At least, according to Rumsfeld:
I share Rumsfeld’s low opinion of that type of government.
My question: is it our business to tell the Iraqis that they can’t go that route? I’d think that’s their call, not ours.
Well, I do think we have a say. Like it or not, we did liberate that country. Ultimately, yes, they will have whatever gov’t they want. Initially, though, we’re still in the game. Funny how the Iraqis never protested under SH. Two days after we’re in there, they’re out in the streets with signs. Good for them. Protest is great. It shows that a brutal dictator is finally out of the picture.
Can anyone enlighten me on how exactly we can consider the Iraqi people “liberated” if they aren’t able to self-govern?
Enjoy,
Steven
I find Rumsfeld’s quote quite fascinating. Are Shia clerics to be barred from election, should any such democratic institution be invested? How will the US deal with popular dissent if a Shia majority want a clerical leader?
Has anything been learned from the Iranian Revolution?
How exactly would turning the country over to a new crop of dictators be Iraqi self government? I bet you could get a majority of Americans to vote for a Christian-only government. But that pesky first amendment keeps us from installing a state religion.
If constitutional government and separation of powers are good enough for America, they are good enough for Iraq.
Mtgman has an excellent point. If they are being told what government they are to have by a foreign power, they are not liberated in the most important sense of the word.
Is it better than being under Hussein? I have no doubt it is. But saying they have been liberated is a stretch.
I think the point is, an Iran-style theocracy isn’t self-governing. We would be liberating their country and handing over the reins to a few ayatollahs and mullahs to dictate, not much better than if we did so. Their self-government has to be a self government, not another repressive regime.
pravnik, if the vast majority wants the ayatollahs and mullahs to dictate (I have no idea what percentage wants it), what then? We still force them to have elections, against their will?
Wouldn’t they simply revert to theocracy on their own? Do we keep invading until they “choose” democracy?
There was an incident a couple of days ago with the puppet government of Spain. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ana Palacio, was holding a press conference and she was asked how would the Spanish government feel if the Iraqis voted for an Islamic regime in Baghdag. Her response was that the Spanish government does not like Islamic regimes and would not like to see one in Bagdag. She then stepped down from the podium and some aide rushes up to her and whispers something in her ear. She then proceeds to step back up and starts to fumble something like “I need to clarify that when I said ‘Islamic regime’ I did not mean any Islamic regime but an extremist Islamic regime” She is clearly fumbling and improvising and realizing she is making matters worse. The aide says “Fundamentalist” and she kepps on fumbling “yeah, that’s what I meant, we do not like Islamic Fundamentalest Extremist. . .” It was quite funny to see her squirm when she was caught like that and then tried to fix it.
During the entire war she insisted it was not a “war” but a “conflict” and she refused to use the word “war” all along. The opposition parties in the Congress chided her for this continually untill one day, in the Congress, her tongue slipped and she called it “this war” which sent roars of laughter from the opposition and she was confused and again fumbled there for a while while the opposition just kept laughing at her. You would think you were watching pre-schoolers.
Is the idea that the Shia majority in Iraq might want Islamic leaders, or to establish an Islamic theocracy, a surprise to anyone?
Easily predicted, I might add (see my post in the Middle East Prediction Thread, if you doubt me).
Just another example of where our pre-war rhetoric fails to match reality.
Is there an implication so far in this thread that the Iranian government is any near as repressive as Saddam? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Jordan for that matter?
Last I heard, there is a growing movement toward democracy in Iran…
For those suggesting that Christian theology doesn’t impact the American government, please explain why I can’t buy beer on Sunday.
I can only imagine we’re using the word “liberated” as defined by George W. Bush, which is “you can have any leader you want as long as we approve of it.” :rolleyes:
(Let the Iraqis determine their own fate? Are you nuts? And run the risk that they won’t allow our companies access to their oil wells???)
Quite frankly, I don’t know. I would hope that they would look to Iran to see how they’ve grown dissatisfied with theocracy there, but it’s like with the Reichstag giving “emergency” full power over Germany to Hitler: if the democracy chooses to abandon democracy, whaddyado?
