Thursday, 12 October 2006 - 11:27 AM BST

Madelaine Albright may have had a point.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm

Twice the number killed by Saddam in a sixth of the time.

Before you dismiss the report's findings, I'd like you to  give detailed analysis of where it's wrong. It should be noted that it's regarded by experts in the field as rock solid research. No one has questioned the method used to arrive at this statistic - no one at all. Except people who are not involved in epidemiology, not statisticians and not knowledgable about how body counts from war zones are calculated (this is the same methodology used in every recent conflict, notably Darfur, Congo and Bosnia - none of those reports were described as controversial, or indeed called into question in any way at all.S

Thursday, 12 October 2006 - 3:13 PM BST

People are against the war in Iraq because we went in on complete false pretences. You are a complete wanker.

Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 9:04 AM BST

Michael Portillo has something to say to you.

Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 12:03 PM BST

Sunday, 15 October 2006 - 3:18 PM BST

Mahmood, I don't see how the coalition could have held off staging elections for five years. It would have been impossible, even if desirable. Obviously religious groups had an advantage for the reasons you say: they could meet in mosques during the Hussein era (and their manifesto was written in the 7th century). But at some point, they will lose their monopoly of opposition. That's the key point about the democratisation of the middle east - the danger inherent in granting religious fanatics a monopoly of political opposition, which was the case and still is the case in much of the middle east. Radical islam is only ever going to be defeated by moderate islam, and for that to happen there has to be a marketplace of ideas. That has at least started now, however shakily.

Your idea of a five year wait to give the secular parties a chance to gain influence might have been the best possible solution, but it wouldn't have been the best solution possible. How did things get in this mess anyway? I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Gertrude Bell in all of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Bell

for she, as a British administrator in Arabia, decided that Iraq would be created with a Sunni minority controlling a Shiite majority:

Quote - "I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a ... theocratic state, which is the very devil."

The problem with Bell's 'solution' is that by giving the Shiites no political power or experience, they remain 'theocratic' in outlook. What else was there for them? Had she not done this, out of a patronising and paternalist desire to protect shiite arabs from themselves, they might by now have developed a greater separation of mosque and state. It has to start somewhere. 

DY

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 2:33 PM BST

David-  You missed the point I was trying to make. I repeat democracy is not a tool for building a society. It is a mechanism for maintaining a society its people want to preserve.

The premature imposition of democracy, in countries that have not established the conditions needed to enjoy the benefits of a functioning and stable democracy, will lead directly to an intensification of ethnic and religious divisions. This is exactly what has happened in Iraq. In any case, it is naïve to think that you can have free elections in a country that is dominated by militias. The Iraqi shi’ite militias visited every household in the areas under their control, days before the elections, and forced eligible voters to swear by the “Holy Koran” that they will vote for their candidates. Of course, if you don’t honour that pledge, damnation awaits you. Naturally, on the day of the elections, observers at the polling stations reported that everything looked ok. 

The Iraqi infrastructure was, and still is, grossly underdeveloped. Iraq needed a stable government of technocrats to plan and execute the appropriate program of infrastructure building. This requires a stable government for a period of at least ten years; up to five years of planning and awarding contracts and another five years of building power stations, roads, schools, water treatment plants, sewage systems, hospitals…etc. Changing the government, by holding elections every five years, is the best way to disrupt the much needed development of the country’s shattered economy. 

A functioning and stable democracy requires social and political interacting conditions that it cannot survive without. A strong and stable middle class, enjoying the benefits of a thriving economy is an essential requirement. A growing middle class is the foundation of social stability in any country. Its culture rejects both the radical tendencies of the extremists and the inclination of the ruling rich to maintain reactionary practices designed to sustain their hold on wealth and power.

