I always ask myself; Why Iraq became like that?!!! Daily killings, daily injures, daily bombings, daily attacks, daily destruction, .. etc. Didn't you ask yourself also about the reason for that before?!!!!!
If we compared the situation before and after Saddam's time (or the coming of American army to Iraq) we can find out that the reason is so simply; The absence of Authority. Yes, that's right, if in Saddam's era there were oppress and indemocracy as some may think but there weren't this daily attacks, there were safety for the Iraqi people, there were stability on Iraqi lands, there were hope. But when American army came to Iraq and remove Saddam which represents authority, all of us saw what happened which can be briefed in one word; 'Instability'
So we can say that 'Authority leads to Stability', and 'The absence of authority leads to instability'.
First Muslims realized this rule and knew its importance and necessity and they followed it so well, one example for that is that after the death of the prophet, they gathered and started negotiations about the caliph (successor) of the prophet, they still negotiating for days, and they didn't buried the body of the prophet till they chosed Abo Bakr as the caliph of the prophet. Imagine!!! They didn't wait a second after the propet's death, even they didn't have the time to bury the prophet's body. They realized that authority is the most important thing for the sake of the state and society.
So, the question is; didn't Americans know that the absence of real authority means the deleting of stability?!!!!! They came to Iraq, they kidnapped Saddam after more than 7 months, between these two events there weren't any kind of real authority on Iraqi lands, and all of us saw on TVs what was happenning because of the absence of authority, and till now there is no real authority on Iraqi lands which is able to stop this confusion, and I bet and challenge that stability won't occur till real authority rules Iraqi state.
.jpg)
About Me
- Mohamed
- Muslim, Arab, Egyptian. Proud of the Qur'an, of prophet Muhammad, of Islamic civilization, of great Muslim scientists. Proud of old Arab ethics, of old Arab poem. Proud of the pyramids, of the great Pharaoh civilization, and I'm proud to be a part of the generation that made the Egyptian revolution of 2011 that will change the world forever. I love all people, I like to help others when I can. I really hate opression of any kind, against any person. Killer of an innocent is my first enemy. I'm very intersted in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I love nature very much and don't like to see it under attack. That's me..
1 comment:
Well, Mohamed, I am inclined to agree. The paradigm for Iraq is the former Yugoslavia. It was clear to any reader of history that the deposition of Saddam Hussein would inevitably lead to sectarian violence. Of course, let us not forget that unless one were a Baathist and a Sunni, life in Iraq ruled by Saddam Hussein was no bed of roses. (See mass graves filled with the bodies of Shi'ites and gassed Kurdish villages.)
Initially, I take the position that not all Muslims are Arabs. Secondly, I take the position that democracy is not for everyone, although as a system of government, it affords the most invidual freedom. Thirdly, I am beginning to believe that culturally, Arabs prefer and maybe require Kings or other strong rulers. The Gulf States are emirates are they not? Jordan has a king; Saudi Arabia has a king; Syria has a dictator; Egypt has Hosni Mubarek, who although elected, seems to quash opposition parties as a way to maintain stability.
Lebanon is a very fragile democracy, having experieced a savage 15 year civil war, but it may survive so long as those who resist the influence of Syria and those who reject Hezbollah maintain power. Remember that Lebanon is multicultural with 40% of its population being Christian; 35% being Shi'ite' 21% being Sunni; and approximately 5% being Druze.
I think it was naive of our president and his advisers to believe that the removal of Saddam would result in anything but chaos.
The cultural preferences and traditions of Arabs render Arab countries infertile soil for democracy.
This is why if a Palestinian state is to survive in the long run, its factions must stop fighting one another. The new Fatah-Hamas coalition will fail because it does not serve the true interests of the Palestinians. See I think most Palestinians want to get up, go to work, make money so their families will prosper and be educated; and live in Peace.
If that is what most Palestinians really want, the answer is simple--renounce violence and recognize Israel.
Then the EU and Israel will recommence financial aid and Israel will allow more commerce w/ the Palestinian territories and will allow Palestinians to work in Israel as there don't seem to be a lot of jobs in the territories. I mean who wants to build a factory if it is going to be blown up by Fatah or Hamas or the Israelis?
Unless the Palestinians renounce violence and recognize Isdrael's right to exist, the Palestinians will continue to live very hard lives. Of course that would involve democratic self determination which seems to beyond the capabilities of most Arab peoples.
Mohamed, before you chime in with "Hamas was democratically elected," please consider how ill advised that was. It is easy to run schools and clinics when Iran and Saudi benefactors are paying the freight. It is harder if not impossible to run a country without international aid and recognition, neither of which will be forthcoming until Hamas renounces its terrorist ways.
I am not holding my breath for that to happen.
I know you think everything would be hunky dory if only Israel ceased to exist. 1948 was only 59 years ago; the destruction of the Kingdom of Judea was 1934 years ago. So the Jews waited 1875 to get their country back. Maybe the Palestinians will be that patient, but I doubt it. For most Palestinians, the rewards of peace are far better than what they have now, don't you think?
So what is your peace plan?
Post a Comment