 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999 time: 00:26
|
|
"Right, they don't have the power to sieze control like in Iran but they DO have the power to do a lot, after all they are the majority of the population, which is why the US will do all it can to prevent the establishment of democracy in Iraq."
Ah, but after Saddam crushed the region they stopped doing everything. If nessecary we have a working model in place to install order in the region. I am hoping however that won't be nessecary. As I mentioned before, most of the people in Shi'ite Iran are secularists(even if their governemnt is not), and Iraq has a long tradition of secular government. It is really hard to say right now whether the Iraqi Shi'ites will want an Islamist state or not. Hopefully once we have Iraq under occupation, it will be easier to learn where their sympathies lay and if they would be willing to go along with a secular, democratic government.
"Whatever happens, I really hope that the US doesn't **** the Kurds over for a third time, they seem to be doing fairly well at institution-building"
Hard to say. If the Turks refuse to cooperate, the Kurds could be in good shape. From what I have read though Kurdish militias are training and preparing to resist a Turkish invasion, if they try to fight the Turkish army they could be in trouble.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
H Tower
|
|
I picked Lebananon, although Afghanistan might get mixed in too, if only because the US decides to prop somebody up for a while
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970 time: 00:26
|
|
quote: Isnīt 1 and 4 basically the same? |
1 has a transition period of US military rule of a couple years (five years is I think the number that's being kicked around), and also implies massive US aid and whatnot not just setting up elections and leaving.
quote: If nessecary we have a working model in place to install order in the region. |
What working model? Saddam's regime? The people in the south won't put up with Ba'athists ruling them once Saddam is gone and there really isn't any other elites that the US could coopt to run the area (unlike the Kurdish north where there are somewhat functional institutions, where things should go relatively well unless the Turks **** with things to "protect" the Turkomen in Kirkuk).
quote: most of the people in Shi'ite Iran are secularists |
In which case would people of a given religion be less inclided to secularism? One in which an Islamist government is oppressing you or one in which a adamantly secular government run by people of a different religion is tyrannizing you?
quote: Iraq has a long tradition of secular government |
And absolutely no tradition of democracy, even Egypt and Syria have had a little.
quote: The whole situation depends upon the level of committment the US has after the war. |
I don't think there'll be all that much, the Bush administration's attention span isn't that long and there isn't the Communist Peril to goad the US into putting a lot of effort into it as was the case with Germany and Japan.
quote: Very good poll, with a fine set of options, and not politically biased either.
Good job Boskho. |
Thanks
quote: Assume about half of all Shiites are secularists and it would be tough for the Shiites Islamicists to lead a coalition. |
Right, it will be tough, probably impossible but the Shiite Islamists are probably in at least a bit better position than you seem to think since the Islamists are the only anti-Ba'ath political force in the south opposition in the south will take place under an almost exclusively Islamist umbrella, so you'll probably get a good deal of moderate Shi'ites joining Islamists militias and whatnot (I assume the same sort of thing happened in Lebanon).
quote: Which one is the WW III option? |
Hmmmm, probably should have put in one like that, I guess ANOTHER VIETNAM comes closest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:26
|
|
Best case, given Shrub's political disposition, is a ruthless Sunni Ba'athist taking Saddam's place, he rapidly suppresses dissent, and back to the status quo antebellum. Except the Kurds lose their autonomy and are oppressed lots more, people die and vital infrastrucutre is destroyed.
Worst case, ditto, is that the Kurds don't follow Rummy's plan that they'd go meekly back to Iraqi servitude after we give 'em lots of guns, so they declare indepdence. Then Turkey invades, and as well as the new administration in Baghdad and perhaps even Iran. In the South, a massive civil breaks out between the entrenched interests, the Sunnis and the disenfranchised Shia. Only after lots and lots of people die, Iranian funded proxies take power, leading to an Islamist Iranian satellite at least in the South. In other words, Lebanon.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|