So is this the "Turning Point" in Iraq?
- Thread starter joe1347
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iraq issues iraq politics
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Sure it s a turning point. Iraq just went from being a squalid, anarchic, hellhole to simply being a squalid hellhole. Any fool can see that's quite an improvement.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
Could someone explain how the formation of a new government in Iraq is a guarantee of peace or is a hedge against increases in violence in their largest city?
It also seems that violence has been an epidemic in Iraq for quite a few years, extending far back beyond the US invasion. How do the deaths of Iraqi civilians under Saddam compare to now, other than the fact that the murders are sectarian in nature rather than government sanctioned?
Oh, and hi folks. Obviously I'm new here. I'd like to state from the outset that I'm a registered Independent and never voted for Bush. In fact, I truly despise the guy. However, as in most internet forums, the discussion over Iraq often seems couched in terms of non-sequiturs and red herrings, and frequently appear to be driven by appeals to emotion. I was hoping this forum would be a bit different since there seems to be so many level-headed and logical people here.
Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?
It also seems that violence has been an epidemic in Iraq for quite a few years, extending far back beyond the US invasion. How do the deaths of Iraqi civilians under Saddam compare to now, other than the fact that the murders are sectarian in nature rather than government sanctioned?
Oh, and hi folks. Obviously I'm new here. I'd like to state from the outset that I'm a registered Independent and never voted for Bush. In fact, I truly despise the guy. However, as in most internet forums, the discussion over Iraq often seems couched in terms of non-sequiturs and red herrings, and frequently appear to be driven by appeals to emotion. I was hoping this forum would be a bit different since there seems to be so many level-headed and logical people here.
Is it possible to discuss Iraq without some of the shoddier characteristics of debate creeping in?
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Sure it's possible. It's about as likely as Ed McMahon showing up at your door with a million dollar check and a pony, though. Sadly, skeptics seems as prone to losing it over politics as the rest of the population.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Welcome, Apollyon.
Yes, there is a good bit of reasoned debate here, but you do have to search for it. Since it is an open forum, you cannot keep what I shall euphamistically call "non-moderate views" from creeping in. You can, of course, find those non-moderates and use the "ignore" function to weed the screed, but I don't like doing that. I find that almost every poster has something interesting to say on occassion.
A few of my favorite political posters (of various persuasions and in no particular order) are Athon, Ziggurat (as long as you don't get his dander up), Luke T, Skeptigirl, Eos of the Eons, Peptoabysmal, Earthborn, Davefoc, Mycroft, Headscratcher4 (master of esoterica), and Darat. I'm sure I've missed some, so no poison pen letters from the rest of you rabble, please.
But it is kind of funny that although we are mostly skeptics here, we tend to have strong and unshakable views on politics. It is by far the most eclectic of the various forums here.
Stick around, give us a chance, and try to see past the bluster. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Yeah. The government that another country established for them was what they were rebelling against.
I suppose the government the Iraqi "rebels" want is more like what they have in Iran. Or else what they had under Saddam.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
Thanks for the welcome.
Tricky, I'm looking forward to reading replies from those and others. Some of the names I recognize since I've been lurking here for a short time.
Tricky, I'm looking forward to reading replies from those and others. Some of the names I recognize since I've been lurking here for a short time.
The Colonists rebelled because they had no real voice in government. The Iraqis elected theirs. Though if they want to rebel against the government they elected, that's their right. There doesn't seem to be any major movement in that direction though.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
It could be argued that the Iraqis didn't have a full voice in their government either. Certainly no government that was openly hostile to the US would have been permitted. I'd even bet that if "Islamic Theocracy" were one of the choices, it would have given democracy a run for the money.
But I think we can all agree that there are major differences between the way the new government of Iraq came about and how the US government came about.
Possibly. The Iraqi "rebels" are a much less homogeneous group than the US revolutionary soldiers were.
I suppose the government the Iraqi "rebels" want is more like what they have in Iran. Or else what they had under Saddam.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
Yes, it could be argued, except that the Iraqi election is already history and the US didn't intervene.
The possibility of an "Islamic Theocracy" was one of the choices in the election as well. Fortunately that's not what the Iraqis opted for.
