# This is what we're fighting (against?) (for?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822 "2006-06-15T16:45:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/1 "2006-06-15T16:45:31Z")
> [@](#): > > “The enemy’s vision of the future would create a region-wide zone that would look like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Music would be banned, women ostracized, basic liberties banished, and soccer stadiums used for public executions. The people of the region do not want the future these extremists desire. The more we talk about this enemy, the more its bankrupt ideology will become known. Osama bin Landen and Musab al Zarqawi cannot represent the future of Islam.” (Gen John Abizaid, USCENTCOM Commander, Posture Statement, March 2006.) [Aside from the humorous misspelling of bin La(n)den’s name](http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/finally-reason-bush-cant-find-osama.html), I’m thinking that Gen. Abiziad’s description of how life would be under the rule of our enemies differs little from how it already is in Shi’ite-controlled Iraq. As in, our allies in country in our battle against the Sunni insurgency. > [@](#): > > “[Only 5 percent of Iranians abide by real Islamic laws](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/04/MNGJOCJN161.DTL),” said al-Basri, who boasts that he and his cohorts already have blown up most of Basra’s liquor stores, punished “decadent picnickers” and imposed Islamic dress codes. “The rest of Iranians are corrupt. Look, there are drugs and girls who don’t wear hijab (traditional head coverings) properly in Iran.” > > \ > > “They have managed to impose a republic of fear,” said Yasser Qassim, a local journalist who publishes stories under a pen name out of fear for his safety. > [@](#): > > [Local people say three female students](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4347636.stm) at Basra University have been killed for failing to cover themselves in the black abaya and hijab. > > This follows a notorious incident in March when gunmen attacked students in a park. > > As the police stood by, the gunmen ripped the blouse from one woman, leaving her half-naked. Two male students who went to help her were shot. > > The militia filmed all this, concentrating on the woman’s humiliation; she was later said to have committed suicide. > > The gunmen, loyal to a radical Shia cleric, distributed a CD of the footage in Basra. > > It was a warning to others not to allow men and women to mix in public. > [@](#): > > [Iraqi musicians have been targeted](http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/31027F90-EAE2-475B-BFA2-DE5647692D92.htm) by some Muslim radicals who want to wipe out many features of secular Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein last year. > > Famous across Iraq for their sea shanties, musicians in southern Iraq’s Basra port, who have endured conflict and poverty under the 12 years of sanctions, are facing a new threat from Shia radicals who want to silence their instruments. > > Grenade attacks blamed on Shia extremists have already targeted the cluster of shops crammed with drums, lutes and trumpets in the backstreets of old Basra’s Summar district, where musicians meet to practise and take bookings. > > \ > > Concert halls and clubs in the city have also been shuttered by Shia religious leaders in the city, flexing their muscles after years of being held back by successive secular governments in Iraq. Women ostracized, basic liberties banished, music banned…everything except the executions in soccer stadiums, and I’m sure that’s not because they don’t want to. This, we’re told, is what we’re fighting against. But it’s what 2,500 Americans have apparently died to bring about. It’s not like we’re going to somehow foster a much more enlightened government in Iraq than the one that’s already there. This is, in fact, what we’re fighting for. Better that than anarchy. But not by much. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/2 "2006-06-15T16:52:01Z")
We heartily support Shi’a fundamentalism. After all, that’s why Jenna is forced to wear a hijab under threat of death, and every day American streets run red with the blood of Protestant Apostates. ---
**Author:** ![Dumbguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dumbguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dumbguy)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/3 "2006-06-15T17:19:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Aside from the humorous misspelling of bin La(n)den’s name… Different guy, actually. Bin Landen was the lead in the Syrian version of Little House on the Prairie. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/4 "2006-06-15T17:20:52Z")
The situation in Iraq is volatile, but not without hope. However, due to the poverty and isolation the Iraqi people have been in, it was likely that they would turn to radical politics to give them solutions. However, this won’t be a permament feature, just like it wasn’t in Iranian society after the Shah was overthrown. Look, I’m not excusing the fact that fundamentalists have been running roughshod over Iraqis, however if proper security is in place and the government becomes viable, then the kind of extremism you’ve quoted won’t be as commonplace. The US works with Shia Islamist parties because, erm, they were duly elected by the population. > [@](#): > > Aside from the humorous misspelling of bin La(n)den’s name, I’m thinking that Gen. Abiziad’s description of how life would be under the rule of our enemies differs little from how it already is in Shi’ite-controlled Iraq. Come on, even for Shia Iraq, it’s hardly comparable to the Taliban. > [@](#): > > As in, our allies in country in our battle against the Sunni insurgency. So what? We’ve battled against Shia militias as well. Notably Moqtadas. Besides, like you’ve hinted before in other posts, giving people the chance to elect their leaders is sometimes having to prepare yourself for people being voted that you don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/5 "2006-06-15T17:23:42Z")
