"In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq."

[Az]

What about the Sunni "state" though, Az? How does that work out?

What do you mean, how it works out? Stuctures of power will rise, as they do, naturally, and a single sunni state will emerge in the middle. If it won't, they'll just be the *****es of the neighbouring states - Syria could absorbe a nice chunk of them - but most probably is that it will get a 'nice' dictator. Meanwhile, most of the population of current "Iraq", will get what they really want - the Kurds will be getting perhaps the most advanced society, socially. They The only problem is the turks.

85% is worse than 100% but it's a whole lot better .than 0%.

Also, it tickles some people's fancy, so I'll add this: this is right up and parallel with that "self-determination" principle and all that silliness.

[Jon Miller]

does 'tribalistic democracy' ever end in democracy.. or does it end in tyranny? (after a very violent time of anarchy)

Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, and when he died there would probably have been worst...

I don't know enough about it to know whether he was getting rid of tribalism, generally nationalism is required to get rid of tribalism

unlike oyu Arrian, I like nationalism.. competition has to happen at some level

and at the individual level, like it does in capitalism, it causes a lot of pain and suffering...

when it is on the national level, yes wars can result (which cause lots of pain and suffering also).. but if the freedoms that can be had are had (like immigration and the like), I think that nations can compete through trying to atract good immigrants, and it the level of goods they produce, and the competition through warfare (And its exploitation of the common man) will be recognised as old and outdated

JM

[Arrian]

Az,

So the prospect of a "failed state" in the Sunni middle doesn't worry you?

As for self-determination, like I said, if they vote for it, so be it.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
does 'tribalistic democracy' ever end in democracy.. or does it end in tyranny? (after a very violent time of anarchy)

I don't know enough about it to know whether he was getting rid of tribalism, generally nationalism is required to get rid of tribalism
JM

I'm not really sure. I think the jury is still out on that. Some have certainly slid into tyranny or anarchy.

I agree that nationalism has been the thing to supplant tribalism, and that nationalism > tribalism. The bigger the group that you can squeeze under the category of "us" the better (because one doesn't typically abuse/kill/etc. members of "us").

Dictators, however, tend to enforce nationalism via killing off anyone who favors their tribe. Is that better than a somewhat anarchic democratic government?

-Arrian

[Sava]

How do you bring democracy to a culture that believes women should be covered up head to toe... and stones them to death if any man who is not a family member touches them in public?

[Arrian]

I don't know. I'd love to have seen a straight answer to that from the neocons who soooo wanted this war (from back before the invasion).

I'm just arguing against the idea that a dictatorship is somehow "better" for some societies, not that spreading democracy in areas stuck in the middle ages is as easy as one-two-three.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, good. We can use the excuse of the Iranians meddling in Iraq as a pretext to bomb the **** out of them.

[Pekka]

I don't think the thread title is a fair assesment.

Me thinks we need more propaganda and less fighter jets.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Arrian
I don't know. I'd love to have seen a straight answer to that from the neocons who soooo wanted this war (from back before the invasion).

I'm just arguing against the idea that a dictatorship is somehow "better" for some societies, not that spreading democracy in areas stuck in the middle ages is as easy as one-two-three.

-Arrian

Well... "better" is the wrong word.

A dictatorship is not better... sort of....

Yes, it would be nice if they would just play nice, be tolerant, accept our values, and let some form of democracy take hold. But that's not going to happen.

To "bring democracy" to the Muslim world... you need to transform Islamic culture. Period. There are no if's, and's, or but's about it. You can't just go in and topple Saddam Hussein and say, "Okay Iraqi's! You guys vote... AND BE NICE!!! NO TERRORISM OKAY!!!"

Because that is not going to work... and you will end up with a situation WORSE than Saddam.

The only way to bring democracy to the Muslim world is to topple all of the regimes and radically transform the culture.

Because Islam and democracy (with things like free speech, equality, tolerance, etc) are just not compatible.

So if your goal is a state that is stable and is not a breeding ground for terrorism, then yes... a dictatorship is better than a democracy. Because if you just put a democratic system in place, the people in Iraq will just elect an Islamic government and boom... FUNDIE STATE. Which is worse than Saddam.

[Ted Striker]

We have to invade Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Imminent Threat of them being used!!!

"What do you mean there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq??? And we continue to produce our own new nuclear weapons too??"

K that's fine but Saddam is linked to Al Queda!!!

"What do you mean there are no ties to Al Queda and that Saddam hates them and has spent most his career oppressing fundamentalists anyway??"

Yeah but still Saddam is a bad guy he invaded countries and tortured people!!!

"What do you mean we illegally invaded a country and our own troops along with our sponsored government, the CIA, and our sponsored puppet government have a bad track record of torturing people AFTER Saddam was gone???"

K but still we are going to create a domino effect by establishing Iraq as a basis for democracy in the region!!!

"LOL what do you mean it's turning into a fundamentalist state!?!!"


SO ANYBODY WANNA TELL ME EXACTLY WHY THE F WE WERE SUPPOSED TO SEND OUR GUYS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE????

You know that whole 700 billion dollar and the whole world hates us now thing is cool though I'm fine with it no big deal kthnx.

[MichaeltheGreat]

George junior wanted to finally wanted to prove he was more of a man than his daddy.

[Arrian]

Because that is not going to work... and you will end up with a situation WORSE than Saddam.

This means, by definition, that Saddam (dictatorship) is BETTER.

And that's all I was really on about.

-Arrian

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
George junior wanted to finally wanted to prove he was more of a man than his daddy.

That's probably the sole reason and I can't come up with anything else.


Rumors have it that the two aren't on speaking terms now and Sr. is publicly rebuking Jr. through the press and some offhanded comments on the situation.


Bush is like the high school kid that got punked on but never got a chance to redeem himself so is constantly playing the role of tough guy out but chickens out right before he actually has to do anything daring himself, he'll just let other people do it for him.

[Spiffor]

I don't see how democracy and Muslim States are mutually exclusive.

Sure, it won't be a democracy in the meaning of the Anglo-liberal tradition (with broad individual freedoms and a protection from the state), but you can very well have a Muslim regime that rests on the population's support, and where there is the rule of (Ilsamic) law.

IMO, the democratic rise to power of the fundies is not so much a bad thing, if they are serious with continuing free elections in the long run. For decades now, the Arab world had been plagued with leaders who could do nothing but blame the western devils on the problems of the land.

I see Muslim fundamentalism as a reactionary movement, obviously, but it is also a movement that is trying to look for the Arab's inner strength. Some time of Muslim fundamentalism can well be what the Arabs need to change their minds, and believe that they are the only ones who can lift themselves over their poverty and irrelevance.

That would pave the way of actual progressism, once fundamentalism's abysmal failure is consumed.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

you have to have a leader acceptable to all units within the country to lead it from tribalism/dictatorship into democracy, and that can happen, but surely it cannot happen the way Bush envisaged it. The last time this could have happened was after GW1 when the world let Shia down and Saddam slaughtered them afterwards.

Next time would have been after Saddams death perhaps, but we are not going to vitness that now are we?