What if the new DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Iraqi Government...

Post-9/11 Era Forum

1) Wants to be socialist.

2) Wants to nationalize the oil fields.

3) Wants to award the oil contracts to France and Russia.

4) Refuses to recognize Israel.

All because THAT IS THE WILL OF THE VOTERS...What would you think?...if this is the result of their DEMOCRACY, only a hypochrite could oppose them?

Because they're FREE now, to do what THEY WANT.

PS...Since it's not about oil or Israel, Bush and his boys should consider this OK, because all they truly cared about was liberating Iraq, so they can be free to determine their own course.

Well once a full-time, democratically elected government is in place, they can do whatever they want. The US has control over the state of affairs for now, while things are being stabilised. That control will come to an end however, and if the Iraqi people want a few changes, they can vote for them just like in any other democracy.

Why are you just looking for something to complain about? Obviously, it will be their government to do with what they like. You sure are a pessimist.

democratically elected? .. LOL

I'm not a pessimist, I just hate hypochrisy. I just doubt Bush's motives. If it's all about "liberation", that's great! I just want to see how long they'll be "liberated" if they disagree with Bush on some issue?

Well, for the answer to this, you only need look at the history books. When Iran nationalised the oil industry, the CIA organised a covert operation that removed the democratically elected leader from power. Same happened with Iraq several times. This is what put Saddam in power in the first place following a bloody coup funded and supported by the CIA.

The answer is that there will never be a democratically elected leader, unless your view of "democraticaly elected" gives the proviso of what the White House wishes goes.

I think it is a little presuming to say there will never be a democratically elected leader. The track record of the US is certanly against them, but I don't think they need to do anything extra to install a government friendly to the US in Iraq. This action seems to have put them in good stead with many of the people there, and I think that support will only grow as more humanitarian aid arrives, and the new found freedom there really starts to set in with the general population.

If you think about it really, the US has far more to gain if they simply stick to thier word. Whether they will or not remains to be seen, but in this case, they know they are being wached closely. They are also being joined by at least England and Australia with the post-war management of Iraq, as well as the rollover to an interrum Iraqi government. You can bet any vote for new leaders by the Iraqi people following all this will be closely supervised by the UN too, so they have little chance to do anything that they could get away with in this case anyway.

I'll say this, they can convince me that it's true freely elected government, voted on by the Iraqi people and reflecting their true views, if the government comes out as STRONGLY PRO-PALESTINIAN, if it's doesn't, I'll assume that it's a FAKE, PUPPET regime installed to serve Bush and the Neocons.

If that is the "will" of the Iraqi people, then that is what should be done.

1) If they decide upon a "socialist" government....let them do so. In theory, this is only theory, a socialist government can be quite prosperus. Most people relate "socialism" to "evilism", which is far from the truth. It just means that the "government" or "administration" owns the lands and it is collectively worked by all the people. As long as the leader is not corrupt and truly cares for the land and people to prosper....theoritically, it can work. There is no "upper class", "middle class", and "lower class". Unfortunately, there has yet (that I can recollect) a successful attempt in making this truly work. The power generally goes to the Leaders head and their greed takes over. But, after enduring a dictatorship for such a long time, I don't think this will be the course of action. I would look more towards a heavily "religious" sect or order taking over the country. If things go well, it will be governed very similiar to many "democratic" societies as each religious order within Iraq will have representation...similiar to a pariliment, congress, etc. With the predominate populus being Shiite (I believe), they will most likely have the heavy power within this new government...if it is truly elected by the people. But first off....law and order must be established.

2) Not sure what you mean by saying "nationalizing oil fields". But if you mean that the oil fields belong to the people of Iraq and they will choose how to distribute and who will mine it, then that is the decision all upon them. It is their decision to make, the oil fields lie within their territorial borders.

3) Once again, if that is the wish of the Iraqi government and people, more power to them.

4) If they choose not to recognize Israel, again that is their choice. No one went there to have any country "recognize" Israel. The fault will come if they decide to wage armed conflict, which I don't forsee happening in my lifetime...Iraq vs Israel. You can't change every thought of the people, the muslim nations still have their disputes with Israel...that cannot be changed.

The Iraqi's themselves know, they have a long road to national recovery and recupperation. They will have much more pressing needs to concern themselves initially...then to worry about these issues at this point in time. Maybe 6 - 12 months from....these will have to be addressed (some of them at least).

There is so much speculation now!

If the coalition can stabilize things and hand over power to a transitional government, who then holds elections within 12-24? months, based upon a solid democratic constitution that guarantees the basic rights of all Iraqi's, then that's the best anyone can hope for.

