Democratic Iraq
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">A step in the right direction?</div> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031016/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_031016115275' target='_blank'>News link</a>
The UN passed a Unanimous descision to aid Iraq with even countries like Syria voting yes on the resolution. Is this sign of solidarity a step in the right direction toward rebuilding Iraq into a true democratic state?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->U.N. Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution
41 minutes ago
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting more troops and money to stabilize Iraq (news - web sites) and putting it on the road to independence.
The vote bolstered U.S. efforts to win credibility for its rebuilding effort in Iraq and to ease the burden of American forces there. But at a summit in Brussels, some European leaders ruled out any immediate commitments of financial or military aid.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) called the vote "a great achievement."
"We have come together to help the Iraqi people and put all of our differences of the past in the past," Powell said in Washington.
Powell said the vote sets the stage for an Iraq donors conference next week in Madrid and would help U.S. officials raise money and make it easier for countries to provide peacekeepers. He declined to "put any numbers" only how many would be volunteered.
Still, he acknowledged opposition by some countries to sending forces.
"I don't see this vote as opening the door to troops," he said.
Powell said he did not expect troops from Russia, Germany or France but that he hoped they would be helpful.
The resolution, he said, "will assist those who are interested in providing troops by giving this broader U.N. mandate for those troops and putting them under multinational force designation."
U.S. officials had been concerned that after six weeks of intense diplomatic campaigning, the resolution might get only the minimum nine "yes" votes needed for adoption.
In a dramatic shift, the United States won last-minute backing from France, Germany and Russia, the main opponents to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said after the conference call with presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) of Russia. "Many things have been included from what we proposed. This led us ... to jointly agree to the resolution."
However, the resolution was not expected to translate into immediate funds and troops.
European countries are "very far from being able to commit themselves financially or militarily" to the reconstruction of Iraq, said Catherine Colanna, a spokeswoman for Chirac.
Washington also won backing from China and Pakistan, and finally — and most surprisingly — from Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council and a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said the vote showed the commitment of the Security Council "to place the interests of the Iraqi people above all other considerations.
"It is critical to the Iraqi people, the region and the entire international community that we succeed in reaching the goal of an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors."
In Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council welcomed the resolution as a step toward bringing stability to the war-battered country and ending violence against the American-led occupation.
"We welcome pumping more funds into Iraq from the donor states and the other states in order to reconstruct the Iraqi economy and combat unemployment," said Mouwafak al-Rabii. "This can be one of the successful means to dry out the cores of terror."
Germany, France and Russia had announced their decision to vote "yes" after a 45-minute conversation earlier Thursday, in a bid to bring international solidarity to the reconstruction effort.
Putin, who was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as a special observer at an Islamic summit, said the leaders had agreed on a common position, but he didn't give details.
The United States had focused on Russia in its search for votes after it rejected the French-Russian-German demand for a timetable to restore Iraq's sovereignty. Moscow had taken a more moderate position than France and Germany.
Council diplomats said Washington asked what Moscow wanted and then submitted three amendments Wednesday morning. Less than 12 hours later, the amendments were accepted "99 percent by the sponsors" and included in a fifth draft of the resolution, said Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov.
The amendments gave Annan greater scope to participate in drafting a new Iraqi constitution and the political transition, and would state for the first time that the mandate of U.S.-led troops would expire when an Iraqi government is elected.
Facing rising costs and casualties in Iraq, the Bush administration initially concentrated on getting more countries to provide troops and money to help stabilize and rebuild Iraq.
France, Russia and Germany changed the agenda to the quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, however, forcing the United States to make clear it has no intention of remaining an occupying power. The resolution states that "the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly."
The United States and Britain never wavered in their assessment that sovereignty can't be relinquished until Iraq drafts a new constitution and holds elections.
They agreed, however, to include new provisions urging the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority "to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable" and calling on the Iraqi Governing Council to provide the Security Council with a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding elections by Dec. 15. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The UN passed a Unanimous descision to aid Iraq with even countries like Syria voting yes on the resolution. Is this sign of solidarity a step in the right direction toward rebuilding Iraq into a true democratic state?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->U.N. Unanimously Adopts Iraq Resolution
41 minutes ago
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - In a diplomatic victory for the United States, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Thursday aimed at attracting more troops and money to stabilize Iraq (news - web sites) and putting it on the road to independence.