How is Spain’s government a puppet government?
Easy. By letting one voice count as one vote. How could you say that the Iraqi people decided that this is the right govt for them if they were told to vote that way by the clerics. Remember Saddam’s 100 percent voter approval? Can you honestly say that was what the Iraqi people wanted? Let the whole population decide what they want as their govt. Let them know that they have the power not the clerics or the generals or the INC or the USA. If they want a cleric as a leader, let them vote one (or more) into office. If they want to live under the rule of Islam, have that cleric make laws to that effect but dont install someone who cannot be uninstalled later. Have the checks and balances to prevent another dictatorship or totaliterian rule.
Well, can you give an example of any kind of Theocracy in which a sizeable proportion of the Iraqi population won’t get shafted? As near as I can tell, there are two or three major religious groups, none of whom (to put it mildly) get along.
Not to mention the women, who will get marginalized in any sort of Islamic government.
What’s more, can you give an example of any working, non-repressive Theocracy in the modern world? Our basic goal seems to be to install a stable government in Iraq that won’t immediately turn corrupt and/or repressive, which will respect human rights, and which won’t immediately turn into a base for fundamentalist terrorists once we leave. I think the quote in the OP is a pragmatic statement of these goals.
As for AZCowboy’s
I think that implication exists, yes. Do a Google search on “Iran human rights violations”. Leave yourself lots of time for reading.
http://www.marzeporgohar.org/main/articles/anahita.php
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE130181997
http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/mideast/iran.html
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/hr.html
If the people decide to abandon democracy for whatever reason, theres should be a permanent provision to be able to return to democracy once that reason is gone.
Its like choosing to be on the wheelchair when your legs are hurt. When they are not hurt anymore, get off the wheelchair. Dont allow anyone to cut off your legs just to use the wheelchair.
I believe the question is not whether the new system will be democratic or not. I believe it is a given that the USA will only admit a democratic system. I believe the question is if the USA will admit the election of an Islamic government which might take a fundamendalist turn. i think the USA would not allow that even if it was democratically elected.
What other way do you know that will give every iraqi citizen the right to choose their own destiny? Not just the majority or the influencial or the most devout but every iraqi citizen both male and female, shiite and sunni and kurd and christian, rich or poor.
A democratic govt can still turn fundamentalistic but at least in a democratic system all voices and opinions are heard. It may not be listened to but they are allowed to speak.
An Islamic govt has the very real potential of disenfranchising fully one half the population of Iraq and that is surely not acceptable.
My god people. The war is, what, 3 weeks over? You people crack me up. How long did it take to rebuild a government in Germany after the war? In Japan? We didn’t walk in there, defeat them then walk out guys. We also didn’t allow them to immediately start the self rule and election process. Gods alone knows what that would of bought the people, especially in Japan. We put in INTERIM governments while we sorted things out. Slowly, over time, we pulled out and allowed them to self rule and fill the power vaccume WE relinquished…and today, for the most part (we could debate about Japan) they HAVE self rule by their people.
Eventually, I have no doubt that the Iraqis will be able to vote in any kind of government they want also…and if that government is NOT a democracy, then it will be their choice (and they will pay the consequences if they get another dictator with an adventurous streak). At the moment, I have no doubt that the majority of the Iraqis have no idea what that even MEANS, which would certainly open the door to an Iranian style theocracy…and look where that got THEM.
Cut the US some slack guys. I’m not a flag waving Bush supporter, but don’t you think its just a LITTLE early in the game to be bitching about this stuff? Give it some time. If 2 or 3 years down the road we are STILL occupying Iraq, STILL dictating their government to them, or still governing them, then I’ll be right out there with you asking why…and protesting it too.
From xtisme
The problem is that occupying them for 2-3 years makes us look like imperialists and the troops on the ground are very vulnerable to terror attacks.
But not occupying them for 2-3 years makes it highly likely that the house will collapse as soon as we walk out, making us look reckless and careless.
There were many people who forsaw this issue before the war, and that was why we were protesting it then. But the administration had apparently read a book entitled, “How to Build a Democracy in 90 Days.”