The Iraqis can have any kind of government they want, except the kinds we don't like.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**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. **

Let me see if I’ve got this right. If the election campaigns were dominated by a minority group with a vested interest in the outcome and they were extremely vocal, and through a series of lies or false promises managed to hoodwink a majority of the population into voting for thier candidate that would be a problem? Their candidate may end up elected and then, once safely in power, his hidden agenda would begin to materialize. He might do all kinds of things that really didn’t have popular support and end up really screwing up the country’s economy and international relations. That would be bad too right? Even if a large number of individual voters (plus the approval of a authoritarian body), gave him their support?

I completely agree. We shouldn’t allow anyone power who might have a hidden agenda or serve the interest groups, who helped him get elected, disproportionately over the population at large.

Enjoy,
Steven

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
My god people. The war is, what, 3 weeks over? You people crack me up.

I’m glad we amuse you.

How long did it take to rebuild a government in Germany after the war? In Japan?

‘How long’ isn’t the issue under discussion in this thread. I’m sure it’s a live issue in other Iraq threads, though.

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.

Absolutely no one in the Administration is even remotely suggesting we’ll do such a long, slow process in Iraq.

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).

I am sure of it too, since we won’t be there for a long time.

But in the meantime, this wasn’t supposed to be about imposing our values or our system of government on a people with an entirely different culture.

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.

I’m sure Iraqis have a pretty good idea of what Iranian-style theocracy entails, and it’s a good bet that a good chunk of the Shi’ite population in Iraq would welcome it, at least for awhile.

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.

Nope. I think the best time to protest and criticize is before decisions are made. If you see someone driving toward the ditch, you honk at them before they drive into it, not after they’re stuck.

[AZCowboy]

Finagle, if the implication exists, I suggest that it is in error.

I acknowledge that there are human rights violations in Iran, just I hope you would acknowledge that there are human rights violations everywhere. If preponderance of google links equated to proof, the United States has a worse record.

But that is not my claim. My claim is that Iran’s human rights record is better than some of our “friends” in the ME region.

I note that none of the links you provided cover recent events. The third link, from Human Rights Watch, references the 1999 report, instead of the currently available 2002 report. The introductory paragraph to that report:

Human Rights Watch, World Report, Iran, 2002
Human rights progress in Iran was caught in a continuing political power struggle between popularly elected reformers, who controlled both the presidency and Parliament, and clerical conservatives, who exercised authority through the office of the Leader (held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), the Council of Guardians, the judiciary, and the armed forces. Despite landslide electoral victories in every major election from 1997 to 2002, the reformers were unable to dislodge repressive policies favored by the clerical leadership, including far-reaching restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and political participation.

Sounds bad, right? Well, let’s compare that to Saudi Arabia:

Human Rights Watch, World Report, Saudi Arabia, 2002
Following the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, Saudi Arabia faced the most sustained international scrutiny in its modern history. Despite massive media attention and liberal access granted to Western journalists, detailed information about human rights violations remained elusive. The continuing absence of a local human rights movement and the government’s policy of keeping the kingdom closed to investigators from international human rights organizations contributed to the information shortage, as did the Interior Ministry’s effective use of harassment and intimidation to keep human rights victims and their advocates silent. Interior Ministry operatives also pressured families of perceived critics and in several documented cases security officials detained close relatives without charge.

I hope I wouldn’t need to compare and contrast Iran and Saddam’s Iraq.

So read both reports. You’ll note that Iran has free elections (albeit, not for the ruling clergy), Saudi Arabia has none. You’ll note that Saudi Arabia has more stringent control of the press. You’ll note that Saudi Arabia still has instances of torture. You might also note that Iran allows unrestricted Internet access, Saudi Arabia does not. You’ll note that political opposition groups exist in Iran, they are banned in Saudi Arabia.

I’m no expert on the region, but Saudi Arabia looks significantly more repressive, with no positive trend line. Iran, no paragon of human rights virtue, at least appears to be making progress.

One last note: The current administration considers Iran part of the “Axis of Evil”. They consider Saudi Arabia our friend.

