Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 22, 2004.
It seems like the Iraqi Shiites need to be the target of an advertising campaign of what the caucus system is all about.
I hear that the caucus system is what they already have in the tribal leader aspect.
Sorry. I don't have a link. That is what I heard on the TV news about the demonstrations in Iraq. It was some sort of foreign news source... like CNN-asia or MSNBC-asia.
that'd be pretty interesting, to see how closely the US' caucus recommendation matches the process of each ethnic group, and how those groups react to the idea.
that's the sort of piece the Economist would run.
I think that the Shiite ayatollah knows what direct elections would result in. Iraq is 60% Shiite, so a direct election would give them a win, guaranteed.
The desire for a caucus system is because there isn't an Iraqi Constitution yet that would guarantee the rights of the Sunnis, Shiites, etc. So, a direct election is really like mob rule, where the mob is more than 50.1%.
it's been clear to me from the start the the bush administration wouldn't allow elections which would put iraq out of their control.
Dunno about that.
I tend to think that what will end up happening in Iraq is what happened to Japan.
Namely, a democratic society with their own twist to it, being #2 or #3 in the world economy and technological expertise.
At least, that is the hope, and we know it can be done. Japan is proof.
i think the differences are larger than the similarities. a big one, imo, is the diverse nature of ethnicities in iraq. heck, the country didn't even form on its own accord.
i am for splitting up iraq.
Or, mirroring the United States. Split Iraq into multiple states, each with a strong state government. Kurds in the North, Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, etc Then, they can join into a republic afterwards.
what's the benefit of them having a centralized gov't?
So the states don't go to war with each other. It would start like America did after the revolution. The states had a lot of power, and the central goverment had control over foreign policy, a mediator between the states, and more or less acted as a voice of the states to the outside world.
If they are together hopefully any differences could be solved by diplomacy instead of war. Splitting them up into states will allow them to feel like they have their own area. Yet keepiing the country under one goverment will prevent the bordering countries from trying to take the land.
If the dominant sect has control over everything then you will get what happened in the former yugoslavia and have ethnic cleansing and that is not good.
yeah, 'cuz that was rampant 'til the US showed up...
i understand where you're coming from. one iraq or broken up, you're citing a need for some central authority stronger than the individual parts.
right now, that's the US. can the US really put together a gov't which, on its own, will be able to keep the peace?
if not, there's no practical difference between one "united" iraq and smaller states.
what a mess. is brutality the only way to keep the peace?
Common defense. Muslim vs muslim wars are not uncommon. Plus, if they are united under a central govt, but have separate states, the central govt would not attack individual states, and each state can protect their own. Then, when a Bill of Rights or Constitution comes about...
1783 was when Great Britain signed the peace settlement.
1787 was when the US Constitution was ratified.
Lets see... 4 years. And Iraq gets how long? 1 year?
clearly. i'm saying it's easier said than done, given how ethnic minorities will need to be protected.
take, for example, the kurds. either they can trust the US and shiites to form a gov't that protects them, or they can say 'give us that land up north that no one but us cares about, and we'll defend ourselves'
the effort of protection or cooperation is the same, separate countries or one. the TRUST would be higher in separate countries, imo.
All of this is exactly why the first Bush administration did not go into Baghdad. The States of the Middle East are the legacy of colonialism. They are not countries whose borders are the result of centuries of people developing their own nations. Having said that it does not follow that civil war and break up of Iraq are the inevitable consequence of our intervention. The mishandling of the situation may well lead to that, but it is not inevitable. There are secularists in each nationality and religious community. Those folks must be helped without making them isolated from other Iraqis. It means actually listening to and allowing Iraqis to control their destiny.
I think it is important to note that Sistani is not a clone of Khomeni. His concerns must be dealt with in a respectful way. I don't see any real way around direct elections for the constitutional assembly, but the question is what do you do in the meantime? If we go ahead and force a solution down their throats then it surely will explode. It is here that turning much of this over to authorities other than the US administration would make all the difference.
