General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsyup, we need a brutal strongman type back in charge in Iraq
everyone knows it. This is how the world works in more places than we care to admit. A friggin' alpha male strongman who is utterly ruthless and will keep people in line. Another Saddam, we should have never interfered with that country.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laelth
(32,017 posts)With that I agree.
-Laelth
arcane1
(38,613 posts)DetlefK
(16,670 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)UK and France developed (with the consent of Russia) the Sykes-Picot Accord during the closing days of WW1. The accord divided up the region that had been part of the Ottoman Empire, and its arbitrary demarcations are often seen as the birth of anti-Western sentiment in the area.
11 Bravo
(24,308 posts)
get the red out
(14,031 posts)I still remember the awful feeling in the pit of my gut when Bush said we were going into Iraq. God what an eternal mess.
politicman
(710 posts)It was evident to everyone bar the U.S politicians that American soldiers travelling across the world to invade a country that has a totally different culture and belief system would result in a country that resembles hell.
I just saw a repuke on Fox claim that in retrospect maybe the invasion was a mistake, but then try to avoid blame by saying that they fixed it and Obama ruined it by leaving.
Truth is that for 10 years the U.S was in a constant state of war over there, the insurgents and terrorists were occupied fighting U.S soldiers, and now they have turned their attention to the Iraqi government. Either way the fighters would still be fighting, either U.S soldiers or Iraqi government, yet these repukes prefer for U.S soldiers to be the ones that suffer the casualties.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Well their friend. We/our government/reagan/bush1/ helped to create that monster only to turn on him when he no longer was beneficial to our/their scheme.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
spanone
(141,535 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)
naaaaw, we're not that cruel
City Lights
(25,797 posts)
The Dick of Death and The Daughter of the Dick...off you go...'Murika needs you!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)maintain "order". Looks like things have gone full-swing in the eyes of some liberals and the conservatives were right after all. 
I don't think so.
People everywhere want the same rights we have (or used to have). Telling them that there are too many 'bad guys' in their neighborhood, so they will have to accept life under a brutal dictator, is not a liberal policy.
That's exactly what I thought when I read this. I almost thought it was satire.
FSogol
(47,613 posts)might not be a liberal.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)From the time of Ur the vast majority of human lives have been lived in a brutal autocracy. Democracy is a very rare thing, republics even moreso.
Fracking has freed America from caring too much about that part of the world. They used to have us by the short-hairs with the oil but not really anymore. In central Africa there has been a huge war going on for decades that is mostly the same old nilotic v. bantu war that has been going on for centuries. In recent years north of 5 million people have died. But no one cares because there are no really important things in central africa that we cannot get.
The middle east is not our problem. White Man's Burden is over ( and pretty racist).
on edit: People everywhere do not want the same things. There are teeming ethnic and religious disputes that are unsolvable. Trying to solve the world's problems is a fool's errand.
pampango
(24,692 posts)You are certainly right that humans have lived under brutal autocracy for much of their existence. We have made a lot of progress in that sense. I don't think that most liberals want to turn the clock back on democratic and human rights for the sake of 'order'. That is what repressive regimes have done throughout history. And the 'order' usually achieves another goal of keeping the autocratic ruler in power. (Perhaps it is alright to do it in 'their' countries, but not in 'ours'. )
The Middle East is not our problem - either to invade or to promote brutal dictators. We should support human and democratic rights everywhere even if there is little concrete we can do in most cases. (That's what European governments do.)
If Middle Easterners want a dictator, we should not stand in their way. If they want democratic and human rights, we should not stand in their way.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/
http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/18/on-eve-of-foreign-debate-growing-pessimism-about-arab-spring-aftermath
Most Americans want stability (order) in the Middle East even if it comes at the expense of democracy. Democrats tilt more towards democracy but still a majority favor stability in the Middle East.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Look at Egypt. They recently had a pretty much fair and open election and the Muslim Brotherhood won. The the Brotherhood started changing the constitution and judiciary to make sure they never lost again. The military took over because they were getting squeezed out and the bureaucracy did not help because they were getting squeezed by the Brotherhood. ONe man, one vote, one time is the order of the day there. People living in repressive regimes mostly want elections because they want someone on their side in charge. The tribal mindset is much more powerful than in the West.
