Why does it have to be dictatorial rule?
All in good time lil Nadia..civilization takes time. Stop being impatient. :nono:
Seminole, i hope that it is not dictatorial rule. i am not assured, however, by the prospect of having prominent Iraqi exiles - who have led considerable years outside of Iraq - taking up official positions within Iraq. i am not certain how 'representative' they will be. i guess that remains to be seen.
Wasn't arafat out of the palestinian territories for a while? I didn;t hear any cokmplaints then. Double standard yet again. Ayatollah khomeini....etc..etc..
Yeah but Nadia, part of the looting is the behavior of a terribly mentally healthy person who has been locked inside a psychiatric center for over 3 decades, when he is let out, he becomes insane, and naturally so. If I was imprisoned for that long for no fault of mine, I don’t know what I will do. Do you know what you will do?
Secondly, exilees faced death, so it was good that they stayed where they did. As CH mentioned, what about Arafat or Khomeni?
Let's hear from you, what will make you satisfied? I would have thought that the anti-American rhetoric was going to end with the liberation, but I have been wrong before.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by NYAhmadi: *
Let's hear from you, what will make you satisfied?
[/QUOTE]
Right on!!! This should be a new topic!
I am guessing a lhilafah, with shariah and the coming of messiah. Anything else is pretty much a disappointment.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
That last post is a little out of character for you Nadia. :)
[/QUOTE]
Just trying to be balanced.
>>....what will make you satisfied?<<
NYA, Simplicity breeds content. Sanctions are lifted, the country's infrastructures are repaired, civilian casualties are treated in neighboring countries' medical facilities, humanitarian distribution becomes a genuine priority, US forces leave the country entirely, regional interference (from Jordan, Saudi, Turkey) cease immediately, UN peacekeeping forces have a temporary mandate within the country for as long as it takes to hold free and fair elections for all. If that entails that an Islamic or secular government wins, so be it. If that entails that a government with Shi'ite tendencies wins, so be it.
i am not asking for much. Just that the people of the country be given the fundamental right (not privilege) of deciding their own fate.
The fate that they had before.
Yeah right. Its more lake a laundry list. US still has presence in Germany, and it didn’t disappear after the Berlin wall came down. You can forget about US leaving Iraq for a while. It is upto the Iraqis and the allied forces to decide what level of military intervention is necessary and for how long.
The reconstruction will begin, remember the War is still on. It hasn’t finished yet.
What exactly do you mean by Shia tendencies? Do you know how racist and filthy that sounds?
Just a little tip for you. Only the winning side gets to decide the aftermath. And yes Iraqis have won. They will have their say and they will have their day. Inshallah.
Give me a break. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. i had certainly nothing racist in mind when i stated 'Shi'ite tendencies' apart from the fact that - Iraq is predominantly made up of Shi'ites (not Sunnis), so for a truly representative Iraqi government, it should be comprised predominantly of Shi'ites. That's what i meant by tendencies.
Any interim government that is installed by the US will be perceived of as a stooge government. We have proof of how that works in Afghanistan. When was the last time Karzai stepped out of Kabul into the more remoter parts of Afghanistan ? Warlords have sprung up in some other parts of the country.
Dubya has been proclaiming since eternity that this invasion's motivation is to get Iraq 'liberated'. Fair enough - the most effective manner, IMHO, to achieve this is for the US forces to withdraw from the country and let a UN peacekeeping force 'supervise' the country for as long as it takes to hold free & fair elections.
Nadia, The only thing seem to be in your mind is the anti-American rhetoric. Really, and its way too obvious. I didn’t mean to imply that you are a racist, I was referring to what you said, and it really does sound very racist, and anti-Shia, since you worded it like as if it was not the premium possibility (considering that they are the majority). They have been suppressed for way too long. They need to take back their own country, and they will.
Now if an Iraqi Shia reads that someone says that even if a government that has "Shia tendencies is formed……" consider how would he/she feel? Pretty disturbed. Don’t you think?
Your idea of a UN peacekeeping force is a good one. But It should have a very large contingent of the US forces. Since they are the ones who liberated Iraqis, and not the UN. But other countries of the UN peacekeeping forces can provide some basic services.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Give me a break. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. i had certainly nothing racist in mind when i stated 'Shi'ite tendencies' apart from the fact that - Iraq is predominantly made up of Shi'ites (not Sunnis), so for a **truly* representative Iraqi government, it should be comprised predominantly of Shi'ites. That's what i meant by tendencies.
Any interim government that is installed by the US will be perceived of as a stooge government. We have proof of how that works in Afghanistan. When was the last time Karzai stepped out of Kabul into the more remoter parts of Afghanistan ? Warlords have sprung up in some other parts of the country.
Dubya has been proclaiming since eternity that this invasion's motivation is to get Iraq 'liberated'. Fair enough - the most effective manner, IMHO, to achieve this is for the US forces to withdraw from the country and let a UN peacekeeping force 'supervise' the country for as long as it takes to hold free & fair elections.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia_H,
Karzai was supposed to be temporary. Not indefinate. I believe the intention was to have coalition forces for 2 years in Afghanistan to try to stabilize the country and then elections. Maybe the timeframe was unrealistic on Afghanistan.
I don't think is fair to blame U.S. for the warlords. Hasn't Afghanistan always had them? Even under the Taliban?
Doesn't mean Iraq will be the same way. It's been said that Iraq is more modern and the people well educated.
NYA, Well i have been accused of being many things on GS - anti-Pakistani, pro-Pakistani, anti-US, pro-US. i wasn’t at all intending to be racist - have had many Shi’ite friends in AD. If i was in actuality a racist towards Shi’ites, i don’t think i would be this obsessed in my personal life about worrying about the people of Iraq - the majority of whom are Shi’ites.
AAG, i agree. i am not trying to blame the US for everything under the sun 
Let’s hope that Iraq is not the same way. You are accurate about the educational factor - prior to sanctions, it was one of the most advanced countries in the region (from a socio-economic pov). In the late 70s, Iraq was even awarded a UNESCO prize for its achievements in furthering women’s education.
Nadia: >>regional interference (from Jordan, Saudi, Turkey) cease immediately, <<
What about interference from Syria/Iran? Or is that a favoruable interference?
uffoh. Interference from anyone. Ab khush? If the people of Iraq vote for a govt. that is predominantly Shi'ite, then that may mean a new Iraqi govt. will have closer ties with the Iranian govt. Both administrations may want to cooperate more with each other. Of course that is their fundamental right as geographical neighbours who may share the same political ideologies. No one should interfere if both countries are able to reconcile their past historical wars and form alliances with each other. That is the right of Iraq to do so, if it wishes.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
uffoh. Interference from anyone. Ab khush? If the people of Iraq vote for a govt. that is predominantly Shi'ite, then that **may* mean a new Iraqi govt. will have closer ties with the Iranian govt. Both administrations may want to cooperate more with each other. Of course that is their fundamental right as geographical neighbours who may share the same political ideologies. No one should interfere if both countries are able to reconcile their past historical wars and form alliances with each other. That is the right of Iraq to do so, if it wishes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't see that Iraq voting for a shi'ite government a problem. Iran is (at least the students and teachers) opening up to democracy. I can't see that as a problem.