Rumsfeld rules out Iran-style religious gov't
Posted: Friday, April 25, 11:53am EDT
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is ruling out an Iran-style religious government in Iraq as well as any attempt by Syria and others in the region to influence Iraq's future.
"If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen," Rumsfeld said.
On the other hand, Secretary of State Colin Powell said religious Muslims should not be precluded from governing Iraq.
"There are Islamic countries that are having elections - Pakistan, Turkey. It's happening," Powell said in an interview Thursday with al-Arabiya, a television station based in Dubai.
"Why cannot an Islamic form of government that has as its basis the faith of Islam not also be democratic?" he asked.
"There are some people who say, well, because you're practicing Islam you can't allow people to choose how they will be governed politically. I don't think Islam presents that," he said.
"It's up to the Iraqi people," Powell said in a separate interview with Free Iraq TV/Radio. "It's not up to the United States."
Rumsfeld and Powell are at odds with each other again.
The question is should we allow or rather can we stop the introduction of an Islamic based government in Iraq. IMO an Islamic government will bring us back to ground zero.
Any of you remember what the administration said about how long we would keep troops there when we got involved in Bosnia and Afghanistan? People who are predicting six months for Iraq must be out of their minds.
c.i.
Cicerone -- Have you been reading about the mess in Afghanistan? If that's what they have in mind, we've got trouble ahead.
um i think it was the Shah of Iran being the last one we propped up as secular leader of a muslim nation. That worked out pretty well. Christian wasn't he?
Tartar, It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see future problems in Iraq. It's already started, and the Shia and Bathe divisions are gonna make this one look like Israel. c.i.
your probably right au, i know he was overthrown by the Shia.
If the Americans know what is best they will wash their hands of Iraq as soon as possible. Any advantage that would be gained by keeping a military presence there is outwieghed by the pan-Arabic resentment it is sure to incite.
ILZ, The pan-Arabic resentment began before the war started. c.i.
Yes, and it will incite more, obviously.
What shia and bath divisions? Are you refering to the Shi'ite and Sunni divisions? If you are, then let me say that the Kurdish and Muslim divisions are going to be more of a problem than divisions withen the Muslim community.
Thats one of the things that worries me most about the war. The American government has already stated that they do not intend to allow the creation of a Kurdish state. There is no doubt that, if given the chance, the Kurds would democratically elect a separatist government. So it seems as if this much talked about 'freedom' fro the iraqi's is coming at the expense of the Kurds. Kind of puts a dampener on Bush's 'democracy' rhetoric.
ILZ, You're absolutely right! My mistake. It's the Shiite, the Kurds, and the Sunnis. Not the Bathe party of Saddam - essentially dead in the water. c.i.
ilz
Quote:If the Americans know what is best they will wash their hands of Iraq as soon as possible. Any advantage that would be gained by keeping a military presence there is outweighed by the pan-Arabic resentment it is sure to incite.
Once the die was cast we were in it for the long haul. To leave now would result in an Iraq that is worse than it was under Saddam. It would also result in a civil war and a bloodbath similar to that which happened in the Balkans. If for no other reason the American presence must remain to keep the peace.
As for the pan-Arab resentment that remains to be seen. If we handle it right and are able to create a stable and free government in Iraq we may be seen in a better light. If not could it be worse than it is now?
Looks like the Shi'ites and the Kurds are already at it in the north. c.i.
Why didn't we cordon off the munitions dump in Baghdad?
Tartarin
Since you don't know how it happened or the conditions how can you ask that question? Oh! I know we must have been at fault.
Hey, Au, it's just a question. Why didn't we?
By the way, Au, being a good citizen is about asking questions. Ask them. And then ask some more. Otherwise one becomes a non-participant, a moral couch potato.
No harm in asking the question. The problem is not in asking, but coming to quick conclusions without knowing what really happened. c.i.
Do you know anything about it, Cicerone? I just saw the piece on the BBC website (didn't hear the news this morning) -- and that the US is being blamed. Why?