The vote bolstered U.S. efforts to win credibility for its rebuilding effort in Iraq and to ease the burden of American forces there. But at a summit in Brussels, some European leaders ruled out any immediate commitments of financial or military aid.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) called the vote "a great achievement."
"We have come together to help the Iraqi people and put all of our differences of the past in the past," Powell said in Washington.
Powell said the vote sets the stage for an Iraq donors conference next week in Madrid and would help U.S. officials raise money and make it easier for countries to provide peacekeepers. He declined to "put any numbers" only how many would be volunteered.
Still, he acknowledged opposition by some countries to sending forces.
"I don't see this vote as opening the door to troops," he said.
Powell said he did not expect troops from Russia, Germany or France but that he hoped they would be helpful.
The resolution, he said, "will assist those who are interested in providing troops by giving this broader U.N. mandate for those troops and putting them under multinational force designation."
U.S. officials had been concerned that after six weeks of intense diplomatic campaigning, the resolution might get only the minimum nine "yes" votes needed for adoption.
In a dramatic shift, the United States won last-minute backing from France, Germany and Russia, the main opponents to the U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
"We agreed that the resolution is really an important step in the right direction," Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said after the conference call with presidents Jacques Chirac of France and Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) of Russia. "Many things have been included from what we proposed. This led us ... to jointly agree to the resolution."
However, the resolution was not expected to translate into immediate funds and troops.
European countries are "very far from being able to commit themselves financially or militarily" to the reconstruction of Iraq, said Catherine Colanna, a spokeswoman for Chirac.
Washington also won backing from China and Pakistan, and finally — and most surprisingly — from Syria, the only Arab nation on the Security Council and a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said the vote showed the commitment of the Security Council "to place the interests of the Iraqi people above all other considerations.
"It is critical to the Iraqi people, the region and the entire international community that we succeed in reaching the goal of an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors."
In Iraq, the U.S.-appointed Governing Council welcomed the resolution as a step toward bringing stability to the war-battered country and ending violence against the American-led occupation.
"We welcome pumping more funds into Iraq from the donor states and the other states in order to reconstruct the Iraqi economy and combat unemployment," said Mouwafak al-Rabii. "This can be one of the successful means to dry out the cores of terror."
Germany, France and Russia had announced their decision to vote "yes" after a 45-minute conversation earlier Thursday, in a bid to bring international solidarity to the reconstruction effort.
Putin, who was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, as a special observer at an Islamic summit, said the leaders had agreed on a common position, but he didn't give details.
The United States had focused on Russia in its search for votes after it rejected the French-Russian-German demand for a timetable to restore Iraq's sovereignty. Moscow had taken a more moderate position than France and Germany.
Council diplomats said Washington asked what Moscow wanted and then submitted three amendments Wednesday morning. Less than 12 hours later, the amendments were accepted "99 percent by the sponsors" and included in a fifth draft of the resolution, said Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov.
The amendments gave Annan greater scope to participate in drafting a new Iraqi constitution and the political transition, and would state for the first time that the mandate of U.S.-led troops would expire when an Iraqi government is elected.
Facing rising costs and casualties in Iraq, the Bush administration initially concentrated on getting more countries to provide troops and money to help stabilize and rebuild Iraq.
France, Russia and Germany changed the agenda to the quick restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, however, forcing the United States to make clear it has no intention of remaining an occupying power. The resolution states that "the day when Iraqis govern themselves must come quickly."
The United States and Britain never wavered in their assessment that sovereignty can't be relinquished until Iraq drafts a new constitution and holds elections.
They agreed, however, to include new provisions urging the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority "to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable" and calling on the Iraqi Governing Council to provide the Security Council with a timetable for drafting a new constitution and holding elections by Dec. 15. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
plain and simple.
Too many rivalaries, the Kurd's will want it one way, the Sunni another and the Shiite another.
I always think that we should societies evolve alone. Democracy could be 'better' way to do things but they will get there eventually when they are ready. It's the same thing like a much older alien race would now land on earth and force us to do it their way because they know it's better. Shouldn't they let us evolve and eventually get there by ourselves?
