Does Iraq realy "want" a Democracy?

from JoeUser Forums
According to this piece from the WSJ it sounds like they "really" don't want a democracy. Just maybe we should leave them to their own devices.

Mr. Nasr uses this history to explain why Iraq's Shia so eagerly embraced the fall of Saddam Hussein. Whereas the Americans saw regime change in Iraq as a harbinger of democracy, Iraq's Shia viewed it primarily as the end to centuries of Sunni domination. And Saddam's fall inevitably stirred hopes for a Shia revival elsewhere. The mantra "one man, one vote" has reverberated among the politically marginalized Shia of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Lebanon, where Hezbollah's TV station has recited democracy's shibboleths as part of its own campaign to win a larger political role.

Link
politics
13,580 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
bump
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I think is happening is that terrrorist are using reverse psycology on the US. They "embrace" democracy with the idea that the Arab people get to chose who to vote in rather than have a dictator but then they chose to vote in these terrorist groups as a thorn in the US side. After all, they are legitimate since we gave them the chance or helped them get the chance to vote in a Democracy. I think we are really wasting our time in the Middle East completely. To hell with all them Arab countries, we should just let them be.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fuck em doc,let them slaughter eachother.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes the Bush adventure did not work out like he thought and the American people were told. It only cost America over 2,650 lives, 35,000 injuries and hundreds of billions of dollars to see what a mess Bush made of this area. He should be impeached for killing our military and wasting our tax dollars.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".


I dont see where Doc has called for a cut and run. Perhaps you can quote that part for me?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
if it were up to davad and colgangrene, we would be french, run, hide, pretend terrorists are not really trying to kill us.

cowards!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
we would be french


And dead. Do you think the 'French' would bail us out?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I dont see where Doc has called for a cut and run. Perhaps you can quote that part for me?


I didn't say he called for a cut and run. Like I said, it's never called cut and run when it's coming from a conservative. When it comes from a conservative, it sounds like this;

Just maybe we should leave them to their own devices.


if it were up to davad and colgangrene, we would be french, run, hide, pretend terrorists are not really trying to kill us.

cowards!


I've never advocated any such position or thought, and would love to see you show me where in all my time on JU or in the real world, where I have ever done anything "cowardly".

If I was a coward, I would ban you from my threads like you did me, just for disagreeing with you.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is the same thing

"Just maybe we should leave them to their own devices"

That sounds like CUT AND RUN TO ME
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've never advocated any such position or thought, and would love to see you show me where in all my time on JU or in the real world, where I have ever done anything "cowardly".


I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".


You indicated he was calling for it. With that post. I challenged you to show me where he called for it. left to their own devices, means after the job is done, they will decide on their own. I guess one would assume, given their perspective, that it is CUT and RUN. But then they have to be pre-disposed to that viewpoint coming into the discussion before they could come to that conclusion.

And the rest of your post I gather is aimed at another as I have never said you were a coward. A lot of other things, but I dont recall coward being one of them
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leaving Iraq is not Cut and Run. We have deposed Saddam and our staying in Iraq is NOT making it more stable. Thus what we can accomplish has come to an end. All that happens is we loose troops and spend money to see the violence get worse. The Iraqi people must settle the disputes between the factions which may only be possible via a civil war.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
You indicated he was calling for it. With that post. I challenged you to show me where he called for it. left to their own devices, means after the job is done, they will decide on their own. I guess one would assume, given their perspective, that it is CUT and RUN.


It certainly didn't sound like he meant "after the job is done", but I guess only he knows that for sure. Or do you guys have a conservative mind meld thing going on that allows you to interpret his intention.

If he did in fact, mean "after the job is done", what would even be the point of the article? It's always been the conservative position that we remain there until the job is done. So if the intent is to maintain the status-quo,then why even bring in the statement "leave them to their own devices"?

And the rest of your post I gather is aimed at another as I have never said you were a coward. A lot of other things, but I dont recall coward being one of them


I was quite obviously directing that to the person that I quoted, who called me a coward.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

#10 by COL Gene
Tue, August 22, 2006 6:12 PM


This is the same thing

"Just maybe we should leave them to their own devices"

That sounds like CUT AND RUN TO ME


Make up your mind, idiot!


#12 by COL Gene
Tue, August 22, 2006 9:16 PM


Leaving Iraq is not Cut and Run. We have deposed Saddam and our staying in Iraq is NOT making it more stable. Thus what we can accomplish has come to an end. All that happens is we loose troops and spend money to see the violence get worse. The Iraqi people must settle the disputes between the factions which may only be possible via a civil war.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".


And just an FYI....I have never said Murtha was a coward. I called him a "traitor"!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".


