 |
| |
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
Everyone:
OK, I found this article while perusing the raw news wires at work earlier tonight and, knowing it should generate some good discussion, have posted it below. You know the score — read the article and contribute to this thread as you see fit afterwards.
***
quote:
Tell America: ‘Islam is back,’ cleric says
By Liz Sly
Chicago Tribune
(KRT)
BAGHDAD, Iraq — At Baghdad’s al-Kindi Hospital, the Islamic revolution that some Iraqis fear and others crave is in full swing.
The administrator’s office, formerly occupied by a Baath Party appointee, has become the sanctuary of Sheik Abbas Zubaidi, a young cleric with a pronounced limp acquired during torture sessions in the jails of the ousted regime.
Hanging on the wall in place of the obligatory picture of Saddam Hussein is a photograph of the snowy bearded Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a revered Shiite ayatollah assassinated in 1999. He is the inspiration to a new generation of Islamic radicals.
Young men with pistols stuffed in their belts hover in attendance as the sheik dispenses medicine, food and cash to a steady stream of needy people. Stacked in the corner are two Kalashnikovs and a prayer rug.
Zubaidi never misses any of the five daily prayer sessions stipulated in the Koran, and when the Islamic republic he dreams of is established, neither will anyone else in Iraq, he says.
‘‘The new government will be ruled in the name of God in heaven, whose light shines into all walks of life,’’ said Zubaidi, who says he derives his authority from the powerful Hawza el Miya seminary in Najaf, the holy Shiite city in southern Iraq.
‘‘You can tell America: Islam is back.’’
Unintended consequences
This wasn’t what the Bush administration intended when it set out to topple Saddam’s regime and transform Iraq into a ‘‘beacon of democracy’’ for the region.
But already, less than three weeks since Marines occupied the heart of Baghdad, a different vision of Iraq’s future has begun to take shape. It is a future in which Iraq would be ruled by Shiite clerics who take their orders from the ayatollahs in Najaf. It is an Iraq where women would be forced to wear the black, head-to-toe garment known as the abeya and where music, dancing and alcohol are forbidden.
It is an Iraq that would look a lot like neighboring Iran.
Bush administration officials have accused Iran of interfering in Iraq’s affairs to promote its brand of Islamic radicalism. As exiled Iraqi clerics return from Iran, some likely are carrying with them influences, instructions and, perhaps, money and arms from their former hosts.
Repressed ambitions
The dynamics driving Iraq’s nascent Islamic revolution are rooted just as much, however, in the hopes of Iraq’s long-oppressed Shiite community.
Newly released from the harsh restrictions imposed during 35 years of secularist Baath Party rule, Iraqi Shiites are embracing vigorously their newfound religious freedom, and many say they dream of establishing their own Islamic republic in Iraq. Shiites represent about 65 percent of the population in Iraq, and if the elections promised by President Bush eventually are held, their votes will carry enormous weight.
In the cities of the Shiite-dominated south, clerics have created a de facto Islamic mini-state, moving into vacated government offices and forming committees to address critical issues such as the restoration of electricity, water and social services.
In the Shiite slum of Baghdad once known as Saddam City but renamed after the slain Sadr, the mosques are dispensing health care, medicine and justice. Armed volunteers answerable to local clergy enforce order, detaining thieves and patrolling the streets.
The movement appears to have the broad support among residents.
‘‘Of course we want an Islamic government. Shiites are in the majority in Iraq, so we should have the right to choose,’’ said Haidar Shaqr, 22, a local barber living in Sadr City. He says he would support the introduction of Sharia, Islamic law. That would include the veiling of women and severe punishments for adultery and theft.
‘‘These are Islamic laws, and they will become the civilian law. They are the laws of the sky and the heaven,’’ he said. ‘‘Now, it’s just a Shiite thing, but with Saddam gone, the sheiks are insisting that these laws should be for everybody in Iraq.’’
Some Shiites fear ulterior motives
But not all Shiites are happy with what they see. Hameed Hussein al Araji, the chief surgeon at al-Kindi and a Shiite, says he is deeply alarmed and fears his hospital is just the starting point for a creeping Islamic revolution. Al-Kindi is in an area that includes Christians and other minorities and is one of several Baghdad hospitals occupied by armed mullahs.
