News What type of government do the ins s in Iraq seek to impose?

[Loren Booda]

What type of government do the insurgents in Iraq seek to impose?

If insurgents succeed in establishing a state based on terrorism, would it not be fractious and set Iraqi society back a millennium (a la Afghanistan under the Taliban), or would it ally with one of the existing Iraqi political powers to form a fundamentalist Islamic state?

 

[kat]

If insurgents succeed in establishing a state based on terrorism

erm...it already was a state based on terrorism..

 

[Loren Booda]

Yes, with at least a brief hiatus. What goals of an insurgent government would emulate or modify the tyrrany of Saddam?

 

[BobG]

If insurgents succeed in establishing a state based on terrorism, would it not be fractious and set Iraqi society back a millennium (a la Afghanistan under the Taliban), or would it ally with one of the existing Iraqi political powers to form a fundamentalist Islamic state?

Which insurgents? They don't all have the same goals.

In general, the group in power won't be very supportive of terrorism. A state based on terrorism implies the winning group is so weak they'll compromise and accept help from anyone that increases their chances of staying in power. You also have to consider the other side, as well. Considering the goals of your terrorist groups, they would be most likely to back an Islamic fundamentalist group that believes in ruling by theocracy.

That means there's two possible states of terrorism:

1) A religous theocracy that protects terrorist groups in return for the terrorist group including government opponents among their targets, or

2) A government that winds up being so weak it can't control what happens within its borders. While not exactly a state based on terrorism, the end result is the same - it becomes a haven for terrorist groups that might not be to eager to dispose of a government that is at least to weak to fight them.

 

[omin]

First you have to understand those who are called "insurgents" are civilians who have either had family memmber murdered by Bush regime bombs or flat out loyalists to Iraq in general who do not agree with Bush regime terrorism (the murder of civilians).

Put all intentions aside and look at their actions. They want an defending Iraq. That is a respectfull Iraq.

 

[member 5645]

First you have to understand those who are called "insurgents" are civilians who have either had family memmber murdered by Bush regime bombs or flat out loyalists to Iraq in general who do not agree with Bush regime terrorism (the murder of civilians).

Put all intentions aside and look at their actions. They want an defending Iraq. That is a respectfull Iraq.

More insane generalizations from you. I'll just pull the most recent event that destroys your theory.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10209939.htm?1c

 

[russ_watters]

Omin, even if that were true, it still didn't answer the question: what type of government would they want?

BobG's answer was pretty good. The end result would likely be somewhere in between Iran (more 1980s Iran) and Afghanistan.

 

[franznietzsche]

First you have to understand those who are called "insurgents" are civilians who have either had family memmber murdered by Bush regime bombs or flat out loyalists to Iraq in general who do not agree with Bush regime terrorism (the murder of civilians).

Put all intentions aside and look at their actions. They want an defending Iraq. That is a respectfull Iraq.

Yeah that's why the palestinians and jordanians are over there. Cause we bombed them too.

 

[Integral]

My guess is that Iraq will end up with a Islamic theocracy, much like Iran. Which by the way, is now and always has been more of a terrorist problem then Sadam ever was. All that money and all those lives only to lose ground.

Ain't is wonderful.

 

[Integral]

More insane generalizations from you. I'll just pull the most recent event that destroys your theory.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/10209939.htm?1c

I love how all you Bushmen know better about the situation in the ME then someone who lives there!

Why not shut up and attempt to learn something from the likes of Omin. We have here a very unique connection, to you this is Fox news to Omin it is his life. Why do you all want to shout down what he has to say? Perhaps his opinion has broader implications then you care to admit.

IE that Bush's Policies have not made the world a safer place for America, but just the opposite.

I do not even think that Omin must be 100% correct in everything he has to say, but right or wrong he should be listened to carefully.

 

[kat]

I love how all you Bushmen know better about the situation in the ME then someone who lives there!

