what is your views about the war in iraq

[Zaralius]

Lancer125

Zephyrus Winds

well... by seeing the other post i voted unfair, but i dont realy know why Iraq is being attcked (i dont realy listen to the news or read newspapers) someone fill me in.

Well basically we attacked Iraq to overthrown Saddam Husein and make the country democratic. Well it turns out that the Muslim religious groups in the country were only behaving because Hussein didn't give them a choice so they started killing us. Thats about as simply as i can put it though it is more complicated then that.

Ohhh ok thanks  

[Toshiro_Li]

Of course. I believe educating the masses is very important.  

[Cr4z3y_3r1C]

I think its unfair, too many people are dying and it has to stop.  

[Toshiro_Li]

Yea but we cant leave. It would be irresponsible and we've been irresponsible enough with everything we've done so far.  

[Iconised Ghost]

how would iti be irresponsible?  

[Toshiro_Li]

Since we already destabilized their original government (which worked even though it was a dictatorship) and placed our own government in place of it we need to make sure that this new democracy can stand on its own. But it cant right now. If we leave more people will die. Therefore irresponsible.  

[Iconised Ghost]

More people are dying everyday that the foreign troops stay there, so people are going to be dying anyway. If they were to move out, at least it wouldnt be the troops dying i guess
Why leave it as a democracy? Why not reinstate the dictatorship?  

[Officer Hot-Pants]

Let's take a more...historical look at the situation. Does anybody here REALLY believe that in ten or even a hundred years time we'll be able to change the hearts, minds, and beliefs of people who's individual clans, tribes or what have you have lived soley to kill all the other clans, tribes, or what have you for the last 6000+ years? We can, indeed make the region safe so long as we maintain a large presence, but give it about 30sec. after the majority of our forces leave, and it'll be like it was before we went over there and has been over there for so many millenia. If we REALLY want to do something for the good-hearted persons in their midst, we should get those who want to leave that hell-hole of a sand dune a ticket outta there.

I mean, look at the Sunis and Shi'ites. Why have they been slaughtering each other for a few thousand years now? Because one group thinks one guy should have inherited leadership of their religion, while the other believes that there guy should have recieved it. Let's think about this now; is that not the mindset of a 3-year-old child that doesn't get it's way? Can we really have much hope for nations of people who nearly as far back as recorded history goes have been engaged in a deathmatch version of "but I want it!!!! NOT FAIR!!!"? Imagine if we started mass-murdering the opposition every time an elected official we didn't like was elected to office over our own guy. Anarchy is not capable of describing what we'd fall into. We'd end up with thrice as many states as we have now, only they'd all be at war with each other.

And of course for those of you with Christian or (I believe but can not say for certain) Jewish religious beliefs there's the whole thing about prophecy saying that that part of the world will not know piece until AFTER the end of the current, sinful world. But you don't really need the religious aspect to see it; the religious aspect just solidifies the idea in the minds of the believers of those particular religions...  

[Officer Hot-Pants]

Iconised Ghost

More people are dying everyday that the foreign troops stay there, so people are going to be dying anyway. If they were to move out, at least it wouldnt be the troops dying i guess
Why leave it as a democracy? Why not reinstate the dictatorship?

Another good point. As much as I hate the idea, the fact is that when people will not be ruled by reason, only fear can make them keep as civilized a manner as can ever be expected of them. Saddam may have been a horrible monster whom actually enjoyed torturing people (nevermind his OWN people), but let's face it; as horrible as it sounds, THAT is the only kind of person they'll ever obey.  

[Iconised Ghost]

I disagree, im not saying that they should be ruled by a torturous dictator like Saddam. Im simply suggesting that dictatorships seem to work better than democracy, so perhaps they should go back to that. It doesnt have to be a murderous torturer as the dictator. just like in south korea how communism works for them (well, for the most part i suppose), when it has failed else where, dictatorship may work in Iraq  

[Officer Hot-Pants]

Oh I'm all for the a better approach when it's realistic, I'm just saying I'm really not so sure they would ever allow themselves to be ruled by anything less than some sort of warlord. There are of course plenty of good people over there, but the less than nice population of the region more than outweighs them. That is why I say we would be far better swerved to aid those wishing to leave that place than trying to establish a long-lasting peace. There are just too many actively working against such a thing.  

[Toshiro_Li]

A dictatorship is not necessarily a bad form of government. It worked very well in Iraq. A democracy is an advanced form of government and it can not be forced on someone.  

[Iconised Ghost]

An advanced form? I would say different, not necessarily advanced.

As for the "less than nice population of the region"- that's a gross overgeneralisation and quite insulting I would think to a lot of people in Iraq. I have met a lot of Iraqis and they have all been wonderful, nice, tolerant people  

[Officer Hot-Pants]

yes but even if it's a lower NUMBER of people stirring it up, they're the one's who're heavily armed; the average civilian isn't. In fact Saddam made it a point to be sure that the civilian populace was not armed. Five guys with AK-47s are easily more than a match for 50 guys with fists and knives.

And it's true; a dictatorship can indeed work. In truth, most human systems of government in theory should work perfectly. Look at Russia; though they had plenty of problems when they were a communist nation, converting to a democratic system almost destroyed them. In a land where space, food, and resources are already quite limited, you will not always be able to support yourself the way our nation does. The problem is that the most perfect plan is still highly suceptible to imperfect humans. That's why I prefer a democratic republic like our. (other than the fact that I've grown up in it, which is an obvious contributor). You see, if a corrupt dictator gains power, what can you do against him? ALL the nations resources are his to command. In this country, however, our founders had the forsight to realize that only by ensuring the nations power could never be held by one person, and thusly we are more able to make changes when something we don't like comes along. Now it's true that we have plenty of problems, not the least of which is that our elected representitives are increasingly deaf to their constituentcy's voices, but we can still take actions to rectify situations we simply do not like.

Basically, no system is perfect. As such you must take into account all contributing factors when deciding how your nation must be run to ensure it's survival. Democratic rule will not ALWAYS be the right approach. However, I'll admit I think it usually will be. Perhaps not so fully a democratic republic as our, but something akin to it.  

[Iconised Ghost]

yes in theory communism is pretty much perfect. Its all comes down to human imperfections as you say 3nodding I corrupt dictator is only as good as the people that follow them. So if the whole country (and I mean everyone) refused to follow said corrupt dictator, then you could change things. Of course, this is again something that is perfect in theory and has never happened in reality (at least I cant think of an example where this has happened. Germany's dictator was overthrown eventually, but this wasnt because the whole country refused to follow him)