• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Implications of a Democratic Iraq on the Middle East

A democratic Iraq means..........

  • More people standing up against tyranny, like we're seeing in Iran

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Democracy will not last, dictatorship will inevitably return

    Votes: 7 35.0%

  • Democracy will take hold, but the results will not be favorable for the US

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • I'm a malodorous hippie who believes Dick Cheney and George Bush eat arab babies for fuel

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Libs_Luv_Weakness

Libs_Luv_Weakness

Banned
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
15
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Thousands of brave American Soldiers went to the mat to give the people of Iraq a say in how their own future.

Despite endless whining and tantrum throwing from the left, President Bush showed what can be accomplished when grown-ups are in office. Iraq is proving to be a resounding success, despite outside interference by people like Ahmadinejad, who have so much invested in tyranny.

So what does this mean for the future of the region?
 
Maybe I'm one of the whining liberals, Mr very conservative Libs--ect-...
But I believe that political ideologies(both "good" and "bad") cannot nor should not be forced on others.
President Obama was right about this, we had no business in Vietnam and less in Iraq.
When these, and all nations are ready for human rights and fair play in government, they will then accept it...and not before...
 
I don't think their culture is in a place where a democracy can work and I don't think it is possible for them to be "civilized" by an outside force.
 
A democratic Iraq is a pipe dream as it is in the rest of the Middle East except for maybe Israel. Three things going against democracy in Iraq :

1. Arab Tribalism
2. Islamic control of the government
3. A mostly uneducated populace.

No democracy can model its laws after a religious system which does not allow for dissension. Abrahamic faiths are incompatible with democracy.
 
Hatuey said:
A democratic Iraq is a pipe dream as it is in the rest of the Middle East except for maybe Israel. Three things going against democracy in Iraq :

1. Arab Tribalism
2. Islamic control of the government
3. A mostly uneducated populace.

No democracy can model its laws after a religious system which does not allow for dissension. Abrahamic faiths are incompatible with democracy.
Click to expand...

Do you mean all Abrahamic faiths? Because you just made an exception for Israel.
 
megaprogman said:
Do you mean all Abrahamic faiths? Because you just made an exception for Israel.
Click to expand...

Israel is a state with Jews but not one which forces Judaism down the throats of its people. It is a sad fact that a lot of the policies of Israel are actually championed by what in America would be considered as 'secular' politicians.
 
Hatuey said:
Israel is a state with Jews but not one which forces Judaism down the throats of its people. It is a sad fact that a lot of the policies of Israel are actually championed by what in America would be considered as 'secular' politicians.
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
 
This poll is as rigged as the "democratic" elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both still require a US military occupation to prop them up.

How about we remove the military occupation propping them up and then talk about what our trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives sacrificed have wrought?
 
lol, the typical spoiled, sheltered, and arrogant American responses I've come to expect.

You people can't imagine living without the right to choose who governs you. You can't imagine swinging from a meathook for the offense of speaking against your government. You can't imagine seeing acid splashed in the faces of young girls for the offense of learning to read. It's ok, though. The Iraqi people understand the opportunity they now have, even if you don't. They proved it last month by risking life and limb to turn out in record numbers to pick their leaders.

Of course, none of this stops you from going on your holier-than-thou diatribes about "forcing" ideologies on someone.

Did it ever occur to you that this is the first time the Iraqi people have actually had a chance of not having something forced upon them?

You say that democracy will not work in Iraq. Tell me this: Do people not deserve to have a say in their own governance, regardless of cultural or religious differences?

Do you not realize the arrogance of your positions?
 
Last edited:
A significant implication is that GWB will be seen positively as the liberator of Iraq, and his legacy cemented as such.

This, the leftists cannot allow, and so will do whatever they think they can do to stop it.
 
Tucker Case said:
I picked the last option because I know a trick question when I see one.
Click to expand...
What is so tricky about it? If none of the options fit your view, just elaborate in your post. No slight of hand going on here. Speak from your heart.
 
Libs_Luv_Weakness said:
What is so tricky about it? If none of the options fit your view, just elaborate in your post. No slight of hand going on here. Speak from your heart.
Click to expand...

It's a trick question because the most accurate answer doesn't actually answer the given question.

I'd be a malodorous hippie who believes Dick Cheney and George Bush eat arab babies for fuel regardless of the democracy in Iraq.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's a trick question because the most accurate answer doesn't actually answer the given question.

I'd be a malodorous hippie who believes Dick Cheney and George Bush eat arab babies for fuel regardless of the democracy in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the conclusion you've reached is more telling about your mindset than the nature of the question being asked.