Why not shut up and attempt to learn something from the likes of Omin. We have here a very unique connection, to you this is Fox news to Omin it is his life. Why do you all want to shout down what he has to say? Perhaps his opinion has broader implications then you care to admit.

IE that Bush's Policies have not made the world a safer place for America, but just the opposite.

I do not even think that Omin must be 100% correct in everything he has to say, but right or wrong he should be listened to carefully.

Ah yeah...let's help spread more disinformation around by ignoring factual errors...okaaaay.

 

[Integral]

Ah yeah...let's help spread more disinformation around by ignoring factual errors...okaaaay.

Close your mind a little tighter, somebody may say something you don't agree with. How is it you have better info then a resident of the ME? Especially when it concerns the mind set of ME residents?

 

[Smurf]

Integral maybe you don't understand. Bush is a god now, remember?

 

[Zlex]

First you have to understand those who are called "insurgents" are civilians who have either had family memmber murdered by Bush regime bombs or flat out loyalists to Iraq in general who do not agree with Bush regime terrorism (the murder of civilians).

Put all intentions aside and look at their actions. They want an defending Iraq. That is a respectfull Iraq.

Of course, the folks now trying to threaten us with hostage taking and violence into cutting and running want us to cut and run. But, I don't confuse a minority of insurgents projecting megapolitical violence with 25 million Iraqis expressing their legitimate will, throuigh some form of political process. If and when that process asks us to leave, we've got to leave, no matter what.

Ask yourself:

1] If the insurgents represent the will of the majority of Iraqis, why don't they simply wait until the election process begins?
2] If the insurgents never started their attacks, would the civilian death toll be so high?

IF the insurgents care about the Iraqis...then why are they blowing up their own people... and IF the insurgents are representative of the majority of the populace why don't they wait until peaceful elections to vote the US out?

 

[Smurf]

Maybe they watch CNN and realize that the US isn't above rigging the elections.
Maybe they don't understand the democratic process.
Maybe they don't want a democracy because it's too inefficient.
..
..
If the USA got invaded by another nation which was setting up it's own republic (based on a very different constitution) would you wait for the elections since you know you're the majority?

 

[kat]

Close your mind a little tighter, somebody may say something you don't agree with. How is it you have better info then a resident of the ME? Especially when it concerns the mind set of ME residents?

I grok a lot about the ME, info in the ME..and the mind set of the ME because most of my inlaws live in the ME...and my children are also...according to the laws of Lebanon...Lebanese citizens.
One doesn't have to have a closed mind to identify opinion being presented as fact..with no factual reference to back it up. So you can continue to whine and cry because someone challenges his post if you'd like BUt if he can't back it up with fact and only puts forth opinion in place of fact he will continue to get factchecked...I refuse to treat him any different then I would anyone else on this forum, I'm not a bigot like that.

 

[Zlex]

Smurf,

The Shia Majority in Iraq--if they are all uniformly up in arms against the American Occupation, all they have to do is nothing. Take a break. Wait exactly 90 days. Throw an election, take majority power in Iraq, vote to tell the American forces, now officially guests at the request of Iraq, to leave.

Not one shot fired.

And, America would have no credibility at all if it did not simply agree, turn around, and leave, or else 'sovereignty' and 'democracy' mean nothing.

So, what is wrong with my analysis? Something is severely flawed, because some Shiite folks over there are not doing 'nothing.'

a] They are not a majority?
b] They are a majority, and some are not pleased with the look ahead at the new form of Iraqi government, as not giving them enough power over the other minorities? Possible. Some? All? Many?
c] The majority is just not unified in its desires? Hmmmm...let's expound on that.

A radical minority of the majority -- the folks now holding knifes to the throat of Japanese woman, about to kill her if Japan does not give into its terrorstic demands--folks led by a thug who had a rival moderate Shiite cleric murdered--are afraid that, in that democratic Iraq, they won't have the power they seek, and see as their only chance, a knocking over of the apple cart.

