0
   

If you were in charge in Iraq...

 
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 09:55 am
Would you allow the people to elect an Islamic government? Would you allow the constitution to be based on Islamic law?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,383 • Replies: 51
No top replies

 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:08 am
Though I would prefer to see a democratic form of government take shape, in the end, the best and most 'democratic' thing we can do is to allow the Iraqi people to make that call.

My only caveat would be that they sign or affirm that they will comply with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and they sign a complete restriction on acquiring or developing any other types of WMD in the future.

Other than that, let the Iraqi people vote to decide what form their new state should take.
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:10 am
I have to agree with Fedral: it's not our country.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:12 am
I agree with him as well; and i also would point out how unrealistic it is to use the verb "to allow" in this context.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:14 am
Tough call. I'm ususally suspect of any government that gets its power by appealing to an unseen higher power as opposed to appealing to the rights of humans here on Earth. That should be the basis IMO: the rights of human beings and the government's role in securing and protecting those rights, not the government's right to exists and the people's responsibility in serving it.

If the Iraqi's insist in creating a Muslim government, I don't see that we have much say other than insuring that the Muslin government will be friendly to the US. I would prefer a freely elected contitutional republic which is much harder and takes more work than surrendering to the dictates of a religious government. If the people are clearly not ready to govern themselves (not sure if this is the case of not), then they will not be able to meet the challanges of self-government. In such case, perhaps a Clerical government would be best for them until such time as they are ready for self-government.
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:18 am
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
I don't see that we have much say other than insuring that the Muslin government will be friendly to the US.


How you gonna do that?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:24 am
If I were in charge of Iraq my first step would be to procure WMDs so as to help ensure Iraqi sovereignty.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:26 am
I'm also with Fedral on this one.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:28 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
If I were in charge of Iraq my first step would be to procure WMDs so as to help ensure Iraqi sovereignty.


That's why you haven't gotten the call yet, Boss, we just don't trust ya on this one . . .
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:31 am
Nobody ever lets me have the bomb. :-(
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 10:54 am
Quote:
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
I don't see that we have much say other than insuring that the Muslin government will be friendly to the US.


How you gonna do that?


By politely reminding them of what happened to the last Iraqi government that wasn't friendly to the US. We could also give incentives in Foreign Aid which ties back to my post in the "Foriegn Aid" thread. Normalize trading realtions.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:06 am
Ahh, a democracy whose "friendliness" is maintained under a threat of force.

Ripping good laugh.

But seriously, this works. All my friends stay on friendly terms with me, lest I remind them of the times I beat them.
0 Replies
 
ConstantlyQuestioning
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:12 am
Craven,

When trying to keep thugs in line, one sometimes has to act thuggish.

And I meant the word "friendly" in a international diplomatic sense, not in a sense you use with your personal friends. There's a difference.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:16 am
"Enlightened national-interest", anyone? Cool
0 Replies
 
Titus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:21 am
Democracy cannot be forced on a nation. Look at the history of US foreign policy over the years and you will see this to be true.

While US foreign policy makers very nearly always play the "Democracy" card as justification for military invasion and occupation of a nation, there's almost always an underlying reason: oil and ideology are two of the most popular reasons to send in the troops.

RE: post-Saddam Iraq, if Bremer & Company think they can appoint Americans to run the country, and not factor in Islam, then they're as delusional as most neocons and I predict Iraq will disintegrate into civil war leading to an even worse depost than Saddam.

As far as the much ballyhooed WMD's are concerned, allow me to quote Imelda Marcos when she was asked about the billions she and her hubby stole from the Philippino people, said dear Imelda, "there is none." LOL!!!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:25 am
First, I would form a steering committee that equally represents the Shia's, Sunni's, and Kurds as well as men and women.

I would then gather all the local leaders and powerful clerics together and have them all executed to prove to the masses I am not to be trifled with.

Then, I would start selling Oil as a rogue state avoiding OPEC at all costs. With the money, I would start several socially progressive programs to show the masses I can be benevelant.

Then, I would take and rebuild my military and infrastructure to be able to defend my country without needing to worry over invading any of my neighbors to show the masses I can be peaceful.

