Do you think Bush Administration will bring Iraqs happiness?

The way I see it there are two scenarios that could happen.

#1 US becomes a dictator in Iraq: In which the people are still not free, but at least they are not starving because we will do what we didn't allow Saddam to do, sell the oil worldwide. So I 'guess' they come out better.

#2 Iraq becomes a democracy with free speech and human rights.

I think it is worth the risk if #2 is attainable but that leads to the question. If the Iraqi's have freedom of speech and democracy and they speak out against the US and they vote into power a regime that the US does not agree with? What will happen?

Will the US truly let the 'people' decide?? Or will they allow them to decide as long as its in the US's best interest?? Sort of like how Saddam had an election and was voted in by 100% because he was the only option.

Al-Jazeera is the most free information source in the Middle East, yet here we are talking about bombing it. Irregardless to whether we agree or not, we are talking about their freedom to express it.

How far does the freedom of democracy go??

 

The US becomes a dictator in Iraq?

 

or the US installs a puppet government, same difference.

 

Like the ones in Japan and Germany?

 

Backing a puppet leader. Not AS direct, but still a dictatorship in form.

Example: Algeria had an election in the 80's in which the people VOTED democratically to have an Islamic Government. Washington and France (irony?) disagreed and backed a military general that has ruled the country with an iron fist and has committed far more atrocities than even Saddam. Thousands die annually in Algeria and we are instrumental in their lack of freedom, so excuse me if I am a skeptic.

 

They can have whatever government the people want, as long as they treat their people right and don't start thumbing their noses at the world and stockpiling WoMD or nukes or sponsoring terrorists. If the rightfully elected government of Iraq tries the stuff that SH did...then they have much to fear from US.

Otherwise, it will not be a "puppet" government... we have enough trouble supporting our own citizens..much less have to devote resources to keeping a "51st state" going.

You guys are just paranoid about the big bad US government.

 

Are you saying that the US and France hated Algeria's "low of freedom" so much that we had to kill them (via backing a blood thirsty general/dictator)? So it isn't so!!!

 

They will have whatever government they want as long as the USA has a big military base in Iraq.

It will be a lot like Germany and Japan.

No need for a military anymore Iraq, we got your back.

DD

 

Edit:
"low of freedom"
to
"love of freedom"

 

Hey, I now understand the benefits of the ignore list!

Some of the remarks are so asinine that I would rather just not see them while still seeing the rest of the thread...

Wow, first switching over to the dark side, and now using the ignore list...what's next?

 

the right to pusue happiness. That's all we have to give them. This issn't about giving them a better life. It's about giving them the freedom to seek one.

 

While not a Bush fan, I honestly beleive the Administration will make the best effort to bring the Iraqis freedom, security, democracy and economic stability (so long as they don't turn against the US). Whether or not these things will make most Iraqis happy is up to the Iraqis themselves.

Reading a number of articles covering early Arab reaction to the fall of Baghdad has me believing the geo-political goal of creating a model Arab democracy that will inspire the formation other Arab democracies in the region is likely attainable.

So many Arabs wanted to see the US fail and now, after having their hopes in the old regime (and Al-Jazeera's portrayal of the story) crushed, Arabs are facing the fact that the real enemy of the Iraqi people was a fellow Arab, not the "invaders." Now many Arabs want to see the US rob Iraq of its oil and make the Iraqis suffer. That ain't gonna happen. The Administration clearly considers creating a stable (US friendly) democracy in Iraq as important as getting the Iraqi oil aligned with US interests. While the US is gonna snatch a piece of that pie, the imperialist goals will be balanced by the stated geo-political goal of causing every Arab dictatorship to fall which requires respecting Iraqi individual freedoms.

 

America is slightly less responsible for 9/11 than the person who cuts someone off in traffic is for that person pulling a gun and shooting them. The difference is that cutting someone off in traffic is actually wrong, while stationing troops in Saudi Arabia is just not well received.

 

Heh, free medical care and schooling for Iraqis. Why can't the Republicans bone up the cash to do this in America?

 

That's easy.

We don't have any oil!

 

I think it is important that the United States not be too heavy handed about making the new government too USA friendly. The new Iraqi government must be composed of Iraqi people making most of the decision making, but must not threatening to the Arab world and the rest of the world as well. Our government has a difficult job of trying to influence the new government, without making it seem that American economic interests are the primary factor in how the new government makes decisions. Also, I believe the entire Arab world will be extremely offended if we try to impose western culture in the new Iraq, like building a McDonalds on every streetcorner.

 

I think I've finally heard it all....

 

Dangit...ignore list doesn't work for quoted material.

 

I agree with you 100%. If they are to choose a direction let it come naturally, not a forced direction that will build resentment.

I really hope that the US goes through with its plan that its stated and that it becomes a free nation. The model will then erupt over the middle east.


StupidMoniker,

I don't think its that the US Troops are not just "well recieved" The fact is that Saudi Arabia is a vile dictatorship led essentially by the King and his extended family. They horde the wealth and eliminate the rights of freedom of speech, assembly and all that we hold dear. Most Saudi's do not see the US troops as protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq, but they see the troops as protecting the monarchy from the people that are upset about their lack of rights.