Call it what you want. I don't see it as cut and run. We disposed of Saddam and his regime, we helped them elect a new government. This is what we set out to do. I see it as "Mission Acomplished"! But I'm not talking about just pulling the troops. I'm talking the "whole" 9 yards. Troops, equipment and funds. They don't want us there and they don't want a democracy, they don't want the money to help rebuild? Then "screw em", let them clean their own closet.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Post # 10 was my comment on what was said in another post. For me, post # 12, I do not consider leaving Iraq CUT AND RUN. We completed the job of removing Saddam. We did not invade Iraq to Nation Build or to settle disputes between the factions that have been at odds with each other since Iraq was formed!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Post # 10 was my comment on what was said in another post. For me, post # 12, I do not consider leaving Iraq CUT AND RUN. We completed the job of removing Saddam. We did not invade Iraq to Nation Build or to settle disputes between the factions that have been at odds with each other since Iraq was formed!


Bullsh*t col!!! Don't be such a chicken-sh*t! post number #10 was a "direct" response to what I originaly posted. The high-lighted portion of the below statement is a direct cut and paste from my comments.


#10 by COL Gene
Tue, August 22, 2006 6:12 PM



This is the same thing

"Just maybe we should leave them to their own devices"

That sounds like CUT AND RUN TO
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I almost forgot. While we're at it...put Saddam to death!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Call it what you want. I don't see it as cut and run. We disposed of Saddam and his regime, we helped them elect a new government. This is what we set out to do. I see it as "Mission Acomplished"! But I'm not talking about just pulling the troops. I'm talking the "whole" 9 yards. Troops, equipment and funds. They don't want us there and they don't want a democracy, they don't want the money to help rebuild? Then "screw em", let them clean their own closet.


I rest my case.

I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Call it what you want. I don't see it as cut and run. We disposed of Saddam and his regime, we helped them elect a new government. This is what we set out to do. I see it as "Mission Acomplished"! But I'm not talking about just pulling the troops. I'm talking the "whole" 9 yards. Troops, equipment and funds. They don't want us there and they don't want a democracy, they don't want the money to help rebuild? Then "screw em", let them clean their own closet.


I rest my case.

I find it endlessly amusing to see so many people who called people like Murtha cowards for advocating a "Cut and Run" position are now close to advocating the very same thing. Although, when conservatives adopt this line of thinkin, it's never called "Cut and Run".


You don't have a case. Reread the first 5 sentences of my reply. I don't see how you can call acomplishing what we set out to do in the first place, cut and run.

Call it what you want. I don't see it as cut and run. We disposed of Saddam and his regime, we helped them elect a new government. This is what we set out to do. I see it as "Mission Acomplished"!
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought cute and run meant that we are to scared to finish what we started, that the enemy is too powerful for us to manage. What I see in Iraq is not an enemy we can not handle, it's a population we believed could do better without Saddam but instead would rather let them be what they are today so they can solve their own problems. To believe that we should just let them take over from here on and let them be is not cut and run. We did what we could and they do not wish our help anymore, we should not force them to except our help.

Maybe a civil war is possible, maybe a civil war is necessary. We may not think that death is the best way to solve problems but who are we to tell them that. If they want a better life and are willing to die for it, in a civil war like the one fought in the US once upon a time, then so be it. I therefore see it unnecessary for us to be there any longer, but in the case that we created yet another enemy then we should leave them with the warning that next time around we won't hold back and do our best to show them we are serious.

Murtha's idea was for us to admit that we couldn't handle it and we should just leave them to their own demise. Kinda like when you are helping someone and when the going gets tough you leave them on their own cause it was too much for you. Kinda cowardly and immoral to leave a half job.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

Post # 10 was my comment on what was said in another post. For me, post # 12, I do not consider leaving Iraq CUT AND RUN. We completed the job of removing Saddam. We did not invade Iraq to Nation Build or to settle disputes between the factions that have been at odds with each other since Iraq was formed!


Don't be so stupid Col, you screwed up and now there is no way to fix it. You finally proved your stupidity today. Moron. Next time, before you try to post just to spite, read you post before you click submit, actually don't that way you can keep being the idot you are.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't have a case. Reread the first 5 sentences of my reply. I don't see how you can call acomplishing what we set out to do in the first place, cut and run.


What exactly have we "accomplished" there that we hadn't a few months ago when everyone was blasting democrats for wanting to get out? Are you blind? Have you not noticed that things are getting worse? IED attacks are steadily rising, 110 civilians die there every day. Does that sound like we've established a stable and secure Iraq?


Murtha's idea was for us to admit that we couldn't handle it and we should just leave them to their own demise. Kinda like when you are helping someone and when the going gets tough you leave them on their own cause it was too much for you. Kinda cowardly and immoral to leave a half job.


I'd love to see you offer up a quote from Murtha that says that "we couldn't handle it".