Theocratic Iraq

  • News
  • Thread starter sid_galt
  • Start date
  • #1
sid_galt
502
1
I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
330
84
Whether right-wing or left-wing, neocon or socialist, the worst politics you can engage in is doing something very badly. At least until very recently.

Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.
 
  • #3
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
Actually, I will start supporting the US involvement, if the US government has the balls to stamp out this troubling development.
What will Iraq else be in 5 years, if theocracy is introduced? A new Taliban state, like Afghanistan??
We know what sort of fellows that state used to shelter.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
TRCSF
60
0
I think it's painfully obvious that we never fought for principles in Iraq from the beginning.
 
  • #5
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
BobG said:
Whether right-wing or left-wing, neocon or socialist, the worst politics you can engage in is doing something very badly. At least until very recently.

Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.
So very true!
 
  • #6
gurkhawarhorse
44
0
o:) saddam's iraq was cool. :devil:
gurkha-war-horse
 
  • #7
sid_galt
502
1
gurkhawarhorse said:
o:) saddam's iraq was cool. :devil:
gurkha-war-horse

I trust that was some sort of sarcasm
 
  • #8
gurkhawarhorse
44
0
I cannot take this anymore
I'm saying everything I've said before
All these words they make no sense :confused:
I find bliss in ignorance
Less I hear the less you'll say
But you'll find that out anyway
Just like before...

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break :cry:
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break

I find the answers aren't so clear :confused:
Wish I could find a way to disappear :bugeye:
All these thoughts they make no sense :uhh:
I find bliss in ignorance
Nothing seems to go away
Over and over again
Just like before...

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe :yuck:
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Break break break break break

shut up when I'm talking to you :devil:
shut up shut up shut up :devil:
shut up when I'm talking to you :devil:
shut up shut up shut up shut up :devil:
I’m about to break :cry:

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Break break break break break break

shut up when I'm talking to you :devil:
shut up shut up shut up :devil:
shut up when I'm talking to you :devil:
shut up shut up shut up shut up :devil:
I’m about to break :cry:

Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
Everything you say to me
Takes me one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break
I need a little room to breathe :yuck:
Cause I'm one step closer to the edge
And I'm about to break :cry:




linlin park
now wat u call this...?

gurkha-war-horse
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Smurf
396
3
My thoughts? :surprised I never saw it coming! :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
Smurf
396
3
sid_galt said:
we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but
Who would've guessed!? :rofl:
 
  • #11
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
arildno said:
Actually, I will start supporting the US involvement, if the US government has the balls to stamp out this troubling development.
What will Iraq else be in 5 years, if theocracy is introduced? A new Taliban state, like Afghanistan??
We know what sort of fellows that state used to shelter.
Speaking of which the U.S. hasn't had much success in Afghanistan either. However, I wouldn't quite jump to the same conclusion about theocracy. In that there have been other countries where religion plays a large role in government, but I don't necessarily conclude it will result in terrorism. Personally I prefer the two to be very separate, more because of women's rights etc. In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own, and if this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
They?
Who they?
 
  • #13
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
arildno said:
They?
Who they?
Iraq as a country. How do you think things would evolve in Iraq if they had overthrown Saddam on their own? The U.S. went it's course, and we still have problems with unity, the rights of minorities, and so forth. So they will join the ranks of the many other countries who struggle to remain united, peaceful, economically viable, etc. Now the U.S. should work toward an international peace keeping effort (assuming other countries are willing to help now).
 
  • #14
The Smoking Man
47
0
SOS2008 said:
Speaking of which the U.S. hasn't had much success in Afghanistan either. However, I wouldn't quite jump to the same conclusion about theocracy. There have been other countries where religion plays a large role in government, however I don't necessarily conclude it will result in terrorism. Personally I prefer the two to be very separate, more because of women's rights etc. In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own, and if this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?
I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?
 
  • #15
TRCSF
60
0
The Smoking Man said:
I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?

I also think that it's strange that America wants to spread a democracy by force until it becomes clear that the people in said democracy don't want what the Americans want.
 
  • #16
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
The Smoking Man said:
I always find it strange when Americans are reluctant to support a 'theocracy' when they took such a big role in the creation of Israel.

It seems such a 180 on their part.

Are they saying that Israel was a wrong idea too or just Moslem Theocracies?
Or more to the point, the support of a theocracy here in the good old United States? A legitimate question to ask is will they be anti-American?
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Entropy
478
0
Somehow, Americans either came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do anything badly or that performance just didn't matter. The only thing that seems to matter is whether it's a Republican or a Democrat that's doing it.

