Elections In Iraq
Windelkron
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">and the U-S's role</div> What do you think of the upcoming elections in Iraq?
Rumsfeld says the US will not support the election of a theocracy.
While I don't support a theocracy in one bit, I feel the US <b>has</b> to support democracy. If the US will only allow an elected government that it likes, then Iraq won't be a real democracy.
I think the US should, though, make sure -absolutely sure- that elections are held every 4 years, with secure election methods. While it's not supporting any one government, it's simply making sure democracy happens. That's what Rumsfeld was saying, they want democracy to flourish, so they ought to allow democracy TO HAPPEN and also help CONTINUE it.
Rumsfeld says the US will not support the election of a theocracy.
While I don't support a theocracy in one bit, I feel the US <b>has</b> to support democracy. If the US will only allow an elected government that it likes, then Iraq won't be a real democracy.
I think the US should, though, make sure -absolutely sure- that elections are held every 4 years, with secure election methods. While it's not supporting any one government, it's simply making sure democracy happens. That's what Rumsfeld was saying, they want democracy to flourish, so they ought to allow democracy TO HAPPEN and also help CONTINUE it.
Comments
I don't know what that has to do with anything, I just felt like adding it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Strong Anti-Americanist sentiments have spread amongst the Iraqis. This is partly due to the massive amount of propaganda the old regime spread, partly due to Shiite fundamentalist parties gaining strong influence, and the collateral damage and raidings (whether 'necessary' or not) of the last weeks didn't exactely help, either.
Additionally, the democratic parts of the Iraqi opposition survived in the exile, which means that they have no direct connection and support by the people.
Thus, a truly democratic election in the near future, shortly followed by the withdrawal of the coalitions forces, <i>will</i> lead to a fundamentalistic, or at least anti-Americanist government, which is naturally not in the interest of the current US administration.
The alternative - a longer lasting 'occupation' of the Iraq with a strong adminstration under Mr. Garner, is however not viable, either.
I'm a close second. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Let them elect whoever they want , after all most democracies in the world have worse leaders than their fundamentalist candidates. If the world helps them rebuild their country , chiites will slowly lose credibility and a more progressist party will rule Iraq. Democracy takes time.
I'm not sure the UN could enforce a preset democratic constitution in Iraq (the organization starved Iraqis for 10 years...) but it should be tried. The US should retire from Iraq as soon as possible to not completely lose their reputation gain.
My expectation is that America will entertain nearly any idea of government, even electing Evil Bert as president, so long as the government is more-or-less civil and focused on building bridges and hospitals. I'm sure the expectation is that no matter what the result, the new government will be so poor, and besieged by so many problems, that it will scarcely have time to answer the phone, much less try to take America on again. And that's fine by America's interests, because there is nothing Iraq has besides oil that we want, so they can be as happy or sad as they can work out amongst themselves, and either way is fine and equally inconsequential.
In the meantime they will maintain enough of a foothold in the region that they can contain future problems, either in Iraq, or nearby. I seriously doubt they want to have ask anybody for permission to use airspace again, so I can't imagine that they aren't going keep an airbase and a seaport in Iraq, no matter what the protests. They'll perpetually justify it by saying, "Oh, we're going to close them out and send them home, just as soon as (insert rebel's name here) is captured or killed and Iraq is a stable democracy again." It'll be 2015 and they'll still be saying that, if my crystal ball rings true.
ie overt threats on a small group who get together to choose the new ruler
thus the most pro us leader is chosen resulting in terrorism aimed at troops in the area
or we could use the veitnam plan
find an exiled irai christian witha penchant for torture (diem)
install in power and back with all possible force
massive haliburton exploitation of ALL iraqi oil(<!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Sorry, but even <i>if</i> the US adminsitration gave way, the UN wouldn't be an option.
I'm a close second. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone send him to iraq PLEASE <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Someone be nice PLEASE <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif'><!--endemo-->