Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (247245)	11/3/2007 8:57:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Prior to Saddam's brutal rise to power there was a very strong likelyhood of democratic in Iraq" Errors fly fast and frequently on this board, but this statement is one that anyone who has read anything about Iraq would know is false. I have read quite a bit on the history of Iraq and nowhere, NOWHERE, does anyone ever say there was a strong likelihood (or much likelihood at all) of anything anywhere near democracy happening in Iraq. Please provide ANY proof of that statement, because I've seen zero zip and nada to substantiate what you just said. en.wikipedia.org Between the monarchy and Saddam Hussein (1958-1969) In the decade following the overthrow of the Iraqi monarchy in 1958, various regimes ruled the country, each responsible for the government's treatment of its citizens and for protecting citizens, until the 1968 coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power with Saddam Hussein as one of the coup leaders:[11] * Military government of Abd al-Karim Qasem and the "Free Officers" (1958–1963); * First regime of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party (February–November 1963); * Governments of the Arif brothers and Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz (1963–1968). The second regime of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party began with a coup in July 1968, with Saddam Hussein, one of the leaders of the coup, growing in power and eventually assuming the presidency of the country in 1979. He was overthrown in the United States-led invasion of 2003. In the 1950s and 1960s, Iraqis and many other Arabs often supported the idea of a strong leader "along the lines of Stalin or Mao, Ho Chi Minh or Castro" who would act as "a political savior", acting with great power, a sense of mission and ruling with justice. Saladin, the eleventh-century Islamic hero who defeated the Crusaders, was looked on as a model and even Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, was viewed as a leader from whom an example could be drawn. In Iraq, many felt a strong leader was needed to hold the country together despite its ethnic divisions and other problems.[2] Now there were people who wanted democracy in the ME in the 50's, and there WAS a democracy in the ME in the 50's- but it was in Iran, and the CIA helped topple it.

To: one_less who wrote (247245)	11/4/2007 2:50:19 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I have and I know Iraqis, do you? I know doctors, do you want me to do prostate surgery for you? I know mechanics, do you want me to take apart the engine on your car? Are you getting the picture? "Right and up to now you have always advocated abandonment of the people so that the strong dogs can get what they want. I remember you laughing your head off when I told you about Moktada Al-Sadr a few years ago. It seems you are a little more informed now but your mocking approach to discussion seems just as partisan and ignorant to me." First, what are you talking about with respect to your "[telling me] about Moktada Al-Sadr a few years ago"? I think you have me confused with someone else, or maybe you're just confused. Second, the strong dogs will get what they want. That's the point. The people willing to fight in Iraq are fighting, the rest are sheep watching to see which dog will run the herd. And that dog won't be our dog. All the lives, all the treasure and all the talk won't do much, if anything, to create the kind of place you so naively dream of in Iraq. And that's a necessary step in the march forward of civilizations. Sometimes you have to go thirsty to remember the blissful joy of a cool drink of water and sometime you have to live under radical, Islamic rule before you're willing to fight and die to live free. As for the rest of your post, what a hobgloblin of happy-happy generalities you write. Unfortunately the real world isn't based on what should be but rather what is. Right now what "is" isn't what you want and, in Iraq, it's not in our control. So listen carefully; evil-doers aren't the only ones who've historically done great harm; sometimes starry eyed do-gooders have also created horrible results. If we invaded, conquered and occupied Iraq based on do-gooder notions then that will simply be another example of unrealistic, faith based thinking leading to horrible human tragedy and damaging the underpinnings of a great nation. Ed