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

[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! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[member 5645]

Sorry. it ask for registration to read.

Pd: Don't believe in jesus christ either! :rofl: :rofl:

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

 

[loseyourname]

Don't you just love the ways people find to compare Saddam favorably to Bush? You're being dishonest, Smurf.

 

[Smurf]

Me? Dishonest? that was meant to be a joke, but I'm sure that Saddam's crimes, while better known, are no less 'evil' than Bushes. I don't see how dishonesty comes into this, I was not lying about my opinion.

 

[loseyourname]

I meant that you were being dishonest by calling Saddam "honest." Even if you believe Bush to be the antichrist, that's no reason to claim Saddam was anything other than what he was.

 

[Smurf]

Ah, well that's true.

 

[vanesch]

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

In fact, I'm of the opinion that Saddam should be allowed to run in the coming election :tongue:

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch, wow, I didn't even consider that, that would have an extremely interesting effect on public opinion both in Iraq, and Worldwide.

 

[Burnsys]

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

Bush is very specific too... VOTE OR DIE... haha no kidding

 

[loseyourname]

Bush is very specific too... VOTE OR DIE... haha no kidding

Actually, it was Puffy or whatever the hell he calls himself now that said that.