Zubaidi and his gunmen moved into the hospital April 10, the day after Saddam’s regime collapsed, saying they had come to protect the building from looting. At first, Araji said, the doctors welcomed them, but Zubaidi and his men quickly hinted at ulterior motives.
‘‘I have told him, ‘I don’t like guns in the hospital. We have women here and children,’ " he said. ‘‘But it seems that he has his own agenda. His stated purpose was to protect the hospital, but we think he has a political reason for doing that. He is trying to win the hearts of the people. He gives out drugs, crutches and money.’’
The hospitals are virtually the only functioning institutions in Iraq, and that endows them with political weight. Before the revolution in Iran, the Shiite clergy there won the support of ordinary Iranians by providing social services in impoverished areas neglected by the state, and in Lebanon, the fundamentalist Shiite Hezbollah movement rose in Shiite areas by doing the same.
The speed with which the clerics moved to control the hospitals after the collapse of Hussein’s regime leads Araji to suspect their actions were planned in advance.
‘‘Some of the Shia leaders are neutral and try to keep religion and politics separate, but some are well-organized and are trying to create an Islamic government,’’ he said.
‘‘I hope America won’t stand by and allow them to direct the hospital as a nucleus for the coming of a religious government, because this is not the desire of all Iraqis,’’ he added.
U.S. officials wary
Some American officials say they won’t stand by.
Jay Garner, the retired general appointed to administer the country, said last week that the United States would not tolerate an Islamic republic in Iraq.
But as the U.S. begins to establish an administration for postwar Iraq, the Shiite clerics are filling a critical gap.
Not all of them see their role as permanent.
‘‘We don’t have any aim to be in the new government,’’ said Sheik Abdel Mehdi al Salami, the senior cleric in charge of the southern city of Karbala. ‘‘We want to see a government that represents all the people of Iraq. The Shiites of Iraq are the biggest percentage of people and the government should respect the religious traditions of the Shiites, but at the same time it should give an equal amount of respect to the traditions and religions of other groups.’’
Shiite divisions exist
There are deep divisions within the Shiite clergy, and Zubaidi aligns himself with a radical branch. If Iraqis of different religions or opinions don’t like the idea of an Islamic republic, they will have to get used to it, he said.
‘‘Just as Iraqis grew accustomed to listening to music, so they will grow accustomed to listening to religion in their lives,’’ Zubaidi said.
Araji counsels patience. A degree of political turmoil is inevitable in a country that has suddenly had freedom thrust upon it, he says.
‘‘We hope these things are temporary,’’ he said. ‘‘We paid with our blood for our freedom, and the Americans, they paid with their blood too. Can we believe Americans shed blood only to see an Iraqi government just like the one in Iran? I don’t think so.’’ |
***
I'm left wondering: What did U.S. and allied forces do in post-World War II Italy, Germany and Japan to keep the remnants of their defeated enemies —Fascism, Nazism and Imperialism — from rising back to power? I ask, because I wonder if we might have to use similar measures in Iraq to not only beat back Saddam's remaining supporters, but to also keep the fundamentalist elements of the Shiite population from trying to impose their will on *all* of Iraq.
What it comes down to is this: I think we're going to have to spend years occupying and administrating in Iraq, just like we did in Japan and, to a lesser degree, Europe from 1945 onward. And we're going to have to pour money into it (along with Afghanistan) in the form of a Marshall Plan II.
But do we have the *gumption* to do that? And if we do have the gumption to do it, does the rest of the world have the *stomach* to understand that things aren't going to be hunky-dory all the time during this process? I know that MacArthur did his best to respect Japan and all, but there had to be times when he had to use more stick and less carrot than he might have liked. Same would also apply to Germany during its de-Nazification process.
Reality. We all love it, don't we?
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
I'm don't think so. That's my main concern; much of the world, including some in Europe would love to see Iraq go to **** just to spite America. A completely moronic viewpoint, but blind hatred will do that to you. |
Wait, only now do we hear things will all not be hunky dory? (wonders about drake and the French and " A completely moronic viewpoint")
I think for the US to make a good and democratic Iraq, an occupation at least as long as that of Japan (7 years) would be in order, and the US should expect to carry the vast majority of the finantial burden (you say we can go it alone, well that applis to the costs afterwards as well) of remaking Iraq as well. I don;t think a Iranina style government is in order, since while Shia's are a majority, they are still only 60% (as opposed to 90% or the like in Iran) and not all in mind to have such a government.