Insofar as it yet remains a unilateral change in 'attitude,' it is also another in a long series of distinctions between those who kidnap Japanese women and threaten to burn them alive, and those who (yet) stand up to that.

The deeper cause of this insurgency may be a clash of views of justice.

For decades, a Saddam led Sunni minority abused a Shia majority, as well as Kurds, via brutal oppressive force. Saddam has Sadr's father openly assassinated. There is an opportunity for hot retribution in the air--except for one impediment to the same old, same old.

Not satisfied with the prospect of cold courts of justice, of trials and convictions and exections for past crimes, a radical Shiite sect wants to grab power in Iraq and unleash retribution of the majority on the minority, but it can't do that for as long as there are US forces on the ground backing up some experiment in Western civilized democracy.

And, why should a so recently abandoned (by the US, continuously, between 1991 and March 2003)Shia population have faith in the jsutice from across the horizon, when fully half of the folks from across the horizon are crying to cut and run again?

I mean, as lates as 1996, with the 'No FLy Zones' in place, with UN on the ground controling nothing in Iraq, Saddam sends his military to finish off the last of the Kurd and Shia rebellion against him. This, according to Bob Kerrey. And, we did nothing.

Where is the recognition of any of this? Where are the cries against "vigilantism" and resort to "brute force" of the Shiite miliitia brigades and terrorists? Silence on that. In a wolrd full of 'greys', black very easily becomes white, and threats to burn human beings alive are justifiable acts of rebellion against an authority striving to ... enable peaceful elections in Iraq.

Well, OTOH, they have a point, and the West/UN has reinforced it time and time again; the West wants only 'peace' at all costs, not justice. In response, to injustice, it offers only half measures and gesture politics, the bare minimum necessary to sweep the issue onto the back page of our collective conciousness. Some smirking convicted terrorist walking out of a court in Germany, because...the US failed to release a terrorist being held in the US. No wonder he was smirking. And that is the flavor of justice that we are trying to sell to these long abused Shiia majority in Iraq. Some kind of half assed celebration of how deliberately clueless and fair minded we are; so mind numbingly 'fair minded' that we find a moral equivalence between a Hutu majority sending out teenagers with machetes to murder innocents, with a Tutsi minority arming itself to stop that.

"Just stop the violence. Screw justice. Screw defending innocents from thugs. A sweaty march inside some Big Headed Puppet on some safe street in Europe will have to do."

 

[kat]

"Just stop the violence. Screw justice. Screw defending innocents from thugs. A sweaty march inside some Big Headed Puppet on some safe street in Europe will have to do."

Ugh,that really says it all.

 

[member 5645]

I love how all you Bushmen know better about the situation in the ME then someone who lives there!

Why not shut up and attempt to learn something from the likes of Omin. We have here a very unique connection, to you this is Fox news to Omin it is his life. Why do you all want to shout down what he has to say? Perhaps his opinion has broader implications then you care to admit.

IE that Bush's Policies have not made the world a safer place for America, but just the opposite.

I do not even think that Omin must be 100% correct in everything he has to say, but right or wrong he should be listened to carefully.

Firstly, you have no idea where Omin is from.

Secondly, your attempt at a diplomatic "shut up moron" is not well received. The fact that you think I should keep my mouth shut on an internet forum (do I need to post the definition of forum?) for political and world affairs discussions speaks volumes on who here should LEARN something.


The rest of your post is the same typical hyperbole and at this point doesn't even warrant a real response. It has NOTHING to do with the wrong statement made by Omin, by response refuting it, and the fact that the ONLY people to ever respond to me when I refute Omin on these insane generalizations are his "He lives there, I somehow know this to be true, and you shut up you big meanie because he is right." crowd.

Come again when you have some information to REFUTE mine, not just spread disinformation and rhetoric.

 

[Integral]

All I have,apparently like you, is the news channels, different from others, I recognize that this does not make me an expert. That is why I appreciate having access to other sources of information. Even if it is biased it is still information. Heck I even watch Fox news, with the recognition that is fair and balanced... by their definitions.

