(no subject)

[andrewducker]

Can anyone out there point me at a suggested solution to the Iraq situation that doesn't involve war?

Oh, by solution I mean something that ends up with democracy in Iraq.

Comments

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

Um, the only thing I can think of right now would be for everyone to chip in and buy Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
Say $300billion?
It's probably worth a lot more if asset stripped, but it's not as if he's gonna get a better offer from somewhere else

[drainboy.livejournal.com]

When democracy in one of the most civilised countries in the world does not give the populace the right to vote on whether or not to go to war, why inflict the same system on other cultures?

I don't think having/not having democracy is a reason to invade another country.

(This does not imply that I don't think Saddam should be removed, just that democracy isn't the reason or the answer).

[andrewducker]

Being a democracy does not mean being able to vote on every issue. I wouldn't be in favour of that kind of democracy at all. We (and the US) has representative democracy, where we vote for people to make the decisions for us. Theoretically this means that they can dedicate themselves to getting the work done. In practice....

And no, democracy along isn't worth it. But I suspect democracy will lead on from any potential freedom in Iraq.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

I've never understood what was so great about democracy. Like you said the descisions are made by few people anyway. Yes you can vote them out, eventually. But replacing them with something nigh indistinguisable. Even that relies on the majority of people doing something sensible.

whelks chance in a supernova if you ask me.

Democracy would work if everyone was smart, educated and involved.

A Meritocracy is the way to go.

[andrewducker]

Aah - but which merit? And who gets to choose it?

Re:

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

well me obviously...

I'd be happy with a merit

or, even better, your social status goes up with any merit, and the more merits the higher you go

[worldforger.livejournal.com]

Realistically? Send in a small team to assasinate Hussein, his cabinet, and his staunchest supporters while we clandestinely provide arms, advice and financial support to dissenters against his regime. Of course in about 20 years the new regime will be the enemy, too, if the US is in charge--That's the way we do things, it seems. We cry for the elimination of evil and replace it with our next enemy. Can you say, "Taliban?"

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Agree - SAS should have been sent in LAST time.

Also agree - we're unlikely to agree with whoever replaces him either.

I don't think democracy is necessary. I think a ruler, or ruling government, that gives a shit about it's own people and isn't insane and doesn't threaten everyone else is all we should expect.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Subsidize France and Germany's oil purchases to make it as cheap or cheaper than what Iraq sells it to them for?

[simmah.livejournal.com]

It's interesting that you should ask this question because its been on my mind too. Seems that when people who are anti war say peace is the answer...they really don't have a peaceful solution for the war.

They just want peace.

But then, when you look at the pro war side you get the same sort of vague slippery slope answer.

"Well, if we *don't* go to war with Iraq...the Taliban will have a supplier and Saddam will continue to be a danger."

It's as if both sides are psychic. Both sides have the future all planned in their heads. Both sides already know the outcome. And the crazy thing is...we have the ability to talk to eachother, to reason, to be united as a world. We could just decide right now to cooperate as a world and work towards the goal.

Yet we feel its too complicated a task.

Complications are created by the mind. Maybe we need to, as a society, work on thinking less and maybe finding out more. Or maybe we should think more and react less. Yes maybe that's the better of the two.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

No, but I sincerely doubt war will do that either, especially since the US finds loyal dictatorships far too convenient in nations with valuable resources. Also, democracy imposed from without usually fails.

democracy?

[substitute.livejournal.com]

Wait 200 years.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Saddam Hussain, the man is not religious, one of the first things he did after taking power was to clamp down on religious organisations and suppress organised religion - including Islam. This is not surprising since there is no better tool for motivating people into fighting than religion.

Anyway back to democracy. If democracy were estblished in Iraq, then the most likely scenario is that parties would be formed along religious and/or racial grounds.

In Iraq around 78% of the population are Arabs, while the Kurds form about 17% of the population, the the Turkoman's, Assyrians and others less than 5%. The vast majority of the Arabs are Shi'a Muslims, the rest are Sunni Muslims.

Since over 60% of the Iraqi population are Shi'a Muslims, it is more than likely that they would form the government from any election, thereby creating another Islamic state. Is this really what the US wants?