Thats good! I'm writing it down. :biggrin:
 
  • #18
Smurf
396
3
One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic. You saw the number of people who showed up to the polls, they've got more support for democracy than the US does. The only thing that would be seriously changed is the lack of separation of church and state which is very much a western value from the renaissance period which we don't have the right to force onto iraq if they don't want that.

Besides, Saddam was secular. Obviously secularism isn't the most important part so at least they're democratic - and that's something.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
Smurf said:
One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic. You saw the number of people who showed up to the polls, they've got more support for democracy than the US does. The only thing that would be seriously changed is the lack of separation of church and state which is very much a western value from the renaissance period which we don't have the right to force onto iraq if they don't want that.

Besides, Saddam was secular. Obviously secularism isn't the most important part so at least they're democratic - and that's something.
I agree. If it's what they want then let them have it. I'm still concerned though over the possible loss of womens rights. As far as I have read though there is still quite a bit of opposition to the constitutional model that would take them away.
 
  • #20
sid_galt
502
1
Smurf said:
One thing you should take into account sid, which you may or may not have, is that just because it's constitution involves a lot about Islam does not mean it will be undemocratic.

Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.
 
  • #21
El Hombre Invisible
691
0
SOS2008 said:
In the end, a countries sovereignty is it's own...
... until the US chooses to remove it from them.
SOS2008 said:
f this is what they choose with their new freedom, is it not their choice?

Who are 'they'? The Iraqi people? I assume that includes those loyal to Saddam. They didn't have much of a choice. Iraqi women? I doubt they are using their new freedom to relieve themselves of their new freedom.

I hardly see this as any justification whatsoever under the circumstances.

Now the last of The Big Three has fallen ('danger to American security' - strike, 'has illegal weapons of mass destruction' - strike, 'liberation of and peace for the Iraqi people'...). Who has benefited now?
 
  • #22
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
10,089
135
are "they" Sunni's or Shi'ites?
 
  • #23
sid_galt said:
I previously have supported Bush on the Iraq War.

But if this happens
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

and Iraq becomes a theocracy as it seems likely, I think I will have to join the anti-war camp. This would mean that we didn't fight for principles of any kind in Iraq but for a theocracy which is nearly as bad as Saddam's Iraq.

Your thoughts?
I didn't even need glasses to see this one coming.

Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.
 
  • #24
Smurf
396
3
sid_galt said:
Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.
I'm confused. You want the country to guarantee human and civil rights, but you support the ousting a dictator that was pushing Iraq towards that goal. You support that because it wasn't a democracy, but now that there is a democracy you don't support it because they're not guaranteeing all the human and civil rights that you thought they would.

What did you expect? A mini-USA would just pop up?
 
  • #25
sid_galt
502
1
Smurf said:
You support that because it wasn't a democracy, but now that there is a democracy you don't support it because they're not guaranteeing all the human and civil rights that you thought they would.

I don't support democracies like Iraq where vote is used to determine the law or where vote is used to elect people who can write anything into the Constitution.

Smurf said:
What did you expect? A mini-USA would just pop up?

No it wouldn't have just popped up. Bush should have from day 1 said that he wouldn't allow an elements of opression again into the system no matter in what form they come whether theocracy, democracy, etc.
 
  • #26
sid_galt
502
1
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe.
It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?

Skyhunter said:
He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation.

Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.
 
  • #27
SOS2008
Gold Member
38
1
sid_galt said:
Democracy is not an ivory tower ideal. Pure democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. That is why Constitutions are written. To put prevent violation of rights of the individual by the government whether the majority or a group of elites want to violate the rights of the minority.
Well said, and we are still working on this in the U.S.
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.
Agreed if for no other reason than he was able to keep the country from splitting apart. And though some infrastructure/oil production was not being well maintained (I'd like to know why this is the same case with refineries here in the U.S.), they had water, electricity, and people could go about their lives without fear of insurgent violence.

The Iraqi people voted, the Iraqi representatives are working on the constitution, and hopefully the next election will take place in a reasonable time frame. If all factions aren't included, if groups feel they aren't represented, there will probably be a civil war. Isn't this what anti-war people warned of from the beginning? But as I said above, a civil war would have been very likely if the Iraqi people had overthrown Saddam themselves. Then there probably will be another intervention, but hopefully an international peace-keeping effort.

Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?
 