The problem is that unlike Drake, I don't think the US has the gumption to do so. Before the war most people supported this adventure because of the "imminent threat of Iarqi WMD;s in Terrorist hands", which by now I think in time will be seen as false danger. Now everyone is self-saisfided that we "liberated" Iraq, don't care about WMD's, think the job is done, and want to bring the boys back home. The American people are not prepared for the commitment we have to make in Iraq. For them this was a cheap, simple affair now done, so lets talk about Laci Peterson.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
I don't think it's wrong to compare Iraq to the post-World War II situation, Agathon. After all, Japan didn't exactly have a long history of freedom, but it managed to become a vibrant democracy and strong economic power with help from the United States. But it took years for that to happen.
There's no history of freedom in Iraq, either, let alone the Middle East in general. I find it difficult to believe, and maybe I'm being a bit naive about it purposefully, that the Iraqi people *can't* handle such Western-style freedoms and responsibilities being thrust upon their shoulders. It will just take time, and U.S. elements will have to take the approach I described in my first post to this thread.
Then again, there's always the specter of Weimar Germany hovering over Iraq, too. The Germans of that period fell under the spell of the Nazi Party, and we all know where that led. Might Iraq face a similar future — except as a theocracy — as Weimar Germany? Not if we play our cards right ... but that's not a guarantee.
I'm not saying Iraq could still become another Nazi Germany in terms of it conquering the Middle East. But it could become another Iranian-style nation, and we know that sort of future is almost just as bleak as Nazi Germany. Heck, even Iran knows that, judging from the dissent one sees and hears from time to time. The clerics aren't the way to go.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
An Islamic Republic of Iraq would probably be considerably more stable than a puppet 'democracy'. |
Yep. And the Taliban brought long-sought stability to Afghanistan. But is that a kind of stability folks would wish to bring to the Iraqi people, Sandman?
quote:
The Iraqi people are not going to be allowed to choose their leaders. Well, maybe once all the oil has been extracted and all the pork-barrel 'reconstruction' work has been done. |
Were the people of Germany, Italy and Japan following World War II allowed to immediately choose their leaders, Sandman? Or did the Allies put "puppets" in during an interim period?
Yet, in time, the people of these nations got to choose their leaders, and the democracy that was seeded then remains strong now. But would that have been the case if the Allies had taken a "hands-off" policy during the occupation phase?
You see what's happening in some parts of Iraq — fundamentalist elements of the Shiite population are attempting to exert control, all in the guise of bringing stability back to the people. Stability is a good thing, mind you, but if they succeed in the long run ... well ... the Pied Piper's price is going to be painfully high.
What it comes down to is this: Leadership isn't always a game of popularity. Leaders have to make hard decisions sometimes. And one of those hard decisions for Bush will be how he handles the fundamentalist Shiite population in Iraq. Does he allow them to seed their Islamic government from hospitals now and let it spread outward, as it did in Iran? Or does he do something to keep them in check during the interim period while Iraq recovers from Saddam Hussein and the war that ousted him from power? He has to do something, and that something will not necessarily be popular. But it very well could be the *right* thing to do.
Gatekeeper
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Uncle Sparky
|
 |
Winnipeg
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
...
You see what's happening in some parts of Iraq — fundamentalist elements of the Shiite population are attempting to exert control, all in the guise of bringing stability back to the people. Stability is a good thing, mind you, but if they succeed in the long run ... well ... the Pied Piper's price is going to be painfully high.
...
And one of those hard decisions for Bush will be how he handles the fundamentalist Shiite population in Iraq. Does he allow them to seed their Islamic government from hospitals now and let it spread outward, as it did in Iran? Or does he do something to keep them in check during the interim period while Iraq recovers from Saddam Hussein and the war that ousted him from power? He has to do something, and that something will not necessarily be popular. But it very well could be the *right* thing to do.
Gatekeeper
Gatekeeper |
So, I guess if civic & federal control were to somehow collapse in the US, you would oppose churches reopening hospitals and churches using there existing structures to help stabilize government/ society ? Of course you wouldn't ! So far, US evangelicals are doing everything they can to bring their kind of "aid" to Iraq.