History tells as that as the people of any country become more prosperous, they will develop the inevitable desire for determining their affairs through democratically elected governments. A stable and growing economy will strengthen the political commitment of the opinion makers to human rights and the separation of God from Caesar, as well as reinforce the willingness of the people to honour differences of birth and religion. HISTORY HAS ALSO SHOWN THAT DEMOCRACY IN UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES COMES AFTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOT BEFORE

Thus the process of democratization is dependent on nurturing the potential of a free market economy, fuelled by local and international capital. However, for reasons that are quite understandable, capital, especially that of the foreign variety, is renowned for its cowardice and its tendency to shy away from unstable regions. Free enterprise thrives in stable societies only. Therefore, the above social and political conditions that are needed to democratize a country cannot be maintained in the absence of security in that country. 

A sustained state of security demands a favourable international environment. This means that the foreign policies of the regional and international super powers must be conducive to the creation of democracy in that region. Without that essential commitment democracy becomes a pipedream.

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 3:28 PM BST

Mahmood,

What about Algeria? It cancelled elections in 1992 for fear that Islamic fundamentalists would gain power. The result was a decade long civil war that killed about 150,000. What about Iran under the Shah? Wasn't there a growing middle class there in the late seventies? What happened in 1979?

DY

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 6:54 PM BST

Monday, 16 October 2006 - 8:39 PM BST

lol

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 10:35 AM BST

David- In countries like Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan...etc, power and wealth were and still are in the hands of the few. Thus the rich gets richer and the poor becomes poorer. You cant escape the fact that Bush's concept of a new and demcractic MidEast is doomed to failure becuase it assumes that free elections will give rise to democracy which in turn will create civilised societies that will give in to Israeli demands.

Dannant and many others believe that the democratisation of Iraq is ambitious. They have come to that conclusion because of the flawed current strategy. Iraqis, Egyptians,...etc don't belong to an inferior race. I am sure that, with the aid ofcurrent technology, the Arabs  can build thriving economies in their respective countries within ten years. Then you can't stop the tide of democracy.

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 1:04 PM BST

Mahmood is so on the money it's unreal.

David, you should spend some time studying the failure of western style  democracies (especially the Westminster model) in Africa in the 1960s and 70's. There's been plenty of studies conducted on this subject, so it won't be too difficult to do the research. 

The idea that the imposition of democracy upon Iraq was some kind of panacea always struck me as a little fanciful. The fact that such a solution was to be imposed by the invading nation was always going to be problematical. That the US seemed to have no real contingency plans for the post-Saddam era looked shortsighted in the extreme.

Combine the three and throw in a tenacious adversary and you get an idea as to why many people were sceptical about the entire enterprise in the first place. It was a scepticism which subsequent events have done nothing to eradicate. 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 1:21 PM BST

That is what it is all about. 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 2:07 PM BST

Civilised countries accede to Israeli demands? Are you saying that countries that don't accede to Israeli demands are by definition uncivilised? What are you saying here? If you think that democracy will make arab governments less hostile to Israel, then you must think that pro-Israel policies would be electorally popular with the general public. Well if that's the case, what's wrong with that? If not, then how will a pro-Israel party get support?

Personally I'm with Nathan Sharansky when he said that an anti-Western democracy is better than a pro-Western dictatorship. As far as Israel's concerned (and please let's not bring it into everything. We're talking about the 200+million arabs in the middle east, not the five million jews) I think that democratising the region would make Israel a safer place, not because it would bring pro-Israeli politicans into power (It could easily do the opposite) but because it would make the leaders of these countries have to respond to their people's needs to a far greater degree than is currently the case. This would perhaps involve better investment in infrastructure, more money for schools, a fairer distribution of land. Maybe less money wasted on racehorses and suicide bombers, more on things that the man in the street actually wants.

