Who/what will replace Saddam?
- Thread starter ohio
- Start date
its not the u.s or any other country place to choose a leader for the iraqi people because that new elected leader should reflect the morals and ideologies of the iraqi citizens. BUT its our job if we decide to go to war to insure a stable democratic environment afterwards so people can choose their new leader, without being harassed by new rising warlords that will try to fill the vaccum created by saddam's absence.
me
hopefully the people of IRAQ will decide... and i'm sure that the UN will have a say in the final decision.
the US and the western world will have to put some money into the pot, or else we may have another AFGHANISTAN.
i would like to see something that involves vision and less of the old world, but we all know that we never get what we want.
maybe democracy? blah to royalty, and the best world answer involves little AMERICAN external policy.
the US and the western world will have to put some money into the pot, or else we may have another AFGHANISTAN.
i would like to see something that involves vision and less of the old world, but we all know that we never get what we want.
maybe democracy? blah to royalty, and the best world answer involves little AMERICAN external policy.
No, Stringcheese would be a poor choice.
Perhaps Motionboy2?
I bet my bottom dollar the Iraqi's will continue to be screwed over...after the invasion
That question is one of the primary reasons why Hussein was not removed from power 12 years ago. The assumption (incorrect apparently) made by the UN Security Council was that a militarily weak but still soverign Iraq following the dissarmament agrement under the close watch of the UN would eventually stabilize the region. The thinking (again, apparently incorrect) was that his populace would eventually turn on him and a more friendly leadership would take its place. One willing to play ball with the rest of the region and the world. Perhaps in time this might happen. Perhaps not.
However the removal of Hussein presents a huge problem in regional balance. Depending on the political or religious leanings of Husseins replacement it could develop into an alliance with one of Iraq's neihboring countries.
A strong alliance between Iraq and Iran could be a dangerous thing in that region. A strong alliance formed between Iraq and Saudi Arabia could be destabilising to the region from an economic standpoint.
The ideal situation would be a regime that is very centrist and intent on soverignty and separation between it and its neihbors.
All in all a troublesome situation. However, the staus-quo is unacceptible.
I vote for this
Originally posted by Brian HCM#1
I vote for this
...which alone is more than we have come to expect from that region.
Bush Sr.
that's awesome
Sen Leiberman and Dashell.... Since these guys think that gun owning law abiding Americans are far more scarey than a nuke weiling Saddam...
The status quo is certainly not working. I think that loads are being said by the virtual silence of the Arab nations lately regarding Saddam and Iraq. That is except for the why don't you just leave.
Your assessment of what comes next is pretty good as well. However, the ideal situation is pretty close to what you got now except for the leader being a dufus. So I'm pretty sure that ideal reads pie in the sky.
There is another more scary scenario and it worries me more than the rest. Currently, there are three main factions within Iraq. The Kurds, the Sunni and Shia Muslims all three of which are not very happy with each other. Saddam has been able to keep it all under "control" by keeping the nation fairly secular at least in government. Remove him and all of a sudden you could have Yugoslavia all over again. Civil War just doesn't do it justice. Too avoid this is going to take a peace keeping force of huge porportions.
I do prefer your two options.
Bingo. What's worse than Saddam bombing the hell out of the Kurds? The Kurds, Shiite, and Sunni murdering each other by the hundreds of thousands using whatever crude weapon they can get their hands on.
Although we didn't seem to mind when it was the Hutus and the Tutsis.
I thought you didn't hold an intrinsic value on human life?
I thought our lack of involvement during the Hutu / Tutsi conflict was rather shameful. But given Clintions track record in Somalia one year prior it didn't surprise me. He lacked the sack to risk political reprecussions for the negative aspects of humanitarian missions.
From CNN:
Once, Hutus and Tutsis lived in harmony in Central Africa. About 600 years ago, Tutsis, a tall, warrior people, moved south from Ethiopia and invaded the homeland of the Hutus. Though much smaller in number, they conquered the Hutus, who agreed to raise crops for them in return for protection.
Even in the colonial era -- when Belgium ruled the area, after taking it from Germany in 1916 -- the two groups lived as one, speaking the same language, intermarrying, and obeying a nearly godlike Tutsi king.
Independence changed everything. The monarchy was dissolved and Belgian troops withdrawn -- a power vacuum both Tutsis and Hutus fought to fill. Two new countries emerged in 1962 -- Rwanda, dominated by the Hutus, and Burundi by the Tutsis -- and the ethnic fighting flared on and off in the following decades.
It exploded in 1994 with the civil war in Rwanda in which hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Tutsi rebels won control, which sent a million Hutus, fearful of revenge, into Zaire and Tanzania.
In Burundi, the Tutsis yielded power after a Hutu won the country's first democratic election in 1993. He was killed in an attempted coup four months later, and his successor in a suspicious plane crash in 1994, in which the Hutu leader of Rwanda was also killed.
Kinda like India and Pakistan... they were just fine under British Rule but once the Brits pulled out all hell broke loose...
heheh, I knew that had to come up sooner or later, with all my bleeding heart liberalism...
if you go back and read my statement, you'll note that I highly value a human's potential to contribute. Without turning this into that "other" debate... I'm fairly certain those millions were contributing more to humanity alive than dead.