Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 53967	2005-02-01 03:57:00	Hooray for Democracy in Iraq!	vinref (6194)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
320246	2005-02-01 20:59:00	And you think the world will be a better place all because of democracy in Iraq? Tell you what, why dont we just go and take over the world . Presumably North Korea, Sudan, the rest of the middle East and many other places will be next on the hitlist . Well . . . . . yes . "Democracy is the worst system - except for all the others" - Winston Churchill . Actually the easiest political system is benign dictatorship - which we have at school under a principal . But if the principal is not up to the job, then everyone suffers . Clumsy and frustrating as it is, one man - one vote democracy is at this time in our evolution the most fair solution . Much better that it be brought to people peaceably - as happened with the fall of the Iron Curtain . But unfortunately when certain people (such as Saddam and Kim Jong Il) control the police, military, and the chequebook, they aren't too keen on open democracy . So, I've come to the rather reactionary view that we (wealthy democracies) have to intervene . The cause is simple humanity . We cannot stand by and watch other human beings starve, be imprisoned, or brutally repressed . We don't allow it within our own communities . We protect the weak . It is nonsense to say that because there is a line drawn on a map, humans on one side are safe, but on the other side can be treated with cruelty . What logic can possibly support such a view? Yet this is exactly the view many of us have about Iraq, Rawanda, Tibet etc . These people don't look like us, live far away, smell funny, and have odd gods, so why should we care what happens? Because they are human beings . They have the same desires and aspirations as the rest of us . And they deserve to be treated with dignity and have an equal chance at a safe, happy life .	Winston001 (3612)
320247	2005-02-02 01:57:00	Despite castigation of Aljazeera TV by Donald Rumsfeld because it doesn't follow the Bush doctrines, and because it has shown Al Qaeda videos, the Aljazeera website has in my opinion always presented fair news about the Arab World in an even handed way. It is worth looking at. Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net)	Terry Porritt (14)
320248	2005-02-02 03:55:00	...They have the same desires and aspirations as the rest of us... I don't think that this is necessarily true. We assume that the rest of the world wants to live like we do. We disagree with their political systems and their apparent disregard for human rights. So we inflict our way of life (eg democracy) upon them. I can't help get the impression that this is the cause of alot of friction and resentment in the world and that we'd all be better off by leaving things be. If anything, the war in Iraq has just driven the recruitment of thousands more little "Osamas". I'll never forget the images of Iraqis celebrating and dancing in the streets after 9/11 happened. Some of you make references to WWII. That was a completely different situation. We were under threat and we had to fight for our survival. Remember that the US only stepped in after Pearl Harbour. I may be cynical but I honestly don't believe the invasion of Iraq was done for a good cause and for the benefit of humanity. The whole "War on Terror" and "liberation" thing is just a smokescreen for political gain and power. "The cause is simple humanity. We cannot stand by and watch other human beings starve, be imprisoned, or brutally repressed. We don't allow it within our own communities. We protect the weak." Well we have alot of suffering in our own society and I believe the money spent on this war in Iraq would have been better spent on matters at home or for other causes around the world. Not spent to go and kill a load more people. Compare how much money the US donated to the Tsunami cause with how much they are spending in Iraq per day. There is quite a discrepancy here. If they really wanted to save a load more lives then they could probably feed and educate the whole of Africa with the money squandered on military operations.	manicminer (4219)
320249	2005-02-02 04:09:00	Furthermore, I think you could probably feed and educate the whole of Africa with the loot squirrelled away by certain African rulers.....	TonyF (246)
320250	2005-02-02 04:29:00	Furthermore, I think you could probably feed and educate the whole of Africa with the loot squirrelled away by certain African rulers.....They keep e-mailing me trying to get rid of it.	ninja (1671)
320251	2005-02-02 04:45:00	The problem with a repressive government, is that those who are be repressed want to get out, and they end up trying to get into western countries that have to spend money a. looking after them until they can find there own feet. b. Spend more money trying to keep the ones out that try to get in illegally (eg the Ahmid Zaoui feasco). c. The risks of social upheaval (the French problems with the Muslim school dress and our own with the question of wearing veils in court). The list goes on and it is money that the tax payer would not have had to spend if people did not fear for there lives in there own country. How many people from a democratic country have fled (from other than the long arm of the law) to another country and applied for refugee status. It all comes down to money. In the end, it may have been cheaper to go to war in Iraq than spend money dealing with the consequences of not.	craigb (4884)
