Can Iraq survive long as a 'democracy' with Iran and Syria? Thoughts?

[clonebot]

In the event that Iraq doesn't experience a civil war in a couple years - Is it even remotely possible for a fledging democracy to exist next to two countries who would gladly dedicate all resources to stamping out any western style democracy on their border? Can Iraq be saved by the west (particularly the U.S.) appealing to Syria and Iran and elements in Jordan and Saudi Arabia NOT to aid revolutions and 'insurgencies' within Iraq's border or mount their own invasions after a possible U.S. withdrawl in the future? Or can we just assume that the only way Iraq could survive is for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iran and Syria as well? Can Iraq's newly 'trained' security forces be as successful as Israel during the early problems that they faced?

Just wanted to know people's thoughts on the issue.

[Zorra]

1. Democracy? Iraq is never going to be a democracy. Bu$h never intended

for Iraqis to form their own genuinely sovereign government. Bu$h did not lie about WMD and invade Iraq in order to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Look at Bu$h's overall record in every area. Bu$h could care less about democracy, whether it is in Iraq or the US.

Bu$h is a fascist. He thinks corporations should run governments, not people.

He invaded Iraq to make it a "colony".

The PNAC agenda was to colonize an oil rich Middle Eastern state, setting up a puppet government controlled by the US as part of their plan for global empire.

This is not democracy.

[Leilani]

6. Exactly, & also a place for U.S. military bases

smack in the middle of the MidEast, to extend their dominance.

How many bases have they planned, 8 I believe.

[gottaB]

2. Yes

These are big ifs, but if Iraq is able to exist as a democracy and the US pulls its forces out, Iraq will be able to live with its neighbors.

I don't believe that Syria and Iran will devote all their resources to stamping out democracy on their border. At the moment I believe the political establishments in those countries feel acutely threatened by the US presence in Iraq and would devote some resources to undermining US efforts there.

Border conflicts, instability and political disagreements will characterize Iraqi foreign relations for many years to come, no matter what kind of government is established there. As long as the government is strong enough to defend itself and provide a modicum of control over its territory, I wouldn't expect its neighbors to seek to overthrow it. A weak Iraqi government may invite more or less defensive incursions by Turkey, Syria and/or Iran. By and large though those countries would prefer to wield political influence over the Iraqi government rather than invade and occupy its territory.

My thoughts.

[Disturbed]

3. Iraq a Democracy?

Share what you are smokin' with me, please.

Iraq will never be allowed a democracy. Why?

Here is proof that no such intention was ever considered.



The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[gottaB]

7. as I said, big ifs

Irrespective of how one interprets US intentions, the world has witnessed a trend towards democratic forms of government over the past two centuries. It is concievable, if increasingly unlikely, that Iraq will join that trend in the near future.

[clonebot]

8. yea thats sort of what i meant

i didn't mean that iraq was going to be some sort of true representative perfect gov't. and some of you were too quick on the trigger finger to point out that iraq has a puppet government. but compared to its neighbors iraq has a very democratic structure on the surface and that spells "america" and "western" to neighboring countries and that would fuel their animosity i would believe. assuming they keep garrisons in the country are we basically leaving our troops there in a constant state that they could be invaded any moment (a.g. south korea, west germany)

[louis c]

4. Iraq's Democracy Will Last for One Election

If there is a ligament election, what ever side is the most anti-American will win.

By our own admission, no one in Iraq can succeed if they are associated with us. Even the Iraqi soccer players in their moment of triumph, paused long enough to criticize the Bush Administration.

If elections were truly our intent in the Middle-East, why didn't we insist on it in Kuwait after we "liberated" that country in 1991?

How about our staunch ally, Saudi Arabia. Does anyone know the results in Riyadh for the last election there? (sarcasm).

Jordan still has a King, and there's another huge Bush guy.

How about our new found friends in Pakistan. I seem to remember that the government change there was as a result of a military coup that overthrew a democratically elected Prime-Minister.

Democracy in Iraq, don't make me laugh. The last thing that this U.S. Government wants in any Middle-East country is Democratic elections. If they have them, we would lose the few Monarchies and dictatorships that support us now.

The United States wants democracy in the Middle-East, what morons fall for this shit?

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Definitely

Since Turkey is already a western style democracy, and Iran and Syria, both of which border it, show no signs of devoting any significant resources (let alone all of them) to stamping it out, your supposition of 2 countries desperate to take over their neighbours is groundless. Not all countries are power grabbing or paranoid.

Their leaders may be ruthless about retaining their own power (because if they weren't, they'd be at risk of imprisonment or execution), but that doesn't mean they'd march into Iraq the first chance they get.

Why do you think they would?

[clonebot]

9. i didnt necessarily say they would take it over

its probaly highly unlikely they would invade but i was talking more about suppporting revoultions and other factions within iraq

[Bridget Burke]

12. Please list the wars started because ...

a government that was not democratic wanted to overthrow another government simply because it was. Aren't wars usually begun to seize resources or territory, no matter what pious excuses are offered?

There are plenty of factors that might lead to future violence in the region; don't worry about excessive democracy in Iraq causing trouble. Besides, that hardly seems to be imminent.

[DrWeird]

10. Oh, for fuck's sake.

Syria was a parliamentary democracy when it gained independence in 1946. Iran was a democracy until the US overthrew it and installed the Shah.

The US has no interest in making Iraq a democracy. The upcoming "elections" are about as legitimate as Saddam's "elections."

The US is no friend of democracy in the middle east.

[partygirl]

11. a lot of people will disagree

but I know several Iraq and Iranian people and in my opinon both of these societies would be capable of supporting successful democracies.

That does not mean that it will happen based on what we have done. But I think it is arrogant to act like "those people could not have a Democracy"

I am particularly encouraged by a history of treating women well in both of those cultures. Some people just seem eager to see it implode--but those are PEOPLE over there and good people. They are very capable of having a successful society. I don't see any reason why not.

Edited to add: Syria too. I think all of them could have Democracy IF that is what they choose to do. And they can be successful.