Are we really right?

[Tsiiri]

I have been thinking about the whole "War in Iraq" recently and I've started thinking about if we're right to force Democracy on them.
Allow me to elaborate:
There were terrorist attacks on the U.S.A. and other countries as well that were based in Iraq. Those countries may think that those terrorists are evil, but isn't it really based on the way they were raised. I mean, if you look around you probably will notice that Democratic countries are shoving Democracy down other countries throats. Perhaps those terrorists did not want Democracy in their country because their system worked fine to them, probably because that was the only system of government they knew. Now, America and other countries are dominating Iraq to enforce Democracy. Sure, some groups of people in Iraq are excited about this, but what will happen if they elect a leader that is anti-America or something like that? Wouldn't it go in full circle and end up with Democracy in Iraq falling apart, like it did in Russia?

In short, are we truly right to go over to Iraq and "give" them Democracy?

[Sasquatch]

In a word...yes. We don't care what the terrorists "like" -- besides, no matter what you hear, the vast majority hated living under Saddam. One dictator with ultimate power is never a good idea. Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and U.S. interests and allies around the world, not to mention his own people and his neighbors, and had to be taken out. After that, we could have left, and left the entire country wide open for somebody like Al Sadr or Zarqawi to take power and be just as much of a threat as Saddam was, or we could do what we're doing now, so the Kurds and the Shi'ites actually have a say in their government, instead of having an extremely brutal government that only favors one quarter of the population.

By the way, there was no solid connection between Saddam and 9/11. There were many connections, however, between Saddam and Al-Queda, not to mention vast other forms of terrorism he supported.

[FFGuru]

To be quite honest, the USA has been inflicting regime change mostly in its sphere of influence for many years. Examples being the FBI's attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro, there was Panama although it was a long time ago where Theodore Roosevelt helped the Colombians rebel. Iraq would probably fall into this category of regime change and would the next one to add to the list. I am British but please don't think I hate America. I really like the country and have spent a great deal of time researching it and it's past. But there are instances where peoples get it wrong and although I'm not one of these people who march on anti-war rallies and the like, the war was unjustified. However thats not to say that its wrong, lets face it removing Saddam was always going to be a good thing, I just fell that there could have been better reasoning than so-called dodgy dossiers.

[relm]

I say yes...
In short, I think that the Iraq
war is justified because it has put
an end to three decades of tyranny,
terror and suffering... >_>
The mass graves uncovered since the war,
are alone sufficient justification for it.
Assuming that America does follow through
in helping establish a democratic govt. in Iraq,
it would be a blessing to both the people of
Iraq, and its neighbors. I think it could
encourage liberalization throughoutthe region.

[Tsiiri]

Well, one thing we have discussed in my Comparative Governments class about this is that the people of Iraq are extremely religious for the most part. Part of the terrorist attacks are based on their Musilim beliefs. With a democratic government, what's stopping them from voting an American hater, or something like that for president, just because that person is high up on the religious ladder. The problem with democracy, especially when it is new to a place like Iraq that has been in the state it has been, is that it can be easily manipulated. Now, I'm not saying that it was better under Saddam, but rather than give them a government that can be too easily manipulated, let a new leader come into power that would be more like a benevolent dictator that would definately care more for the people.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Tsiiri

With a democratic government, what's stopping them from voting an American hater, or something like that for president, just because that person is high up on the religious ladder.

That will probably happen -- and I'm sure we all realize that. It's alright if their new leader hates America -- just as long as he's not a threat to America, and as long as he's not a threat to anybody (i.e. nearly everybody) else. When the entire population has a say in the government, things like Saddam's reign don't happen -- Saddam liked the Sunnis, which were about 1/4 or 1/3 of the population, and hated the Shi'ites and Kurds.

Now, I'm not saying that it was better under Saddam, but rather than give them a government that can be too easily manipulated, let a new leader come into power that would be more like a benevolent dictator that would definately care more for the people.

A benevolent dictator? That's a nice idea, but I highly doubt it would last long. Give somebody that much power, and it's only a matter of time before they abuse it.

[Nekoness]

In the end it all about power. We have here a few groups who fight between them for the power. Each wanna to rule and to decide what the best. An ideology and such may be only a cover for the urge to be the dominant one.
Sadly people will never learn so there always will be the battle between forces. Today is terrorists, tomorow it can be any other group. Power is the keyword.

With all that, Democracy is much better then a country ruled by a person. Tyranny brings only to terror and violence, the population live in fear to bring on the wrong side. Stalin, Hitler, Saddam are great examples. Each of them brought a lot of pain and terror to his own people, those he had to care of.

I'm done.