This is why I find it simply impossible to distinguish what's "better" - a ruthless dictator under whose power human rights are inexistent (just read about his sons), and genocide is committed, but who keeps a country of at least three antagonistic social groups together.Originally posted by GoToAway:
Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but the simple fact of the matter is that the region is not ready for a western-style republican government. He may have been an autocratic dictator, but he managed to create a stable, non-theocratic state with a relatively high standard of living for the region.
OR - an ever worse state of constant insecurity and death, but with that little hope for change which wouldn't be present under an inert dictatorship.
It's really a question on whether you want to feel safe in a ruthless dictatorship, or strive for a democratic and humane state but at immense costs of transition and with a very uncertain success. Do you want to be "safe" under an inhumane dictator or do you want to risk safety for the prospect of eventually having a "safer" democratic regime.
The question in far from an easy one. Morally (and idealistically) I would find the second option more appealing. But realistically, especially if I had a family there, I would just stay out of politics/military or anything that has to do with government or public exposition and just live my life with my family under Saddam unconcerned that they would be randomly blown up one day on the way to the market.
Either way, America had no business invading the country, especially since it didn't have anything to do with liberation and everything to do with oil and gaining another foothold on the middle east.
The Iraq I see in the future is either a de facto anarchy like Somalia, or a country falling under the power of a new, very probably theocratic dictator.
Also, this may be old news, but this is an amazing blog by an Iraqi girl about her experiences and developments in the country from 2003 to late 2007 when her family emigrated into Syria. Very moving.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
imo iraq will not implode. in a couple of years its fledgling democracy will be replaced by a military junta thats friendly to the us and the Sunni's will still be calling the shots.
when we decided to get rid of saddam this should of been our aim in the first place. its a tried an true method and has worked for us quite for us quite a few times in the past. but Noooo, we had to try to build democracy in a country that plainly wasn't ready for it. thus costing the lives of hundreds of american soldiers and god knows how many Iraqis.
I don't think it was so much a matter of "being ready for democracy" (remember Iran is actually a democracy, even if we don't like their leaders), it is nothing inherently about the Iraqi people making them unable to except democracy. I would rather say it is a matter of method. Democracy is a fine.tuned way of governing, a society in the middle of a war needs a bit more course means of governing.Originally posted by Von_Rat:
Noooo, we had to try to build democracy in a country that plainly wasn't ready for it.