Comments on: Iraq won’t last

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:47:39 +0000

Easy. At any time, America can announce the success of its operation. It went in, removed Saddam, punished his state, and withdrew. Don’t mess with America, a lesson good enough.
Civil war in Iraq? Why it’s an American problem? What a supermarket mentality, You break it you own it. No, you just break it, no need to repair.

By: KB

KB — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:16:21 +0000

How can the US get out of this situation while still saving face? Can we set up our own strongman, or will that have to come about organically (violently)?

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:22:13 +0000

Socrates turns in his grave when someone calls India, a democracy. It’s no problem to have the people pressing the AVM buttons; you can train even monkeys to push buttons (not that I compare Indians to them). India is anything but a responsible, cogent, cooperative self-government entity. It’s a country boiling with conflicts which are coming to the fore as economic development increases social mobility.
Syria stirs Lebanon but hardly causes the troubles.
Iraq, a nation of Shia, Sunni, and Kurds? Only on Mars could such a (non-oppressive) state exist.

By: bar

bar — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:52:36 +0000

The contention that Societies do not become liberal democracies overnight, but only through an arduous history of assembling wealth, when they slowly learn to raise hands in voting instead of breaking them is arguable. The largest democracy in the world (India) is also one of the poorest per capita countries in the world.
+
I would argue that there are favourable and unfavourable circumstances that permit a liberal democracy to exist. One such is trust in the integrity of the electoral system (which e.g. Zimbabwe does not seem to have), another is a historic cultural identity, such as in Iran or Egypt. Accumulated social wealth is merely one circumstance which is favourable.
+
Lebanon is not a good example, because Lebanon has a powerful neighbour who does not want stability.
+
Iraq has oil wealth and (I believe) has a potential cultural identity (it was once known as “Mesopotamia” or “land between the rivers”). If the occupying powers can establish a fair constitution and an honest electoral system, then I suspect that Iraq just might survive as a nation. I agree that large minority Kurds and Shia and Sunni are a potential spoiler, but other nations (e.g. Malaysia, USA) seem to survive despite inhomogeneous populations. And neighbours Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran might prefer a buffer state to the alternative…

By: Danny the Admin

Danny the Admin — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:54:14 +0000

Well, Iran is really Israel’s business. Nuclear Iran doesn’t threaten the US or Britain. If they would help Israel, that’s great, but they don’t have to.

By: Johny

Johny — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:01:26 +0000

I think a coalition force doing a great Job,we need Give them chance,ather ways terrorist he Will come our Home,He will Fellow Us.Is better to Fight in side Terrorist home.To make History In IRAQ takes time,In IRAQ the way you say Danny-the promlems Is IRAN Terrorist evil Arrogant 2nd’Hitler Leader,Mahmound Ahmadinejad,To embarrased a coalition force. He support oil money to Terrorist.so Danny I am not Expert Like you, (We Need to Support a coalition force take Action In IRAN”B52”Air Attack? with out UNDERGROUND FORCE,before it Is too Late?thanks