If Cold War I had ended differently, would you have preferred peoples committees controlled directly from Moscow running you local affairs, or your local church council ? Will the US end up looking like the Godless Commies in '50s propaganda films ? Does it already in the minds of many of the world's Muslims ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
Uncle Sparky:
I bet the women in an Islamic fundamentalist-style "democracy" wouldn't have much of a say, along with the minority Sunnis and Kurds.
I sometimes wonder why we don't make the case for our style of government more aggressively:
1. We have a Senate.
2. We have a House.
3. We have a judiciary.
4. We have a presidency.
Check and balances keep all four relatively in balance. Together, the Senate and House do a remarkably good job of representing the diverse interests and peoples that compose the United States of America.
Something along these lines should be strongly suggested for Iraq. They have provinces, correct? Well, each province could have two senators, an "x" number of representatives (based on population) and, boom!, there you have it: representation in the nation's capital. Heck, even the Shiite fundies could get voted into office at this level and be represented (it happens to a degree in the good old USofA, too). Combine that with an independent judiciary branch and a presidency that is chosen by voters — regardless of their race, ethnicity and sex — and you can have a thoroughly modern government in Iraq. And this is only at the federal level ... it can be applied to the provincial and local levels as well.
IMO, the democracies of the Americas and Europe are beacons of light that should attract others. Perhaps it's also our duty to see that such governments are also fostered into a solid existence in parts of the world where they're rare now. We did it in post-World War II Europe and Japan. Why the heck can't we take on the task in Iraq? Sure, there will be short-term pain ... but it's worth paying that price in exchange for coming decades or even centuries of stable democracy.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
So, I guess if civic & federal control were to somehow collapse in the US, you would oppose churches reopening hospitals and churches using there existing structures to help stabilize government society ? Of course you wouldn't ! |
No, I wouldn't. But what I'm focusing on — and this is covered rather extensively in the article — are those fundamentalist Shiites who are *not* intent on limiting their "help" to short-term goals of getting medicine, electricity and water back to pre-war levels. They're the ones who seek an Islamic Iraq, and they're the ones I'm thinking about when posting. Not the Shiite clerics who are really just in it to provide relief. Not the Shiites who are concerned about other Shiites. Just those who seem incapable of offering help w/o attaching strings to it. Namely, an Islamic Iraq.
quote:
So far, US evangelicals are doing everything they can to bring their kind if "aid" to Iraq. |
Some are, yes. And they're being watched. Closely. Whether you believe it or not, though, there are some Christian aid groups who are helping with the physical needs of Iraqis w/o proselytizing. But I don't think Franklin Graham's group is one of them. But neither is Graham's group the only group providing aid.
quote:
If Cold War I had ended differently, would you have preferred peoples committees controlled directly from Moscow running you local affairs, or your local church council ? |
Considering the fact that the Soviet Union's goals never included self-determination and democracy for its "allies," yes, I would have a problem with it because they'd *never* leave, and they'd *never* think twice about sticking their noses into every nook and cranny of their "ally's" affairs. And if you told them to stop, they'd likely send in tanks.
I don't think America, even with its warts, would fit very well into the model of the Soviet Union.
quote:
Will the US end up looking like the Godless Commies in '50s propaganda films ? Does it already in the minds of many of the worlds Muslims ? |
Only time will tell.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Uncle Sparky
|
|
Winnipeg
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
No, I wouldn't. But what I'm focusing on — and this is covered rather extensively in the article — are those fundamentalist Shiites who are *not* intent on limiting their "help" to short-term goals of getting medicine, electricity and water back to pre-war levels. They're the ones who seek an Islamic Iraq, and they're the ones I'm thinking about when posting. Not the Shiite clerics who are really just in it to provide relief. Not the Shiites who are concerned about other Shiites. Just those who seem incapable of offering help w/o attaching strings to it. Namely, an Islamic Iraq. |
So, you really think if Jerry Fallwell and his ilk were to reopen hospitals etc. they wouldn't have any long term goals of further fundimentalizing the US ?
quote:
Some are, yes. And they're being watched. Closely. Whether you believe it or not, though, there are some Christian aid groups who are helping with the physical needs of Iraqis w/o proselytizing. But I don't think Franklin Graham's group is one of them. But neither is Graham's group the only group providing aid.
|
I can actually somewhat agree with you. I have volunteered in the past and currently donate to the MCC (Mennonite Central Committee) who provide aid no strings attached. My concern is whether the US government, with a fundamentalist at its head, is covertly backing them, like they didn't back Saddam in the '80s.