Unlike the Bushmen of the country who have no appreciation of data driven approaches to such matters I like enjoy hearing other peoples views. I am free to apply filters as I see fit.

What I am getting a bit tired of is the same response to Omin, over and over. Basically it runs like you are wrong, here is an American newspaper article which proves it... :zzz:

Listen to what he has to say, balance it with what the article has to say and perhaps somewhere in the middle, may lie a grain of truth.

But this is just rhetoric to you, so take it with a grain of salt. Like I do everything you or (a bag of salt) Kat.

Tell me Kat are your Lebanese relations part of the Large Christian population or are they Muslim?

 

[member 5645]

All I have,apparently like you, is the news channels, different from others, I recognize that this does not make me an expert. That is why I appreciate having access to other sources of information. Even if it is biased it is still information. Heck I even watch Fox news, with the recognition that is fair and balanced... by their definitions.

Unlike the Bushmen of the country who have no appreciation of data driven approaches to such matters I like enjoy hearing other peoples views. I am free to apply filters as I see fit.

What I am getting a bit tired of is the same response to Omin, over and over. Basically it runs like you are wrong, here is an American newspaper article which proves it... :zzz:

Listen to what he has to say, balance it with what the article has to say and perhaps somewhere in the middle, may lie a grain of truth.

But this is just rhetoric to you, so take it with a grain of salt. Like I do everything you or (a bag of salt) Kat.

Tell me Kat are your Lebanese relations part of the Large Christian population or are they Muslim?

Did you just look at the domain name and discredit my post? I don't think you could possibly know how to type on the internet, read that article I posted, and still come to this conclusion. You have GOT to be kidding me...

 

[Naeem]

The insurgents claim that they are in a struggle with the infidels, which is of religious significance to them.

 

[Integral]

Did you just look at the domain name and discredit my post? I don't think you could possibly know how to type on the internet, read that article I posted, and still come to this conclusion. You have GOT to be kidding me...

hummm... What we have here is a failure to communicate...

When did I try to discredit your post? And NO I did not look at the domain name, should I? You posted a link to the Miami Herald, is this or is this not an American newspaper?

Perhaps it is you who needs to take a chill pill, and actually try to read something.

 

[vanesch]

Smurf,

The Shia Majority in Iraq--if they are all uniformly up in arms against the American Occupation, all they have to do is nothing. Take a break. Wait exactly 90 days. Throw an election, take majority power in Iraq, vote to tell the American forces, now officially guests at the request of Iraq, to leave.

Maybe they don't BELIEVE in elections. They have lived in a country where for decades Saddam was regularly reelected with 95% of the votes. So now a stranger comes in, bombs their country, and is going to allow for elections which can tell him to shove it.
It is a bit as if the Nazi occupation force during WWII would suddenly say: hey, we'll organize elections, and if you don't want our Fuehrer, just vote against him. Nobody would have believed that EVEN if they were well intentioned.

 

[kat]

Unlike the Bushmen of the country who have no appreciation of data driven approaches to such matters I like enjoy hearing other peoples views. I am free to apply filters as I see fit.

Listen to what he has to say, balance it with what the article has to say and perhaps somewhere in the middle, may lie a grain of truth.

This is your idea of "data driven" LOL thanks for the laugh.

But this is just rhetoric to you, so take it with a grain of salt. Like I do everything you or (a bag of salt) Kat.

No, actually..I think it's racism at it's most decietful. Lowering the bar of expectations because he's from the middle east. If you really have an "appreciation of data driven approaches" then justlistening to comments that aren't supported by any data just because someone is an Arab is just a ...bit...condescending. Unless of course that's all just fictional B.S. and you're really just another Idealogical wingnut with a skewed perception of reality.

Tell me Kat are your Lebanese relations part of the Large Christian population or are they Muslim?

It really shouldnt' matter to you which they are, as they are "over there" and are able to grok first hand what's happening in the middle east including what their media is reporting, what the rumors are etc.

