[JohnSmithXTREME]

Today's headline story on The Independent surprised be a bit- Was Bush right after all? Of course, the article that follows gives Bush very little credit to the political changes that are taking place in the Middle East. But the question is still worth asking, looking back, was Bush's "re-colonisation" of Iraq the right thing to do?

[budster101]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Today's headline story on The Independent surprised me a bit- Was [President] Bush right after all? Of course, the article that follows gives [President] Bush very little credit to the political changes that are taking place in the Middle East. But the question is still worth asking, looking back, was [President] Bush's "re-colonization" of Iraq the right thing to do?

What words are yours, all of them? Who re-colonized?

Real quick:

- Free Elections in Afghanistan - Women are now in positions of power and not of cattle.
- Free Elections in Iraq - Women are now in positions of power and not of cattle.
- Syria is pulling out of Lebanon
- Iran is crapping itself
- Bush is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- Colin Powell is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- Terrorists around the world are now on the run or very ineffective.
- Saudi Arabia is now showing anti-terrorism commericals

The world is a better place because we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam Husein and clan of terrorist supporters.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Thank you Mr. Jesus for changing the spelling of colonise to colonize. Heaven forbid somebody uses the proper British English spelling of words.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Today's headline story on The Independent surprised be a bit- Was Bush right after all? Of course, the article that follows gives Bush very little credit to the political changes that are taking place in the Middle East. But the question is still worth asking, looking back, was Bush's "re-colonisation" of Iraq the right thing to do?

How exactly is Bush trying a "re-colonisation" of Iraq?

Sending in troops to overthrow a ruthless dictator and ultimately giving the country back to the people?

It's an occupation, not a "re-colonisation"

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
How exactly is Bush trying a "re-colonisation" of Iraq?

Sending in troops to overthrow a ruthless dictator and ultimately giving the country back to the people?

It's an occupation, not a "re-colonisation"

I'm not against it, I'm not explicitly condemning colonisation or what Bush has done. Before this devolves into an argument over semantics, I would like to try and assert what I believe to be an obvious truth- that Iraq is a US colony. Perhaps it is not a formal colony, with leaders appointed by the President, but it is very clear that Iraq is a colony. The US has brought to Iraq American style laws, democracy, market based economy, etc etc. For the rest of the forseeable future, some ammount of US and UK troops will be in Iraq. Do you need flashcards? This is colonisation. The question now is, was he right after all?

It is very naive for Americans to think that this ammounts to anything less than colonisation. But on the other hand, it also naive for people to think that such a thing is bad. Introducing liberalism and higher standards of government across the entire mediterranean basin and gulf region is turning out to work better than many people thought it would.

[Macrobat]

By your convoluted and twisted logic, Germany and Japan, along with most of Western Europe were US Colonies after WWII.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
The US has brought to Iraq American style laws, democracy, market based economy, etc etc.

How so? The US has a federal government with a president who is both head of state and government. Iraq is developing a parliamentary democracy based on a unitary state with a Prime Minister (the head of government) selected by the parliament and a head of state (the president) with no executive power. It's a system closer to that of European parliamentary democracies than the US system.

Iraq's election was also structured using a proportional representation system using party lists very similar to that used in South Africa in 1994. The US does not use proportional representation in any of its elections, and there are no party lists of candidates. Candidates are elected individually by a first past the post system.

On law, the United States has a common law legal system (like Britain or Canada) (note: the exception is Louisiana, which is Civil Law). Iraq has a civil law system (like France or Germany). The Common Law is traced (roughly speaking) to the Saxons. Civil Law has its origins in Roman law, as interpreted by the French under Napoleon.

US criminal courts have juries (like Britain), Iraq's have no juries (like France). Iraqi law may also be incorporating elements of Islamic law as do most Muslim countries (and even some non-majority Muslim countries such as the Philippines). The US maintains separation of Church and State, although as in all common law countries, roots of the legal system can be traced to Christian traditions.

So Iraqi government and law look nothing like those of the US, and the US isn't trying to make them look like the US.

I don't know the details of Iraq's supposed market based economy, but Islamic countries were mercantalist centuries before the US was founded. I think it is unlikely that the US is fundamentally imposing anything new there. In any case, the economy has been back in the hands of Iraqis for months now. Most of it was handed back even before sovereignty was formally transferred back to Iraq, and long before the current interim government was elected in January.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Simey, you are splitting hairs to such an extent that I can't be bothered to respond to your points. Basically what you're saying is that Iraq's government now looks more like Britain or British Commonwealth countries like South Africa, than the US. Well, that is my point!

Edit: and is it any surprise that Iraq should more closely ressemble Britain? The British, who occupy Iraq at present, have quite a lot of experience when it comes to exporting common law to various parts of the world.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
Simey, you are splitting hairs to such an extent that I can't be bothered to respond to your points. Basically what you're saying is that Iraq's government now looks more like Britain or British Commonwealth countries like South Africa, than the US. Well, that is my point!

