A theocracy will not be allowed in Iraq, just as a unfriendlyi gov’t would not have been allowed in post-war Germany. To suggest that we are going to allow The Ayatollah V2.0 to take power in Iraq is sheer idiocy.
Is it sheer idiocy to think that the Iraqi people should have their choice of governments in free elections? Or should they elect Jeb to lead them to enlightenment? :rolleyes:
They will get a choice, within reason, something sorely lacking some people it seems.
Yes, I noticed.
Within reason? Brutus, my dear yet not entirely bright friend, it is very likely that free elections in Iraq will render a Shi’ite government. What’s the US going to do, ban certain parties from participating?
Fuck THAT, especially if the parties in question have not proven to be a nuisance at all. Iraq isn’t a fundementalist nation per se, but it is largely Shi’ite. The freely elected government will therefore most likely be a theocratic one. Deal.
Is it Wim??? Or Pim?? Or something…
The naivete being displayed is dismaying. Do you really think that the US will turn over the reins of Iraq to anything but a friendly government? ‘Friendly Islamic Theocracy’ is not a likely outcome, wouldn’t you agree? Therefor, it stands to reason that we simply won’t allow elections, until a favorable outcome is likely.
Of course, we could hold them with select candidates. Time will tell.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter if the candidate is Shiite or Sunni or Assyrian or whatever. The religion of the people in the gov’t is irrelevant; Their views on governance are.
We sure as hell are not about to turn over the reigns to a theocrat, that is certain.
How charming. Are you suggesting that I be shot by one of your political bedfellows for me views?
Well la di fucking da and who gives a shit about the French think:mad:
insert “what” :smack:
Well, since the French still have a veto in the Security Counsel, maybe Dubya should care…
Pity the fucker looks like a 2 term fuck up. It would be nice to see him fucked now and not in 20 years time. But such is life.
Completely agree. Give UN the control.
You’re not the only one. Take a wild guess where a lot of the US planes refueled and rested on the way to Dubya Dubya II ?
Ireland?
Good luck. However, I think the US should tell the UN that it is planning to bar candidates who would be elligible in a free and fair UN-observed election from standing at the next UNSC meeting.
Of course, your proposals are precisely what the US-supported Shah of Iran thought he’d do in 1978. If revolutionary sentiment becomes noticeable, Brutus, do you advocate armed repression?
Yeah, just look how well it worked out for Algeria when the popular vote for the FIS was overridden. :rolleyes:
It’s exactly this sort of policy that leads to corrupt regimes such as Egypt’s. An economic basket-case with zero legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of its populace and, thus, a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. Kinda counter-productive don’t you think?
Such hypocrisy is one of the major beefs the Arab world has with US foreign policy. Eventually the US will have to learn from its mistakes if it’s ever going to help improve the situation in MENA.
Yup, that well-known NEUTRAL country.
I am with those who say yes to the UN, but no to US/UK (yeah right, I mean, of course, “US”) control.
I don’t think we should be telling the UN anything but, ‘Buh bye’. America has more then enough resources to handle this; If the current leadership is not bright enough to restructure accordingly, get new leadership. If Bush is truely looking for ‘UN help’, then Bush is wrong.
It’s too late to go into details, but we are wasting quite a bit of our manpower. Too many troops are in non-combat roles. Our nuclear forces are largely useless, and should be pared back. States-side logistics should be completely farmed out to private contractors. Keeping thousands of troops in Bosnia and Korea is a waste of thousands of troops. (I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to send the troops from Bosnia to Iraq, if needed, and replace those troops with some EU forces? Logistically, if nothing else)
It looks like Rummy is slowly but surely implementing the needed changes. We’ll see if they go through.
If we face ‘revolutionary’ sentiment, presumably pro-theocratic in nature, then we have an obligation to react with vigor. Surrending Iran to Islamist radicals was Carters greatest mistake. I certainly hope GW doesn’t surrender Iraq to the same.
Anti-American theocracy will not be allowed in Iraq. We may as well have just gave Saddam our backing in '90 if we do.
But Saddam was not a true theocrat, and was actually rather pro-US for a long, long time.
Difficult game, isn’t it, Brutus?
If you don’t see the absolute contradiction between those two paragraphs, I can’t help you, man.
Let’s just say that a lot of countries are a little sick and tired of US-instigated “regime changes” in the middle east, as they’ve all proven to be complete fuck-ups so far. And guess what - these countries are not confined to the ME region.
Free elections, without direct US input or control. Now.
Brutus? I mean no disrespect to you personally, but I’d like to disagree if I may. I rather think that history has shown these past 50 years that, all things being equal, the USA could have spared itself an incredible amount of heart ache, and lives, and international emnity if she had merely accepted that some of the countries she has tried to control would have been better off if she had merely let them govern themselves the way they wanted to govern themselves. In this context, if Iraq’s population chooses to take on a form of government which is inherently not the “most favourite” form of government in the USA’s eyes, then so be it. Less aggro all round in my opinion.
What counts is that a fair, and wholly inclusive national election should take place - and the results should be accepted by the umpire.
Has the final thin plank in the pro-war faction’s platform justifying the war just snapped in two? There’s no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq; there’s no WMD. Did we really just see an admission that the humanitarian program of regime change to a stable, democratic government is a lie as well? That what Iraq will receive is an American client-state government, no matter how illegitimate?
Well, at least they’re finally being honest.