 

[member 5645]

hummm... What we have here is a failure to communicate...

When did I try to discredit your post? And NO I did not look at the domain name, should I? You posted a link to the Miami Herald, is this or is this not an American newspaper?

Perhaps it is you who needs to take a chill pill, and actually try to read something.

Apparently, I can't keep up with your tangents.
Your response, to my post that YOU QUOTED was that I am a "Bushman" looking to prove Omin wrong...

Quit changing this thread. Unless you are going for the substance in my posts, you are wasting my time now.

 

[Integral]

Paht,
Have you responded to the main topic of this thread YET?


Kat,
I was married to a Eastern European and felt I had a pretty good understanding of that culture, But will not claim to "gork" to the point of being an expert. As for being part of the Christian or Muslim Lebanese culture, it certainly does make a difference, if for on other reason just to define your bias. Anyone who claims to be free of bias is simply ignorant or lying.

 

[kat]

Paht,
Have you responded to the main topic of this thread YET?


Kat,
I was married to a Eastern European and felt I had a pretty good understanding of that culture, But will not claim to "gork" to the point of being an expert.

It appears to me that you're alluding to my having said that I'm an expert. You'll have to quote me there..as I don't remember it. If you can't quote me then I suggest you read a bit more carefully.

As for being part of the Christian or Muslim Lebanese culture, it certainly does make a difference, if for on other reason just to define your bias.

It does and it doesn't...more importantly might be from where they've originated from. My husbands first wife was a muslim, he converted. She is today someone i consider to be a friend. He has always called himself Christian, even after converting to Muslim. For many Lebanese "Christian" more comparable to a recognization of nationality then belief. I also have several cousins(by marriage) who are married to muslims. "Mixed" marriages are more common then one might expect.

Anyone who claims to be free of bias is simply ignorant or lying.

Ah well, I don't think you'll find a quote from me claiming to be free of bias..but this compells me to ask YOU..what is YOUR bias that compells you to call opinion data when it comes from Omin and data opinion when it comes from a bushmen?

 

[Integral]

I attempted to make it clear that I see Omin's posts as opinions as well. It is just that I consider the opinions of a resident of the ME more meaningful in these matters then opinions of Americans, especially the vociferous Bushmen, whose opinion is well known.

Same question for you that I asked Phat, have you addressed the topic of this thread yet?

 

[member 5645]

Paht,
Have you responded to the main topic of this thread YET?

Yes I have, but then I was derailed by you attacking my intentions, and subsequently refusing to refute my posts.

I'm not going to waste my time with you in this thread anymore, unless you decide to go back and get on track.


Bye.

 

[kat]

I attempted to make it clear that I see Omin's posts as opinions as well. It is just that I consider the opinions of a resident of the ME more meaningful in these matters then opinions of Americans, especially the vociferous Bushmen, whose opinion is well known.

Perhaps it was the reference to your being "data driven" that lead me to believe you thought Omin was giving something more then opinion based on perception. The problem is that perception in the Middle East is often less about Data and less about reality then it is about saving face,.. For an example, within egypt it's still widely believed that Israel lost the 1973 war to egypt, it's in their textbooks, they have monuments celebrating the date of their victory..it's thought that Israel was forced to make peace with Egypt because they were beaten so badly...Egyptians appear to either not realize or not admit that Israel was very willing to sign a peace treaty even after Israel trapped and then allowed Egypt's 3rd army to escape (with intercession from the U.S.) and avoid being completely destroyed. So, to this day and in direct correlation to the State giving it's people the perception of having achieved a victory due to their armed struggle against Israel they continue to overwhelmingly support armed struggle against Israel based upon their previous...and non-existent victory.

Same question for you that I asked Phat, have you addressed the topic of this thread yet?

I've been busy dealing with your personal attacks and off topic tangents...but the Same question for you...have you addressed the topic of this thread yet?