It depends upon the constitutional framework. If the constitution guarantees rights, separation of church and state, democratic principles, regularelections, accountability, etc., then who cares.

It seems very many people, groups, and governments would like to see this enterprise fail. They will work to make it fail. They will be pleased at every stumble. That is sad and shameful.

Iraq has a real chance now.

If the new government in Iraq fails to recoginse Isreal as a state, develops its own weapons without permission of the US and has any conflicting cultural differencces, then the US will simply shake the country up again until such time as the Iraqi people are able to vote to the democratic standards set by the US. They will learn eventually!

There seems to be alot of disparate groups in Iraq, all of which will want a stake in the country, especially with it's oil riches. Remember they are essentially tribal and still show great loyalty to others in their tribe.

The Kurds in the north will be making it clear they want some form of self government, they have already tried to stake a claim on Kirkut (which they say is historically theirs).

The Shiite muslims in the south similarly would probably like to have an islamic state like their fellow muslims in Iran.

God knows how many other tribes there are in the central region who will be scambling for power.

Currently all kinds of Iraqi exiles are being lined up to stand on an interim government of some sort. Currently Washington are arguing about which of these guys should be installed as the new leader. I can't speak for the Iraqis but if someone who came back to my country after 20 years and said "I'm going to be your leader" I'd tell him to get stuffed.

The bush administration will get the government they want regardless on how the people vote

If they can fool the american public into thinking Bush is the real elected president, think about how easy it will be to trick the iraqi citizens

True Sean Kelly,

I agree, I didn't mean to go as far as criticizing the entire electoral voting system, but certain states (FLORIDA)

but lets be honest, do you actually think the bush administration would allow a radical islamic government to win the election? Then we'd back to square 1, am i right?

but even I wouldn't criticize if they tampered with the election results to prevent a government like this winning

As long as the government is not oppressive to its people, aggressive towards its neighbours, and bent on domination of the region through the development of banned weapons then I can't see a reason why the US would care what the heck the Iraqi government does/becomes.

If the Iraqi gov't doesn't recognize Israel, then this will make them no different than most Middle Eastern states so it won't really change anything.

Nicaragua had a full time democratically elected government and the US didn't like that. They funded the contras and the full time democratically elected government was ousted in an undemocratic, unelected coup. The problem is the Iraqis will NOT be able to do what they want. Control by the dominant Shia will boost allegiance with Iran (not one of America's fvaourite countries). Kurds muscling in for an independent state will spark afurther war with Turkey. America knows all this which is why they will play a heavy role in vetting the new leader. And if he goes then America will watch Iraq very carefully to make sure they don't step out of line. The democracy we enjoy in the Western world (or the illusion of it) will not resemble the democracy the Iraqis are allowed to enjoy.

Regardlist of what they elect, choose or pick, at least they will have the freedom to do so. By the way NothingScared is your last name Hussein.

Come now Grim, don't be so cynical. The "illusion" of democracy? Just because most people don't give a ****, doesn't mean that our democratic institutions are not strong and could not be mobilized if people cared. Don't blame the institutions. You may blame the constituents who either do not vote or do not propose and mobilize to promote alternatives.

Also, try to back off from using cold war proxy conflicts as a parallel for the current situation - the world has changed significantly. Many positions taken by the USA in an effort to prevent the spread of communism, right or wrong, took place within a certain historical context. I will not defend everything the USA has done as being correct. I don't know enough. Would Cuba be better off without Castro? How many has he killed or imprisoned or worse? Communism has a pretty awful track record so while there might be certain examples of overzealous US activity, on the whole it was probably the right thing to do.

If you want to see a prosperous and democratic and moderate Iraq - mobilize yourself now to make sure no one interferes. Believe me, there are plenty of people/groups/countries who would love to see the coalitions vision for iraq fail! Give the Iraqi's confidence that they are supported. Others may be less inclined to throw a pipe into the spokes.

I did mobilise myself to make sure people didn't interfere with Iraq - I protested against the war along with millions of others around the world and you know what,...America and Britain didn't give a crap. And I'm not sure quite how I'm supposed to give Iraqis confidence when I sense with every moral fibre of my body that they're going to be short changed once again.

True Duntov,

I agree, I didn't mean to go as far as criticizing the entire electoral voting system, but certain states (FLORIDA)

but lets be honest, do you actually think the bush administration would allow a radical islamic government to win the election? Then we'd back to square 1, am i right?

but even I wouldn't criticize if they tampered with the election results to prevent a government like this winning

Wrong about what what Brendy. When I took to the streets of London to protest about the war it was about WMDs. No mention of liberating Iraqis...that wasn't the script at the time. So what am I wrong about. Where are these WMDs. And I've asked this a few times from people who support this war and have yet to have had an answer: why did the case against Iraq suddenly switch from al-Qaeda links to WMDs to Liberation. Why three separate stories???