Edit: and is it any surprise that Iraq should more closely ressemble Britain? The British, who occupy Iraq at present, have quite a lot of experience when it comes to exporting common law to various parts of the world.

I said no such thing. I said its government and law resembles more closely Civil law countries such as France.

Reread.

Oh, and by the way, the Proportional representation system used in Iraq and in South Africa's 1994 election isn't used in Britain either.

[JohnSmithXTREME]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I said no such thing. I said its government and law resembles more closely Civil law countries such as France.

Reread.

So it is set up now like a Western European country?

[adamk]

Originally posted by budster101:
Real quick:

- Free Elections in Afghanistan - Women are now in positions of power and not of cattle.
- Free Elections in Iraq - Women are now in positions of power and not of cattle.

this is definately a step in the right direction, though i doubt that much will change for them. that is to say women will still not be seen as equals as men in these countries, partly due to cultural considerations. women, even in the united states, are still struggling to be treated the same as men.

but, i will not disagree, it is a good and much needed start. now we need to start working on saudi arabia, kuwait, pakistan (our dictator friend) to give women even basic human rights.

- Syria is pulling out of Lebanon

questionable as to the part bush played in this.

- Iran is crapping itself

bush should be fomenting the pro-democracy youth movement there behind the scenes. imo, change in iran must come from within, as is happening in lebanon.

sidenote: bush should do the moral thing, and push for a free democratic taiwan. they already have their own gov't! worsened ties with china would result, but when has america ever given in to a bunch of communists.

- Bush is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
- Colin Powell is nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

ummmm....

- Terrorists around the world are now on the run or very ineffective.
- Saudi Arabia is now showing anti-terrorism commericals

aside from 3/11, thankfully there hasn't been any large-scale attacks. though, i don't know if you should consider them ineffective. aside from the bush administration pre-9/11, i'm sure many people shared your view.

The world is a better place because we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam Husein and clan of terrorist supporters.

good things have happened, but they are countered by bad things at each turn. while the invasions of afghanistan and iraq may have given women (those that weren't indiscrimintly killed) a step forward towards equality, those invasions, in and of themselves, have placed the US in a very negative light by the rest of the world, which, imo, can only lead to further problems down the road.

yeah - a mixed bag for sure.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
So it is set up now like a Western European country?

Let's be specific. Iraq both before and after the invasion had a legal system based on the Napoleonic Code. It's called the Civil Law. It is the system of law used throughout the world, except in a very few places that use the common law.

Civil law countries include most countries in Europe (except the UK). Russia, Latin America, most of Asia (not India, which is common law), and the Middle East (except Israel). So legally, Iraq resembles most other Middle Eastern countries (except Israel) more than it does the US or UK.

The same kind of pattern exists with Iraq's emerging government system. It looks like the approximate model adopted in many parts of the world in newly emerging democracies, but not at all like the system used in the United States. It is also not much like that used in France, or Russia, where they have much stronger presidents, or like Germany, which is a federal state. Nor does it have a monarchy like the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, etc. So "like Europe"? Maybe like some countries in Europe (e.g. Ireland), but certainly not all.

I get the impression you aren't following any of this. You asserted the US was remodelling Iraq to look like the US. Why did you make the assertion you did when you didn't in fact know that the Iraqi system of law and government looks nothing like the US?

[JohnSmithXTREME]

I realise that law is your specialty, so I really don't want to argue about it all with you (for obvious reasons). But my point is that the US invaded Iraq, and built a new US-friendly government based on western standards. This is colonisation, what is there to argue about? When Britain wrestled control of India, they didn't have to turn it into a miniature version of the UK in order for it to be considered a colony. As such, Iraq does not have to be made into a replica of the US for it to be a colony. Iraq has been shaped outwith by a foreign government to bring it up to western standards, whether the new government more closely resembles constitutional monarchy or parliamentary democracy is not important.

[nath]

Originally posted by JohnSmithXTREME:
I realise that law is your specialty, so I really don't want to argue about it all with you (for obvious reasons). But my point is that the US invaded Iraq, and built a new US-friendly government based on western standards. This is colonisation, what is there to argue about? When Britain wrestled control of India, they didn't have to turn it into a miniature version of the UK in order for it to be considered a colony. As such, Iraq does not have to be made into a replica of the US for it to be a colony. Iraq has been shaped outwith by a foreign government to bring it up to western standards, whether the new government more closely resembles constitutional monarchy or parliamentary democracy is not important.

It's really not a US-friendly government in terms of make up. Although the interim government could certainly have been accused of this, Allawi's dismal showing in the polls illustrates exactly what the general [voting] populace thought of that.

In fact given the way the election went it's probably only a matter of time before the new government seeks to normalise relations with Iran. The US administration's reaction to that sort of thing will be a key test of how independent the new Iraq is.