Welcome to Gaia! ::

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

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

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.

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...

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

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.

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.