Is the US commitment to democracy in Iraq sincere?

[Red Panda]

Not if you go by the record of US democritization in Kuwait.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8287-2003Feb26.html

Hopes for Democracy a Mirage in Kuwait
 
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 27, 2003; Page A01


KUWAIT CITY, Feb. 26 -- When a U.S.-led coalition liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation 12 years ago today, Masoumah Mubarak heard the promises from the ruling Sabah family. There would be political reforms. Parliament would be revived. Women would vote. "Soon," the wealthy emirate's leaders said from their comfortable exile in Saudi Arabia.

Mubarak, a professor of political science at Kuwait University, believed -- all the way through May 16, 1999, when the emir followed through on his pledge of eight years earlier and publicly endorsed women's voting rights. Then she saw what happened in Kuwait's National Assembly: The emir's words were put to the test, and the ruling family failed to put its political clout behind them. Women's rights lost by two votes in parliament and the emir never pushed the idea again.

Mubarak no longer believes. Despite the prospect of another U.S.-led war against Iraq, one that President Bush says will foster democratization throughout the Middle East, many Kuwaitis look skeptically to the example of their own country. "Nobody believes the war will bring democracy to the Arab world. Look at Kuwait. I don't buy it," Mubarak said.

 

 

[Aurelius]

Ouch.

 

[datan]

as sincere as its commitment to Afghanistan, I guess.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Regardless of how sincere the commitment is, the important thing is that out of the US, Europe, and Arab countries, only the US displays any commitment at all.

 

[Blindfaith]

Excellent point!

Love your picture! That's quite awesome....

 

[Ajnin]

It could be, I haven't read anything about long term plans for post-war Iraq, but as for the immediate aftermath of the war, it looks like the US gov will be placing a military governor over the region with most of the government infrastructure made up of what's left of Sadam's old party.  Not that that is a bad thing, If I remember correctly the same thing happened in Japan after WWII until a constitutional government could be wheeled into place.  But Japan also had a populance that was more prone to cooperation than I'm betting the Iraqis are.  And of course if we do as good a job as we're doing in Afganistan it's a safe bet that the US's time in Iraq will be remembered as a quagmire. 

Also since most people think the war's going to go off soon, the peace time following soon after, how much do you think Iraq is going to need to avoid money wise after the war.  If the plan from the pentagon, shock and awe,is put into play, I think they'll need quite a bit.  And since no money is alloted in this year's budget for reconstruction in Iraq, as far as I know, that should show our committment to Iraq.

 

[datan]

reconstruction can come from iraq's oil $$.
but where does $$ for the war & occupation come from?

 

[strathyboy]

Today at 01:20 PM datan said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681353#post681353)

reconstruction can come from iraq's oil $$.
but where does $$ for the war & occupation come from?

I thought I heard/read Bush say something along the lines of "the oil belongs to the Iraqi's", thus indicating he likely wouldn't use it to reconstruct the nation after the war. Too bad I can't remember where I read it.

 

[Blindfaith]

Then why not use the profits from the oil for reconstruction? Am I missing something here? ::scratches head::

 

[TheBear]

Today at 08:20 AM datan said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681353#post681353)

reconstruction can come from iraq's oil $$.
but where does $$ for the war & occupation come from?

Iraqi oil.

 

[strathyboy]

Today at 02:41 PM blindfaith said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681443#post681443)

Then why not use the profits from the oil for reconstruction? Am I missing something here? ::scratches head::

I think the general line of thought is that if America caused all the damage of a war, then America should pay for the damages, not use oil taken as spoils of war. Why should the Iraqis have to pay for the reconstruction?

 

[caley]

has the US ever installed a functional democracy. They sure have supported a lot of unpopular dictatorships.

 

[Morat]

Well, it appears that any democracy most likely will not include our good friends the Kurds. They've been sold down the river to Turkey in exchange for our use of their bases.

 

[datan]

Today at 01:59 PM strathyboy said this in Post #8 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=681386#post681386)

I thought I heard/read Bush say something along the lines of "the oil belongs to the Iraqi's", thus indicating he likely wouldn't use it to reconstruct the nation after the war. Too bad I can't remember where I read it.

and you trust Bush because ... ?