Last night i saw some arguing in TV.. one american guy who lives in germany now said:
"And slowly america luckily seems to realize that having elections in a country does not make it a democracy"

I can not agree more to this statement. Only because in iraq elections had been held.. it long does not reach the state of a democracy. a lot of work has to be done till then. Same goes for Afghanistan though. They will need time to develop.

i do not think splitting the country into 3 countries would do any good.. kurds may support it.. but that will cause big trouble with turkey. I do not know how other iraquis feel about it tbh.

There are troops needed in iraq. but i do not know if it should be american troops since they are hated among a par of he population.
Maybe a "peaceforce" made of other arabic countries could do better.
Iraqis can not handle their security yet. I would say an arabic peaceforce should try to make it as safe as possible.. they can not do any worse then US is doing now. west has to keep up training police and army.

Turkey would NOT have to accept it, they can put 100,000 men beyond their borders anytime they like.  They threatened to do that to Syria a few years ago and Syria backed down.  Turkey has NATO equipment and unlike any other member of NATO apparently, the will to fight.  And nobody in NATO would fight to stop them.

Schniepel....as a German......how can you say, Elections does not make a democracy ??

Are you crazy dude ??

OK, at what point SHOULD elections be held ??

I mean, you have one side SCREAMING to turn over power to "The Iraqis" and the same people saying, "They cant live under a democracy."

So, basically, its turn it over to the animals, and may the largest, best equipped militia rule the day ??

Wouldnt that be the same as saying:

Lets hope some military strong man can take over like Saddam, and we can blame the Americans for how messed up they are for the next few Decades.

My God.  You people....LEFTISTS.....have no clue.

"I think its best to split the country in 3. Have 3 more or less autonomic regions inside a country or, why not, 3 different countries."

I respect the intent but a few issues that would arise

Each region would need to have its own military as neither region would be willing to send their troops for any co-operative effort.  So every region has its own military and they are going to be pointing primarily at each other and the possibility of civil war increases.  Not to mention neither region would be able to maintain a force to fend off any of the many Middle Eastern nations that would love nothing more than to wipe them out.  So cohesion is necessary and that just goes out the window if you parcel out the country.

good thinking dps.
"So every region has its own military and they are going to be pointing primarily at each other and the possibility of civil war increases"
nobody forbids the presence of a peace-keeping force. In the long run, the climat will change.

"Not to mention neither region would be able to maintain a force to fend off any of the many Middle Eastern nations that would love nothing more than to wipe them out."
It would take more then a small force to protect them against neighbouring countries thats true. And its the biggest disadvantage of the whole thing. But it won't cost as much to have a few bases around when the country itself is peacefull. Though that might be wishfull thinking.

technically having elections does make it democratic. but who gives a damn if its democratic? democracy is mob rule, democracy is violence and uncontrolled oppression, its what your governments tell you anarchy is.

"Iraq is just fine.  It will be just fine."

i loled

I don't know. It's getting better, but fine... I think we have different definitions.

That said, I think splitting it into three regions would be a good thing, but definately keep it one country. Model it after the early US or modern Belgium for that matter. Each region will more or less rule itself with a federal government to deal with national defense and things of that nature.

No, I believe what you say, and believe it or not, even though I wasn't following events back then, I have done a fair amount of research about those events after the fact. My question is this, when did "better than before" become fine. Fine is no,or more likely, small problems.

A young government like that of Iraq is going to have issues.  You have to remember that the Iraq now is pretty much a new nation and it has several factions vying for power (since they were kept under a ruler that had nothing but).  It's only been, what?  Six years?  The US declared independence in 1776, we didn't have our current Constitution until 1783, and we weren't so confident of our nation until after the War of 1812.  That's almost four decades.  The new Iraq has a lot to tackle and a lot to fix, but let's be honest here, has the Iraqi government collapsed?  Has the Iraqi people (as a whole) taken up arms and rioted through the streets against the Iraqi government?  Has sectarian violence completely spilled into full-blown civil war? 

Take a look at Iraq, take a look at the progress its making and tell me that the nation of Iraq is failing.  The Iraqis are taking more and more control of their country and when American troops feel confident that the Mahdi army is no longer a threat, that cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr is now a politician instead of a militia leader, that Al Qaeda will find its resources limited in Iraq, that sectarian violence won't renew, that the Iraqi military can maintain peace and security, and that the influences of Iraq's neighbors will be limited, only then will the strong American presence end.

Iraq is for the Iraqi people.  Americans don't want Iraqi lands, we have no reason to stay there indefinitely, just stay there long enough to maintain peace and security.

Justinian

19th century America. I don't think the class paradigm carries back that far (a big reason I'm not a Leftist) but most of America lived rurally without ownership of land--our nuclear family of four was an aberration, of the eight or so folks who might live on a farm or ranch title would vested in only one--and literacy was limited to basic math and some reading. And quite a few lacked that.

France, Italy and Germany voted away their democracies in the early 20th century. They weren't illiterate or impoverished.