While I tend to agree with your overall assessment, **RTF** , there is a glimmer of hope. It’s my impression that a lot of the repressive policies were spawned by local leaders in the vacuum that existed while the national government tries to sort itself out. The best case scenario is that this national government reigns in these local practices as they begin to formulate legislation and enforce the fledgeling constitution. It may very well be that this coalition gov’t never gets control of Baghdad and is simply ineffective in the outer provinces, but I’m willing to give it a chance before announcing defeat. Not that I’m saying even that optimistic scenario justifies the war retroactively. It was a terrible idea before we invaded, and it remains a terrible idea. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/6 "2006-06-15T17:44:24Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > The situation in Iraq is volatile, but not without hope. However, due to the poverty and isolation the Iraqi people have been in, it was likely that they would turn to radical politics to give them solutions. Hey, nobody told us that going in. We were told that the Iraqis were educated and secular, and ready for Western-style democracy. > [@](#): > > However, this won’t be a permament feature, just like it wasn’t in Iranian society after the Shah was overthrown. Iranian revolution: 1979 Islamic radicals still running Iran: 2006. Not permanent, but let’s put it this way: if the rule of Islamic radicals is just as ‘impermanent’ in Iraq as it has been in Iran, the radicals will still be running things in 2030. We didn’t invade Iraq in 2003 in order to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq by 2030. > [@](#): > > Look, I’m not excusing the fact that fundamentalists have been running roughshod over Iraqis, however if proper security is in place and the government becomes viable, then the kind of extremism you’ve quoted won’t be as commonplace. And if I were king of the world… > [@](#): > > The US works with Shia Islamist parties because, erm, they were duly elected by the population. True. But that doesn’t diminish the reality that their rule bears an uncanny resemblance to Abiziad’s description of life under the ‘bad guys’ in the War on Terror. > [@](#): > > Come on, even for Shia Iraq, it’s hardly comparable to the Taliban. Hey, he listed what he found despicable about the Taliban, and the Shi’ites we’re fighting _for_ share those traits. And just because their executions are impromptu street executions, rather than in soccer stadiums, that isn’t exactly an improvement in the one area where they differ. > [@](#): > > So what? We’ve battled against Shia militias as well. Notably Moqtadas. Only when they were attacking our troops. We have **not** fought them on the basis that they are religious totalitarians. > [@](#): > > Besides, like you’ve hinted before in other posts, giving people the chance to elect their leaders is sometimes having to prepare yourself for people being voted that you don’t like. I’ve not just hinted it; I’ve said it quite clearly. If you want democracy in this part of the world, you do indeed have to be ready for the reality that people are going to vote in some regimes that are every bit as nasty as the ones they replaced, just in different ways. In this region, you’re going to replace autocrats or kings and princes with religious fundamentalists. The question is, should we act to advance or retard these changes, and if so, to what extent? In particular, since this Abiziad quote is a ‘why we fight’ quote, the question is, would we send American troops to fight and die for the coming wave of Islamic fundamentalist regimes? And my answer is, of course not - don’t be silly. Those regimes practice the sort of brutality we abhor; Abiziad’s right about that. Which brings us face to face, once again, with the fact that we’re fighting and dying for one right now. We’re fighting **for** the very thing we’re told we’re fighting **against**. Kinda Orwellian, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/7 "2006-06-15T18:02:39Z")
And maybe we should pick our fights. We have a massive inurgency there that likes to kill people at random, including all westerner/troops. After we settle that a bit we can start policing the random thugs. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/8 "2006-06-15T18:23:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > While I tend to agree with your overall assessment, **RTF** , there is a glimmer of hope. It’s my impression that a lot of the repressive policies were spawned by local leaders in the vacuum that existed while the national government tries to sort itself out. The best case scenario is that this national government reigns in these local practices as they begin to formulate legislation and enforce the fledgeling constitution. It may very well be that this coalition gov’t never gets control of Baghdad and is simply ineffective in the outer provinces, but I’m willing to give it a chance before announcing defeat. So am I. It’s just that I’d give it more of a chance if the war’s architects were willing to acknowledge that, at least for the moment, we are in fact dealing with the devil because there’s no one better to deal with. But that we’ve got a plan under which we think Iraq has at least some