"The circumstances in Egypt and Tunisia are very different from those in Iraq. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was toppled by a foreign army, not a popular revolt, and the deep sectarian divide that triggered widespread internecine bloodshed in the wake of his fall persists, precluding the emergence of a unifying Iraqi point of view.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is beginning his second four-year term after elections judged largely free by the United Nations, in which multiple parties and a clear majority of the electorate participated.
Yet all the ills that provoked Egyptians and Tunisians to take to the streets are thriving in Iraq, too, demonstrating that it is possible to have both democracy and human rights abuses, an elected government and chronic corruption, and constitutional guarantees of freedom alongside intimidation and fear."
10 comments :
There's a saying that in a democracy, the people get the government that they deserve.
I don't think that the Iraqis deserve a government as bad as they have received. But the Iraqis hold the answers to their problems in future election contests.
The Iraqis are in charge of Iraq now. If things are not going well in Iraq, it's up to the Iraqis to fix it.
I don't know who is responsible for the suicide bombing in Iraq these days. But that's something that no number of elections will be able to completely prevent. Unfortunately.
Ayman Holmes says ↓
☼ I don't know who is responsible for the suicide bombing in Iraq these days. ☼
Don't you think it's Al Qaeda in Iraq
Egypt and Tunisia haven't even formed governments, opened major opposition media, or held an election. The WaPo article is almost as ignorant as the people who say that Egypt's revolution "proves" Iraq's liberation wasn't necessary.
I'm sorry, but Mubarak was not even close to Saddam. Neither was Ben Ali. Could you imagine what Saddam would be doing right now if he were still in power and the uprisings in the Arab World reached Baghdad? A "Day of Rage" march on his palace would have resulted in 6 figure casualties.
"Iraq is not a democracy, and they are one of the leaders in barbarity when it comes to executions. In league with China and Iran " --Dolly
In 2008 Iraq was 4th in executions per capita. Iran was #1, KSA was a close 2nd, China was 3rd, just cuz their population is huge, and Libya was 4th.
The stats show that in 2008 Iran and Saudi Arabia each executed between 4 and 5 people per million. In terms of executions per capita, Iraq is in league with China and Libya. KSA and Iran are in a league of their own. And Dolly is in league with the Wahhabis.
Ayman, Iraqis thought the Islamic clerics would bring them peace and happiness. Iraqis have learned a few lessons in the last six years. Hopefully they will turn it around and make a great nation.
"Could you imagine what Saddam would be doing right now if he were still in power and the uprisings in the Arab World reached Baghdad?"
What Saddam did during the uprisings in 1991 in the south is probably a good indication of what he'd do in Baghdad: "Between March and September 1991, the Iraqi Army and security services killed as many as 300,000 Shiites. One mass grave near the city of Hillah is said to hold 30,000 bodies alone."
You're right, C.H. Mubarak doesn't come close to Saddam in terms of the numbers of innocent people they killed.
The number of Iraqis per million executed by Wahhabis in 2008 is probably off the charts, and in a league of ITS own. Wahhabi exectuions of Iraqi Shia continue in 2011. Today 38 Iraqis were executed by a Wahhabi suicide bomber in Samarra. That's about 1.3 executions per million. In just one day.
At 7:41 PM I meant to say Iraq was 5th in executions per capita in 2008.
Since when is the number of executions per capita a sole measure of democracy? I think it matters quite a bit more why the state is executing.
Post a Comment