 

[russ_watters]

What I am getting a bit tired of is the same response to Omin, over and over. Basically it runs like you are wrong, here is an American newspaper article which proves it... :zzz:

Listen to what he has to say, balance it with what the article has to say and perhaps somewhere in the middle, may lie a grain of truth.

How do you propose we evaluate the accuracy of the factual claims Omin is making?

This is why we are having this problem: Omin's claims are directly refutable with evidence and Omin provides no counter-evidence to back up his claims. To me, that makes evaluation pretty straightforward.

I'm sorry, Integral, but I'm simply not trusting enough of a person to take Omin's word for it.

And from that, we can move on to Omin's opinions: Omin's opinions are not based on facts.

 

[Burnsys]

You all call "facts" and "evidence", to what american news says, that is not proof of anything... and more when 90% of US media is controlled by 8 Corporations...and some of those corporations sells weapons tho the us gov...
For me.. Fox news. or CNN have the same or less Credibility than Al Jazzera...

 

[member 5645]

You all call "facts" and "evidence", to what american news says, that is not proof of anything... and more when 90% of US media is controlled by 8 Corporations...and some of those corporations sells weapons tho the us gov...
For me.. Fox news. or CNN have the same or less Credibility than Al Jazzera...

Jesus christ, have any of you actually read my link?! DO I need to quote al jazeera to prove a CARE worker was killed?!

 

[Zlex]

I attempted to make it clear that I see Omin's posts as opinions as well. It is just that I consider the opinions of a resident of the ME more meaningful in these matters then opinions of Americans

There are people here in the US who probably know less about America then people who live elsewhere. Yet; for the simple reason that they live here Integral would believe that their opinion is valid, or even more valid then someone who is educated on a subject.

If you believe that there are people in America who hold idiotic opinions about America/Americans, then why would the same not apply to other places?

I'm not saying that the poster in question holds a stupid opinion, merely that his opinion on a subject is no more or less valid then anyone elses regardless of where they are situated in the Universe.

Put another way, if his beliefs on this topic were not aligned with yours, would you hold his opinion as high as you do now? Would you still hold his opinion as undisputable by others not from the region, or would you conceed that the Middle East is not a group of Monolithic thinkers, much like the US is not a group of Monolithic thinkers, and that just like over here, over there people have different opinions too.

 

[Zlex]

Maybe they don't BELIEVE in elections. They have lived in a country where for decades Saddam was regularly reelected with 95% of the votes. So now a stranger comes in, bombs their country, and is going to allow for elections which can tell him to shove it.
It is a bit as if the Nazi occupation force during WWII would suddenly say: hey, we'll organize elections, and if you don't want our Fuehrer, just vote against him. Nobody would have believed that EVEN if they were well intentioned.

Murder of rival moderate Shiite clerics by 'religious' men, kidnapping of Japanese aid contracors and aid workers by 'religious' men, the confrontation of terroist thugs telling the West, "Our kind of world, or your kind world; prove the point, or go home."

Well, it must be hard to bite your lip, to not say indeed, "what is so great about our kind of world?"

Well then, just say it. But, enough of this bull****; choose. Either stand proudly behind the latest towel head kidnappers threatening the Japanese woman in front of the cameras, or stand with the part of the world that is sickened by that kind of world.

Choose. Or, look for nuanced shades of grey and justification for that kind of thuggery, tell us all that the Devil Americans made them do this by offering the vagaries of a democratic political path to power instead of the accustomed knife to the throat.

Or, continue to pretend you don't have to for cheap political gain.

If the case can be made that, "Look, this is what these arab folks do; that is their way, the knife to the throat, they are genetically unable to hold peaceful elections and contend for power, its just the way they are, we are fools to think that these knife to the throat low life are up to an election as a means to power"... then go ahead an proudly make that point. That would be the only argument to not be in Iraq today. Of course, that would also be justification for simply nuking the entire place, and sleeping like a baby after the fact.