I don't mind arabs disliking Israeli policies if they have valid reasons. What bothers me at present is that Israel bashing takes place because it's the only outlet for the frustrations of the oppressed people of the middle east. They can't complain about the corruption of the politicians. They can't complain about their incompetence. But they can burn the Israeli flag in front of CNN cameramen at 2pm on a weekday afternoon. Why? Because they don't have JOBS! The economy isn't growing fast enough to employ the increasing number of young males leaving school, because in these countries you don't go far if you don't have the right contacts with the politicians or the royal family. This 'glass ceiling' holds back their economies and slows growth. Unless that is ended by forcing Middle Eastern economies open, young people with too much free time on their hands will continue to be drawn towards extremism.

DY

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 4:49 PM BST

I've watched these rows take place with interest. Normally i watch DY fight his losing battle with some mild sympathy but I had 5 minutes spare to chip in ;-D

These facts you wont like. Israels $100bn economy is greater than that of all its neighbors combined. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees per captia in the world. The per captia income is higher in Israel than in the UK. This despite Israel spending more per captia on defending its nation than any other country on Earth.

Israel provides  a very real threat to the Dictatorships in the Middle East. Not in the form of a tiny little Jewish inconvenience on the map of course. In this baron little patch of dessert with no oil, Israelis (only 75% Jews) live well compared to thier neighbors. They do this under constant threat of war. They have only been their for 58 years yet the difference between Israel and her neighbors is massive. I expect this difference does not go unnoticed by the youngsters of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.

Would'nt it be something if Iraq followed suit. Would'nt it be something if an Arab state provided for its people rather than used them. Would'nt it be something if the eyes of Islam saw thier futures in peace, in prosperity and in health. A wonderful vision perhaps or the biggest fear of the wealthy and privileged?

 May your God go with you, as long as he toes the party line.

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 7:59 PM BST

I would worry for the train if it were heading towards Dominic.

Derailment and hundreds of mutilated passengers. 

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 8:00 PM BST

Iraq could not follow suit. Iraqis do not control Americas foreign policy for example. They will not recieve the mass amount of money that Israel receives.

 What planet are you on?

Tuesday, 17 October 2006 - 8:16 PM BST

Israel currently recieves $2.56bn in aid from the US.  $2.28bn of this is military assistance, without which would probably mean the destruction of the country and the 7 million people in it.

I wonder how much Iraq's oil is worth to the Iraqi people should they benefit from it?

As for foreign policy, I dont see the rest of the middle east striving forward in leaps and bounds.

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 1:32 AM BST

He's on a planet in which the US gives about $1.3bn a year (minimum) to Egypt, in return for its peace with Israel.

That's the same planet you and I are on, Mr Anonymous.

One article plucked from a Google Search-

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html 

 DY

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 1:13 PM BST

Israel also has a vibrant domestic military industry. It became the third biggest arms exporter in the world in 2002, when its military exports reached $4.18 billion, a nearly 70 percent rise compared to 2001 overseas weapons sales of $2.5 billion.

Wednesday, 18 October 2006 - 5:47 PM BST

Mahmood, in fairness perhaps you should be comparative.

There are approximately 1 million muslim Arabs living in Israel. There are approximately 20,000 Jews in Iran, 20,000 in Turkey and other than that you would be hard pushed to find more than 100 in any other Arab country. I would imagine life is significantly beter for the Mohamed familly living in Jerusalem than for the Cohen's of Syria.

In Israel, the Arabs have thier own soccer team, An arab Israeli was voted Miss Israel, thier is an Arab on the Borad of the Israeli Supreme Court, thier is an Arab University. The sole distinction is that Arabs do not have to take up military service like thier Jewish brother. However many do and infanct the Arabs and Druze have thier own successfull unit within Zahal. They have the vote.

The only terrorist involvement on record committed by an Israeli Arab has been as a victim. Thier is no record in history of any sabotage or diloyalty by an Israeli Arab citizen during any of Israels wars.

They received better healthcare than in the neighboring countries, far better education, far far superior employment opportunities and although the average Arab wage is 60% lower than the average Jewish wage, the cost of living in Arab areas is 60% lower and the wage in comparison to neighboring countries is like chalk and cheese.