While you may not be a malodorous hippie with no grasp of the realities of war and how it is necessitated, you may be more liberal than you're willing to admit.

The trickiness of this question lies within the fact that it's not tricky at all. It forces you to give an honest assessment of your philosophy.

Of course, this is all armchair psychology, but it raises good questions none the less.
 
Libs_Luv_Weakness said:
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that the conclusion you've reached is more telling about your mindset than the nature of the question being asked.

While you may not be a malodorous hippie with no grasp of the realities of war and how it is necessitated, you may be more liberal than you're willing to admit.

The trickiness of this question lies within the fact that it's not tricky at all. It forces you to give an honest assessment of your philosophy.

Of course, this is all armchair psychology, but it raises good questions none the less.
Click to expand...

While I find your debate tactics offensive and unnecessarily flammatory, you might be surprised to find that I, someone whose stated lean is "very liberal", agrees with you for the most part. I think the people of Iraq are better off now then they were, and I believe that a people should fight for their rights, and that it is our responsibility to help the spread of democracy.

However, I don't for one second believe that bringing democracy to Iraq was the actual intention of the war, more of a side effect. Just because thing are getting better there doesn't mean I have to suddenly start liking Bush. He was an idiot of the first order.

It seems like you're more interested in baiting liberals in this thread then you are in discussing this issue.
 
Another telling post.

I never once suggested that anyone should love Bush. In fact, I have my own beef with him. He was one of the most liberal Presidents of the last 60 years. He vetoed one spending bill in 8 years and grew the size of gov't by over 30%.

I don't like any politician that spends my money like water, however I do feel that he was an outstanding wartime Commander in Chief.

BTW, you realize that you're neoconservative, right?
 
If Iraq's government stabilizes, and continues to exist, that is a great precedent for the rest of the Middle East, but as Tucker pointed out, if they remain as religiously entwined as they are, nothing will really change, except we have another ally in the Middle East.
 
Libs_Luv_Weakness said:
Another telling post.

I never once suggested that anyone should love Bush. In fact, I have my own beef with him. He was one of the most liberal Presidents of the last 60 years. He vetoed one spending bill in 8 years and grew the size of gov't by over 30%.

I don't like any politician that spends my money like water, however I do feel that he was an outstanding wartime Commander in Chief.

BTW, you realize that you're neoconservative, right?
Click to expand...

You could say that, but only because that's a misleading term. A neoconservative has more in common with a liberal than with a normal conservative. I tend to think of myself as a democratic socialist, most people consider that "very liberal" also, I come from Massachusetts, so it's hard to be much else ;)
 
Pal said:
You could say that, but only because that's a misleading term. A neoconservative has more in common with a liberal than with a normal conservative. I tend to think of myself as a democratic socialist, most people consider that "very liberal" also, I come from Massachusetts, so it's hard to be much else ;)
Click to expand...
If you're a social/domestic liberal who advocates a foreign policy based on spreading democracy, you are neoconservative.
 
Libs_Luv_Weakness said:
If you're a social/domestic liberal who advocates a foreign policy based on spreading democracy, you are neoconservative.
Click to expand...

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that that is a misleading term. When most people hear it they think conservative, but neoconservatism really only applies to foreign policy, whereas liberal is more of a social/fiscal term. Since I don't like to be confused with conservatives, I would describe my foreign policy stance as that of an "liberal interventionalist", just to avoid the confusion.

I don't really think there's anything implicitly conservative about wanting to spread democracy. It's only in a democracy that the rights liberals cherish can thrive. FDR felt the same way, he wasn't conservative.
 
Last edited:
Pal said:
I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that that is a misleading term. When most people hear it they think conservative, but neoconservatism really only applies to foreign policy, whereas liberal is more of a social/fiscal term. Since I don't like to be confused with conservatives, I would describe my foreign policy stance as that of an "liberal interventionalist", just to avoid the confusion.

I don't really think there's anything implicitly conservative about wanting to spread democracy. It's only in a democracy that the rights liberals cherish can thrive. FDR felt the same way, he wasn't conservative.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although the term wouldn't be misleading if people would educate themselves.
 
Libs_Luv_Weakness said:
Of course, none of this stops you from going on your holier-than-thou diatribes about "forcing" ideologies on someone.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see, the history is re-written that the Iraqis requested we invade them, bring about the deaths of hundreds of thousands and militarily occupy their country for 8 years. That's what you are calling freedom now?

=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom