Iraq does not need freedom!

[sweetnpetite]

I don't think that what Iraqi's need or want is necessarily democracy at all.

The biggest thing that *most* families would probably like over just about anything else, is for wars to stop taking place accros there living rooms.

Are we just going to use them as a 'base' to fight our wars in the middle east? Letting them live in a war zone while we are nice and safe over here where no bombs droping and no sirens wale?

I don't think it's oil. I think it's that they were assailable, and we didn't want them as an enimy on one front while fighting an enemy on the other. That's what bothers me, is that we're supposedly bringing them democracy when what they need is peace- not to become a military base/target.

 

[poohlive]

Come on.... the U.S. hasn't had a colony in over 50 years. We need to start branching out, expanding. We're getting crowded over here. Iraq, in the next four years will turn into a huge shopping mall, and parking lot.

I think the problem is that most americans think of Iraq as one country, which isn't true. It was at one time several small city states, with several different cultures, and it got bundled into a country during World War 2.

America has this naive concoction that Iraqi's want to be one country. They don't, and the fact that we're forcing them is just as bad as when Saddam was forcing them to stay united. The only difference is, if someone pissed off Saddam, he went after you, your family, your friends, and made sure they were all either dead, or could no longer reproduce children.

Because of how "nice" we are, we can't be that mean, so now, all this hate and hostility which has been building up in Iraq since it was formed, is now being released, in great numbers and casualties.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think the problem is that most americans think of Iraq as one country, which isn't true. It was at one time several small city states, with several different cultures, and it got bundled into a country during World War 2.

I have a friend from Iraq. It's a Christian (Catholic) section and when he compares Islamic Iraq to where he used to live, he often times says 'but in my country....' They may both be Iraq but they are worlds apart.

PS- I'm not saying that freedom isn't good, it's just not necessarily what they need most. Freedom is something of a luxury. They'd be just fine if they where ruled by a king, if the king did right by them.

What they need is to not live in a warzone.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . They'd be just fine if they where ruled by a king, if the king did right by them.

I think they would be happy with a benevolent ANYTHING!

They did not like a despotically violent dictator, and now they dislike their lethal infestation of “democracy”.

Can you blame them?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We were talkinmg a while ago about the spectrum of government that goes from absolute freedom with no security on one end, to absolute security with no freedom at the other end. Total freedom is called anarchy. Total security is called repression. For most nations, the balance is somewhere in the middle.

If anything, the people in Iraq are suffering from too much freedom at present. I think they'd be willing to trade a big chunk of it for some peace and security on their own streets.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

the whole idea of 'freedom' needs to be looked at.

most Americans only think of it as 'no secret police' busting down your door, and--like wooly amicus-- no government 'hand in your pocket' (taxing). no one arresting you--until the last couple years--for yelling "George Bush is an asshole", or even wearing the T shirt "Re-defeat George Bush."

 

[amicus]

Wooly Amicus..shades of Jean Auel. I like that!


the wooly amicus...

 

[SummerMorning]

We were talkinmg a while ago about the spectrum of government that goes from absolute freedom with no security on one end, to absolute security with no freedom at the other end. Total freedom is called anarchy. Total security is called repression. For most nations, the balance is somewhere in the middle.

If anything, the people in Iraq are suffering from too much freedom at present. I think they'd be willing to trade a big chunk of it for some peace and security on their own streets.

---dr.M.

Can you say security dilemma?

 

[Wildcard Ky]

The title of this thread is laughable.

Iraq DOES NOT NEED freedom.

Who are you to decided who does and doesn't need freedom? Are you trying to say that there are people in this world that don't deserve freedom? IMO the ONLY people that don't DESERVE freedom are people that have forfeited their right to freedom, such as criminals.

Freedom comes in varying degrees, yet freedom is the very cornerstone of humanity. Other than survival, the struggle for freedom is the oldest struggle known to humanity. People want to be free to choose how they live their lives. They want to be free from tyranny, fear, repression, slavery, etc.