Muslim countries never had an Enlightenment. Us Westerners did. They have fundamentally different ways of thinking about the world than we do. These Enlightenment ideas - all men being equal and all that - are not really represented in the minds of most of the Muslim middle east. Family, then tribe then co-religionists then country. Westerners miss all that. They don't get how tribal most of the middle east (and quite frankly the world) is in mindset. Also keep in mind you are hearing from the most educated, pro-western middle easterners. They tell us what they think we want to hear.
We should not be installing dictators. We should not be installing democracies. We should be looking after our interests and let them live their lives.
pampango
(24,692 posts)in charge."
Depending on what you mean by "on their side" I could agree with that. Heck, when I vote I want to elect someone who is on "my side" (meaning liberal) rather than a conservative.
Of course, people living under a repressive regime might also see democracy as a way out of a society where the secret police visit in the middle of the night to enforce the 'brutal dictator's' position in the country.
And, of course, it is an interesting coincidence that a belief that Muslims don't really know what democracy is works very well with a policy that we should not be concerned with human and democratic rights in their countries.
That is a pretty negative view of Muslims. They are unenlightened. Don't view all men (and women) as equal (regardless of any polling results). Don't confuse the policies of the ruling elite or the violent fundamentalists with what everyday people believe.
From the poll below, that is exactly what most Muslims think is the US policy - look after our own interests (largely oil, in most countries) and put democratic right on the back burner - or off the stove altogether.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)There is no indication that the OP speaks for liberals.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)snot
(11,792 posts)This is a VERY rough, broad-brush picture, but . . .
There's a sort of natural tendency toward something like feudalism -- people will put up with a certain amount of tyranny so long as there's hope that the tyrant will take care of their basic needs . . . or so long as they seem to have more to lose by opposing the tyrant than by putting up with him. It's the old psychological bargain: I'll obey you if you'll take care of me. Because life is challenging, and it's hard for any of us to manage everything without help. Only, too often, when it comes to the "taking care" part, the tyrant fails to uphold his end of the bargain.
Also, good leaders are very hard to find. You need someone who actually understands a fair amount about a variety of policy issues, who doesn't have too many personal, emotional issues that get in the way, who has good managerial and organizational skills, who has some degree of altruistic concern for others, who has the interpersonal skills to charm a crowd to at least some degree as well as to negotiate with or outfox adversaries, etc. etc.
And not only do you need good leaders, but surrounding circumstances have to be conducive in certain ways. If your infrastructure has been demolished, your economy is in ruins, you're under constant attack by fanatics or one stripe or another, your population is woefully under- or mis-educated, the media are owned by your opposition, etc., etc., even the Founding Fathers might have struggled.
Achieving any degree of not utterly-tyrannical stability, let alone good government, is huge.
It's usually difficult to help another person or country evolve into some kind of more constructive mode of operation. Sometimes it's easier or harder than others; but you can't just chop off the head and slap a new one on that's more to your liking, as we did in Iraq, and expect it to "take." Very roughly speaking, the person or country to be "improved" must meet you at least half-way. Change must come at least in part from within; and what's needed is a clear vision, considerable will, and good internal leadership and/or organization. The Egyptian revolution is highly instructive. The protesters were intelligent, informed, motivated, etc.; but the revolution is struggling, apparently bec. there was no pre-existing organization or leadership sufficiently developed to govern even temporarily, other than the Muslim Brotherhood, which lacked the wisdom and/or political savvy to hold onto power, and the military, which is essentially tyrannical.
In an ideal world, we should ALL be leaders. We should all, at the minimum, be leaders of our own lives; but in fact, few of us manage even that. We're driven by impulses we rarely understand to do foolish or self-destructive things that have irreversible consequences, then spend much time and energy simply trying to cope with whatever we've brought on ourselves.
I do NOT by any means consider our situation as hopeless as this may sound. I just think most people either vastly underestimate the challenges or choose not to care about them, so long as their own selfish, short-term interests are benefitted.
