The recognized aim of the current coalition forces in Iraq is to bring democracy to Iraq. Is democracy an attainable, realistic or even desirable aim for Iraq?

I do have certain doubts whether it is attainable given the lack of sustained democratic tradition in Iraq and the fact that, as an overwhelmingly Islamic country, religious factions might prevent such a system from developing. I think it is a desirable aim, but I just think the chances are it will be either unattainable or short lived.

On the other hand. What timescale would be considered feasible. Democracy takes a long time to take root. In the UK, it took some 800 years to grow, and less than 100 years ago, not all adults here had the vote. Why do people therefore think, that you can just walk into a country and introduce a form of government for which there is no local tradition?

I do agree with you that it will be difficult to establish a democracy in Iraq, but what is the alternative? Another dictator?

Why not?! The Yanks have as good as installed themselves as Dictators there anyway, take the atrocities discussed on the news throughout most of last week as proof of that.

Controversial post that I know, I but I have a lot of anti-American feeling in me at the moment regarding the whole Iraq issue as I feel the war, although it did liberate Iraq from Saddam, shouldn't really have happened, not from a British standpoint anyway, they should've let the Americans do all the fighting and left our brave lads out of it, but no, because Blair and Bush are so pally with each other, our troops get sent over to Iraq as well..

And I don't think I'm the only one of the above described opinion, and the issue could be politically dangerous on both sides of the big Pond, with both the General Election here and the Presidential Elections over there being so close.

Controversial post that I know


No, just a startlingly ignorant one.


Susie, who thinks you need to pay more attention to the news.

In my opinion...i think that whichever country needs democracy and get rid of a dictator,should come from the inside ..i mean the from within this country, not from outside and definitely not by means of force...i think that the americans did what i call fatal mistake by tackling iraq and invadingit under the cover of spreading justice and democracy...They don`t even what the iraqis think in terms of getting foriegn helpor about religous asspects...all i am trying to say that evryone just mind their own bussiness and leave others to mind their own.
I think the iraqi people have every right to resist the coelltion forces in their country as they consider them invaders.....Who made america and the americans responsible for the safety of the world and spreading peace and justice.....at the end i would like to say that what america did by invading iraq despite of world refusal would bring definitely morecrime and violence and time will prove this.......!!!!

What was more disturbing than the war on iraq, in my opinion was that during a time where part of the USA's foreign policy was to actively fund terrorism (like in afghanistan during USSR occupation).

This happen in Iraq, the ba'ath (spelling?) was funded because if it got into power, it would help curtail the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (a threat to the US' security) that was occuring in Iran at that time.

As soon as they were in power and america realised it's mistake, it tried to pretend there wasn't a mistake for a long time. The CIA now regrets not funding anti-Saddam groups when they could have done. Instead they decided to keep him sweet by selling him weapons, when this situation got out of hand, the gulf war occured.

The US was responsible for Saddam being in power, but removing him was a neccesity, the fact there does not seem to be any long term plan for Iraq now is truly worrying that such an oversight can be made by the US and the UK

Wilf

I strongly agree with u brainthrust!!!

The only democracy acceptable to the US in Iraq is one that will ratify the sale of Iraqi assets to US companies (much of which has already happened in contravention of International Law), one which does not demand the complete withdrawal of occupying forces and one which will allow the presence of US military bases on it's soil.

Anyone who saw the BBC "Money Programme" on oil, before the invasion will know that Rumsfeld and Cheney were two members of a highly influential think tank that stated that the US had to ensure it had access to Iraq's oil reserves.... UN sanctions meant that they couldn't! This policy document was written several years before Bush was elected and before 9/11.
Any democratic government will have to let the US have access to the oil at a price the US decides is fair..more likely, they will privatise it before any democratic government is in place.

ps
can a government whose "security forces" torture prisoners who have been abducted (their families often don't know where they are)and will not sign up to an international war crimes tribunal be really called democratic?

Thsi was a government so obsessed with privatising that it privatised much of the prisoner detention facilities, letting them be run by mercenaries, sorry 'civilian contractors', who got to boss the regular troops about. When people say that we shouldn't judge the American military by a few 'bad apples', I say why on earth not? If unaccountability is the policy, why be surprised when moneymaking corporations do not regulate themselves.

The US has no intention of establishing a true democracy in Iraq, for all the talk about 'freedom spreading across the middle east'. The new nation will be a hegemony, with a puppet government unable to make any real decisions.

Interesting link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3689121.stm

There are a lot of countries in this World that are just not ready for democracy and it is evident that Iraq is one of them.