Everyone wants freedom, everyone deserves freedom. Every country that has freedom has had to fight for it in their history. Iraq is now undergoing that same struggle. For you to say that Iraq doesn't want or deserve freedom is you appointing yourself to some form of judgeship, and denying the most basic of human rights that you enjoy. Are you better than the average Iraqi? Do you deserve more rights than they do? What have you done to make you deserve your freedom versus the average Iraqi that you think doesn't want or deserve freedom?

 

[amicus]

Well said, Wildcard! Well said!


amicus...

 

[Edward Teach]

Irony

Well said, Wildcard! Well said!


amicus...

For writers, you have a tough time recognizing irony, don't you boys.

Edward The Vigilant

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Some good points here. Consider this: Where did Iraq start out in this scenario? Was it better off with Saddam in power?
The Kurds sure as hell weren't, and they've been taking advantage of this situation to the best of thier abilities.
In my viewpoint, as far as Iraq and its people are concerned, thier making out fairly well in this deal. A dictator who cared nothing for them is out of power, and democracy, whether they're in a hurry for it or not, is on the way. And they really don't need to unite those areas that differe from one another. Aparteid may not be a great situation, but whose to say it won't work wonders there? Maybe keeping thsoe people separated will make them happy, then make things easier for a governing body to keep things in order.
Even if it wasn't for thier exact purposes, but its a means to an end, and that's more important, and if we're using it as a base, sobeit. How much security can they need than to have American based there, protecting it from outside invaders as though it were part of America? Might not be a heartfelt effort, but protection is protection, y'know?
I wouldn't complain if it kept my ass safe that the cops set up a station down the street for other reasons than to watch my house. Safe is safe. Shit can still happen, but it's a good bit less likely to.
What the Iraqis need is to chill the fuck out and let things progress more smoothly.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... What the Iraqis need is to chill the fuck out and let things progress more smoothly.

Yeah!

You're gonna be democratized.

Lay back and enjoy it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Yeah!

You're gonna be democratized.

Lay back and enjoy it.

Yep. And why the hell not? The glass'll always be half-empty, everyone's is. No matter what choices you make, there's backlash. you lose a forced dictator, you gain a forced democracy. But in democracy, forced or not, you can vote, you can decide. If you're choices are democracy or... well, democracy, fighting is pointless. All it costs is lives, and that does no good.
"Work with us, people. It'll all be over in a few minutes. You can learn to govern yourselves and get on with your lives."

 

[Pure]

It's odd that no one's commented on how the title refers to 'freedom' and its not being necessary, but SnP in the first posting *talks* entirely about _democracy_.

Is democracy the only way to freedom?

*Which* democracy-- as currently practiced in the US? as practiced at founding?

Is the US constitution, or something pretty close to it, the only possible one for a democratic country.?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There's a good chance that Iraq would elect to have an Iranian-style Islamic republic in a free election, run essentially by mullahs.

Would we let them?

---dr.M.

 

[snooper]

... But in democracy, forced or not, you can vote, you can decide. ...

As shown in many African states - one man, one vote, once then the elected leader changes it to a one party state and you can have as many elections as you like - ask any Zimbabwean. It reminds me of the USSR a few years ago, and Germany before that.

Come to that it seems that Bliar is trying to achieve that in the UK at the moment.

There's a good chance that Iraq would elect to have an Iranian-style Islamic republic in a free election, run essentially by mullahs.

Would we let them?

There you have it. When is the next Gulf War going to start, to free Iran (or in a year or two Iraq) from a repressive religious government?

 

[Pure]

snooper,

while I don't deny the phoniness of some 'one party' systems, I don't think they are inherently lacking in freedom as in the Soviet Union in the 1930s.

examples would be Kenya, and India, in the first decade after independence.

one factor it depends on, is the extent to which the party takes account of people's wishes, e.g., has local officials that arent' corrupt, but act in the people's interests. so to say, democracy may be occurring *within* the party.

 

[Pure]

snooper asked (rhetorically?)

When is the next Gulf War going to start, to free Iran (or in a year or two Iraq) from a repressive religious government?