Well, no one listens to me anyway. I guess something good will come out of democratic Iraq too. It's just going to be a huge culture-shock for Iraqis.
plain and simple.
Too many rivalaries, the Kurd's will want it one way, the Sunni another and the Shiite another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well that's essentially what I believe will happen as well. When facing such rivalries and conflicts, sometimes a dictatorship is the only way to run things properly.
plain and simple.
Too many rivalaries, the Kurd's will want it one way, the Sunni another and the Shiite another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True.
If the America, GB, and the UN really wanted to make Iraq a decent place to live for its citizens they would take out the northern part of Iraq, not a big piece, and give it to the Kurds. That's really what they've wanted all along.
As for the Shiite and Sunni, the difference between the two is so small. I think it's the Shiite who believe only people chosen by their god can arise to rule a Muslim "empire" while the Sunni believe that any man can rise and become a leader of the people. I think that the two can get along even with this small difference, it's just a matter of getting the two sides to accept each other, which could take awhile.
But if you look at some of the other countries that have been taken by the Allied powers, or America and Great Britain alone you see some powerful ones. Japan has turned into a economical powerhouse and and a technology hotbed. South Korea, although we didn't "take them over", has also turned into a large economic and tech country. Then there's Germany which is now probably the 2nd or 3rd most powerful country in Europe. Democracy takes awhile and usually works well if you have the patience. It may take awhile and alot of blood may be shed but I think Iraq should turn out fairly well in the next 5-10 years.
P.S. to defend the bible; the bible teaches: women are treated as "helpers" and are loved and respected not treated as possessions. To my understanding slavery was very prevalent back then and was considered a "job" , slavemasters and slaves were taught in the bible to respect each other and treat each other with kindness, slaves under christians were treated with respect and love (this was taught int he bible, I think in matthew the story about the slaves can't put my finger on it) it was more of a job then anything and slaves were taught to respect there masters, I can only imagine what a good relationship this caused between master and slave eventually he would earn his freedom then what would happen? now that he was free he probably would just work under the original master with the title as "employed worker" rather than "slave" basically I'm trying to say jsut because something is labeled slavery does not mean what we think of it as bad and horrible...I bet homeless people opted for slavery if they couldnt get anything to eat and they probably woudl feel indebted to their master for getting them off the streets and especially if he treated them in a christian-like fashion, would you want to leave a master that treated you with nothing but love and kindness like you were his little brother? haha that gets me to another point technically I'm a slave under God, does that make me want to leave and earn my freedom and go away from him? no I love him because he loves me and he blessed me with so many good things in my life I just can't explain how indebted i feel to him and hopefully he'll have a "job" waiting for me upstairs haha <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
good points tho, maybe my view on the muslim culture is flawed...
plain and simple.
Too many rivalaries, the Kurd's will want it one way, the Sunni another and the Shiite another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You remind me of people who say Europe would have never banded together. You lewse.
I always think that we should societies evolve alone. Democracy could be 'better' way to do things but they will get there eventually when they are ready. It's the same thing like a much older alien race would now land on earth and force us to do it their way because they know it's better. Shouldn't they let us evolve and eventually get there by ourselves?
Well, no one listens to me anyway. I guess something good will come out of democratic Iraq too. It's just going to be a huge culture-shock for Iraqis. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let my hijacking be the last hijacking <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
The Bible also stipulates that slaves must be released every seven years - to become free. That way, being a slave was actually a career alternative. If you went bust, you could always get free lodging and decent treatment for 7 years working unpaid for someone else, as many people chose to do to repay debts.
Sif the Bible keeps women inferior - at the time, they had to be settled down because they discovered a new found sense of freedom within Christianity. No long the virtual slaves of their husbands, they were to be treated with love and kindness, and there a whole sections on the wonder and joy a wise and loving wife can bring to her husband. She is given the second seat, the man is to lead, but that in no way makes her an inferior creature.
That said, I pretty much agree with TOOL, the Iraqi's havent got a hope in hell in maintaining a stable democracy - it doesnt seem to fit with their religion and culture.
