 |
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:34
|
|
Here's a good discussion of the real costs. I think the costs are closer to $50 billion than even $100 billion. I think you would concede that your $150 billion figure isn't realistic, even though you haven't admitted it explicitly yet.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/new...bhZE&refer=home
A lot of the costs included in the common dreams are christmas tree ornaments. I don't like these either, but they aren't strictly related to Iraq.
Last edited by DanS on 01-03-2005 at 02:39
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
There have been no democratic revolutions to speak off in the last 5 years. There have been events that might lead to more democratization, but that is a different thing.
I think this is an interesting moment, and we should compare what is going on today to what went on from 1990 to 1995. That was another huge wave of democratization, actually one which was far more dramatic and revolutionary than this one, which swept from Asia to Latin America.
If we look back at those times 10 years ago, and then look to today, we see that democracy has been a mixed bag- in some places it has backtracked, in others it remains teneous, and even where it is clear military takeovers are not going to happen any time soon support for democracy is not particulalrly high, since democratic regimes have not been able to change conditions dramatically.
As for the inevitable Bush comment- There are to aspects of the Bush policy in Iraq:
1. The theoretical notion of trying to create a democratic experiement.
2. The actual handling of the experiment.
The Bush admin. can be given good notes for #1.
It has failed utterly and completely in #2, and it is a shame they continue to make such an utter mess of it.
Lets not forget, the Jan. Elections were Al Sistani's eelctions, NOT Bush's. Thought no admin. has given a better name to flip flopping than this one, cause most worhtwhile activites and actions by the administration have been flops from previous stands.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
Iraq had some experience of a relatively lawful society under the old monarchy, pre-1959. The Kurds had a more or less liberal society from 1991 on. |
That's indeed an argument. But should it be true that half the Sunnis support the rebellion on the grounds that they want their priviledges back, I think there is still much to do for an Iraqi democracy to be stable. So far, it's a minority that is violent, and that uses paramilitary means. In the future, it may be the majority that becomes abusive, and backs this abuse with violence. Only that the violence will be made by lawful forces.
quote: And the entire wolrd system is more supportive of democracy than in the 1960's when the African states became independent. |
Actually, the democratic wave in Africa happened in the early 1990's, when the fall of the USSR allowed to loosen the political control over them. The democratic wave in Africa happened in an international environment failry similar to today's. While a few democratic transitions seem to have succeeded (Mali), many hopes have been destroyed, because the elected leaders only cared for their ethnical groups, because the resources of the country were plundered by whomever group was in power, and because the linkage between politics and money made it so that, if you wanted to be rich, you had to be in power. That's the main reason why almost all countries with rich natural resources became ripe with guerillas, which were no less self-serving than the loyalists.
If anything, the disappointing African experience tells us that a stable democracy requires constant support, if it doesn't wish to crumble. A similar lesson can be drawn from former Soviet Republics. This lesson better be not forgotten during the democratization of the ME.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
Right in what, exactly?
Were they right about how hard it would be, how much it would, cost, or the dangers involved?
Absoluetely positively not, they were utterly wrong.
Were they right that a "spark" of democracy would be started?
As Friedman in the NYTimes says, this is something that can go up or down- we are years ahead from a real resolution.
On a case by case basis:
Lebanon: The opposition has made full use of the murder of the ex PM to try to push Syria out- it will be interesting to see what investigators come up with, because if Syria is no implicated, it will make everything a lot harder.
The question is just how much support Syria has in Lebanon- protests can be impressive, BUT lets not forget Venezuela- the opposition got 100,000s in the streets and yet, Chavez won. Just 25,000 on the streets might not be enough. The thing is that Syria is facing pressure on a lot of sides, so maybe they will decide to pull oput faster.
What that will actually mean for Lebanon, who knows.
Palestine: The death of Arafat is obviously the catalyst for change within the PA- its obvious from what went on with the cabinet vote that many Pal. PM's themselves were sick of the Arafat cronies. This I think is the most hopeful since Abbas seems genuine in trying to end the violence as best he can. The next few months and the pull- out from Gaza will tell.
Egypt: wonderful cosmetic change- its nice, as aI said in another thread, to give the choice. That said, the state of emergency is not lifted, meida control is not lifted, so how much of a real choice is it? People are complaining about Putin and "his rollback", but even under the current MKubarak changes Russia would be a dmeocratic wonderland compared to Egypt. More for public consumption than real change.
