A tale of a political abortion

[mahnmut]

Why cannot every former dictatorship become a democracy? Even when its birth is being assisted by powerful democracies? The story of such a failure began exactly 10 years ago in a country that hasn't stopped bleeding ever since.

Comments

[dwer]

I firmly believe that it is arguable that Iraq was better off under Saddam.

[mahnmut]

While this may well be true or not true, depending on the particular manner of application of those imaginary and highly arbitrary criteria that some would be willing to attribute to the level of "better-off-ness", I'm still not entirely sure how it's relevant to the central point that I'm trying to make here. Namely, meddling into something for a while without giving a damn about the longer-term consequences of one's actions, and then leaving the locals to deal with it all and washing one's hands with the excuse that something's gotten "better off" than it used to be, is a practice that has never led to anything positive in the long run - for all sides involved

[dwer]

I don't know if it can be formulated into points. The infrastructure wasn't destroyed. Violence was not part of the daily lives of the majority of the country.

My comment is relative to this point: "The corrupt, utterly brutal and unscrupulous dictator had to go. That was the ultimate objective before the US-led coalition that invaded Iraq a decade ago."

I'm not so sure that's true, and I think having done it has made Iraq as a whole a worse place.

[mahnmut]

In that case, I misunderstood. I do agree that Iraq has become a worse place overall in result of the war.

[factotum666]

One of the most dangerous kinds of person is a brilliant stupid person. Brilliant as in high IQ. Stupid as in unwilling or unable to learn from the physical world. As in rocket science stupid, as in those rocket scientists who, after blowing up the Challenger, did exactly the same thing with the Columbia. Look at the NASA reports, and exchange Foam with O-wring, and they are both the same

[mahnmut]

I admit I met this comment with three types of rapidly alternating feelings.

Paragraph #1 got me completely confused, and wondering what the hell you were talking about.
Paragraph #2 almost made it dawn at me that you were talking about Iraq, and I said to myself, "Well, at least he's ultimately trying to get to a point of some sorts".
But Paragraph #3 couldn't help leaving me with the impression that the entire purpose of your comment was solely self-advertisement. OK, you got your minute of fame. What next?

[factotum666]

Hmmm.... What next??? Well from your point of view nothing. People do not post to offer hard won information, but only to gain fame and influence. Sort of a human version of the mike effect. You know mike... The chimp that went from the bottom of the pecking order to alpha chimb simply by running into the group banging two empty human fuel cans together. Human groups work the same way. The person most likely to be chosen leader (and get access to resources including female eggs) is the one who talks the longest and loudest

[mahnmut]

Nope, people who link to their blogs and boast about the number of hits are the ones probably being there to gain fame and influence. I remember the last few occasions when you "sort of" participated here, it was again all about your awesome works as a writer, and little on the subject at hand.

Chimps & human eggs... cool story bro. Straight to the point, shall we? Did you actually have any? No? Oh well then.

Good luck with your book, btw.

[underlankers]

I would actually agree with this and consider it the most damning verdict of the US invasion. If the Iraq of 2003, incapable of forestalling the No-Fly Zones and shattered by the legacies of the long war with Iran and the shattering defeat of 1991, is actually *better off* than the Iraq of 2013, then that all by itself indicates how unpleasant and total a failure the US Invasion actually has proven to be.