An Example: Iran. Very similar the Saudi today in which a vile, corrupt dictator ruled with an iron fist and freedom was only the freedom to agree with him. The Shah was fully supported by the US, but then there was a revolution in which today there is a DEMOCRATICALLY elected president. Though there is a religious council that can overturn elections, the people have tasted freedom and want more now. It has the highest literacy rates in the middle east and human rights abuses are almost eliminated. The students constantly rally against the religious part of the regime and eventually I feel secularism will arrive. But the point is that it took time and freedom of the people to decide the path they wish to go. I don't want my Tax dollars supporting dictators like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, the Monarchs in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, simply because they kiss Israel's ass. The reason the US is scared to give these countries democracy is because they feel that the people as a whole are harder to control than one vile dicatator that can oppress his people. That is where it differs from Japan and Germany. The people wished for freedom, democracy and education and will recieve it, but Israeli support is a main cog. The fact is that if Bush follows through on his word and forces a peace in Israel and doesn't allow both sides to interfere and makes two countries and a fair agreement, then the Palestinians will be happy, I feel most Israeli's and Jews will be happy and middle east democracy will be a positive not a negative for the United States.

 

Analysis: Will Bush Now Push for Mideast Peace?
Wed Apr 9,11:21 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Paul Taylor

CAIRO (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites)'s vow to throw himself into Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking after the Iraq (news - web sites) war draws deep skepticism in the Middle East, but both sides say modest progress is possible to stabilize the conflict.



Voicing admiration for British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s dedication to peace in Northern Ireland, Bush told a joint news conference in Belfast on Tuesday: "I'm willing to spend the same amount of energy in the Middle East."


Most Palestinians, pro-Western Arab leaders and European governments fervently wish that were true, but the consensus among Middle East analysts is: Don't hold your breath.


They say Bush will remain too preoccupied with Iraq, too loath to upset Jewish and Christian Right voters, and too wary of his predecessor's diplomatic failure to risk a peace drive.


"I don't believe it. As long as Bush is in office, he will not do anything," veteran Egyptian commentator Salama Ahmed Salama, a columnist at al-Ahram newspaper, told Reuters.


"Iraq will keep him busy for the next three to four months, then he'll be into the (2004 presidential) election campaign. Can you imagine he is going to take any measure that will stir hostility in the U.S. Jewish community?"


Israeli analyst Efraim Inbar also voiced polite skepticism at Bush's commitment, while saying greater U.S. activism to calm the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be welcome.


"Maybe he has such an intention. I wish him success. But I think Iraq will keep him busy for a while," said Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. "The coming U.S. election year makes life for the Israelis a bit easier."


FREE HAND FOR SHARON


Many Arab commentators complain that Bush, in contrast to former president Bill Clinton (news - web sites), has steered clear of Middle East peacemaking and given Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) a free hand to crack down on a Palestinian uprising for independence.


They say Sharon seems to have convinced Bush the Palestinian issue is a "terrorism" problem, to be dealt with militarily like the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.


British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged last week that the West had been guilty of double standards in enforcing U.N. resolutions on Iraq while appearing "rather quixotic over the implementation of resolutions about Israel and Palestine."


U.S. and European diplomats say pressure from Iraq war allies Britain and Spain is one reason why Bush has pledged to turn his attention to the Israel-Palestinian issue now.


Another is the need to restore the image of the United States and Britain in the Arab world after the deep unpopularity of the invasion to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


A senior European Union (news - web sites) diplomat said Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)'s visit to Brussels last week was "the first time in two years we have seen this administration determined" to engage in the peace process.


Bush promised on Tuesday that a long-delayed "roadmap" toward a Palestinian state in 2005 would finally be published as soon as Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) announces his cabinet.


On Wednesday Palestinian President Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) gave Abbas two more weeks to name his ministers amid signs of differences between them that could be another obstacle to the plan.





Drafted by a so-called Quartet of U.S., EU, Russian and United Nations (news - web sites) diplomats, the plan calls for phased, reciprocal steps to halt violence, restore security cooperation, withdraw Israeli troops from Palestinian areas and lift an economic blockade on them and reform Palestinian governance.

NOT SINCERE?

"It is not enough to introduce a roadmap, there must be a specific mechanism for action and Israel must stop its continuing aggression against the Palestinian people," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said, reflecting Arab frustration.

Palestinian cabinet minister Ghassan Khatib complained that Bush "keeps saying he's committed to the roadmap but he keeps postponing it, which gives us the impression he is not sincere."

Washington delayed publishing the peace plan, drafted last December, first because of an Israeli election, then while Sharon formed his government, then until the Palestinians named a prime minister, and now until he appoints his cabinet.

Khatib said the Palestinians had started to fulfil their part of the bargain, working to reduce Palestinian violence and enact political and administrative reforms.

Yet while attacks on Israel had dwindled, Sharon continued killings of wanted Palestinian militants, he said.