320252	2005-02-02 05:21:00	I don't think that this is necessarily true. We assume that the rest of the world wants to live like we do. We disagree with their political systems and their apparent disregard for human rights. So we inflict our way of life (eg democracy) upon them. Democracy seems to be the most reliable way to guarantee the freedoms of individuals, especially freedom from murder, rape, torture, exile and arbitrary justice. And yes, I do assume that the rest of the world want these freedoms as well. I can't help get the impression that this is the cause of alot of friction and resentment in the world and that we'd all be better off by leaving things be. If anything, the war in Iraq has just driven the recruitment of thousands more little "Osamas". I'll never forget the images of Iraqis celebrating and dancing in the streets after 9/11 happened. You have the wrong-ish impression. Yes, there is friction when trying to introduce democracy into places that did not have it before. But the friction is caused by those few who stand to lose power, wealth and influence in a democratic process, and not the vast majority of ordinary people who stand to gain their freedom from dictatorships, theocracies, oligarchies etc. Surely, this is not a reason to withold democracy, is it? Some of you make references to WWII. That was a completely different situation. We were under threat and we had to fight for our survival. Remember that the US only stepped in after Pearl Harbour. A bit of history: The Japanese Imperial forces bombed Pearl Harbour because they correctly assumed that the Americans would step in to halt their expansion in South East Asia and Oceania. The Americans would not have tolerated Australia, and NZ, under Japanese rule. Also, a large amount of Churchill's personal diaries have been released. They tell an interesting story about the roles of/his plans for the Americans, the Australians, and the New Zealanders during WWII. I may be cynical but I honestly don't believe the invasion of Iraq was done for a good cause and for the benefit of humanity. The whole "War on Terror" and "liberation" thing is just a smokescreen for political gain and power. Maybe, but wouldn't democracy be the worst process to acquire "political gain and power"? A dictatorship, theocracy or a oligarchy would be much more suitable.	vinref (6194)
320253	2005-02-02 05:44:00	Maybe, but wouldn't democracy be the worst process to acquire "political gain and power"? A dictatorship, theocracy or a oligarchy would be much more suitable. Oh I don't know about that. The most powerful man in the world (Bush) is the head of a democracy. With a democratic system generally being far more stable, Bush has guaranteed power for at least the next 4 years.	manicminer (4219)
320254	2005-02-02 05:51:00	Noble as it may seem, rescuing countries from, tyranny, themselves, etc, and democrasising them, is not as simple as the proponents of these schemes would have us believe, W for eg . . Rarely is the reason for stepping into another countries soveriegn territory anything to do with helping the people who live there . Rarely is it the end of the matter, once the smoke settles from the initial barrage, the troops might go home, some in body bags, but . . . . . . . . Rarely is the true cost calculated, or more properly, calculated for public consumption . What is Iraqs true cost in human and economic terms? The US and Britain have spent truck loads with the sums well advertised, but what is their return on this investment? Don't tell me the feel good factor, securing democracy, securing their own borders, rubbish . Who are the main beneficiaries (welllll, W got re-elected, that's one) Don't get me wrong, I'm no supporter of terrorists or tyrants, they deserve what they get and more . I do think however, there are more subtle ways of dealing with them, unfortunately, if you don't address the underlying problems there are plenty more to step in to carry on where the deposed/disposed/dispossessed left off . Democracy is not necessarily going to help cure anything . :2cents:	Murray P (44)
320255	2005-02-02 05:51:00	A bit of history: The Japanese Imperial forces bombed Pearl Harbour because they correctly assumed that the Americans would step in to halt their expansion in South East Asia and Oceania . A bit more history . In the early 1900s, an American strategist ( Homer Lea) deduced that Japan would become expansionist in the next 50 years, and in 1908 wrote a book in which he predicted that Japan would eventually have to defeat the US to achieve dominance in the Pacific . To do this he predicted that they would have to mount a surprise attack on Pearl harbour, followed by a fast march down to take Singapore . His book described how this would all be done (pre airpower, of course), but the book was largely ignored outside Japan ( where it became required reading in the military) . And in Germany, in the early 1920s, there was already strategic talk about future conflict . Germany would rule Europe, Japan would have beaten the US, and the stage would be set for the REAL WAR . Cheers Tony	TonyF (246)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11