chance for moving from religious fundamentalist rule to a somewhat more moderate version of Islamic law. If our planners don’t admit to themselves where we are, and what the limits are on what can be reasonably accomplished from here, then all the plans in the world won’t help. > [@](#): > > Not that I’m saying even that optimistic scenario justifies the war retroactively. It was a terrible idea before we invaded, and it remains a terrible idea. I appreciate your saying that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/9 "2006-06-15T18:32:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > So am I. It’s just that I’d give it more of a chance if the war’s architects were willing to acknowledge that, at least for the moment, we are in fact dealing with the devil because there’s no one better to deal with. But that we’ve got a plan under which we think Iraq has at least some chance for moving from religious fundamentalist rule to a somewhat more moderate version of Islamic law. Escellent point. Bush shows now evidence that he considers this to be a problem, and while I appreciate the necessity for being “diplomatic”, I don’t really see that that’s the main reason. Surely there is a way of communicating publicly that we do not support certain actions without pissing those guys off. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/10 "2006-06-15T18:34:02Z")
> [@](#): > > Hey, nobody told us that going in. We were told that the Iraqis were educated and secular, and ready for Western-style democracy. Most of them are, but you know, some of them can be highly religious in the same manner, none are mutally exclusive, dare I say there are religious Iraqis who only see democracy and rule of law as the only way for successful government in Iraq? Also you might want to disregard like I said before, educated professionals being turned towards radical politics after being repressed for so long, even though they were the majority. That’s the backlash we’re seeing today because of Saddams repression. Iranian revolution: 1979 Islamic radicals still running Iran: 2006. > [@](#): > > Not permanent, but let’s put it this way: if the rule of Islamic radicals is just as ‘impermanent’ in Iraq as it has been in Iran, the radicals will still be running things in 2030. We didn’t invade Iraq in 2003 in order to bring Western-style democracy to Iraq by 2030. Yet look at both societies and tell me which is more inclined to secular politics more than ever and which isn’t. I think the one which experienced the 1979 revolution would suffice as an answer. But the Iranians don’t have a multi confessional system which checks and balances to ensure that religion can always dominate politics. In Iraq, there is room for either religious or secular politics to take part, in Iran there is not. > [@](#): > > And if I were king of the world… Don’t answer the question, but the type of islamic radicalism you’re seeing in the form of governance will always go back to either corruption (Just like the Baathists) or incompetence, or both. > [@](#): > > True. But that doesn’t diminish the reality that their rule bears an uncanny resemblance to Abiziad’s description of life under the ‘bad guys’ in the War on Terror. I don’t hear Sistani calling out the Sunni and Secular Kurds as heathens who ought to be executed. Most of Iraqs population are Shia, so, in effect most of the political parties are going to reflect that kind of religious extremism in their political stance. This isn’t just a bunch of random fundamentalists wanting to erase the largely secular Iraqi population, but a symptom of what they’ve been through, which is being unable to find outlets to express themselves politically. That’s why so many in the South support them. > [@](#): > > Hey, he listed what he found despicable about the Taliban, and the Shi’ites we’re fighting for share those traits. No some Shiites were/are fighting for those traits, not all Shiites share that same type of goal of a Shia Taliban. You seem to lump religious moderates and extremists in the same group. > [@](#): > > And just because their executions are impromptu street executions, rather than in soccer stadiums, that isn’t exactly an improvement in the one area where they differ. But there is one difference, it’s not official government policy to execute those who see a different viewpoint on how their religion should be expressed. In Afghanistan it was, but in Iraq you have a government at least trying to stop it. > [@](#): > > Only when they were attacking our troops. We have not fought them on the basis that they are religious totalitarians. Only because if they enter the political process, it’s easier for them to be defeated at the ballot box rather than the bullet of a gun. Imprisoning religious leaders because their ‘totalitarians’ only strengthens their case of being martyrs to their cause. Which I seem to think we’re trying to avoid. > [@](#): > > The question is, should we act to advance or retard these changes, and if so, to what extent? In particular, since this Abiziad quote is a ‘why we fight’ quote, the question is, would we send American troops to fight and die for the coming wave of Islamic fundamentalist regimes? But then ask yourself, what Fundamentalist Islamic regime would adhere to the checks and balances that they’re agreed to when forming the constitution, electing officials and trying to avoid civilian deaths and overtures to different sections of the population (Sunnis and Kurds of course) > [@](#): > > And my answer is, of course not - don’t be silly. Those regimes practice the sort of brutality we abhor; Abiziad’s right about that. > > Which brings us face to face, once again, with the fact that we’re fighting and dying for one right now. We’re fighting for the very thing we’re told we’re fighting against. We’re actually fighting for a system of government in Iraq which can vote in and vote out those religious parties, and expose them for what they’re really are. Only then will Islamic extremism be discredited when it’s open to debate and challenges at the ballot box. > [@](#): > > Kinda Orwellian, don’t you think? Only if you have a one sided view on things, then yes. