Who is pro real free elections in Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by denjeff, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. denjeff macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    a pen :)
    #1
    Obviously, the shi'ites would win free elections. Those are the radical muslims (unlike Saddam Hussain)... Iran is shi'ite.

    So the question is: Elections or not?
     
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #2
    Basically, free elections for what? A General Assembly with a Shiite majority and no Constitution or other set of laws besides the Sharia?

    Or, first, some sort of Constitution with specified representation or limited autonomies?

    Few countries have a system of limited government, particularly as limited as is ours. They're unfamiliar with the concept; whichever group controls the government has the final say in who lives or dies. In those places, "Democracy" is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what's for supper.

    'Rat
     
  3. denjeff thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    a pen :)
    #3
    so you say that they are not able to decide for themself what is best for theirself (in their point of view)...

    isn t the real thing here that we think that they are a bunch of retards? maybe we are all a bunch of retards when it comes to voting for our governement....
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    Seems to me the general goal is to avoid the creation of a religious state, with Sharia in lieu of the freedom available under a constitution. Or would you rather there be some equivalent of Iran or Saudi Arabia is preferable to a reasonably free state? "One man, one vote, one time"?

    What sort of stability if the Shiites had the absolute authority over the Sunnis? Or, over the Kurds?

    They're not retarded; they should indeed be able to decide for themselves--but only within a legally binding framework which gives (as much as is ever possible, anywhere) equality and freedom for all, regardless of creed or religion or ethnicity.

    Sound familiar?

    :), 'Rat
     
  5. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #5
    I say they let them have free elections, but not until a few things are settled.

    First the security situation needs to be improved every where not just in the South and parts of the North.

    Secondly a strong constitution needs to be written assuring a Bill of Rights.

    Thirdly the economic situation needs to also improve.

    So I would say they should be ready in about three years.
     
  6. denjeff thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    a pen :)
    #6
    what is their economic situation?!? selling oil and giving away their richness that way? only big corporations and some priviledged will win from that.

    it s hard, and i hate to see another coutry that will choose for fundamentalism, but every culture should have it s own development, with it's ups and downs. in 20 years the USA will realise too that they did a wrong thing reelecting bush (and will be paying off the debt), but hey, every culture has to make mistakes. you see it now in iran: a lot of the higher political leaders are starting to get annoyed by the religious leaders. they will be free, but they will have done it theirself.

    saudi arabia is different. they are occupied by the US and there some priviledged (with support of the US) keep the people calm. that country has not known anything else then oppression by some priviledged ones.
    iraq and iran have a long lasting culture. it is the origin of our western culture (hard to believe, but it is true). mesopotamia and the persian empire... look it up in your bible!!! :)
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    especially 'cuz one didn't exist before the US went in...
     
  8. denjeff thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    a pen :)
    #8
    that s right, it did not exist... the cool minister of information was a christian...

    i don t see any muslim in bush's entourage... and they have to say prayers before every meeting they have. could the USA of Bush be more fundamentalistic then the Iraq of Saddam?!?
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    denjeff said, "what is their economic situation?!? selling oil and giving away their richness that way? only big corporations and some priviledged will win from that."

    Huh? If they're selling oil at the world price, how is that "giving away"?

    If big corporations are buying the oil and then selling refined products and petrochemicals' products at market prices, how is that a "win", other than the expected profitability?

    One normally hopes that all corporations are profitable and that their stock values rise and that there are dividends paid to the stockholders. That enables such things as university funds and retirement funds, as well as increases in household wealth. Given that some 50% of U.S. households own stocks, it seems to me that corporate profitability is a Good Thing.

    FWIW, if Halliburton's P/E is greater than around 15, don't buy, except as you think the price will increase--which is a Las Vegas crapshoot.

    'Rat
     
  10. denjeff thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    a pen :)
    #10
    if they had waited to sell their oil for about 5 or 10 years (now it will go mass production), the price would habe been a multiplication of what they get now. now they will be forced to sell more.

    another thing is that now the money will go to some priviledged ones, while before they only could sell oil for food and medicals. this system probably was abused sometimes, but in general i think it was a good system. that way their national richness went to the people and not to the government (with their secret bank accounts).

    yet another thing is (speaking as a european guy :D) that iraq sold their oil in euros, not in US$. now, with the US government in Iraq, they already changed that policy. this means that all oil in the world is traded in US$. that means more price stability for the US, but for every other country their price also depends of the price of the US$. now it is a good thing (the dollar is low), but when the dollar raises again, we will have to pay like 20% more, i think. and because oil is expensive in the US as well now (we are at the same level as 2 years ago, because of the low dollar), things will get really expensive when the dollar raises again. crap.
     
  11. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #11
    denjeff, the Iraqis need the money NOW! You know: Water treatment systems and pipelines; electric supply; roads and bridges--all that stuff. "Wait five or ten years" is like telling a farmer to store his grain against future price increases, while the tractor supply fellow's waiting for some loan payments to be made.

    "another thing is that now the money will go to some priviledged ones..."

    How do you know this? Are you telling me that whomever comes to power in the government is crooked? Are we back to retards and suchlike? That Iraqis cannot decide for themselves who to elect?

    'Rat
     

Share This Page