In addtion literacy for Arabs is greater in Israel than in any other Arab country, infant mortality is lower than in any other Arab country, life expectancy is greater than in any other Arab country and well we probably should not go into the standard of life for an Arab female in Israel compared to that on offer elsewhere in the region should we.

I suppose the muslim Arabs belong to an inferior race?

Thursday, 19 October 2006 - 11:00 AM BST

Thursday, 19 October 2006 - 11:16 AM BST

Incorrect. It's illegal for an Israeli to pay an Arab labourer a different wage to a Jewish labourer for the same job. The reason the Arabs earn 60% less in wages on average is that they are on average 60% less skilled. Its not like Israel is getting a wave of doctors and IT geniuses flying across the border is it?

Plus you say its a racist state. They live well in a country that accepts them as a legitimate part of the infrastructure. How long do you think a Jew would last in Syria or Lybia? Are these not racist states too then? Do you think the Arab Israeli soldier earns a smaller wage than an Israeli one?

You brought Israel into this debate and although I conceede that Israel is far from perfect and has its faults, the fact of ther matter is that 1 million Israeli Arabs live better and happier than many of thier Arab cousins.

Are there problems that need ironing out in Israel? Yes. Perhaps you should conceede though that the problems Arabs inflict on other Aabs far outweigh them.

Friday, 20 October 2006 - 12:33 AM BST

When did you go anonymous? You're very brave. I finally look in and I see you're having a conversation we had a couple of years ago. Incidenatally, Blackjack served as an illustration of counterfactual regret by one academic.  I'm a little rusty but as I recall, such regret, is more prevalent/heavier in acts of commission rather than ommission. Essentailly, in doing something. So for example there is always greater regret expereinced when an unfortunate event occurs as result of a change in routine, rather than when it happens as a consequence of not changing one. With the war, as I mentioned sometime ago, it has much to do with the killing reference point of going to war, and not the issue of saving lives. As you well know it's about culpability, blood on our hands. These are costs we don't wish to bear.

Unfortunately, 'the do nothing option' is seen as zero cost, but of course it isn't but when it comes to the masses, if it seems that way then it's good enough. Ultimately, we care about what we experience: what happens to others is a transferrable experience to us and so evetually it's the costs that we perceive that actually are that make the difference. And in complicated problems where the numbers can't be put down on paper, then we settle for the impressions those experiences leaves us with to guide us.

It is quite remarkable that people form such sure strong opinions about such complex problems that they can't  understand (in which I utterly include myself); they latch on to one thought or metric'it's wrong to kill', 'it's wrong to for innocent people to die', 'those people wouldn't have lost their lives if it wasn't for us', 'George Bush is bad' and so on.

 There's no doubt the frames of referenesdilemmas of the sort you cite, indicate how weak minded and susceptible we all are. Cognitive dissonance plays an enormous role when people form opinions on such immotive issues such as war. One thing for sure, there are no images of lives saved to offset visual cost of the lives lost. The benefits are of such an operation are often concealed, where costs are not.

I think part of the problem with your dilemma is not so much the act of pushing him, but perhaps, that in the first instance he is an integral part of the problem - he's tied up on the tracks - in the second you are effectively introducing him - an act of commission.   

As for the war, the only opinion I would venture is to say that if we are ever going to know whether the decision was right, it wasn't going to be now. Crudely simplistic, but it's akin to paying for goods well in advance of receipt - the benefits, in the most part, for Iraq were always likely to come well after the, horrific, costs.  Of course those weren't al together the claims, or possibly the beliefs of Bush, Blair et al.

I must admit I am uttery anti Bush, but very pro-Blair (thought his speech at the conference was outstanding & on the money).   It says something about the states that the current presidents brother could be facing the previous one's wife in the next election.  It's alarming to think the security of the world comes down to razzmatazz.