And legally, countries are liable to pay for previous administrations' debts.
There is also another side to this argument you might like to consider - What would happen if a country could disown a debt once a new government takes control? No country would ever find loans again, or if they could, it would be extremely expensive. Because the interest on the debt would have to incorporate the risk that a new government would refuse to pay it back. That is the reason why all successive governments assume the debts acquired during previous administrations/regimes. Not because they love to.
Interesting reading on the original middle east tribal ruling. I think you left out some important things, such as what happens to those that do not or can not remain loyal?
I found the article. I will post it in a separate post.
And as you say this government is of the Men only, leaving out 50% of the female population. So their system has a built in unbalance, where the viewpoint of the woman is non existent.
Since the consensus building happens at a table when only the leader of clans/tribes are present, it isn't every male that gets to say his piece of mind, either.
It isn't even "voting", I hope you see. It is not as if there are three candidates and clan leaders vote one to power.
If they think that it's strange for a small majority to win power in America, then they must view Bush's presidency with disdain since he didn't even get half of the votes.
I don't think they need this bit of info to detest Bush at this point.
I am in agreement though, that we should be getting out of Iraq as soon as possible.
When it will be "possible" is a big question mark now. You break it, you own it. US shouldn't just pack up and go now because their soldiers are being shot at and they didn't realize when they invaded Iraq that this would happen.
By the way what parts of the middle east did you live in and for how long?
In various parts and for most of my life. |