As to why a break up is not a good thing, I would point out that it would mean possible war with Turkey over the creation of a Kurdish state, the throwing of a mini-Shia state into Iranian hands, and the strengthening of the worst elements in Saudi Arabia with the cause of "protecting" Sunni Iraqis. None of this is any good for anyone is the region, least of all the Iraqi people. This mess is in our hands now and we had better find a way to bring others in, most importantly real leaders of the Iraq. The best way for this to spin out of control is to try and control it all from Bremer's office.
all valid observations.
i now submit that the only way to keep peace is to rule as ruthlessly as saddam did.
we're in a catch-22.
There go those liberals at the CIA being contrary again!
The situation in Iraq is not as dire as one is lead to believe simply from reading the regular press. The loss of 500 troops is peanuts compared to what has been accomplished so far. The progress I am refering to is the war on terror and the freedom of 22 million people.
Progress on the political front there will only be achieved if the factions are allowed to fight among themselves for a few years. As painful as that may sound, it is the only way to clean house. So yes a civil war is on its way. In fact it is happening as we speak on a small scale and it will increase as we give them more control. This article is simply preparing the public for what is to come.
Saddam was ruthless and in that culture those who were oppressed are waiting their revenge. Presently we are actually protecting the very people that are killing our troops. The regular folks in the Sunni area know this, and they dread the day the US will not protect them from the Shiites and Kurds who are eager to see us leave. We will have less of our troops get killed and more Iraqi die instead.
It is much too early to discuss what shape the government there will be. The British attempted to educate Iraq in how to form a democracy 1920 and it was semi-successful until Saddam came to power. The region with the exception of Israel has not dealt well with free elections. Despite this they have been able to maintain healthy economic ties with the world.
the situation in iraq is not as rosy as one is led to believe simply from listening to bush's SOTU address
so this was all planned? sorry, i don't buy it. the planning had more to do w/ flowers and open arms, if you'll recall.
i submit that it's way too late. extensive plans, such as the one zinni drew up years ago, were ignored by the bush administration. there was no post-war planning, and a forthcoming civil war is evidence of _that_, not some fanciful "everything is rosy and going according to plan & the civil war is just more evidence of the foreign fighters' desperation" storybook ending.
the time it takes to put together a real gov't is greater than the length of time the iraqis will allow an occupation, imo. welcome to 'shoot first, ask questions later' cowboy foreign policy. it's fubar, not rosy.
Don't listen to Bush. Please talk to the Iraqi people directly and not through the press.
No it was not all planned but anticipated never the less. As far as flowers please talk to soldiers like I have and you will get a very good picture how the people feel about Bush and his army of liberators.
zimv try to stay way from those DNC talking points. Not everything is going to plan, but since you are not prevy to the actual plan put together when Clinton was president, it is naive to make such a statement.
There are foreign fighters and all attacks on Americans are acts of desperation.They have gone down quite a bit in the last 2 months. Now they are killing women, but of course they are not terrorists but simply freedom fighters.
are you communicating to iraqis and soldiers (in iraq?) in some sort of official capacity?
I have not talked to Iraqis personally but I have seen posts on boards from them and have read long detailed accounts from free lance journalists that are not part of the regular press core.
The soliders I have talked to in person were on leave after coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. My conversations with them were not in an official capacity.
Here is some official good info from Iraq.
No I am not sick. When one looks at what is at stake and compares it to other conflicts 500 troops in 10 months is nothing. We lost that many in less than one day numerous time in history Remember the ratio is about 10 to 1. They lose 10 bad guys for each one of ours. And the bad guys are fighting hard. The info we have gotten in Iraq about Al Queda and terrorism will blow you away. Be patient. It was all worth it.
Did you expect to see no troops getting killed? I thought you guys were predicting tens of thousands killed?
We lose 1200 a year in accidents.
I am not a politician so I can call it like I see it.