  • #28
sid_galt said:
It was worse. Can you imagine living in a system where you knew you could be shot anytime on the arbitrary whims of one man?
I don't believe he had people shot dead on "arbitrary whims."

My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.

I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.

And to believe that we are there now for ideological reasons is ridiculous.

If this were the case why did the US support Saddam in the 80's?

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?

The key members of this administration were involved then as well as now.

sid_galt said:
Iraq may have been modern and progressive in technology. Philosophically it was barbaric.
I am not sure what point you are making here. Having a good education system in your country to me is a philosophically sound principal, since the roots of philosophy stem from the first university.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Smurf
396
3
Skyhunter said:
My point was that with the total decimation of the Iraqi infrastructure during desert storm, the sanctions through the 90's and the with current occupation, that the Iraqi people just might consider the Saddam years as good ones.
Oh was that what you meant. I was referring to the Early saddam years when the Ba'ath party was still influencing events and was indeed progressing towards a more

don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.
Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.

Was he not a brutal dictator then as well?
I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.
 
  • #30
Smurf said:
Well progress is progress, but are you sure you're right? I'm not sure if I agree with you, mostly because my time-knowledge is all off and I'm trying to figure out exactly what 15 years ago would've been like.
The Iran Iraq war started in 1980.

Smurf said:
I don't know about the 80s, but I wouldn't call him "Brutal" in the 70s. Not sure if the US was supporting him then.
Ruthless is probably a better description, and his regime became more and more so as he gained western support by invading Iran.

No, the US did not officially support Iraq before 1982.

Before 1980
Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]
1980
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]
1982
Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3] The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.[4]
 
  • #31
SOS2008 said:
Ultimately, I'm not as concerned about whether it is an Islamic theocracy, as I am whether they are anti-American. If this happens, the Bushies should be...suggestions?
If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell? :rofl:
 
  • #32
TheStatutoryApe
260
4
Skyhunter said:
I really don't want to argue this, if you believe the Iraqi people are better off today than they were 15 years ago you are mistaken.
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
Skyhunter said:
Saddams Iraq was not as bad as we have been led to believe. He was a ruthless dictator, but the reason he stayed in power was because he was also an effective leader. Iraq before desert storm was a modern, progressive, secular nation. And please, don't call me a Saddam supporter, I am just stating the obvious here.
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
 
  • #33
Informal Logic said:
If Iraq becomes anti west/US, the Bushies should be:

1) Publicly ridiculed (tar and feathers maybe?)
2) Exiled
3) Imprisoned
4) Executed

Options 1-3 would allow for continued influence, and option 4 would probably make them into martyrs. So maybe the cutting out of tongues/hands, lobotomies, or insane asylums where they will never be seen or heard from again. Can we start with Jerry Falwell? :rofl:
I think the punishment should fit the crime so how about forcing them to live in an Islamist theocracy for 20 years or so? :biggrin:
 
  • #34
Smurf
396
3
TheStatutoryApe said:
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
Saddam formally succeeded in 79, but was already de facto ruler by mid 70s anyways.
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
Compulsory Free Education, Supporting families of soldiers, free hospitalization for everyone (including women), subsidies to farmers, built roads, promoted non-oil industries (so they didn't have a dependant economy), brought electricity to nearly every city in Iraq. UNESCO didn't give him an award for nothing.

Like it or not, genocide simply didn't happen until the US got involved.
 
  • #35
TheStatutoryApe said:
Funny enough Saddam officially came into power approximately 15 years ago. Only a coincidence I suppose.
July 16, 1979 he officially took over. However President Bakr was weak (sound like any current president you know?) and Saddam was the real power in the Baath party from 1975.

TheStatutoryApe said:
Do we need to be reminded of how Saddam made Iraq a unified progressive country? Gassing Kurds, destroying towns, taking away their water, holding guns to their heads while they vote him back in office... yup, what a wonderful world.
Like I said I don't want argue this point because he was a ruthless dictator who committed crimes against humanity. He was especially brutal to the Shia and Kurds. What he did to the wetlands in the Tigris Euphrates valley was unconscionable.

My point however is that the Iraqi people have suffered, and are suffering now because of US policies toward Iraq these past 15 years. I never said he was good for Iraq, I was just saying that as the horrors of the past fade, and stories are retold, the Iraqi people may begin to yearn for the old days when they had food, water, and electricity.
 

Suggested for: Theocratic Iraq

News Iraq WMDs
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
158
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
98
Views
12K
Top