Of course, if they read all three Testaments, they would know converting Muslims is a bit of a lost cause.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yago
|
|
quote:
I missed the references to the Kurds in this thread. They are absolutely thrilled to see the Americans, and I'm sure would be glad to have a US presence in the north for the next hundred years. |
Ah, no, I don't think so. They're starting to get a little bit frustrated, like all of the 3 groups are. Saw on TV how Americans had real problems, because they wanted to disarm them. The Kurds gave in in the end.
Anyway, the democracy in Iraq will be a democracy in Iraq style, not in US-style. If the Americans try to coerce their way of life on the Iraqis, they will propably answer with bombs.
Shia in Iraq does not mean the same as Shia in Iran. They're different and most of the Iraqi Shia sure don't want to copy Iran. I think a lot of them got good plans for a peaceful co-existence with the Sunni.
The worst American move would be to use the Sunni (mainly the ex-Saddam fellows) to crush the Shia. That would be a recipe for resistance movement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
You people crack me up.
Why not try listening to an Islamic writer who actually talked to people in Iraq, rather than second hand news from doomsayers?
quote:
WHAT IRAQIS THINK
By AMIR TAHERI
April 27, 2003 -- BAGHDAD
BEFORE the start of the campaign to liberate Iraq, pundits and exiles had cast the Shiite community as an almost unconditional ally of the United States. Iraqi Shiites were supposed to be as keen to rise against Saddam Hussein as the so-called "Arab street" was sizzling to explode in his support.
In the event, however, there was little or no uprising of the Shiites. Terrorized by Saddam's machinery of fear, the community did not wish to repeat its tragic experience of 1991 - when it rose and, abandoned by America, was crushed by the regime.
Less than two weeks after the liberation the tune has changed: The same pundits and exiles now claim that Shiites represent the biggest threat to U.S. plans in Iraq.
That claim is supported by TV footage of last week's pilgrimage by hundreds of thousands of Shiites to the shrine of Imam Hussein at Karbala, 80 miles south of Baghdad.
The gathering was impressive by any standard, as was the pilgrims' fervor. Coming on the occasion of Arba'in, the 40th day of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein over 1,300 years ago, the pilgrimage attracted the faithful from all over Iraq.
For the first time in 32 years, Iraqi Shiites were able to perform a pilgrimage that had been banned by the Ba'athist regime. It was also the first free mass gathering in Iraq in almost half a century not to be crushed by the regime's tanks and helicopters.
Was all that a show of anti-Americanism or, at least, a "warning" to Washington, as some pundits claim?
On the contrary: The gathering showed how isolated anti-American groups are among Iraqi Shiites.
Throughout Arba'in, small bands of militants, some freshly arrived from Iran, were posted at the entrance of streets leading to the two main shrines. They carried placards and posters calling for an "Islamic republic" and shouted anti-American slogans. But few pilgrims were prepared to join them.
All the pilgrims that this reporter could talk to expressed their "gratitude and appreciation" to the United States and its British allies for having freed them from the most brutal regime Iraq had seen since its creation in 1921.
Needless to say, most TV cameras were focused on the small number of militants who had something "hot," that is to say anti-American, to say.
After days of talking to Shiites in Karbala and Najaf, it is clear to this reporter that there is virtually no undercurrent of anti-Americanism in the heartland of Iraqi Shi'ism. Even some clerics who have just returned from exile in Iran were keen to advertise their goodwill toward the United States.
All that, however, could quickly change.
The advent of liberty has unleashed energies that could both create and destroy. Here you have millions of people, mostly aged below 25 and never allowed to make the smallest decision without the fear of political authority, who suddenly feel no one is in charge.
"We have been freed from a despotic father and feel like orphans: both happy and terrified," says Mahdi Khadhim, a Karbala schoolteacher, expressing a widely held sentiment.
Many find it puzzling that America is not telling them what to do or not to do. One question persistently asked is whether the Americans or "at least the British" have a plan for Iraq?
"Where do we go from here?" asks Hassan Naqib, a theology student just back from Iran. "Are we supposed to sort things out as we like?"