[Cervaise]

All of you people who are saying it’ll be easy and straightforward to install a “one man, one vote” type democratic system in Iraq: Are you forgetting that it took the leading democracy in the world over a hundred and fifty years from the initial adoption of its permanent Constitution to formally guarantee voting rights to all of its adult citizens?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**I completely agree. We shouldn’t allow anyone power who might have a hidden agenda or serve the interest groups, who helped him get elected, disproportionately over the population at large.
**

And anyone in having gained power or position that is not to the approval of the population at large must not be allowed to stay in power against the will of the people. The people having the right to vote someone into office should have the right to vote him out of office as well or at the very least vote a better person to take his place. Something an Islamic govt might not allow because what if that better person is not a cleric or even a man?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by Cervaise *
**All of you people who are saying it’ll be easy and straightforward to install a “one man, one vote” type democratic system in Iraq: Are you forgetting that it took the leading democracy in the world over a hundred and fifty years from the initial adoption of its permanent Constitution to formally guarantee voting rights to all of its adult citizens? **

No one here is saying it would be easy or fast (least of all me) but Iraq has the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and not have to go thru the same hundred and fifty years of trial and error. It will be difficult and it will take some time, but ultimately it will be for the best.

[XT]

You definitely do amuse me. “I want it all, I want it NOW, and I want it to be perfect…”. And 6 months down the line, when this is no longer an issue, it will be something else. lol.

I don’t see us imposing our ‘values’ on the Iraqis, whatever that means. Will we impose an interim government on them? Youbetcha we will. They are a DEFEATED power atm. If you are for or against the war, thats the reality of the situation. They are defeated, their government is deposed, and in chaos atm. Thats the REAL world.

I used the process of WWII’s defeated powers as an EXAMPLE of how things worked then. My guess is, reguardless of what the administration says, its going to take time to straighten things out before we can pull out completely and let the Iraqis self govern. When we do, it will be up to them to elect the kind of government they want. My guess is, that Iraq WON’T have a democracy when all is said and done. They just don’t seem to work well in that region. My HOPE is that Iraq won’t get an Iranian style fundamentalist theocracy, or another Hitler wanabe dictator…though its certainly more than a possibility.

Protest all you want…its your right and even your duty. If things drag on, I’ll be right there with you too. But I think that 3 weeks is a bit to early to really know whats going to happen, or to make any kind of sound judgement as to how the US is doing in this phase of this mess…unless of course, you have some political ax to grind.

-XT

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
How exactly would turning the country over to a new crop of dictators be Iraqi self government?

If it’s the dictators they choose, how would it not be?

If constitutional government and separation of powers are good enough for America, they are good enough for Iraq.

I must’ve missed the part where our war aim was to clone America on the Euphrates.

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
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?

OK, and if a majority of Iraqis vote for theocracy in this one-person-one-vote free election, then what? It appears to me that this is what Garner, in particular, was saying we would find unacceptable.

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.

You’ve got to ask what makes a law more than a piece of paper. If they elect an ayatollah, and when the next election is due, it just doesn’t happen, it won’t matter how many checks and balances we wrote into their constitution before we left. That law belonged to some foreign interloper, and unless the people of Iraq are genuinely unhappy with their ayatollah, then the absence of elections won’t mean much. I think it’s naive to expect that a set of checks and balances that didn’t come from them will matter once we’re gone.

*Originally posted by Finagle *
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.

Nope. Like I said, I share Rummy’s low opinion of that sort of government.

The problem is, it won’t be our government; it’ll be theirs.

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 thought our basic goal was to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I never get the memo, durnitall.

[ElvisL1ves]

Afghanistan has the better part of a year’s head start over Iraq in democratizing. It’s so comforting to see how much progress they’ve made in that direction already that it makes me completely confident that it will work just as miraculously in Iraq, too, under the firm yet benevolent hand of Dick Cheney. The appointment of Chalabi as native tribal leader is proof of that - he of all people would never loot public property, having only the interests of the country he hasn’t even seen since before I was born in mind, and will no doubt gain the trust and faith of all the ethnic groups in the entire country, just in time to hand over the government to a truly-freely-elected national government of similar benevolence.

Sorry, friends, to be optimistic at all, one has to have some realistic reason to be - and I’ve heard nothing from the faction that used to be called chickenhawks, then cakewalkers, that isn’t simple, commitment-free fantasy.

[AZCowboy]

xtisme, we are not talking about the interim government here. Clearly, the US will run the interim government. We’re discussing the possible result of (some future) Iraqi elections.

