Obama Declares An End To Iraq Mission

[bs69]

Will the Iraqi's be able to take care of their affairs and keep away from sectarian violence? Let's hope so. I wonder if concentrating on Afghanistan will bear fruit or just suck us in like the Soviets. It seems there will always be terrorist breeding grounds with Somalia the obvious successor if we succeed in Afghanistan. What are your thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38933239/ns/politics-white_house

[August West]

Will the Iraqi's be able to take care of their affairs and keep away from sectarian violence? Let's hope so. I wonder if concentrating on Afghanistan will bear fruit or just suck us in like the Soviets. It seems there will always be terrorist breeding grounds with Somalia the obvious successor if we succeed in Afghanistan. What are your thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38933239/ns/politics-white_house

Well there will still be 50,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.....albeit not involved in combat and relegated to their bases.It won't be long before the different sects in IRAQ are going crazy killing each other.Before you know it Civil War......and were right back in the shitstorm.

[Tom Banjo]

This reminds me of Bush's "Mission Accomplished." The Iraqi War is in its socalled final phase, but by no means over. I hope when the Civil War breaks out Obama has enough sense to remove the 50,000. Iraq has a right to self-determination and to establish its own government. Unfortunately, civil war sometimes is necessary to settle disputes and to build a nation. The nation has 3 or 4 major competing factions with extremely divergent views. Only one faction will be able to assume control. It appears Iraq is destined for a violent civil war and a new - more traditonalist - Muslim dictatorship. I hope I am wrong, but despite the evil of the man, Iraq was a much more stable place before the U.S. invasion. Sadamm understood that you can't always be loved and feared and that sometimes it is better to be feared than to be loved.

If you want to know how I really feel, ask me in private. This whole thing sickens me.

[chuckvegas]

The more things change...

[comesatime]

phew , glad that's over !!!

[bs69]

This reminds me of Bush's "Mission Accomplished." The Iraqi War is in its socalled final phase, but by no means over. I hope when the Civil War breaks out Obama has enough sense to remove the 50,000. Iraq has a right to self-determination and to establish its own government. Unfortunately, civil war sometimes is necessary to settle disputes and to build a nation. The nation has 3 or 4 major competing factions with extremely divergent views. Only one faction will be able to assume control. It appears Iraq is destined for a violent civil war and a new - more traditonalist - Muslim dictatorship. I hope I am wrong, but despite the evil of the man, Iraq was a much more stable place before the U.S. invasion. Sadamm understood that you can't always be loved and feared and that sometimes it is better to be feared than to be loved.

If you want to know how I really feel, ask me in private. This whole thing sickens me.

Do you think that democracy is sure to fail in the muslim world, or is Iraq unique because of it's mix of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd?

[Tom Banjo]

Do you think that democracy is sure to fail in the muslim world, or is Iraq unique because of it's mix of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd?

I do not know enough about the situation of all Muslim nations to truly speculate or make a real educated guess as to whether democracy can thrive in the Muslim world. I am not even convinced Democracy could not exist in Iraq. Unfortunately, for Democracy to thrive, those with power and influence must be willing to hold elections and respect the results. Democracy and representative governments are an interesting concept and often only exist on the surface. Very often elections are no more than placating the populous while the real power and decisions are made by those with military or corporate power. In the Arab world, it appears that the power will be concentrated in the hands of militant leaders, religious leaders, and oil barons. No elected government will truly assume power without the support from all three. In America, the corporations avoid the problem of losing by supporting both candidates through contributions. The corporations still hold most of the political power and sway, but they do not interfere with and respect the results of an election. Furthermore, America has a long standing Constitution that establishes the rule of government to be a contractual agreement between the government and the people. Those in power only hold power because of the consent of the people. In much of the Arab world, no such contractual view exist and many of the rulers are in power due to might or divine providence with no regard for a social contract between government and the people. Since you asked the question and probably have more knowledge on the subject then myself, would you care to share your perspective?

[bs69]

I do not know enough about the situation of all Muslim nations to truly speculate or make a real educated guess as to whether democracy can thrive in the Muslim world. I am not even convinced Democracy could not exist in Iraq. Unfortunately, for Democracy to thrive, those with power and influence must be willing to hold elections and respect the results. Democracy and representative governments are an interesting concept and often only exist on the surface. Very often elections are no more than placating the populous while the real power and decisions are made by those with military or corporate power. In the Arab world, it appears that the power will be concentrated in the hands of militant leaders, religious leaders, and oil barons. No elected government will truly assume power without the support from all three. In America, the corporations avoid the problem of losing by supporting both candidates through contributions. The corporations still hold most of the political power and sway, but they do not interfere with and respect the results of an election. Furthermore, America has a long standing Constitution that establishes the rule of government to be a contractual agreement between the government and the people. Those in power only hold power because of the consent of the people. In much of the Arab world, no such contractual view exist and many of the rulers are in power due to might or divine providence with no regard for a social contract between government and the people. Since you asked the question and probably have more knowledge on the subject then myself, would you care to share your perspective?

I doubt that I have more knowledge on the subject than you and I agree with what you say above. I think that democracy will have a difficult time taking root in the region because those with power will not give it up. On a local level the tribal leaders hold sway and aren't likely to give up their influence through an election, so elections will be rigged to keep them in control. On a national level, power is held by those who control the oil and water along with the Religious leaders and these forces will be jockeying for power.

It seems to me that Sunni's and Shiites have a long way to go to reconcile their differences and Iraq is a real boiling pot because of the large percentages of each that live there. If they want to succeed, they need to find a way to keep these Religious leaders out of politics.