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/11 "2006-06-15T18:38:06Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > The situation in Iraq is volatile, but not without hope. No, there is no hope; Bush is involved. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Look, I’m not excusing the fact that fundamentalists have been running roughshod over Iraqis, however if proper security is in place and the government becomes viable, then the kind of extremism you’ve quoted won’t be as commonplace. Unless it’s a viable government run by the extremists. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > The US works with Shia Islamist parties because, erm, they were duly elected by the population. Even if I considered those elections valid, so what ? _Iraqi_ elections don’t compel _America_ to do anything. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Come on, even for Shia Iraq, it’s hardly comparable to the Taliban. Yes; the Taliban wasn’t being propped up by American thugs. > [@John Mace](#): > > The best case scenario is that this national government reigns in these local practices as they begin to formulate legislation and enforce the fledgeling constitution. Doesn’t that constitution have a clause that no law may contradict Islam ? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/12 "2006-06-15T18:53:56Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, there is no hope; Bush is involved. Um, I hate to disillusion you, but there are **many** people within living memory far worse that George W. Bush ever thought of being. I’m not overly fond of the particular style of imperialistic Americanism he espouses, but in point of fact, he generally means well. There are appeals to the worst in jingoism and truly venal traits in Bush and his cronies, but America has survived similar people in the past. > [@](#): > > Unless it’s a viable government run by the extremists. One of the nice things about the situation, and they’re becoming fewer and fewer, is that there’s an assortment of factions – so any stable government is going to have to represent a compromise, not the coming to power of extremists. Unless we let a French Revolution happen, which I believe we would prevent. > [@](#): > > Even if I considered those elections valid, so what ? _Iraqi_ elections don’t compel _America_ to do anything. Well, this may seem strange to say after November 2000, but I believe in democracy, in the right to choose one’s leaders at the polling place. And I think that’s a human right, not an American right. So unless we take the view that Iraqis cannot govern themselves and we have to do it for them, which I sincerely hope is not what anyone’s advocating, then yes, they are what the public chose, and we do have to work with them. > [@](#): > > Yes; the Taliban wasn’t being propped up by American thugs. I believe we had a great deal to do with getting the Soviet Union driven out of Afghanistan. Everything else followed with the inevitability of sewage sludge flowing downhill. > [@](#): > > Doesn’t that constitution have a clause that no law may contradict Islam ? Does it? And what does it mean, in Iraqi law? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/13 "2006-06-15T18:58:48Z")
> [@](#): > > No, there is no hope; Bush is involved. Slogan :eek: > [@](#): > > Unless it’s a viable government run by the extremists. Extremists like Saddam who used large scale mass terror to subdue the population? > [@](#): > > Even if I considered those elections valid, so what ? Iraqi elections don’t compel America to do anything. Erm, yes it would, since maintaining a democratic government in Baghdad gives the Coalition their a huge mandate to ensure it’s survival. Which is what we want in the heart of the Middle East. > [@](#): > > Yes; the Taliban wasn’t being propped up by American thugs. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Doesn’t that constitution have a clause that no law may contradict Islam ? It also states that no Human rights should be threatened and that freedom of the press is guaranteed, both which can counter the ‘undisputed primary laws of Islam’ ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/14 "2006-06-15T19:05:57Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Um, I hate to disillusion you, but there are **many** people within living memory far worse that George W. Bush ever thought of being. I’m not overly fond of the particular style of imperialistic Americanism he espouses, but in point of fact, he generally means well. I’m not talking about how bad a person he is; I’m talking about how he fails at everything he does, and always has. And I don’t think he means well. > [@Polycarp](#): > > So unless we take the view that Iraqis cannot govern themselves and we have to do it for them, which I sincerely hope is not what anyone’s advocating, then yes, they are what the public chose, and we do have to work with them. Or we can just refuse to support them. > [@Polycarp](#): > > Does it? And what does it mean, in Iraqi law? I’m not sure; that’s why I posed it as a question. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Extremists like Saddam who used large scale mass terror to subdue the population? No, religious ones, not that it matters. Exchanging one tyranny for another with tens of thousands of deaths seems like a pointless disaster to me. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Erm, yes it would, since maintaining a democratic government in Baghdad gives the Coalition their a huge mandate to ensure it’s survival. We have no mandate; we are the invaders, the predators. > [@](#): > > It also states that no Human rights should be threatened and that freedom of the press is guaranteed, both which can counter the ‘undisputed primary laws of Islam’ A contradictory statement; it’s a safe bet the part about human rights and the press will be ( and are ) ignored, and the Islam part adhered to. _Undisputed_ laws leave no room for compromise or tolerance. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/15 "2006-06-15T19:11:47Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Um, I hate to disillusion you, but there are **many** people within living memory far worse that George W. Bush ever thought of being. Well, yeah - but they usually headed nations that the U.S. _opposed_. When _we_ are the bad guys, who will stand against _us_? > [@](#): > > I’m not overly fond of the particular style of imperialistic Americanism he espouses, but in point of fact, he generally means well. I’m sorry, **Poly** , but I’ve gotta say the evidence for that is awfully thin. He means well for the donor class that supports the GOP with its money, and sees that support as an investment. I’ll be damned if I can see solid evidence that he means well for anyone else. > [@](#): > > There are appeals to the worst in jingoism and truly venal traits in Bush and his cronies, but America has survived similar people in the past. We survived Nixon, but it helped that the Dems controlled Congress, and the courts actually did have a liberal tilt to them back then. Other than that, we’ve never survived a **President** anywhere near as bad, at a time when a bad President’s reach was global. > [@](#): > > One of the nice things about the situation, and they’re becoming fewer and fewer, is that there’s an assortment of factions – so any stable government is going to have to represent a compromise, not the coming to power of extremists. Unless we let a French Revolution happen, which I believe we would prevent. The problem is not, ‘what is the official Iraqi government like’ but ‘will it ever be able to control much of Iraq?’ > [@](#): > > Well, this may seem strange to say after November 2000, but I believe in democracy, in the right to choose one’s leaders at the polling place. And I think that’s a human right, not an American right. So unless we take the view that Iraqis cannot govern themselves and we have to do it for them, which I sincerely hope is not what anyone’s advocating, then yes, they are what the public chose, and we do have to work with them. It still all comes back to whether we can aid Iraq in getting to a point where the elections actually _matter_. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/16 "2006-06-15T19:45:03Z")
The central fact is that every one of the stated goals of the invasion was plainly achieveable by non-military means. Why then was military force used? Because the use of force was an imperative. A central part of the administration’s policy and response to the airline/bombings. To circle back to the OP, the US is not fighting for/against anything. The fighting is an end in and of itself. Current fighting is a consequence of that primary imperative. Now, the consequences of the imperative to use force are another matter to discuss. There is a lot of noise about failed state in Iraq, torture this, massacre that and so on. But on the other hand Bush kept faith with the values of his constituency, involved the states with a large recruitment base in current politics and with those dual motivations they voted and he was re-elected. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/17 "2006-06-15T19:58:05Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, there is no hope; Bush is involved. Ah yes, the _Bush is a poopypants_ debate again… > [@](#): > > Doesn’t that constitution have a clause that no law may contradict Islam ? Well, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Trying to capture a complex situation in a soundbite does not add to reasoned debate on this subject. The actual wording, in context, is: > [@](#): > > 1st — Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: > > (a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. > > (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. > > © No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution. So, they’re going to have to work thu the details of how (a) squares with (b) and © especially in light of: > [@](#): > > PART ONE: RIGHTS > > FIRST: Civil and political rights. > > Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. > > Article (15): Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body. > > Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this. > > Article (17): > > 1st — Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality. > > 2nd — The sanctity of the home is protected. They cannot be entered or searched or violated except by judicial decision and in accordance with the law. > > [text continues that outlines further rights] ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/18 "2006-06-15T20:17:09Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Most of them are, but you know, some of them can be highly religious in the same manner, none are mutally exclusive, Sorry: _secular_ and _religious_ do happen to be mutually exclusive. > [@](#): > > dare I say there are religious Iraqis who only see democracy and rule of law as the only way for successful government in