Religious rivalries run too deep. the Kurd's will always want something different then the other two. British brand democracy, however, would work. Or even German brand democracy.
plain and simple.
Too many rivalaries, the Kurd's will want it one way, the Sunni another and the Shiite another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will a democracy work ? Absolutely not. Understand what democracy is, it would probably good if people didn't use it interchangably just to be exact.
However, a republic might possibly work, but it would need to be modeled almost entirely like the US Constitution in order to work, understanding that the US is the first republic to suceed. However, if you read the writings of Tocqueville, a republic similar to the US is reliant on a variety of things, however, if successful is noted to be the favorable structure, that structure being a Federal government.
However, the Iraqi rivalries are not much different in terms of the differences between that of Conservatives or Liberals, both are practically split on religion also.
When I say it can succeed, understand I am being emphatic about the structure of their constitution, it needs to be the first step they take, the very first.
Republics will, because they allow a multi-sided, multi-sided senate and government.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but notice that Conservatives and Liberals are not heavily armed and walking around in the streets, waiting for something to happen. I support the Bush administrations plan for Iraq, to a point. I agree they need ALOT of money to rebulid Iraq and get the government organized. But some of the things they want to spend money on are just plan stupid. Do the Iraqis really need a museum dedicated to showing the Iraqis the horrors of Saddam, I think they know all to well. Also getting a zip code system set up, people are walking around with rifles...zip codes can wait. I think the problem is not so much with the Iraqis, although this can be argued, but with the goals people have set for them. This is going to take time, people are in impatiant and I think the administration is rushing things a bit to show us all results. Ease up and give it some time. I bet there are still some Iraqis that don't even know Saddam is out of power.
Yes the differance itself is small. However, the differance between Protestants and Catholics is small as well. Go to Northern Ireland and see how well those two groups get along. Same goes for Islam; Shite and Sunni muslims follow very similar versions of Islam, but the small differances are enough to make these two groups loathe one another. They really don't like each other. This can't be stressed enough; they're not going to forget 1300 years of religious conflict overnight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You remind me of people who say Europe would have never banded together. You lewse. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Europe is banded together!? Since when?
And to clarify;
Western Europe only formed NATO due to the percieved threat of the Soviet Union. NATO was also heavily US sponsored; without the US, NATO never would have survived. Eastern Europe was forced together under the Warsaw Pact. Thus it was only through external influences that parts of Europe came together, and even then it was external pressure that <i>forced</i> European nations together. Europe remains culturally, ethnically, religiously and economically divided; it is highly likely that Europe will never be one united nation.
And on the topic, simply by saying "Oh look, we forced a bunch of European nations who hate one another to join together" doesn't mean that you'll get anywhere in Iraq. French and German people might not get along very well, but rare indeed is the Frenchman armed with an AK-47 and 2 pounds of Semtex willing to give his life to kill some Germans. The splits in the Iraqi populace run deep and the people on each side are quite fanatical. I simply don't know what will happen in Iraq but I fear that democracy may falter. A republic might very well work, but that doesn't seem to be what the US is imposing on the Iraqi people.
The splits in the Iraqi populace run deep and the people on each side are quite fanatical. I simply don't know what will happen in Iraq but I fear that democracy may falter. A republic might very well work, but that doesn't seem to be what the US is imposing on the Iraqi people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats another part of the problem, there is such a VAST differnce between our cultures, that it makes it almost impossible to understand each other. From an American stand point the Iraqi religious conflict seems almost childish, pointless, stupid, and forever ongoing. Religion is the stupidist thing in the world to fight over, as far as im concerned, and my opinion of the Iraqi people who par take in "Jihad" or what ever they would call it, will always remain low. From an Arab stand point, not in general, religion is the most important thing, you can give up your life for it. Whay do they do it? I'm not sure, but its ether their so poor and so down trodden at this point, that human life means to little. Or they "think" their doing what god wants them to do, due to brainwashing in schools, and crazy people like Bin Laden who seem to be role modles over there. Maybe they just need something to fight about at this point, it become so much a part of their culture.
Not to mention their religion says that they can do what ever it takes to convert others to it, even kill them. I'm sure that dosent help.