That context is quite clear in the cite from the OP.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by xtisme *
You definitely do amuse me.

Oh, good.

“I want it all, I want it NOW, and I want it to be perfect…”.

No, I’d like our leaders to not say absolutely idiotic things.

And 6 months down the line, when this is no longer an issue, it will be something else. lol.

If it’s not an issue in 6 months, I will be tremendously relieved. But given the nature of Iraq, that’s not the way to bet.

I don’t see us imposing our ‘values’ on the Iraqis, whatever that means. Will we impose an interim government on them? Youbetcha we will. They are a DEFEATED power atm. If you are for or against the war, thats the reality of the situation. They are defeated, their government is deposed, and in chaos atm. Thats the REAL world.

No kidding. The question is, what replaces the interim government that we put in there for the next year or two? It was the prospect of an Islamic theocracy taking power then that Garner, and seemingly Rumsfeld too, found unacceptable.

I used the process of WWII’s defeated powers as an EXAMPLE of how things worked then. My guess is, reguardless of what the administration says, its going to take time to straighten things out before we can pull out completely and let the Iraqis self govern. When we do, it will be up to them to elect the kind of government they want. My guess is, that Iraq WON’T have a democracy when all is said and done. They just don’t seem to work well in that region. My HOPE is that Iraq won’t get an Iranian style fundamentalist theocracy, or another Hitler wanabe dictator…though its certainly more than a possibility.

Well, there’s a limited number of possibilities. Others are civil war, rival warlords a la Afghanistan, or balkanization of the country. There’s lots of ways things can go very wrong.

I think that 3 weeks is a bit to early to really know whats going to happen…D

My point exactly. If it’s too early to know what’s going to happen, how come our leaders give us all these grand pronouncements and assurances as if they do?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**
OK, and if a majority of Iraqis vote for theocracy in this one-person-one-vote free election, then what? It appears to me that this is what Garner, in particular, was saying we would find unacceptable. You’ve got to ask what makes a law more than a piece of paper. If they elect an ayatollah, and when the next election is due, it just doesn’t happen, it won’t matter how many checks and balances we wrote into their constitution before we left. That law belonged to some foreign interloper, and unless the people of Iraq are genuinely unhappy with their ayatollah, then the absence of elections won’t mean much. I think it’s naive to expect that a set of checks and balances that didn’t come from them will matter once we’re gone.
**

The tricky part here is to genuinely know that this is what the majority what the people of Iraq want and to also address the issues of the minority. Ultimately, if the Iraqi people unanimously want an Ayatolla as supreme leader, there isnt a whole hell of a lot the US can do no matter what Garner or Rummy says. But is is quite clear right now that while the Shiites have a population majority, it isnt clear they are all unified for an Islamic govt or what that would do to the opinions of the Sunni and Kurds.

Is just too soon to tell.

and as for all not having any elections after we leave, well, thats after we leave and they can do whatever the heck they want afterwards. We got to at least try to give them a taste and let them decide for themselves in the interim.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) *
**And anyone in having gained power or position that is not to the approval of the population at large must not be allowed to stay in power against the will of the people. The people having the right to vote someone into office should have the right to vote him out of office as well or at the very least vote a better person to take his place. Something an Islamic govt might not allow because what if that better person is not a cleric or even a man? **

I notice a couple of assumptions in your post, and I’d like a little clarification. Firstly it seems you believe an Islamic government, once in power, would cancel or rig future elections. Secondly it seems you believe they would make rules unfairly restricting the pool of candidates for future elections, thereby limiting the ability of the population to choose their actual favorite.

I’d point out that the US system of elections grants HUGE benefits to the incumbent parties, including free publicity, financing, transportation, access to government resources, and the “franking priveleges”. I’d also like to point out that the US has restrictions on candidate pools. CONSTITUTIONAL restrictions. Written into the constitution itself, including age restrictions and citizenship requirements. One can argue if these are “fair” or not, but they are still restrictions on who may participate in elections as candidates. Beyond that there are rules on the number of signatures needed to get a candidate on a ballot and other restrictions to the candidate pool.

Enjoy,
Steven

[XT]

From RTFirefly:

“My point exactly. If it’s too early to know what’s going to happen, how come our leaders give us all these grand pronouncements and assurances as if they do?”

