The U.S. is not going to allow an anti-American regime like Irans to be installed by a few hardliners.
underthedome...
I guess its not a matter of "a few hardliners" imposing something. No one will accept that. The question is, if there are free and fair elections held in Iraq, with no pre-poll rigging (by banning candidates) or poll-rigging (stuffing fake votes etc), and the Iraqis elected a pro-Islamic shia fundamentalist regime, what will US reaction be?
Will the US discard the results of such free and fair elections because they are harmful to US interests, or will they say "well, this is democracy, and if this is what Iraqis want, by jolly, this is what they will get!"?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The U.S. is not going to allow an anti-American regime like Irans to be installed by a few hardliners.
[/QUOTE]
The US is not going to allow any government freely and fairly chosen by the Iraqi people, period.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Blah Blah Malik. The truth is you rather see an Iraq that is poor and dysfunctional but Anti-American rather than one that is healthy and productive and pro-American.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t that ever the truth for so many anti-Americans who post in Gupshup and/or protest in the streets around the world. First, as long as it was perceived to be a US originated policy to either remove Saddam or eliminate his WMD, Saddam’s continued torture, tyranny, and oppression was viewed as a lesser evil to whatever the policy was. Before the war, the US was bashed every single day for “killing innocent Iraqis” through sanctions. For years, it was widely asserted that the French and Russians would lift sanctions in a NY minute but for the US position that certification of a WMD free Iraq was required. After the war, the US asks for sanctions to be lifted, France and Russia oppose it until Iraq is certified as being free of WMD and (without blinking an eye) the US is now the bad guy and the French and Russians are the principled good guys. Does anyone bash the French and Russians for continuing sanctions and/or even acknowledge that their belief that the French and Russians were prepared to immediately lift sanctions but for the US opposition was flat out wrong? Not a chance.
Now anything but a fundamentalist Shia led theocracy will be viewed by these same folks as a US installed puppet regime. Anything less, and the US will be bashed. Doesn’t matter whether the Iraqi people want something else. No election or referendum will be viewed as free and fair unless that outcome occurs. Doesn’t matter whether a fundamentalist Shia led theocracy might/would impose reactionary, tyrannical or oppressive governance over the people of Iraq thus exchanging one form of slavery for another. In fact, they’d prefer this because they would then say the US failed the people of Iraq because it replaced one tyrant with another. Before that occurred though, they would prefer to see a period of unrest and ethnic cleansing occur in Iraq where the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds went at it for a little while so they could blame the US for the slaughter.
And here is a representative posting that demonstrates the attitude of which I speak:
Malik writes: "The US is not going to allow any government freely and fairly chosen by the Iraqi people, period."
Now don’t you guys all remember when we were throwing around wild predictions and you call us conspiracy nuts or antiAmericans? What makes your premonition any different than what you accuse us of doing? Does the presence of religious figures necessitate that the only system that can evolve with them is a state such as Iran’s? But then again.. what’s so bad about Iran, now that is? The only countries that have a problem with them are the US Israel and some Azaris.
But then we must remember the words used to cite the cause for arrest of Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi (the self-proclaimed mayor of Baghdad) “for his inability to support the coalition military authority”. (as opposed to an ‘inability to support the founding of Iraqi democracy’)
MV,
Well put....
I think about some of the "New Europe" countries that supported the war, and can't help but think that they are in many ways the prototypes of democracies to come. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that many of them did not have to go through bloody coups and civil wars to gain their freedom. And in many of these countries they went through fits and starts before landing on a form of representaive democracy that suited them.
It seems patently unreasonable to sit here a month after the war started, and mere weeks after the climax of hostilities and declare anything a success or failure. Rebuilding a quality government will take years, and the US must be in this for the long haul. There will be disappointments and setbacks, but the progress will be measurable. It seems to me that the formation of a constitution will be the first meaningful landmark that can actually be graded. At that point the critics can start to evaluate the progress of the Iraqi people. Putting forward a puppet is pretty old school, and there is no American thinker that I have heard who would advocate the "installation" of a president.
As far as exiles who are wealthy and successful going back to Iraq. God bless them. They could stay in the west, live comfortable lives and never contribute again to their homeland. Instead they sacrifice a comfortable life for one frought with danger and discomfort, all so that they can rebuild a country they love. More power to them. Are they Westernized? Sure, but they also have a persepctive that will be valuable.
As far as Baath party members, there were loyalists to Saddam, and their were people who simply wanted to feed their families. Membership in the Baath party is not as important as their actions during that membership. For 25 years the watchword in Iraq was survival. Either by escaping or coping. A new day is dawning in Iraq. A new group of leaders will arise from all corners. It will be fascinating to watch.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by myvoice: *
Before the war, the US was bashed every single day for “killing innocent Iraqis” through sanctions. For years, it was widely asserted that the French and Russians would lift sanctions in a NY minute but for the US position that certification of a WMD free Iraq was required. After the war, the US asks for sanctions to be lifted, France and Russia oppose it until Iraq is certified as being free of WMD and (without blinking an eye) the US is now the bad guy and the French and Russians are the principled good guys. Does anyone bash the French and Russians for continuing sanctions and/or even acknowledge that their belief that the French and Russians were prepared to immediately lift sanctions but for the US opposition was flat out wrong? Not a chance.
