I ran across this site recently and thought some out there might get something out of reading the insights of someone (a contractor) who has been on the ground in Baghdad. *An Iraqi’s Viewpoint *is interesting given the speech to come today.
http://www.pissedupasia.com/features/membersmishaps/baghdad.htm
BrianE,
Manufactured for someone’s amusement or legitimate?
As for working Democracies in the Middle East, Israel? Lebonon?
The source’s lack of knowledge of these democracies in the Middle East cause me, at least, to question his knowledge, expertise, wisdom and agenda/motive?
Do you feel the same?
I took it for what it is - one person’s view of what life is like in Baghdad for a civilian contractor and his impressions of the Iraqi people and their feelings. I don’t know if he has an agenda or not; based soley on his comments about carrying a weapon and being prepared to use it - I would say probably not.
He could be close to the mark on the problems to be encountered in setting up a democracy in Iraq given the tribal nature of the people and the religious/ethnic differences. Time will tell - I hope for the best. I don’t think Israel is a good comparison given the dominance of the Jewish religion there - not sure how someone who is not Jewish would respond to how democratic Israel is. Not familiar enough with the make up of Lebanon to compare
I don’t think Israel is a good comparison given the dominance of the Jewish religion there - not sure how someone who is not Jewish would respond to how democratic Israel is.
All citizens of Israel have full rights (including voting rights). This includes Jews and Arabs (the mayor of Jerusalem is/was an Arab, for instance). That’s not to say that Arabs don’t face discrimination in Israel, just as blacks face it in this democracy.
This is why Israel will never grant the “right of return” to Palestinians: it would mark the beginning of the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
Excuse me, but did you just call Lebanon a working democracy?
tom,
To paraphase my son’s social studies book. Lebonon is an example of a secular democracy. That was where I got my information, suspecting that, perhaps, it was somewhat current in as much as it was being taught in public schools. I suspected someone might take exception to the State of Israel as a democracy in the Middle East, but that another democracy existed there might be surprising to many? You do seem surprised. Where/what is the source of your information?
Technically. . .
Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt are republics. . .
Israel is a parliamentary democracy. . .
Iran is a theocratic republic. . .
Libya is a Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) in theory, governed by the populace through local councils; in fact, a military dictatorship
What is a republic? Initially, any type of government, which was not led by a monarchy. In contemporary American usage, the concept generally refers more particularly to a mode of government (“representative democracy”) in which decisive political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is implemented only sporadically and indirectly through the popular election of government officials and/or delegates to a legislative assembly rather than directly through frequent mass assemblies (parliaments) or legislation by referendum. Of course, the quality of the election process will determine the quality of the republic. I’ll leave it to you all to do a bit of research to determine the quality of elections held in the countries above.
Although Iran is labeled a theocratic republic, a democracy cannot be a theocracy. By its very nature a theocracy excludes a segment of society or relegates that segment to subservient status because its faith differs from that declared by the state. A democracy and theocracy are incompatible, just as fascism and democracy, monarchy and democracy, dictatorship and democracy are also incompatible. A theocracy may use some facets of democracy, but the primary requirement of equal inclusion for all without prejudice can never be attained under a state religious rule. I’ll leave it to the reader to determine the quality of Iran’s republic.
Israel. . . parliamentary system of government, in short Parliamentarism, is a multi-party form of government in which the executive branch is formally dependent on the Parliament’s acceptance. The Cabinet, or single members, can be removed by the Parliament through a vote of non-confidence. In addition, the executive branch can dissolve the legislature and call extra-ordinary elections. There is no clear-cut separation between the Parliament (the legislature) and the other branches of government. I guess it depends on how you view the influence of the Likud party. . .and whether real opposition parties exist.
How’d a jarhead like you learn all that;)? (SF)
History major and 2 PoliSci minors (International Studies, Middle Eastern Studies)
.
Time. . .yes, indeed, great magazine. . .named Joe Stalin “Man of the Year”. . . .TWICE!!! Truly a repository of forward thinkers!
Did the news guy know where your hand has been?
What is a republic? Initially, any type of government, which was not led by a monarchy. Can you provide a bit more background for this view? What governments have there been, historically, that fell into this category?
**Of course, the quality of the election process will determine the quality of the republic. I’ll leave it to you all to do a bit of research to determine the quality of elections held in the countries above. **This is far too simplistic. It isn’t simply the quality of the election process that determines the quality of a republic. Other factors can be, and are, far more significant. The quality of the citizen body, the level of civic virtue, etc. The quality of the election process is merely mechanical- if you have a nation of ignorami whose votes all get counted perfectly, guess what- the quality of your republic is going to suck.
Although Iran is labeled a theocratic republic, a democracy cannot be a theocracy. By its very nature a theocracy excludes a segment of society or relegates that segment to subservient status because its faith differs from that declared by the state. Irrelevant. Simply because a minority in a society is at odds with the governing values, does not invalidate those vaules. By it’s very nature, our democratic republic excludes anarchists, because their values and beliefs differ from those declared by our government. That doesn’t mean we’re not a democratic country.
A democracy and theocracy are incompatible, just as fascism and democracy, monarchy and democracy, dictatorship and democracy are also incompatible. Democracy and theocracy are certainly not incompatible. Democracy and monarchy aren’t even mutually exclusive. I seem to recall that Poland, at one point in its history, elected its kings.
No one can question that their military acts as prosecutors, judges and executors all in one. People in Israel do not get arrested, provided a public defender and have a right to a trial. If you are a suspect, regardless of guilty or not-guilty, you can get prosecuted, persecuted, judged and executed within less than 2 minutes
Does this occur within Israel, to Israeli citizens, without repercussions? Examples would be nice.