But, I am nowhere near believing that. I think there are Iraqi people who want an Iraq ruled by other than the thug who has murdered the less violent cleric du jour, who want to enter modernity as free people, who believe in it, and who someday, maybe, even today, are risking their lives to achieve it. Yes, those are the Iraqis and that is the world we are fighting for, even Shiites who yes, believe that.

 

[Burnsys]

Jesus christ, have any of you actually read my link?! DO I need to quote al jazeera to prove a CARE worker was killed?!

Sorry. it ask for registration to read.

Pd: Don't believe in jesus christ either!

 

[member 5645]

Sorry. it ask for registration to read.

Pd: Don't believe in jesus christ either!

Tangent time...
Whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, divine in anyway or not, you'd be pretty foolhardy to go against mountains of evidence that he DID exist.

 

[Burnsys]

Tangent time...
Whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, divine in anyway or not, you'd be pretty foolhardy to go against mountains of evidence that he DID exist.

i was just kidding

 

[member 5645]

i was just kidding

I put a wink for a reason

 

[Gokul43201]

" What type of government do the insurgents in Iraq seek to impose?"

I think they would like to call for a reinstatement of Sharia law. Some form of a theocracy with military "run by"/in cahoots with the extremists, would be dandy.

The other option might be a military dictatorship about some prominent figurehead - like Zarqawi.

 

[russ_watters]

All this OT bickering aside, I think the answer (at least to the reciprocal question) may be here:

But, enough of this bull****; choose. [emphasis added]

This is precisely what the terrorists are afraid of. They need the situation to be gray, otherwise people will choose. And they won't choose terrorism.

So that leaves us with "anything, but a form of democracy," but preferably not much more than anarchy, as the answer to the question.

 

[BobG]

If the case can be made that, "Look, this is what these arab folks do; that is their way, the knife to the throat, they are genetically unable to hold peaceful elections and contend for power, its just the way they are, we are fools to think that these knife to the throat low life are up to an election as a means to power"... then go ahead an proudly make that point. That would be the only argument to not be in Iraq today. Of course, that would also be justification for simply nuking the entire place, and sleeping like a baby after the fact.

(emphasis mine)

I was almost with you until the sentence I bolded.

First reason not to be there:
The type of government another country has is not justification for invasion. We should only invade another country because of the threat that country poses to the US.

Second reason (and more important):
If Hussein were the only obstacle to democracy in Iraq, we'd be out of there by now.

Third (and most important):
Often the cure is even worse than the problem.

Angola - After a 14 year war against Portugal, they gained independence in 1975. The Communists persisted through 14 years of civil war before being displaced. This followed by democratic rule and another 14 years of civil war. Maybe the real cause is confining several 'nation - people' into one country border (European colonization paid little regard to the distribution of the indigenous population). Main ethnic group is Ovimbundu (37%) followed by Kimbundu (25%), Bakongo (13%) and other smaller ethnic groups. Life expectancy is 36.8 years, literacy rate 42%, unemployment rate >50%, inflation rate 106%.

Central African Republic - Same basic story, but without the interference of US or USSR. Inpependent in 1960, longest one group has stayed in power is 14 years. Same root cause - Baya 33%, Banda 27%, Mandjia 13%, Sara 10%, Mboum 7% and other smaller ethnic groups all forced to live in one border. A decent standard of living in spite of wars - has a decent amount of natural resources.

Democratic Republic of Congo - Almost a success story. Gained independence from Belgium in 1960, had some civil wars, but was stable as a dictatorship from 1971 until 1997. Has been in civil war ever since. Over 200 ethnic groups. Main problem is that the DRC was a safe haven for rebel groups from bordering countries to hide out, causing instability in bordering countries to spill over into the DRC. A decent life expectancy (48), inflation of 14%.