The United States and its allies impressed the Iraqis by the efficiency of their military machine. (Although little noticed by the media, few Iraqis outside Baghdad, and to a lesser extent Basra, directly experienced the war.) Yet some Iraqis wonder whether that efficient military machine might lack a political brain.
The political vacuum created by the collapse of the Ba'athist regime widens by the day, and there are no signs that the United States (or anybody else for that matter) might have a clue as to how to fill it.
Having no jobs or schools to go to, millions of young men gather at teahouses or at private homes to discuss politics, something they had never dared indulge in. The atmosphere is charged with expectation and uncertainty.
These young men want to be heroic and revolutionary, the makers of a history of which they had always been mere objects. For the time being, few are looking toward Iran either as model or as a source of inspiration. But that, too, could change.
During the past week or so, hundreds of Iranian "revolutionary agents" have slipped into Iraq with vast sums of money, small arms and propaganda material, including portraits of the late Iranian firebrand Ruhallah Khomeini.
An extraordinary number of crisp U.S. dollar bills is in circulation in the "holy" cities, most of it coming not from Uncle Sam, but from the mullahs in Tehran. In the absence of Iraqi radio and TV networks, and with the failure of the Americans to set up their own channels, many have to tune in to broadcasts from Iran.
And much current U.S. "political" activity among the Shiites consists of an extension of the fight within the Bush administration about who to promote as the interim leader for Iraq. This leads to comical scenes. A local mullah is first approached and offered money by an American "contact" in exchange for supporting Ahmad Chalabi, a former exile leader now back in Baghdad. Later, another American "contact" calls on the same mullah and offers him money not to support Chalabi.
Some U.S. "contacts" have forged a dialogue with the so-called Badr Brigade, a militant armed group backed by Iran. The group's leader, Abdelaziz Hakim, returned to Karbala with a bodyguard of 200 men last week and has had several meetings with American "contacts." He has promised to change the name of his group's political wing, The High Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), by replacing the word "revolution" with "democracy" to please the Americans.
At the same time, another group of American "contacts" are warning Iraqi interlocutors not to go near Hakim and his group.
Hakim's men, meanwhile, are trying to persuade shopkeepers in Karbala and Najaf to display portraits of Khomeini alongside those of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer Hakim, who is still in exile in Tehran, so far with little success.
There is a widely held impression that rival factions in Washington are prepared to forge alliances even with the devil, which in this case could mean the mullahs of Tehran, to sabotage each other's plans.
President Bush needs to get a grip on this situation before it runs out of control. He must decide who is in charge of the political aspect of the Iraqi project. And, indeed, what that project consists of. |
He seems to paint a different picture, but most of you aern't into anything trueful, so what does it matter?
BTW, what's the civillan count of the US carpet bombing now? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Just look how strong the legislative branch of our government has been lately in being a check to the exectuive and then ask yourself why we might not be doing so hot. |
That's taking a simplistic and short-term view of things, GePap. I'm talking, more or less, about the institutions themselves and the long-term view. When viewed through that prism, you *cannot* deny that our institutions haven't performed well during their 220 years or so of existence.
Sure, there are times when the presidency is stronger. There are also times when the legislative branch, some would argue, has too much influence. And, above both the executive and legislative branchs, towers the judiciary, which keeps both in check when necessary.
I would have no problem offering my government model as an example of what Iraq could be.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Gatekeeper :
Do you think the Kurds will want to live under a Shi'ite dominated government, democratic or otherwise? |
You know the answer to your own question, so why ask?
Anyway, a democratic Iraq would have majorities and minorities — ethnicity, race, politics, religion, influence and so on. Every democracy and/or republic has it. The United States is a fine example of this — we have lots of interest groups and minorities, along with majorities, and we have yet to fly apart at the seams. Two hundred twenty-seven years and counting. I'm *not* saying such cohesion comes easily — just look at the 1861-65 Civil War — but neither does it come apart permanently so easily, either.
Iraq will face such challenges, no doubt about it. But if distinctly different groups can co-exist and prosper under common national identies elsewhere in the world, I don't see why Iraq should be any different.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 11:10
You have said this before, even before the war. If you rememeber, one of my biggest pre-war complaints was that this admin. was not preparing the American people properly for the task it seem to want to ask of them. Why was it that before the war this amdin.r efused to even speculate on costs and reponsibilieties, and every time a high number came out they attacked it as silly?
|