KSA: another wonderful mainly comestic change- when the monarchy decides to give up absolute rule, call me.
Iraq: The Sistani elections went well, but now the REAL questions come up- first, the role of Islam in the state: I would give better than 50-50 that Iraq is declared, like Afghanistan, an islamic republic. The issue of Federalism, and the degeree of autonomy given to region, particualrly the Kurds, might very well be the great stumbbling block- and while the Iraqi army and police remain weak, all the political parties with militias have kept them, and the Kurds have 100,000 peshmerga to back their demands. It will be the vital question to see if Iraq survives as a strong central state, if it becomes a weak federal state with strong autonomous provinces, or if it collapses into civil war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
That's indeed an argument. But should it be true that half the Sunnis support the rebellion on the grounds that they want their priviledges back, I think there is still much to do for an Iraqi democracy to be stable. So far, it's a minority that is violent, and that uses paramilitary means. In the future, it may be the majority that becomes abusive, and backs this abuse with violence. Only that the violence will be made by lawful forces.
quote: And the entire wolrd system is more supportive of democracy than in the 1960's when the African states became independent. |
Actually, the democratic wave in Africa happened in the early 1990's, when the fall of the USSR allowed to loosen the political control over them. The democratic wave in Africa happened in an international environment failry similar to today's. While a few democratic transitions seem to have succeeded (Mali), many hopes have been destroyed, because the elected leaders only cared for their ethnical groups, because the resources of the country were plundered by whomever group was in power, and because the linkage between politics and money made it so that, if you wanted to be rich, you had to be in power. That's the main reason why almost all countries with rich natural resources became ripe with guerillas, which were no less self-serving than the loyalists.
If anything, the disappointing African experience tells us that a stable democracy requires constant support, if it doesn't wish to crumble. A similar lesson can be drawn from former Soviet Republics. This lesson better be not forgotten during the democratization of the ME. |
Well south Africa is still a democracy, as is Namibia. Im not as up on Mozambique as I should be. Zimbabwe and Zambia never really made the transition. My sense from southern africa is that democracy IS contagious, without much external pressure, but slowly. west africa has had mixed experiences - ghana and nigeria have done much better than cote d'ivoire, and Uganda was a case study in a liberal but not demo system, which has survived. But im not sure using the 90s as base makes sense - they had post independence experiences that established local political cultures and institutions - Iraq emerging from totalitarianism has more of a tabula rasa than most african states post 1990. It also has higher levels of literacy, urbanization, and more linguistic unity.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
PLATO

|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
Plato:
True.
But I think the policies to support democracy in Iraq will end up being more or less similar to the policies regarding other countries.
Now, the war has removed a very brutal dictator, which is pretty good (and which is the one achievement the pro-war people can be really proud of). However, I don't think that war was either necessary nor sufficient to make Iraq democratic in the long run. It rushed the headstart, which saved probably many people from torture. But that's the most important difference it made, IMHO. |
It would be hard to disagree with that opinion due to any credible evidence (i.e. the lack of a continuing Sadaam regime). However, it is quite clear that Sadaam indended his son's to rule after him in a dynastic transfer of power. How long is the long run? The problem of the ME has been boiling to eruption for decades. IMO the eruption was near (granted that this opinion is tainted by 911, but not totally).
My supposition is that action or intervention by the western democratic powers was the only chance of difusing an ever growing powderkeg. Europeans disagree with this; I understand that. I would ask you, however, to point to actions that the European school of thought took that resulted in greater freedom or elections.
At the end of the day we must look to results. The results of elections and electoral reform in the ME, no matter that they have imperfections and problems, are tangible evidence of movement in the correct direction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark too soon to say. |
...check back in 50 years
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002 time: 06:34
|
|
While I applaud recent events in Lebanon (which is probably the reason for this thread), I must say that by no means these events could be described as a 'democratic revolution' and to lump Lebanon into the grant scheme of a 'global democratic revolution' is tendacious at best.
Lebanon is an awkward place, certainly when viewed from the normative western view of the near-east.
