Does Iraq need a Saddam

Rouger2 · 11-03-2006, 03:09 PM

Maybe the only way that Iraq can be free of violence is for them to have a Saddam. Someone in is bad enough to scare all the different religous sects and tribes into acting civilized. We Americans have to realize that most of the rest of the world is not like us. We do not respond to Tyrants but others seem to. Like before in Iraq it was the baddest of the bad who ruled and that was Saddam. It was not just his cruelty that held the people but the feeling that he was the Clint Eastwood of their world. They knew he would keep people in line using cruelty but their would be peace and they could live their lives. They just had to make sure they were not the ones who displeased him. The People of Iraq I think will have to prove they don't need a Saddam but they have not done it so far. Thank god for our Waspy culture. I know Wasp is a dirty word but it was the acme of Western civilization.

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 03:18 PM

I don't think they need a Saddam. But I do think they need time to become accustomed to a new way of life.

A new Saddam would seem to fix things in the short term, but looking at the broader scope of things is what we need to do, and that wouldn't be a good thing for the long term.

IminWonderland · 11-03-2006, 09:24 PM

I think they need a Saddam.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-03-2006, 09:56 PM

Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a liberal democracy of the type we're trying to create, and unfortunately lots of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims. Until the Arab world evolves into some sort of Arab version of the the Enlightenment, democracy will never work there.

Stylerod · 11-03-2006, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a liberal democracy of the type we're trying to create, and unfortunately lots of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims. Until the Arab world evolves into some sort of Arab version of the the Enlightenment, democracy will never work there.

That's actually pretty well said. And might even be true.

Stylerod · 11-03-2006, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Maybe the only way that Iraq can be free of violence is for them to have a Saddam. Someone in is bad enough to scare all the different religous sects and tribes into acting civilized. We Americans have to realize that most of the rest of the world is not like us. We do not respond to Tyrants but others seem to. Like before in Iraq it was the baddest of the bad who ruled and that was Saddam. It was not just his cruelty that held the people but the feeling that he was the Clint Eastwood of their world. They knew he would keep people in line using cruelty but their would be peace and they could live their lives. They just had to make sure they were not the ones who displeased him. The People of Iraq I think will have to prove they don't need a Saddam but they have not done it so far. Thank god for our Waspy culture. I know Wasp is a dirty word but it was the acme of Western civilization.

So you think there was no violence when Saddam was in control? There was plenty. The difference was he would allow no one to report what was happening. News organizations like CNN knew first hand what was happening but they didn't want to lose their place as Saddams mouth piece so they just kept it to themselves.

IminWonderland · 11-04-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a liberal democracy of the type we're trying to create, and unfortunately lots of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims. Until the Arab world evolves into some sort of Arab version of the the Enlightenment, democracy will never work there.

This is why I believe they need another Saddam. Well said!

Scrum · 11-04-2006, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a liberal democracy of the type we're trying to create, and unfortunately lots of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims. Until the Arab world evolves into some sort of Arab version of the the Enlightenment, democracy will never work there.

motivez · 11-04-2006, 06:15 PM

Agree with Spicy. I don't think they need a harsh dictator that abuses the people, but I do think a strongman of sorts (religious or not) is required to be at the head of things at present.

Look at Iran, they vote, etc.. but ultimately the power lies in the hands of one person who makes the decisions and everyone obeys.

KatKanPlay · 11-05-2006, 05:28 AM

[quote=motivez;56163]Agree with Spicy. I don't think they need a harsh dictator that abuses the people, but I do think a strongman of sorts (religious or not) is required to be at the head of things at present.

Look at Iran, they vote, etc.. but ultimately the power lies in the hands of one person who makes the decisions and everyone obeys.[/quote]

Why does that sound familiar?

Rouger2 · 11-09-2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So you think there was no violence when Saddam was in control? There was plenty. The difference was he would allow no one to report what was happening. News organizations like CNN knew first hand what was happening but they didn't want to lose their place as Saddams mouth piece so they just kept it to themselves.