It's unclear whether the present US policy--topple those governments which are unfriendly and repressive, and sitting on large supplies of oil-- can continue on a broad scale, with such chutzpah; opening a second 'front', now, would seem unwise.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There's a good chance that Iraq would elect to have an Iranian-style Islamic republic in a free election, run essentially by mullahs.

Would we let them?

---dr.M.

We should. But, I doubt we would.

 

[fogbank]

Freedom comes in varying degrees, yet freedom is the very cornerstone of humanity. Other than survival, the struggle for freedom is the oldest struggle known to humanity. People want to be free to choose how they live their lives. They want to be free from tyranny, fear, repression, slavery, etc.

Freedom as a cornerstone of humanity? Freedom (I prefer a less politically-loaded term: self-determination) as we know it and as you refer to it wasn't a widely accepted idea until the last few centuries. I'd say it's certainly in vogue right now, but it can hardly be said to be a cornerstone of society--the bulk of social structures in 'primitive' societies are based around some form of oligarchy, whether it be traditional monarchy, plutocracy or theocracy. At least as equal as a desire to be free in human history, there is a desire to rule, which goes against self-determination. Shockingly, the bulk of these oligarchies--even the corrupt ones--provided a level of security that the individuals would not have been able to achieve otherwise.
If you put self-determination on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (a flawed model at times, but useful nonetheless), it can be argued to fit into either of the top two levels: self-esteem or self-actualization. The vast majority of uprisings throughout human history have been more about concerns of physiology and safety. I'd argue that self-determination is a cornerstone of modern western civilization, but to make a similar generalization about all of humanity would be grossly inaccurate.

 

[Pure]

good points, not foggy at all

 

[sweetnpetite]

It's odd that no one's commented on how the title refers to 'freedom' and its not being necessary, but SnP in the first posting *talks* entirely about _democracy_.

Is democracy the only way to freedom?

*Which* democracy-- as currently practiced in the US? as practiced at founding?

Is the US constitution, or something pretty close to it, the only possible one for a democratic country.?

Because at the time I wrote it I was thinking about the way the average American thinks about freedom and domocracy basicly being one and the same. (I started a separate thread about this) When our government says they/we are bringing 'freedom' to Iraq, I'm pretty sure that is what they are talking about- domacracy and our brand of it.

More on this in a moment.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The title of this thread is laughable.

Iraq DOES NOT NEED freedom.

Who are you to decided who does and doesn't need freedom? Are you trying to say that there are people in this world that don't deserve freedom?

Freedom comes in varying degrees, yet freedom is the very cornerstone of humanity. Other than survival, the struggle for freedom is the oldest struggle known to humanity. People want to be free to choose how they live their lives. They want to be free from tyranny, fear, repression, slavery, etc.

Everyone wants freedom, everyone deserves freedom. Every country that has freedom has had to fight for it in their history. Iraq is now undergoing that same struggle. For you to say that Iraq doesn't want or deserve freedom is you appointing yourself to some form of judgeship, and denying the most basic of human rights that you enjoy. Are you better than the average Iraqi? Do you deserve more rights than they do? What have you done to make you deserve your freedom versus the average Iraqi that you think doesn't want or deserve freedom?

The title of the thread was meant to be provocative, and to get attention- now read the entire post. What I actually said was that setting up a specific type of government is not their most pressing need.

I never said that anyone didn't diserve freedom, or diserved it less than anyone else. What I tried to point out was that if I where a mother in Iraq I would not care very much about political systems, constitutions, bills of rights, elections, or anything like this. Freedom to express my opinion would certainly seem like a luxury when my main consern is 'will my home get bombed today?' 'will my children come home alive?' 'Will I have clean water, heat, food, clothing?'

Hell, yes the Iraqi's need freedom. They need freedom from war being fought accross there homeland. Wars fought by governments, factions, religions and individuals. Whoever. We sit saftely at home, war is 'over there' to us. You enlist, you go to war. War for them is life. They don't have to enlist, war comes to them. they haven't had much in the way of peace for a very long time. they don't need a 'hero' to rescue them and set up for more war against their neighbors. (which I sort of fear we are gearing up to do)

I am sure that they want and need and deserve freedom. i doubt very much that they give to figs about democracy.