Indeed, and I think this gets to the core of the problem of 'Liberal Interventionism' itself, the idea that values can be imposed on other nations, that do not have a cultural basis in that nation. The idea of liberal democracy in the west, flourished really only in the post war period. Really prior to then the concept of an 'all inclusive democracy' is more or less revisionist.

The nature of democracy is a progression of conflict resolution, from violence resolution to political resolution through inclusion. Democracy has to be seen to be successful in resolving conflicts between social groups through mutual self interest and inclusion.

Indeed the existence of democracy flourished in Ancient Athens, because of the battle of Samaras, in which the allied Greeks, with their first ever democratically appointed Admiral, devastated a superior Persian fleet.

The recent situation in Iraq is a test for democracy, as it will need to repell the Isis and its allies, without retaliating against the Sunni population, in order to really gain a foothold in the Northern Provinces. Any force needs to become 'liberators' of those captured provinces.

For Iraq to become democratic, it has to move away from the idea of being Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, Christian, to being Iraqi (something the Baathists were ironically quite successful at).

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters?
I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country.
As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

I see the Shia winning with help from the Kurds and Iran.....What happens after that I have little idea....But I'll be amazed if they don't remain a democracy.

Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded.

Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory.

It depends on how one defines democracy. They'll still have elections, votes etc, but as long as those elections and policies are drawn along sectarianism, its not really a democracy. Iran has elections, doesn't make it democratic. Help from Iran, is essentially a disaster waiting to happen. Its like deciding on supporting oppression by Shiite rather than oppression by Sunni.

Ironically, now that Al-Queda is actually a threat in Iraq, the US aren't sending troops and forces (another discussion really).

A democracy is really only truly a democracy once it begins to represent the rights and interests of those who disagree (rather than say murder them or imprison them). Or rather maybe the rights of its citizens regardless of who they support.

Iraq is really a democratic tyranny. Of course that's pretty much true of all fledgling democracies.

To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect.
Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind)

In America I mainly put it down to the success of their integration of cultures into what being an 'American' is.....I think that has a massive affect and it is what I'm referring to really....Maybe too aggressively at time.

As for the US internal security.....I'd be surprised if they were any better than most....A mixture of excellent and incompetent.....Mind you...I don't know how much money they throw at it to be fair....Maybe they are very good but it's kept quiet.

Outside of the elite army units of the US army....I don't have much faith in the US machine in that sense.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.56pm)

Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed.

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy.

This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy'

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm)

Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that.

To be fair to Bush Snr.....And that's not something I say alot.....My brother was in one of those tanks speeding towards Baghdad in the first Gulf war.

Schwarzkopf came in over the radio f--ing and blinding telling them to pull back.....He wasn't happy about it. He told them that Bush Snr had been told by middle eastern rulers that unless he stuck purely to the UN resolution that he would lose their support for the war.

Read into that what you will....But Bush Snr had a hard decision to make.....Staying there would have been every difficult without support.

No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't?
P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)