Then, I would stamp out any fundamentalist Islamic organizations with the force of my new military. They will be offered an exit strategy and some money to leave, but if they choose to stay, no more bombings or suicides! Suicide bombers would have their remains thouroughly soaked in pig fat etc. to ensure the next bomber knows what will happen to his remains. This will show the masses I am serious.

Then, party time!

That's what I would do.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:46 am
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Quote:
ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
I don't see that we have much say other than insuring that the Muslin government will be friendly to the US.

How you gonna do that?

By politely reminding them of what happened to the last Iraqi government that wasn't friendly to the US.


So the rationalisation of American pre-emptive war has now deteriorated from "they had WMD that they could give to the terrorists who attacked us any moment now" to "thats just what happens if you're not friendly to the US"?

Well, at least it's honest. And it does go back to a long tradition of US foreign (Cold War) policy ...

ConstantlyQuestioning wrote:
Craven,

When trying to keep thugs in line, one sometimes has to act thuggish.

And I meant the word "friendly" in a international diplomatic sense, not in a sense you use with your personal friends. There's a difference.


Note the near-instinctive equation of all those who are "not friendly to the US" with "thugs".

Of course, to me, any government that invades countries just cause they wont do what it says is the "thug" in question.

But I guess CQ here is simply openly expressing the kind of instincts that have, in fact, shaped recent US foreign policy ...

I truly believe many of those who shape or support Rumsfeldian policy do, in fact, instinctively equate "those who are not friendly to the US" with "thugs" or "rogue states". As evidenced by the number of very thuggish states that are left alone or even stridently supported just because they are friendly to the US.

And many who buy into this equation, which magically translates all moral claims into geostrategic realpolitik and vice versa, might not even be aware of doing so. Thus, "rogue states" are those who ridicule and flaunt the will and the rules of the international community - unless that international community happens to disagree with the US, in which case it is "irrelevant" and those who buck it are heroes.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:49 am
I couldn't agree more. But then again, my opinion is probably worthless, since I have been repeatedly told that I'm lying or don't know what I'm talking about when I bring up items that make the conservatives and war supporters uincomfortable. Wink
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:51 am
Titus wrote:
Democracy cannot be forced on a nation. Look at the history of US foreign policy over the years and you will see this to be true.



A democracy in one form or another is in place in:
Germany
Italy
Japan


All the above countries had some sort of totalitarian form of government until democracy was FORCED upon them by outside forces after the end of WW2.

As much as you try to alter and revise history Titus, you cant escape the fact that democracy has been a great boon for the prosperity and standard of living for those countries.

Does it negate all the good things that democracy has done for those countries because it was "forced" upon them?

The people of the Middle East need to understand that democracy is their ticket to the same level of prosperity that the West enjoys if they just give it a chance.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2004 11:54 am
McGentrix wrote:
First, I would form a steering committee that equally represents the Shia's, Sunni's, and Kurds as well as men and women.

I would then gather all the local leaders and powerful clerics together and have them all executed to prove to the masses I am not to be trifled with.


What's the point of a steering committee in a dictatorship?

You look like Saddam to me...

McG wrote:
Then, I would start selling Oil as a rogue state avoiding OPEC at all costs. With the money, I would start several socially progressive programs to show the masses I can be benevelant.


"socially progressive programs"?!

Why, you liberal...

McG wrote:
Then, I would take and rebuild my military and infrastructure to be able to defend my country without needing to worry over invading any of my neighbors to show the masses I can be peaceful.


Will that include WMD? If not, how can you consider yourself safe?

McG wrote:
Then, I would stamp out any fundamentalist Islamic organizations with the force of my new military. They will be offered an exit strategy and some money to leave, but if they choose to stay, no more bombings or suicides! Suicide bombers would have their remains thouroughly soaked in pig fat etc. to ensure the next bomber knows what will happen to his remains. This will show the masses I am serious.


Sounds benevolent to me.

McG wrote:
Then, party time!


Just remember: It's not a party without pork. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If you were in charge in Iraq...
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2022 at 03:53:23