Why has Iraq, and other Arab countries, tolerated a long string of dictators and tyrants? For the same reason many other countries, like China and Russia, have; it's the only form of government those nations could come up with that created some form or order. The price was a general loss of personal freedom, economic mismanagement, and wars with neighbors. Democracy is a far superior form of government, but it requires a lot more from the population. More personal responsibility, less corruption, and a greater willingness to work out compromises. Many Iraqis are not sure their country has enough of all that to get a functioning democracy off the ground. Should the new Iraqi democracy prove weak, a new strongman will surely appear. There are many waiting in the wings. For over a decade, Iraq's neighbors, and countries like the U.S., hoped to replace Saddam Hussein, not with a democracy, but with a "more reasonable" dictator.

In a pattern that is very common in the Middle East. A successful dictator takes control of the security forces (especially the intelligence agency and secret police), and then uses the national wealth to pay off enough people to keep himself, and his inner circle, in power. The majority of the population is kept in line via terror and poverty. This was how Saddam did it, and there are many Iraqis who know how this works and would not mind being a part of it. The part on top, of course.

What is radically different this time around in Iraq is that the Shia and Kurdish majority, for the first time, have the fire power to keep the usual source of dictators, the Sunni Arabs, from taking over. So the most likely elected president, or next dictator, will be a Shia Arab (which comprise 60 percent of the population.) At the moment, Shia leaders are not very respected.

Many collaborated with Saddam (who bought off, drove into exile, or killed off, powerful business, tribal and commercial leaders.) Shia religious leaders are the most respected, especially those who stood up to Saddam (and usually had to flee the country, usually to Shia Iran).

It's something of a gamble, the upcoming elections. The people elected to the presidency and parliament could simply get together, decide to restore dictatorship (in the name of "order"), and that would be that. But there is a new idea circulating around the Arab world. Since the 1990s, many among the chattering classes have been suggesting that, perhaps all the woes of the Arabs (economic, political, diplomatic) are not the fault of others, but of the Arabs themselves. This is not a popular concept, but it has been getting louder, and more acceptable. Personal responsibility is not well received among Arabs, many of whom consider it "un-Islamic." After all, "Islam" means, literally, "submission." What happens is God's will, not, as the Infidels (non-Moslems) say, individuals acting as their consciences dictate.

So in Iraq, it's not just a matter of politics, but religion and culture as well. It's not a matter of who the next dictator of Iraq will be, but whether the Iraqis are willing, and able, to rid themselves of thousands of years of dictators to try democracy.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=iraq.htm&base=iraq&Prev=0&BeginCnt=31




"To secure the peace is to prepare for war." George Washington and later Metallica.

great thread/topic thanks how do I register for strategy page? I can't seem to get it to work.

___________________________________________
incredible gift giving people operate this charity: http://www.gktw.org/

click on the link below to add content to the website that promotes this forum
http://global-military.com/index.php

Why has Iraq, and other Arab countries, tolerated a long string of dictators and tyrants? For the same reason many other countries, like China and Russia, have; it's the only form of government those nations could come up with that created some form or order. The price was a general loss of personal freedom, economic mismanagement, and wars with neighbors. Democracy is a far superior form of government, but it requires a lot more from the population. More personal responsibility, less corruption, and a greater willingness to work out compromises.

Lets see Iraq was part of the Promised Arab kingdom, which the brittish and french prevented from Happening.

"Democracy is a far superior form of government" says who?
Tell me which western nations are true democracies?

America is a republic not a democracy.

In the face of appauling poverty iliteracy and after 450-600 years of turkish misrule The Arabs with British aggitation rebelled, The Arabs were Promised a Kingdom instead what we recieved was the planting of states ruled by well armed minorities against our majority.


Lets see.
Bil al Shami (The Land of Syria)
was Broken up

France created

Lebanon out of two areas of syria and put a christian govt in them

Syria Proper was broken into 4 states

Jebel druze (which was ruled by the Druze Minority)

Latakia (ruled by the alawite minority)

Damascus (ruled by the french)

State of Aleppo (muslim with french aid)


Moving on

Jordan
Trans-jordan
Palestine
Israel (given to the jews)

These are the lands of southern syria.
None of them with the exception of israel has ever been a state
Jordan was created by Churchill one day while playing golf.


Which were ruled by The British and their arab ally.



Assyria (at first given to the syriac christians)
Baghdad (given to the hashemite monarchy)
Basra
Kuwait
Bubiyan

These are Lands the British created out of Old "uruk" and from their northern persian gulf trading stations




The Gulf States

Saudi arabia (given to the al saud family)
Was an invention of the brittish during the 1880s

The land derives its name from one of the most successful merchant families in the area who aided the british in their war against the turks.

Oman
an ancient kingdom, however the british carved omans northern and southern terratories into

the present day UAE and the island of zanzibar and some of the coast of tanzania and present day kenya.


Bahrein Invaded by the british 1700.

Qatar has never been an independant land, has no independant culture or nationality.


Yemen
Mother of All Arabs
Ancient Arab land which gave birth to the present day arab people.


As we can see the West has a long string of uninterrupted rule over the arab states,

the Arming of Minorities like the Kurds is part of this.

Lets see for a momment.

Saddam Hussein came to power in a Cia Financed Baathist Coup.

Saddam Hussien was taken from power by the American Invasion of Iraq.

The next leader of Iraq will be put in power by America.

The Iraqi people did not pick the govergning council which picks canidates for them.

@MikeMurphy, as far as I know there is no registration required for Strategy Page, I may be wrong because I've been using the site for a long time/don't remember.




"To secure the peace is to prepare for war." George Washington and later Metallica.

For the same reason many other countries, like China and Russia, have; it's the only form of government those nations could come up with that created some form or order.

China previously had a dynastic monarchy, which evolved into a sort of confederation under the state-tributary system.  There were no real problems with it until Western powers interfered. 

The price was a general loss of personal freedom, economic mismanagement, and wars with neighbors.

When you live in such a densely populated place like China then people don't care so much about personal freedoms because the well being of the group take precedence.  Liberal democracies are also not immune to corruption and bad economic policy making.  In fact it was China that invented the professional civil service concept with comprehensive examinations.  And it has been democracies that have started far more wars than non-democracies.

Democracy is a far superior form of government, but it requires a lot more from the population. More personal responsibility, less corruption, and a greater willingness to work out compromises.

India is supposedly the largest democracy on Earth, yet it is rife with corruption.  Singapore is chastised by leftists for being a dictatorship yet it is amongst the least corrupt places in the world.  And Western style cronyism, lobbyism and nepotism are negative traits as well.  As for willingness to compromise, I didn't see much willingness to compromise from Bush on the Iraq issue.

 

 

""tolerated a long string of dictators and tyrants? ""

Why? None of your bussiness.

Why would those capitalist slave workers prefer to be slaves of the capitalists in your Free world? None of our bussiness.

You slave people works from 9 to 6 for capitalists who exploit your labour to make big money, and you feel so happy your made a few bucks from Capitalists and can put bread on table to feed your family, right? Well it is your bussiness you want to Sell your Labour to capitalists.

You are just a slave, no matter how much bucks you make, you are still a SLAVE of the Capitalists. Remember my words, it is very true, and teach it to your family members too, they need some education after being brainwashed TOO long by you Capitalists Bosses who simply OWN you.

many idiots fail to realize that the world is not exactly alike everywhere you go. Some women like being housewives, some people enjoy being under dictatorship, and some people like to pray 5 times a day.

It is none of your phucking business to tell who should do what.