Um, because they are POLITICIANS perhaps?

What will replace the interim government? Who knows. Won’t be for us to decide. Japan doesn’t have a democracy in the sense that we understand, but they seem happy with what they have. Germany is the same. Whatever it will be, WE won’t impose it on them, contrary to what you think. I see no historical basis for this point of view. Tell me when we’ve done this IN THE LONG RUN, to any other country.

I’ll take your 6 months bet. I doubt things will be resolved, but I bet that those with an ax to grind will have moved on to something else by then. Name your terms.
From AZCowboy:

"xtisme, we are not talking about the interim government here. Clearly, the US will run the interim government. We’re discussing the possible result of (some future) Iraqi elections.

That context is quite clear in the cite from the OP."

Once we pull out and the Iraqis are on their own, how will we impose a government on them? When have we done this in the past? We don’t agree with the current German government…have we replaced it? The thought is ridiculous. In the end, IMHO, the Iraqis will get whatever they want…most likely some kind of Islamic government with some of the trappings of Democracy.

The original OP:

“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.”

In the short term, it is absolutely our business…we have the responsibility. In the long term, who knows whats going to happen. Its all speculation at this point.
I guess my point to all this is, all thats happening right now IS the interim government. We are imposing order NOW…and limiting who will govern IN THE INTERIM right now. We aren’t talking long term at this point…3 frigging weeks into the game. We are just beginning the process. As to the long term, I doubt we would or could impose some kind of puppet “democratic” government on Iraq. Any government that is percieved to be formed and controlled by the US in that region will go the way of the Shaw in Iran in the end, and you will have a huge backlash of fundamentalist Islamic sentiment.

[Mtgman]

I’m confused xtisme. I would have sworn the head of the “interim” government had been named(Retired Gen. Jay Gardner) and there wasn’t Iraqi input into the decision. What seems to be under debate here is the parameters of the first leadership Iraq truly self-selects. After the interim, which will be run by Gardner. Are you suggesting there is a second interim government which will be created? Or am I misunderstanding Gardner’s role?

Enjoy,
Steven

[XT]

I can only go by a historical perspective on this Mtgman…and of course, this is all pure speculation on my part, as the administration has shockingly not consulted me or briefed me in on what THE PLAN is.

IMO and in total speculation mode, a military man (Retired Gen. Jay Gardner in this case) will head up an occupation interim government. There will then be a selection of Iraqis brought in (maybe even hand picked) to begin the process of self government. They will NOT be the new government though. They will do things like (perhaps) look at the creation of a new constitution in context of how it relates to their culture, how to set up general elections, political parties…the nuts and bolts of government. They will form the nucleus of a new government, and certainly form the framework of what that government will be, but they won’t BE the new government.

If they/we follow a true democratic model, eventually (weeks/months/years?) the military occupation interim government will have to turn over power to the Iraqis, and there WILL be general elections of some type using the framework created by those hand picked Iraqis that are under discussion. Maybe they will have a parlimentary government like Britan or like Palistine is trying to do where a minister has to form a new government from the factions. Who knows. They point is, at THAT point that WE are out of the picture…what ever they get, they get. THEIR choice.

At least thats how it worked (vaguely) in Germany and Japan post war. To me, this is a very similar situation to those…and I think that, in the long run, it will work out similarly (though I doubt they will get a democratic government as we understand it).

But thats just my opinion…I could be wrong.

-XT

[Roland_Saul]

Excuse me for blurting this out without the benefit of calming down, but I’ve just about had it with this whole bloody conquest.

As it stands, from what I see, Ahmed Chalabi is STILL the front-runner for the post of handling Iraq’s economic future… a convicted financial arch-criminal. If he isn’t the figure head, you can be sure that the corporate vultures are using him as a “financial advisor” … He was among the very first inserted/rushed into Iraq , and plainly BEFORE any real accounting of the real state of Iraqi oil wealth is known.

The Iraqis don’t have one iota of self-governance now, and the gov’t that we’ve chosen for them so far is indelibly and blatantly linked to huge corporate interests. This is plunder plain as day, and I BEG anyone to enlighten me as to any other possible reasons that a man like Chalabi is being so strongly entrenched in a PRE-governmental role…

Just as disturbing is the sublte shift in justification of the right to determine their form of government from “We’ll liberate them even if it means destroying anything of value above ground except the supposedly unrelated oilfields” to “they’re just not ready to be liberated yet, because they are too polarized in terms of political persuasion.”