Iraq? You may dare; I’ll dare say it too. The question is, democracy within what parameters? (If ‘democracy’ applies only to questions not believed to be settled by the Koran, it’s still democracy, but not as we would think of it.) And rule of law…well, even the insurgents _ultimately_ want rule of law; it’s just a question of which laws, and who gets to write them. > [@](#): > > Also you might want to disregard like I said before, educated professionals being turned towards radical politics after being repressed for so long, even though they were the majority. That’s the backlash we’re seeing today because of Saddams repression. Got a cite for that? I’ve never, ever, ever read anything remotely suggesting that. > [@](#): > > Iranian revolution: 1979 > Islamic radicals still running Iran: 2006. > > Yet look at both societies and tell me which is more inclined to secular politics more than ever and which isn’t. I think the one which experienced the 1979 revolution would suffice as an answer. I agree - if the Iranians don’t feel threatened from without, the people of Iran will be inclined to secular politics. But exactly what does that get you? > [@](#): > > But the Iranians don’t have a multi confessional system which checks and balances to ensure that religion can always dominate politics. In Iraq, there is room for either religious or secular politics to take part, in Iran there is not. Politics isn’t controlling much in Iraq these days. People can vote, and the politicians they elect can vote on stuff in the Green Zone, and that determines whose militia can put on state uniforms, but that’s not the real action. > [@](#): > > Don’t answer the question, but the type of islamic radicalism you’re seeing in the form of governance will always go back to either corruption (Just like the Baathists) or incompetence, or both. There was no question. You said good things would happen IF other improbable good things would happen. Hence my ‘IF I were king of the world’ response. > [@](#): > > I don’t hear Sistani calling out the Sunni and Secular Kurds as heathens who ought to be executed. I missed that in the Abiziad quote. Could you point me to it? > [@](#): > > Most of Iraqs population are Shia, so, in effect most of the political parties are going to reflect that kind of religious extremism in their political stance. This isn’t just a bunch of random fundamentalists wanting to erase the largely secular Iraqi population, but a symptom of what they’ve been through, which is being unable to find outlets to express themselves politically. That’s why so many in the South support them. You may be right on the ‘why’, but I wasn’t debating that. I was merely pointing out _that_ the fundies in the south were running things in a certain way, and that that way bore a close resemblance to what Abiziad said we were fighting against. > [@](#): > > No some Shiites were/are fighting for those traits, not all Shiites share that same type of goal of a Shia Taliban. You seem to lump religious moderates and extremists in the same group. OK, where in Shi’ite Iraq can women dress like even modestly-attired Western women, where can they meet with men unchaperoned, where can people listen to a wide range of music (even if not American rock n’ roll), where do ordinary people not have to worry about religious thugs? > [@](#): > > But there is one difference, it’s not official government policy to execute those who see a different viewpoint on how their religion should be expressed. In Afghanistan it was, but in Iraq you have a government at least trying to stop it. Can you produce a cite of Iraqi security forces trying to prevent the Islamic militia from enforcing their ways? > [@](#): > > Only because if they enter the political process, it’s easier for them to be defeated at the ballot box rather than the bullet of a gun. Imprisoning religious leaders because their ‘totalitarians’ only strengthens their case of being martyrs to their cause. Which I seem to think we’re trying to avoid. Oh, I agree. Nonetheless, that’s the _why_, not the _what_. I’m not arguing the why. > [@](#): > > But then ask yourself, what Fundamentalist Islamic regime would adhere to the checks and balances that they’re agreed to when forming the constitution, electing officials and trying to avoid civilian deaths and overtures to different sections of the population (Sunnis and Kurds of course) I’m not sure what point you’re making here. > [@](#): > > We’re actually fighting for a system of government in Iraq which can vote in and vote out those religious parties, and expose them for what they’re really are. Only then will Islamic extremism be discredited when it’s open to debate and challenges at the ballot box. Well, we _say_ we are, but we’ve effectively taken the Shi’ite side in a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war: the insurgency we’re trying to defeat is Sunni, and the government we’re propping up is Shi’ite-dominated. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/19 "2006-06-15T20:27:12Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Ah yes, the _Bush is a poopypants_ debate again… Using childish words won’t make Bush one bit more competent or ethical. Nor will it change his life into anything other than a litany of disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822/20 "2006-06-16T03:38:27Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Using childish words won’t make Bush one bit more competent or ethical. Nor will it change his life into anything other than a litany of disaster. So what’s the proper response to pointless political statements? Enlighten us. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-what-were-fighting-against-for/360822.md?page=2)