Iraq Fantasy League Elections, or, What if they elected...

It's a lose-lose.

Either we become hypocritical liars and say "Iraq is free to choose their own destiny...as long as the Shiites - the majority of Iraqis - don't gain power and start a theocracy that is ALREADY anti-US even days after we "liberated" them....

OR

We live up to our word, allowing the Shiites eventually gain power, start police actions against Kurdistan, and begin an arms buildup with their newfound oilwealth to generate a new standing military that we'll have to bomb into nothingness yet again once the new regime runs afoul of the US.

I'm actually rather curious to see how this pans out. Installing a theocracy wouldn't really jibe with our notions of "bringing freedom" to a people, but preventing one will have the Muslim world fit to be tied. Quite a tightrope.

Maybe we should give Iraq to the Palistinians, and kill two birds with one stone...

Bad news, kiddo.

There's no need to wait for the future, when Rumsfeld has already articulated America's position:

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military_11" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030422/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_military_11</a>

Agree with you there. If the people vote for an extremist government, it is their 'freedom' to do so.

However, to think that this group will be less violent and repressive as most of the other theocracies in the world is another matter. Not to mention, islamic fundimentalists tend to not like America.

So now I should just take what Rumsfeld says with a grain of salt? He's just shooting from the hip and his expressed opinions don't reflect those of the administration?

Oooookay.

What??? The President and Cabinet Members don't come out and just give their opinion. They know the position of the US and they answer in terms of US policy.

What Rumsfeld said HAS to be US policy, or else he royally fucked up. I think it's the former.

Exactly.

In the volatile times we live in right now, would any member of our Cabinet still be employed if they simply stepped up to a mike, shot their mouths off about a country we just invaded, and it WASN'T the policy we were going to follow?

First, there'd be an immediate coverup statement explaining how that statement was an exaggeration, and then that person would be muffled from hereonout, but they would not continuously be the most prominent White House Iraq/Middle East mouthpiece as Rumsfeld is today.

Perhaps they should just use this method to decide.

It'd probably be as effective as what they end up doing....

<a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/new_fox_reality_show.html" target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/onion3915/new_fox_reality_show.html</a>

Bad News, Papa Trouter.

Rumsfeld has now explicitly said that the US official position is that we will NOT ALLOW a theocracy, even if that's what the "free" people want. Some liberation...

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030424/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_interview_2" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030424/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ rumsfeld_interview_2</a>

Good god, we're going to be over there forever....

Anyone still want to play the 'we're bringing democracy to the world' card? IF this actually happens (the people want a theocracy & don't get one) America can offically stop calling itself the protectors of democracy in the world.

How can an attack on a country, coupled by the creation of a government that is set up according to the will of the attackers amount to anything other than imperialism?

I really want to hear the pro-war contingent on this one. It should take some verbal skill to attempt to justify the dismantling of a democratically elected government that we don't like.

Not necessarily. Democracy, or at least the American version of it, is based on the idea that people get to choose who represents and governs them, and can remove them from power if they fail to meet expectations.

A theocracy is based on the idea that God has appointed a certain person or group to rule over a people. The "Chosen by God" mentality makes it much harder to speak out against a government, or to remove it from power. Theocracy, or divine right, is essentially what kept European kings in power for so long.

Now, if the Iraqi people want to elect Clerics to their congress, or whatever the case may be, I say let them. However, their mandate to govern must come from the fact that they have been chosen by the people, and not from the fact that they have been chosen by God. Also, we must ensure that the rights of minorities are protected: the vote of a non-Muslim must count exactly the same as the vote of a follower of Islam. If a Muslim is elected to a position of power, it must be because the majority (I hate our system of plurality-decided elections) voted for him, and not simply because only Muslims were allowed to vote.

Finally, I would hope that Iraq's new government would do a better job of protecting human rights and civil liberties than the average Muslim nation. Of course, I also hope they do a better job than we do, but that's a discussion for another time.

Interesting points. But Shiite Muslims make up the vast majority of Iraq anyway. The Kurds are in their own independent state and mostly won't be voting in general Iraqi elections. Even counting them, Shiites still comprise 60 percent of the country. Guaranteeing non-Muslims equal representation in such an environment will pretty much require us to intervene and control their government the way we see fit.

And at that point, wouldn't we be running the country de facto? Already, we've shown preferential treatment to Kurds there, due to their pro-US stance. Of course, we'll continue to install as many pro-US people as possible in government, and then...

PROBLEMS.

So if the people CHOOSE to live with a islamic fundimentalist government, that is their democratic choice. If they vote to have this, that is republican democracy. They don't have to follow America's blueprint of 4 year terms to be considered democratic.

If America takes away this right, they are no longer actually fighting for democracy, they are merely making sure that whomever is 'democratically' elected toes the line of the American government.

By this rational, and you make great points, how come we can't remove Bush from office? He certainly hasn't met my expectations.

My idea of "equal representation" is that one person = one vote, regardless of race, sex, or creed, and that no one gets special privledges or restrictions because of their gender, faith, etc. Hopefully, this can be accomplished with minimal US intervention, though my hopes are honestly not all that high.

1. Term limits will eventually remove him, in any case.
2. There is a system in place to remove a president from office, known as impeachment.
3. Bush's approval rating hovers at somewhere around 60%, which is better than his percentage of the popular vote, so he is apparently outpacing most American's expectations.

Edited due to evil UBB-Code gremlin. I don't care how cute they are, do not feed them after midnight.

This deserves a better explanation. The way our system works is an attempt to balance stability with accountability.

In some nations, there seems to be a new political uprising every third week. A new coalition is rapidly formed, an attempt is made to institute new policies, and just when things are settling down, a new group is out to grab power. This is not all that different from outright anarchy, as the system is never under the guidance of one particular group long enough to do anything productive, and no one really knows how is in charge.

On the opposite extreme, you have nations where the ruling class/family/whatever has always been in power, and always will be. The people must depend on their good graces, intentions, and wisdom, and if any or all of these are lacking, tough luck.

America was designed to balance these. We cannot remove a president from office without a fairly large production, because that office requires some amount of stability and autonomy. The government would come to a crashing halt if the President was worried about loosing his job for flubbing his morning address to the Press Corp. On the other hand, we do not want our representatives to get too heady, and so we make them face re-election every couple of years. The House of Representatives was designed to be more responsive to the people, and is up for election more often than the Senate, which is supposed to take a longer view of things.

Our system isn't perfect, by any means, and if the Founders could see what we are going through today, a lot of our constitution would be different. Still, though, this structure has created the most powerful nation on the face of the planet, and has made this country one of, if not the, best places to live.

Just a guess but I'm pretty sure Boomstick is aware of this.

Of course I'm aware of this, and again, thomas, great points. The point I poorly attempted making was that while some like our president, and some don't like our president there is little rage and hate to the point of civil war. There is in Iraq. I have an sad pit in my stomach right now. It cries.

Now this is pretty much comedy.

I knew Powell and Rumsfeld were at odds, but this takes the cake:

<a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716" target="_blank">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030425/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716</a>

Meanwhile, rather than fully commit to or rebuff either guy's idea, Bush is keeping his stance on the matter fairly vague.

One one hand he says he " wants a government in Iraq that is democratic, multiethnic, maintains Iraq's territorial integrity, has no weapons of mass destruction and is at peace with its neighbors."

On the other:

Somebody get these three guys in a room together, and have them make a decision one way or the other.

Or do what they usually do: have Powell and Rumsfeld make the decision and tell Bush what it is.

Why won't the new Iraqi regime be allowed weapons of mass destruction. Are they evil already?

Dan, only members of NATO are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction and NOT be considered evil.