The tune has changed…we are not ready to let them govern until they are all in line with one comfortable ideology…which will be never, if history is any indication.

Equivalent to saying “As long as California is a split political arena, Californians too volatile to self-govern. Let’s cancel all elections until the people get educated OUR way…And while we’re waiting for that, let’s install Bernie Ebbers as the Minister of Finance just until things need to be accounted for…”

We have openly adopted the posture of “knowing better than them” how to run their country… that makes us just another bunch of fascists from their perspective, except our pre-invasion record includes sanctions and DU weapons that kill slowly over decades rather than more conventional means.

The reconstruction plans are a farce in light of Afghanistan, and the Iraqi body count from this conflict has been carefully hidden away as was the body count from the last one.
Obscene militarist imperialism under the guise of righteousness.
Nothing more.

If I see one more cheap staged photo-op like the one we all saw rigged in the square, I will surely vomit. I am deeply sorry to say that the credibility of our intelligence and media services is now in the toilet internationally, and coming on the heels of the highly questionable Presidential election, America is starting to be seen as a very wealthy and dangerous Banana Republic.
The truth of that , however, will be seen in the market…

While the corporate influence and profiteering from this conquest, and it is literally nothing more than that, run rampant and to unprecedented levels , our attention has been shifted AGAIN from the supposed root of all of this; Bin Laden and the hundreds of now hyper-extreme splinter cells across the world that are too expensive to track, and who don’t have any oil wealth to plunder.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the self-proclaimed saviours of freedom and self-determination are hard at work entrenching the most frightening set of permanent martial laws the country has EVER seen…

[X_Slayer_ALE]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**I’m confused xtisme. I would have sworn the head of the “interim” government had been named(Retired Gen. Jay Gardner) and there wasn’t Iraqi input into the decision. What seems to be under debate here is the parameters of the first leadership Iraq truly self-selects. After the interim, which will be run by Gardner. Are you suggesting there is a second interim government which will be created? Or am I misunderstanding Gardner’s role?
**

I believe you are misunderstanding Garners role. He is the head of the Interim Administration in charge of reconstraucting Iraq. Which includes the infrastucture that will form the govt of Iraq. He is not the leader of Iraq. He will support the formation of a new govt of iraq in the interim before full democratic selection of the official govt of iraq. The interim govt are made up of Iraqi citizens with american liasons. They will be in temporary charge of the ministries that will get Iraq back on its feet. When Iraq’s industry is running and civil order is being maintained, an election of some sort will take place to put officials selected by the people to replace the temporary ones. It is Jay Garners job to make sure that happens, sooner if not later.

[Kalt]

People just don’t realize that muslims want oppressive theocracies. They want to be ruled by an iron fist, have no rights, and be poor and hungry. I’m glad saddam is gone, and I most certainly supported the war… but in islamic countries torture chambers don’t get destroyed, they get passed on to the next “spokesman of allah.” That’s what will happen in iraq. “You give us democracy, we vote for an islamic theocracy, hah!” We can keep making them hold re-elections until they get it right (i.e. not a dictatorship) but they will start to … uh… really dislike america if we do that. We wouldn’t want them to hate us, would we?

[Finagle]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**Finagle, if the implication exists, I suggest that it is in error.

I acknowledge that there are human rights violations in Iran, just I hope you would acknowledge that there are human rights violations everywhere. If preponderance of google links equated to proof, the United States has a worse record.
**

Let’s be a little more emphatic here. There are severe human rights violations in Iran. (The report you referenced lists silencing of the press, judicial suppression of dissent, executions, and flogging for offenses including violation of dress code. The fact that Iran appears to be edging towards a more democratic government (despite severe repression and punishment of the reformers) is an indictment against theocracy.

Your comment about the preponderance of Google links is just silly – did you read any of the articles? I don’t recall the US killing thousands of political dissidents in the past decade.

Frankly, I can’t see what you’re arguing here. You can’t say that “Saudi Arabia is worse than Iran” any more than you can say that a train wreck is worse than a mid-air collision.