Right now, you could compare Iraq to somebody else's problem child. We have a right to protect ourselves from it, and possibly a humanitarian duty to try to help it to some degree; but we don't have any authority over it and limited influence with it. It is mostly somebody else's problem, and unless we're willing to invest hugely into it over decades -- in ways that would result in lost opportunity costs elsewhere because of the cost in treasure and attention -- we're not going to be able to have much effect on it, let alone actually "fix" it.
interesting thoughts.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, the Iraq war was wrong, but "a brutal strongman type" like Sadam was good for the people who weren't subject to his brutality.
Brutality is needed for peace and stability.
Should we push that talking point?
"This is how the world works in more places than we care to admit. A friggin' alpha male strongman who is utterly ruthless and will keep people in line."
Would we welcome such rule here, or is it only for them?
firsttimer
(324 posts)in a tribal society.
It won't work in Iraq , and it's not working in Afghanistan either.
These tribes are 1000's of years old.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What you're trying to do is compare a mind set of a westernized culture in a tribal society."
...and I still don't see where a "brutal" leader is the solution, something to advocate.
firsttimer
(324 posts)The OP and what is happing in Iraq is pretty cut and dried.
A westernized democracy is not going to work there .
It's not about advocating anything , it's about what works and what doesn't in tribal society. If you have another solution post it.
"The OP and what is happing in Iraq is pretty cut and dried.
A westernized democracy is not going to work there .
It's not about advocating anything , it's about what works and what doesn't in tribal society. If you have another solution post it."
...gassing people what "works"? You keep saying "tribal society," using the term almost as a perjorative to justify why the people in such a "society" should be subject to brutality.
This is one of those instance where flawed thinking is being pushed as something that must be accepted.
Thanks for proving my point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024285993#post51
firsttimer
(324 posts)Just criticism of anyone that didn't agree with you.
Thank you for proving my point.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Just criticism of anyone that didn't agree with you.
Thank you for proving my point.
...welcome to DU. Clearly, it's your first time. LOL!
cali
(114,904 posts)Iraq is not a tribal society.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)What do you think 'tribal' means?
for the inevitable alert.
cali
(114,904 posts)is sick shit.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)DU Community standards are pretty damn low. I wonder if one stating that Italy would be better off under Mussolini would pass muster.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)firsttimer
(324 posts)And how they live in more close proximity to one another unlike Afghanistan.
Iraqis are more educated but the mind set of a tribe is there.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)More justification that they should be ruled by a "brutal" leader?
firsttimer
(324 posts)The country is falling apart.
You said the OP was disgusting .........but it worked for many years
They ( or the U.S )tried some what of a westernized democracy but it is failing or some already
say by most accounts already failed.
So what do you think would work there?
"No , I'm asking you for what you think the solution should be.."
...you're not. You've posted a series of comments insisting that a "brutal" leader "works" because it's a "tribal society."
"So what do you think would work there?"
Peace.
firsttimer
(324 posts)No , I pointed out and agree with the OP what worked in the past , I didn't create it nor did I advocate for it.
I posted that what we as in the U.S tried didn't work.
You posted it was disgusting to say this , I then asked you what you would like to see done in Iraq.
You answered that Peace would work there, that would work in the entire world .
IT's a great thought but it's not realistic in Iraq right now.
I'm not trying to bait you in saying something .
I'm trying to find out what you think should be done there now.
Would you like to have the President deploy a couple of Marine divisions back to Iraq
and secure it again?
Would you like the U.S to send billions of more dollars hoping we can buy the peace like we tried in Afghanistan and failed ?
Would you like to see the U.S send more advisor's in which will fail and accomplish nothing?
Or would you like to see the US. and the President do nothing and say it's none of our business anymore and watch Iraq
implode on it's self?
These aren't trick questions I'm asking you ProSense.
And I'm going to edit to add this .
One of these are going to done by President Obama in my list of questions to you.
Which one would you like to see since you seem to have a very strong opinion in this thread ?
JI7
(93,568 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)an alternative solution verified by historical evidence?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Without that control now, there will no doubt eventually be a civil war in Iraq between the Sunnis and the Shiites.