[/quote]
This is seriously driving away from the point at hand but I will respond. The above is a display of severely flawed logic. The French and Russians opposed the sanctions when they were in effect, when they *were killing people. Now that the war is over, Saddam is gone, those sanctions are little more than a formality to be dispensed with. There is aid freely flowing. There are industrial material coming in with whoever does the work. There is no Iraqi government so there is no one to levy the sanctions against. The work of government is being carried out by several proxy groups, none are going to be slapped for violating sanctions. So, this means that the French and Russians are not killing people by delaying the removal of sanctions. The sanctions are merely words now.. only a legal procedure. They will not lift them until there is a sturdy instrument to replace their mechanisms. This is in order to prevent abnormalities in procedure from becoming standard. No one is being harmed. There is no longer any moral sin in the sanctions. (This argument wonderfully displays the point of my earlier post in this thread.)
[quote]
Now anything but a fundamentalist Shia led theocracy will be viewed by these same folks as a US installed puppet regime. Anything less, and the US will be bashed. ...
[/QUOTE]
Once again this is the same historical determinism for which you so often damn us.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The U.S. is not going to allow an anti-American regime like Irans to be installed by a few hardliners.
[/QUOTE]
what about ANY regime formed thru "elections" which is very biased towards Iran because majority will be Shias (very likely)?
“freedom” 
sure
It was them opposing the “war” because of wrong excuse.
The Iranian people want free from the hardliners, I don't see the Iraqi's racing to embrace what their Iranian counterparts are trying to escape.
The statement was tongue-in-cheek.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The Iranian people want free from the hardliners, I don't see the Iraqi's racing to embrace what their Iranian counterparts are trying to escape.
[/QUOTE]
You watch too much TV or something.. that whole bit about the kids having a counterrevolution is highly inflated. Maybe if you're around a university campus you'll hear that, maybe in Tehran or some northern parts where the Azaris want to create Greater Azarbaycan.. but there is no strong counterrevolution. The political figures are calling for reforms more for the reason of being more compatible with the capitalist world around them rather than because of some epiphany telling them that their system is wrong. China has had reformists for ages.. don't see the government collapsing there do you?
I can’t think of anything more absurd than that. What you are saying is that the French and Russians oppose sanctions. They do not want any other country in the world to honor them. They will not seek UN enforcement against any UN member country for violating the terms and conditions of these UN security council resolutions. But they refuse to vote in favor of lifting those sanctions. 
So, when the sanctions did have meaning, the French and Russians opposed them but voted in favor of having them, subsequently kept quiet and never cast a vote to lift them because they were cowed by the US.
Now that the sanctions don’t have any meaning and the US is in favor of lifting them, the French and Russians are still opposed to sanctions but now are quite vociferous and say they will not vote in favor of immediately lifting them because they are taking a principled opposition to the US.
Not even Alice in Wonderland or George Orwell came close to this form of twisted reasoning.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The Iranian people want free from the hardliners, I don't see the Iraqi's racing to embrace what their Iranian counterparts are trying to escape.
[/QUOTE]
Don't make the mistake again of predicting what other peoples want. American's already made the fatal mistake that Iraqi's would welcome them with flowers only, when in fact they are throwing stones at them. And if you don't see the Iraqi's embracing an Iranian-style government then you have nothing at all to fear - let the Iraqi people decide in free and fair elections what form of government they want. Instead your government is already predetermining what type of government they should have.
In my humble opinion… this is a dangerous policy to pursue. God bless them for leading the past two, three decades away from the misery of wars and sanctions, God bless them for leading a luxurious, cushioned life flying from one US-sponsored conference to another, crossing the Atlantic periodically via first-class tickets (all paid for by the US of course). These individuals (i.e, Ahmed Chalabi) will feel beholden to one particular administration that has done so much for them these past several years. Is it their “westernization” that makes them so alluring for Jay Garner?
Half of Iraqis today are under the age of 18 (according to Unicef); i think Ahmed Chalabi (and probably a fair number of exiles) have been out of the country for about that same time period. That means half of Iraq’s population - a solid 12 million people - have never seen Ahmed Chalabi in person in Iraq. They weren’t even born when he left the country to lead the high life in Washington or London. These kids have known a war and sanctions their whole life - certainly nothing that Mr. Chalabi can relate to. What type of authority do these folks wield in Iraq? How representative are they of the people they will profess to rule over?
The past 25 years in Iraq have been about survival. You are implying that it would have been more noble to have died in Iraq because of your dissent, than to have saved your family, your sons and your daughters.
Dissidents were slaughtered. Votes were 99% for Saddam. Torture ruled. Exiles may have been living in a foreign land, but imagine how it feels to be DRIVEN from your country by death and torture. In their hearts they love their land as much as those who stayed. By returning they are finally free to contribute to their homeland. More power to them.
The young people who have known nothing but Saddam are a particularly dangerous and terrible group. They know nothing of the outside world, or the rich culture of Iraq before Saddam. The returning exiles will bring with them memories of the best times of the culture.
Exiles who wait a year or two for stability are those that should not be trusted, but many of the exiles realized that there was absolutely no hope of over throwing Saddam from the inside, only a superior power from the outside could topple him. In the end that assessment was correct.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Exiles may have been living in a foreign land, but imagine how it feels to be DRIVEN from your country by death and torture. In their hearts they love their land as much as those who stayed. By returning they are finally free to contribute to their homeland. More power to them.
[/QUOTE]
Make up your mind, in one thread you are condeming exiles for taking power, especially when they are pr-American like the ousted mayor of Baghdad, and here you are saying the opposite. Why don't you simply admit that only exiles who are willing become American stooges are welcome to have power, and others will be arrested?