Sorry Brendy, its you who have the facts mixed up. Liberation was only mentioned a couple of weeks before the war. Up to then it wsa about toppling a regime because of al-Qaeda and later WMDs - not because we were being chummy with Iraqi people. I do research what I write which is why you are one of the few remaining people who still think there are links between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Let me explain: al-Qaeda are Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam HATES Islamic fundamentalists so much so that he went to war against the Islamic Iran. He and Osama Bin Laden are sworn enemies and it was one of the reasons why Saddam was so well favoured by the CIA when they helped him to power in 1979. Osama Bin Laden has twice encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam who he views as a puppet of the West. Now who doesn't know what this is all about!

I have no doubt in my mind that Iraqis will elect a stable secular government. Given that Iraq, for the most part, is a secular nation they have no reason to elect a radical Muslim government.

Secular Arabs still aren't happy when the U.S. is TOTALLY and UNFAIRLY 110% BIASED toward Israel.

About WMDs: I saw in post someone saying:

give them time, they only inspected 20 sites on the 1000 known bys U.S. gov ....

Question: why these 1000 sites location haven't been given to U.N. inspectors ?

About the future Iraqi gov: about 60% of Iraqi are Shia, so they have the support from Iran ....

If a new government freely elected is made of 60% Shia and they decide to go to an Islamic state, what will be the reaction of U.S. gov ? why they couldn't ?
Read that: http://www.inreview.com/showthread....2201&forumid=13

Following the assassination, another Imam said: no resistance but no cooperation ..............


And the Kurds ? they want their own state and if they don't get it - due to Turkey pressure - do you think they will say: Ok, no problem ....


Again about WMDs:

quote:

from MikeXXL .... the development of banned weapons ....

I'm playing devils advocate here: why only U.S. should be allowed to continue a WMD program while the others can't ?
Because it's the World policeman ?


As I said: it's only the begining ......

Again, its the establishment of a reasonable constitution that guarantees the rights of all citizens that is the critical issue - Not who gets elected to function as representatives of the various groups and accountable under the constitution.

The Iraqi's have a unique opportunity. Many would love to see it fail. Many will work and kill to see it fail.

Rather than protest the war that freed the Iraqi's, your time could be more productively spent supporting the establishment of a solid, democratic constitution in Iraq. Or you could vocally protest those groups who are working to undermine the future of the Iraqi people. Yes. That would be good!

@Charles

you seems, as well as U.S. gov, missing that there is Iraqi people in Iraq ..... they have their pride, they have their way of thinking, they have their religion .... and it seems that all that are not going in the same direction as the U.S. gov want .....


I'm not against the establishment of a solid, democratic constitution in Iraq, what I say is: your way of thinking might not be the one of the Iraqi people .....

And what is going on there seems to go against what U.S. gov anticipated ....

Some of us were and do support long term cultural benefits for the iraqis, that is why we said they should be left alone. We could have assisted with education and so enabeling them to nurture their own culture, through thick and thin, opresion and liberation. A bit like the christian culture has done for the past 2 thousand years. It takes a lot of growing for a culture to find its own way. All weve done is create the conditions for a culture and democracy in line with US ideals. Some of us will continue to speak out against the aggressive third party institution of democracy or liberation. Some of us think that all cultures should have the same chance and given the correct opprtunities, will sort their own problems out.

But then again some of us are not quite as easily led into believing the self proclaimed world role of US as liberators.

@Charles

undoubtedly you are blind as you didn't read my posts.
Where in my posts I said that we had to let Saddam without doinf something ?

For you, there was only a war to solve the problem, not for me .... does this means "let Saddam and his regime" ??

I think it's the 4th time and the last one that I reply to your stupid posts about what I think, what I'm but you seems so clogged (?), as a deaf person ...

About your way of thinking:

if it's the Iraqi people choice - 60% are Shia - , what will US/UK make ? another war ?

Nice point of view about freedom ....

quote:

Before they did not have an opportunity.

devil's advocate:
you should ask why they didn't have the opportunity ..... of course Saddam regime, but who was backing him ?

quote:

Time will tell.

****, I agree with you

You really do have to look a little further than that charles.

No one is saying that saddam was a nice chap, saddam is short term, culture is long term. If you are saying that as a world leader the best the US could do was blow a country up, use violence to liberate, then you dont give the rest of us much reason to trust the US. Did your government not have long term plans to allow Iraq to develop with help over several generations?