If anything, Lebanon shows that democracy (in the sense of a multi-ethnic and/or multi-religious nation/society) can exist in the near-east, or possibly even in the arab/muslim world at large.
The devastating civil war (by large triggered through external factors (read: palestinians driven around/persecuted by most nations surrounding them)) was 'pacified' at the end of the cold war by the countries in the near-east themselves. The so-called Taif-accords (signed in Saudi-Arabia, and from what I know with little Western influence/pressure applied) allowed for a restoration of the situation before the civil war, and a multi-party system was put (again) into place.
Lebanon, despite being under firm Syrian control, regained a large part of its souvereignty and it has a largely functioning multi-party parliament.
Besides that, Lebanon has a functioning and largely free press, with many newspapers, TV-stations and the like who are almost completely free of government control.
The recent events in Lebanon (with an administration that even steps down due to public pressure) is more a sign of the deep-rooted 'democratic' tradition that exists in Lebanon then a sign of a 'revolution' taking place.
Similar arguements could be made for Egypt, Jordan and Tunesia. Turkey and to some extend even Pakistan could be viewed as muslim/arab countries that do upheold some democratic principles.
So, if anything, todays events in Lebanon show that there is far less need to bring democracy to the near- and middle-east (by force as advocated by Bush and Co) as we are lead to beleive.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
The original admin. plans, as far as they have ever had a plan, was to allow the interim government write the constituion, and then put it up for a vote. Sistani demanded elections ASAP, the occupation authorities at first resisted, but when Sistani flexed his political muscle, the Bush admin. had to cave.
Better for them that they did cave, cause a constituion writen by an unelected cabal placed by the occupier would have lost most legitimacy. |
I'd add that if Sistani had his way, the elections would've occurred several months earlier, meaning no Fallujah and thus no Sunni boycott. Sectarianism itself might have been a far lesser problem.
The rationale the US used in putting off elections for over a year after the initial huge protests Sistani organized was the supposed need to take a census of Iraq. Sistani suggested using ration cards. A year later, a census wasn't taken and ration cards were eventually used.
Just plain inept. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
The original admin. plans, as far as they have ever had a plan, was to allow the interim government write the constituion, and then put it up for a vote. Sistani demanded elections ASAP, the occupation authorities at first resisted, but when Sistani flexed his political muscle, the Bush admin. had to cave.
Better for them that they did cave, cause a constituion writen by an unelected cabal placed by the occupier would have lost most legitimacy. |
I'd add that if Sistani had his way, the elections would've occurred several months earlier, meaning no Fallujah and thus no Sunni boycott. Sectarianism itself might have been a far lesser problem.
The rationale the US used in putting off elections for over a year after the initial huge protests Sistani organized was the supposed need to take a census of Iraq. Sistani suggested using ration cards. A year later, a census wasn't taken and ration cards were eventually used.
Just plain inept. |
come on Ramo do you really think earlier elections would have been better - a year earlier there was far less developed press in Iraq, there was less political organization, less experience of local parties, etc. We could well have had a much less democratic election - I dont know that it makes sense to play that particular what if game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:34
|
|
quote: Which is flabbergasting, considering all we know about the OSCE. Forget it Dan, Spiffs drunk Serbs Kool aid on this one. |
Do you know an international observer? I do. I am the first westerner she met who didn't swallow the "Yushchenko is the good guy, Yanukovych is the bad guy" propaganda meme. (Note, she's French and studies in the same cursus as I do).
In her work, she had to spend only little time in each voting booth, where she made sure that the arrangement of the voting booth corresponded to the electoral law. She was dependent on a translator. She had very little briefing time, and had the general impression not to really know what she was doing. And most importantly, it struck her as obvious that any fraudulous voting booth could resume fraud once she left. But if during her very imperfect "control" of the voting booth, she labeled it as clean, then the OSCE would label the whole voting booth as "clean" as well.
quote: Hes trying to make a CHANGE. as for her role she is trying to change the results of those privatizations - the beneficiaries oppose her. |
A change compared to whom? If anything, Kuchma wasn't systematically favouring one half of Ukraine over another (he had both Yanukovych and Yushchenko as his prime ministers at different times). The first actual political decision of Pres. Yushchenko, OTOH, is to nomninate one of the most divisive personalities in the country (if not THE most) as Prime Minister. I don't see it as a progress at all.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|