Somalia - Went nearly 10 years from Jan, 1991 to Aug 2000 without any working government at all. In fact, the US tried to fix this problem. Hard to put a government in place if no one in the country gets along. Over nine years with no government made this a nice place for terrorist groups to hang out, which made the instability a lot worse. (With 85% Somalis, you'd think this country would have had a little more unity). Literacy rate of 38% with inflation > 100%.

Sierra Leone - Civil wars 1992 to 2002. Temne 30%, Mende 30%, other native African tribes combine for another 30%. Life expectancy 42.7 with a literacy rate of 31%. Diamond mining increases standard of living, but also increases external support for rebel groups who can illegally smuggle Sierra Leone diamonds out of the country.

Here are 21 of the 'forgotten' crises in the world: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0920809.html
14 of the 21 are due to incessant war in the country.

Your post was limited to the Shiites in Iraq. If the Shiites can control the rest of Iraq democratically, you might be right (the Shiites are the majority). I don't have much confidence they'll be able to keep the Sunnis and Kurds on the same page without brute force oppression. The resulting government will be a small improvement over Hussein, at best, or unsuccessful, relegating Iraq to the fate of the Angolas and Somalias of the world.

Looking at past experience, I'm not sure US presence will mean a hill of beans as far as finding some kind of stability - the USSR couldn't do it in Angola or Afghanistan and we couldn't do it in Viet Nam or Somalia. Some problems have to be solved by the country itself, not outside entities.

On the other hand, the US and Europe did manage to control the damage in the break-up of Yugoslavia after they lost their dictator. In the end, a semi-controlled break-up wound up being a better solution than trying to unify the country. That only took about 10 years.

 

[Zlex]

BobG,

Indeed; no doubt, many reasons not to roll into Iraq, and many reasons to the contrary. However, by the part you bolded I meant, that would be the only reason (insofar that I've heard) to leave Iraq.

There are parts of your post that I would like to address though. I will return later.

 

[vanesch]

If the case can be made that, "Look, this is what these arab folks do; that is their way, the knife to the throat, they are genetically unable to hold peaceful elections and contend for power, its just the way they are, we are fools to think that these knife to the throat low life are up to an election as a means to power"... then go ahead an proudly make that point. That would be the only argument to not be in Iraq today. Of course, that would also be justification for simply nuking the entire place, and sleeping like a baby after the fact.

You missed my point. I'm not saying that in general Iraqis are unable to vote. I'm saying that, well, they may be just a bit suspicious that an "election" organized by an occupying army might be just as tricked as the elections they were used to to reelect Saddam. And so, the folks who want you guys to shove off might just not sit down and wait for the result of such an election, because they don't believe that what will come out is an honest result.

 

[vanesch]

Second reason (and more important):
If Hussein were the only obstacle to democracy in Iraq, we'd be out of there by now.

Honestly I think this was Bush's big miscalculation. Obvious to everybody else, but apparently not to his crew. What do you think ?

 

[loseyourname]

You missed my point. I'm not saying that in general Iraqis are unable to vote. I'm saying that, well, they may be just a bit suspicious that an "election" organized by an occupying army might be just as tricked as the elections they were used to to reelect Saddam. And so, the folks who want you guys to shove off might just not sit down and wait for the result of such an election, because they don't believe that what will come out is an honest result.

So they don't think an election would be fair and accurately reflect the wishes of the majority of Iraqi citizens, but they think a military regime installed by an insurgent who isn't even an Iraqi would?

 

[vanesch]

but they think a military regime installed by an insurgent who isn't even an Iraqi would?

Probably not, either. But at least it's an Arab.

 

[russ_watters]

You missed my point. I'm not saying that in general Iraqis are unable to vote. I'm saying that, well, they may be just a bit suspicious that an "election" organized by an occupying army might be just as tricked as the elections they were used to to reelect Saddam. And so, the folks who want you guys to shove off might just not sit down and wait for the result of such an election, because they don't believe that what will come out is an honest result.

There was no trickery involved in Saddam's elections. He was quite specific: vote for me or die.

 

[Smurf]

Least he was honest, which can't be said for Bush. =D