No one can question that their military acts as prosecutors, judges and executors all in one. People in Israel do not get arrested, provided a public defender and have a right to a trial. If you are a suspect, regardless of guilty or not-guilty, you can get prosecuted, persecuted, judged and executed within less than 2 minutes.
Lighten up, Frances. . .and go check yourself into the Jackass thread. . .
I have no intention of getting into a long winded political theory discussion. Of course my explanations were, indeed, simplistic. To do more would have required dissertations of the sort we’ve suffered through at the hands of FD, RVW, and KW and others over on the PC thread. Frankly, I’m not interested in long-winded exposes of how much or little ou, I or others really know. But I stand by what I wrote. And you most certainly did not understand certain portions of my post, especially with regard to the “quality” of the election process. . .I wasn’t talking about hanging chads. . .How much quality do you attribute to elections having only one candidate from the only party allowed to exist in a country? Technically that can be a republic. . .what is it in reality?
Hmmm, my reply didn’t work, which is probably just as well since Ken said pretty much the same thing, only more politely.
Anyway, this argument is pretty stupid. As much as many people disagree with Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank, it’s pretty clear that it is the only democratic government in the region.
Iran? Come on…
wow, this will be two political posts from me in one day. that’s a new record, as i don’t think i’ve ever replied to a post like this. however, this hits me close to home, so i have to respond.
i am very very very upset by what you said here. i’m going to try not to flame you, to call you ignorant or a cussword or something. i just want you to understand that i’m livid, but i’m trying to remain as level-headed as possible.
my cousin is in the israeli army right now, as are many of my good friends. as for my cousin, i’m pretty much horrified, and have been for the last two years. i can’t wait till he gets out in february. because israel has a draft, he had to join the army, but he is physically impaired (hearing problems, as well as birth defects). he’s smart as a whip, though, so he works in intel. the man is terrified of his own m-16. still, he wears a uniform, so i guess he’s a quasi-legitimate target for attack, even if the attacks are made by un-uniformed “militants” (which is another topic entirely). however, he walks his little brother, my 6 year old cousin, home from kindergarten every day. should the 6 year old be a target? of course not, but terrorists would rejoice if he was to die. how does that make sense?
on the other hand, the israeli army takes amazing steps to prevent civilian deaths. one of my friends broke into tears when i asked him about jenin. he told me the story of how his best friend had died in his arms, when they were pinned down by a palestinian sniper firing from an apartment building. they called for helicopter backup, which arrived promptly. however, the helicopter wasted precious minutes confirming the location of the sniper (“the east face of the building? okay, what floor? does the window have bars over it? is it the one with yellow curtains”, etc). during the time between the arrival of the helicopter and the death of the sniper, my friend’s best friend and two other men were hit by sniper fire. the guidelines for civilian-casualty prevention are extensive, but it’s easier to root for the underdogs with a “cause” than the well-organized, well-equipped army, isn’t it?
somewhere online, there are images captured by satellite or uav’s, where you can see the organization of the “militants” when the attack israeli soldiers. they put a the mortars in the back, with machine guns in front of them. next come the young men with molotov cocktails, with the front line being children with stones. they sacrifice their children so that uninformed westerners like yourself will put pressure on israel to compromise its own security. that’s how most of the deaths of innocents, as you put it, happen.
i’m sorry i can’t give you the pictures i just referred to. i’m going to try to find them now, but i’m at work, and i should at least pretend to be productive. however, before you make such outlandish, slanderous claims, do your research.
**I have no intention of getting into a long winded political theory discussion. Of course my explanations were, indeed, simplistic. To do more would have required dissertations of the sort we’ve suffered through at the hands of FD, RVW, and KW and others over on the PC thread. Frankly, I’m not interested in long-winded exposes of how much or little ou, I or others really know. **What, still feeling a little testy today? If you’re not interested in exposes, long-winded or otherwise, of what everyone knows and doesn’t know, I suggest you just shut up and stay out of the discussion. You post a relatively long explanation of various types of government as if it was undisputed truth, and now you’re upset that I’ve challenged your explanation? Get a grip.
** But I stand by what I wrote. And you most certainly did not understand certain portions of my post, especially with regard to the “quality” of the election process.** I am confident in my understanding of what you wrote. I just disagree with it. You seem to have difficulty grasping the difference.
** . .I wasn’t talking about hanging chads. . .How much quality do you attribute to elections having only one candidate from the only party allowed to exist in a country? Technically that can be a republic. . .what is it in reality? **In reality, it’s irrelevant to our initial discussion. It’s also irrelevant towards refuting any point I’ve made. However, it could be argued that it’s just as much a valid republic as ours, in which there are only two largely similar political parties allowed to exist in practice.
But if you want to pick up your marbles and go home, don’t let the door hit you on the way out, OK?
Vitus, what is your point? Do you want to tell us your view of which countries in the middle east can be called democracies?
Because of this, the UN and its Security Council have often requested to have this stopped. The USA is the ONLY nation using its veto to avoid it.
Fasttwitch, do you believe that the UN occupies some moral high ground, or speaks with a particular moral authority?
Vitus, what is your point? Do you want to tell us your view of which countries in the middle east can be called democracies?
My point is that terms like “democracy” and “freedom” and “liberty” get tossed around a lot as if they were interchangable, when they are not. My point is that a democratic government is not synonymous with a free society, and a non-democratic government doesn’t necessarily result in an oppressed people.
Iran is, in fact, a democracy. Whether or not it’s also free is a wholly seperate question.
If we are only concerned with installing democracy in Iraq, our task can be accomplished rather easily. But we’re not, really; we’re concerned with creating a Iraqi society that enjoys Western standards of freedom.
See the difference?