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Isn't this is about the 43rd turning point in Iraq since the 'mission accomplished' incident?
joe1347
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 381
Probably, but this may be the first announced turning point just before the start of what apparently ended up being the worst month (in terms of violence) in Iraq. When the President made the "turning point" announcement about a month ago, I remember thinking that maybe all of the hundreds of billions spent and lives lost may finally start paying off and that we would begin to see some evidence of the Iraq insurgency wearing down.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Maybe they didn't intervene directly (and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that) but the fact that they are there as an occupying force almost certainly had a lot to do with the outcome. Lots of Iraqis, especially Sunnis, didn't vote because they thought it was rigged. You could be right, but I'll be interested to see how the vote goes once the US isn't there to "observe" things. Of course, that is assuming that the democracy manages to survive without being propped up.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
This is quite civil, in comparison.
Timor is having a similar problem of surviving without being propped up. And now they are asking for the UN to come back and help them survive.
An infant democracy is a fragile thing.
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
We do tend to try to simplify the goings-on in Iraq, along the lines of the good guys (who presumably want a nice, pro-Western democracy) and "The Terrorists", who want....Whatever it is they want.
I listened to a recent analysis of things on NPR's Talk Of The Nation (forget which show, I listen to it daily) where the panel was discussing the diversity of competing groups.
Not enough to have Sunni vs. Shia, or Pro-Saddamists against Democracy; in addition to these, there are numerous groups, militias, neighborhood cells, tribal groups, and so forth all of whom have their own agenda and are trying to carve out their piece of the pie.
We have major ethnic groups, differing religious sects, tribal loyalty, and more besides. One of the panelists ran down a list of 7 or 8 named "organizations" in or around Bagdhad, all of which were at odds with each other, as well as us.
I listened to a recent analysis of things on NPR's Talk Of The Nation (forget which show, I listen to it daily) where the panel was discussing the diversity of competing groups.
Not enough to have Sunni vs. Shia, or Pro-Saddamists against Democracy; in addition to these, there are numerous groups, militias, neighborhood cells, tribal groups, and so forth all of whom have their own agenda and are trying to carve out their piece of the pie.
We have major ethnic groups, differing religious sects, tribal loyalty, and more besides. One of the panelists ran down a list of 7 or 8 named "organizations" in or around Bagdhad, all of which were at odds with each other, as well as us.
Apollyon
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 942
The first time around the Sunnis didn't vote in any numbers because, frankly, their leadership was acting like petulant little children. Sunnis had been the de facto holders and maintainers of power in Iraq for decades. They had always been unfairly represented in Iraqi politics in relation to their percentage of the population and they felt that trend should continue. As such, the Sunni clerics issued fatwas against voting hoping it would be a roadblock to a successful vote. When a wildly successful vote was held anyway without the Sunnis, they finally realized that that their lack of participation hurt only them. It didn't prevent the political process from moving forward.
So in the most recent election the Sunnis finally joined the fray. Voter turnout (or lack thereof) really had little to do with the charges of it being rigged, though that claim was passed around as propaganda to discourage some voters. Considering the large numbers that came out to vote, the charges of rigging had little effect.
Whether or not the US intervened in the voting process or had any affect on how Iraqi people voted is pure speculation. Nothing has been proven concerning that claim. Additionally, it kind of seems akin to a CT-ish sort of claim (It's the US government behind it all!") I don't like to deal in that sort of baseless speculation. Besides, the vote was overseen by an international group from the UN, not by the US.
I guess what gets my goad about the whole Iraq situation is the blatant pessimism demonstrated by those who were opposed to the war. 'Iraq will never form a democratic government. It's not their way.' 'If they do form a government it will be a theocracy.' 'Any Iraqi government will merely be a puppet of Iran.' And so on, and so forth...endless pessimism. There's no secret about what motivates that pessimism either. I can comprehend that motivation as well. It's easy to despise the Bush admin and most of the GOP today (and many of the Democrats too, for that matter). What I don't understand is why people can't see past their partisan noses on this issue? This is not about us anymore. We already opened the box and it cannot be closed. At this point in time it is about Iraqis and their future, yet people are using their personal biases to color their thought on the issues and in the process we are playing with the lives of 27+ million people rather cavalierly, with some assist from the media. I find that attitude downright disgusting.