I did not say Saddams era was free of violence. It was the threat of violence that kept the many hot heads in line. and the people feeling that they had the strongest and badest man in the country leading it that appeals to people in some parts of the world.

Rouger2 · 11-09-2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with a liberal democracy of the type we're trying to create, and unfortunately lots of Iraqis are fundamentalist Muslims. Until the Arab world evolves into some sort of Arab version of the the Enlightenment, democracy will never work there.

They won"t respond to a Democracy maybe because they will only respond to a cruel and violent tyrant. It seems it is that way for many third world countries. Can Iraq drag it's people out of the middle ages. That is the question.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-09-2006, 03:53 PM

Should any country ever have democracy imposed from the outside? Maybe democratic revolutions are nature's indication that a people are ready for democracy. After all, if there aren't enough people to fight for democracy because they want it themselves, why would they ever have the will to fight for it because someone else wants it?

Maybe it's just that simple...look around at the world, and if you don't already see a democracy, it's because they're not ready for one.

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Should any country ever have democracy imposed from the outside? Maybe democratic revolutions are nature's indication that a people are ready for democracy. After all, if there aren't enough people to fight for democracy because they want it themselves, why would they ever have the will to fight for it because someone else wants it?

Maybe it's just that simple...look around at the world, and if you don't already see a democracy, it's because they're not ready for one.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 11-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Agree with Spicy. I don't think they need a harsh dictator that abuses the people, but I do think a strongman of sorts (religious or not) is required to be at the head of things at present.

Look at Iran, they vote, etc.. but ultimately the power lies in the hands of one person who makes the decisions and everyone obeys.

>" one person makes the decisions and everyone obeys."<

That seems to imply the role of a dictator.
Are you stating you prefer a dictator over a president?

In the case of Iran , who rules , the dictator or the religious leaders?

I prefer a representative Republic myself.
The Democrats won and I am not joyful about that.
They get the power given them by the people's vote so I
wish them to do well for the people.
Even a democratic president is far better than a dictator.

Diamond Cross · 11-09-2006, 08:57 PM

Democracy can work there. In the elections, fifteen million Iraqis voted. In comparison, that's more than half of the population to a third of Americans voting.

So yes, a democracy can work there.

Kytro · 11-09-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Democracy can work there. In the elections, fifteen million Iraqis voted. In comparison, that's more than half of the population to a third of Americans voting.

So yes, a democracy can work there.

yes it can "work" but that does not mean it will produce desirable results or that it will end violence.

The only thing that would work in Iraq is to force a secular constitution that allows for any religious viewpoint but prevents religion from being used as a basis for law.

There would also need to be at least a decade of foreign control, as well as complete rebuilding of the nation.

People need an environment in which they can grow to be free-thinkers before we can hope they will even try.

Diamond Cross · 11-09-2006, 10:59 PM

Here is the entire text to their constitution:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...05_constit.pdf

Some of the Iraqi rights listedL

PART ONE: RIGHTS FIRST: Civil and political rights.

Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, colour, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.

Article (15): Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body.

Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this.

Article (17): 1st - Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality.

2nd - The sanctity of the home is protected. They cannot be entered or searched or violated except by judicial decision and in accordance with the law.

Article (18): 1st - An Iraqi is anyone who has been born to an Iraqi father or an Iraqi mother.

2nd - Iraqi nationality is a right to all Iraqis and it is the basis of their citizenship.

3rd - (a) It shall be forbidden to withdraw the Iraqi citizenship from an Iraqi by birth for any reason. Those who have had their citizenship withdrawn have the right to reclaim it and this should be regulated by
law.

(b) Iraqi citizenship shall be withdrawn from naturalized citizens in cases stated by law.

4th - Every Iraqi has the right to carry more than one citizenship. Those who take a leading or high-level security position must give up any other citizenship. This shall be regulated by law.

They are not children and it looks as though to me they have the constitution they desire.

Kytro · 11-09-2006, 11:03 PM

What people desire isn't always a good thing

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

They are not children and it looks as though to me they have the constitution they desire.

And those IUD's going off are just in celebration of freedom!