What is this war all about ??

I do think that countries can work without democracy, and obviously there are many styles of republics and democracies. However, I do not think democracy is the problem itself.

The problem is that successful democratic revolutions needs two things (I am sure there are others too), There needs to be certain amount of public support, and there need to be strong responsible leaders.

It is difficult to know if a foreign country has enough popular support for revolution. Enough individuals have to be willing to put their life styles, families, and lives on the line. Even with the insurgency I am not sure this is a problem in Iraq.

Now the second part, responsible, charismatic leaders are impossible to predict. During and after our own (American) revolution we had leaders, particularly Washington, who were able to put personal power aside in order to secure the countries future. We simply cannot know if the proper people will step up to the plate in Iraq. Unfortunately it is much more common for a dictator to rise to power, than it is for a George Washington ( a man who refused to keep power after two terms as president).

If Iraq is lucky enough to develop good leadership it will still be a long road to a stable country. It is possible that the new government will fulfill this roll. However the risk we took going into Iraq was a great one. To make the war worth while the reward will have to be equally great.

I hope the country stabilizes and that it dose become a beacon of democracy, but even if it does it may not encourage Muslims to reject the radical Islamic ideas that spawn terrorism. For that we may have to take some non-military approaches.
 
Many people believed before the war that Sadaam husain was a necessary evil, the only man who could control such a volitile population in a large country. I'm not sure i agree given his track record, but i have given it some thought.
 
Many people believed before the war that Sadaam husain was a necessary evil, the only man who could control such a volitile population in a large country. I'm not sure i agree given his track record, but i have given it some thought.
I guess that's saying a dictator that gasses his own people, actually used 'human shredding machines', executed those that opposed his views, etc., attacked every bordering country, is needed with that kind of population.

I'm a bit confused on that outlook - or is that really how 'they' want to live?
I'll guess that's not how the majority would choose to live their lives.


______
 
I think it was an article written in our daily times over here. Can't remeber too much about it though. What i can say is that it cetainly appears the gulf is less stable with him gone, take from that what you will

I certainly dont condone his actions, just commented it was fuel for thought
 
Saddam was/is a bad guy, but unfortunately we cannot guarantee that Iraq will become a safe country. Foreign actions could make the world a better place, but they could also do more harm than good.
 
Look at Russia. It's democratic now, but millions of Russians say things were better under Stalin. He was probably the worst dictator ever. If that's not a reflection of how bad imposing democracy on an unprepared poulation can be, I don't know what is.
 
The first hour of the Diane Rehm show had a interesting discussion about what we should do in Iraq. She had guest with different perspectives. One guest advocates pulling out and another advocates bring in more troops. If anyone is interested they should check it out.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/
 
I don't like this thread much. I am in the military and my fish and forums like this are one of my only refuges from all of this.
 
AquariaCentral.com