It is too late for that now, Iraq is already a western shaped country, nothing will change that, it is very sad. When atrocities are pushed in your face every day it makes justification for short term solutions easier to sell to the public and harder for the public to see the larger picture, its called propaganda. Atrocities have been committed for many years by many people we only hear this much concerted effort to bring one to light when there are other agendas.

Short term solutions lead to chaos, long term to stability. Sometimes we have to stomach what we dont agree with to allow a real and stable culture to evolve. That is if we truly want to allow different opinions and idealogies to grow strong. If left alone iraq could have become a self supporting world power who choose who it traded with, now it will have little choice.

oops, I forgot for the biological/chemical base of WMD .... lol

What will be the statement of US/UK if they find base for WMD ? no, no, it was for research laboratories ???

Its really sad nowar.

Really sad.

Did you at least fathom the difference between an islamic fundamentalist state and a democratically elected fundamentalist candidate within a pluralistic society? Did that get through?

Or is it all funny to you?

BTW - who supplied more weapons and military capabilities to Iraq - the US/UK or the French/Germans/Russians?

?

What is your honest opinion?

no it's not funny, of course not but what I whant to say is: it's not as bright as U.S. gov want and things are not going as they want.

And you seems to forget that .....

What Iraqi people think about Ahmed Chalabi ?
What happened to Seyyed Abdelmajid al-Khoei ?
http://www.inreview.com/showthread....2201&forumid=13
Did you read this one too ? http://www.inreview.com/showthread....2242&forumid=13

Maybe you didn't saw that on your TV and in your news papers ....
Maybe you didn't saw those saying: welcome .... go home

It's not as bright as so many want ..... that's what I want people know ....

About the weapons: I have a post which deal with that. But the most dangerous-destructive (biological/chemical) used - the nuclear plant provided by the french has been destroyed by Israel, the report about the Uranium bought in Niger was a fake, another one, and the testimony of "G.W. Bush: a high ranking Iraqi nuclear scientist testified about the Iraq nuclear program which continue despite their commitment ", another fake ... - was from U.S. even after the Kurds bloodbath ...... sorry

and i should add that:

These are the ones Pentagon back for after Saddam gov:

Ahmad Chalabi is one of the best-known figures. He leads the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which has been backed by the US and Britain ever since it was created in the aftermath of the last war against Iraq, in 1991. He has the support of the Washington hawks, who believe he is the man to set Iraq on a democratic path. His critics, however, point out that he left Iraq in the 1950s and has been accused of corrupt business dealings. As a (secular) Shia he arouses the mistrust of the Arab world's Sunni ruling class.

Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al-Hakim, who is from a prominent Iraqi Shia family, runs the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). He has supporters in Iraq, but the Iranian connection makes the US - and some Iraqis - wary of him.

Adnan Pachachi, a former Iraqi foreign minister, is an 80-year-old Sunni who has been courted by the Americans and is well connected in the Gulf sheikhdoms. He is a nationalist with a secular liberal outlook. Some see him, because of his age, as a possible caretaker leader.

Jalal Talabani and Massoud Barzani, the leaders of the two Kurdish factions in northern Iraq, have a firm base among their own people but would be unlikely contenders for national power.

Nizar Khazraji, a prominent Iraqi general who defected to the West, is sometimes mentioned as a possible successor to Saddam. The CIA is reported to have helped him escape to the Gulf from house arrest in Denmark, where prosecutors were investigating his alleged role in gas attacks on the Iraqi Kurds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2944915.stm

.....
Washington infighting

In the absence of a candidate with impeccable credentials, the US may try to build up a collective leadership - one which would represent Iraq's mosaic of different communities and command enough confidence to return the country to some sort of normality.

But it is not only within Iraq that fierce differences over the post-war future are being played out.

In Washington, the State Department and the CIA suspect the Pentagon of actively promoting its protege, Ahmad Chalabi, who was recently flown into southern Iraq by the US military with a group of his followers.

They fear that imposing Mr Chalabi would alienate other Iraqis.

The White House has tried to damp down the infighting. But the dispute is unresolved.

All modern democracies must protect the rights of the minority...except of course Israel, who as the chosen people are the only nation with the God given right to ethnically cleanse, kill and bully their minorities, with full backing of President Bush and the U.S. military.

I am not sure if it is not as bright as the administration expected, or not as bright as the media expected?!? I think the latter.

On the other hand, the "war" phase went smoother than many could have hoped with limited casualties and destruction. Of course any casualties/destruction is bad, but street to street fighting in every urban area would have killed 100 times more on both sides.

One of the primary combat divisions never even made it to the fight - the US/UK had very small forces of combat troops and still managed to prevail quickly. This is a good thing from my perspective.

I think it will take significantly more time to establish order and a framework for government. I don't expect results overnight.