Sistani and Shia leaders demand Islam be the source of law in Iraq

Iraq Forum

It seems the Shi'ite majority may well win the election by a landslide and just yesterday (Sunday 6th Feb) Sistani came out with the strongest statement yet on how he sees Iraq's future governance.

I haven't heard any pro-war supporters addressing this issue yet. If real democracy in Iraq means a Shi'ite Islamic run Iraq, that aligns itself with Iran rather than the West - would this be acceptable? Would a government that oppossed Israel be acceptable? Would a government that demanded rearmament be acceptable?

Bremmer laid down laws that would disallow an Islamic theocracy but are these laws actually enforcable and who would enforce them or are they even democractic?

I believe this report is in error. Al Sistani is for separation of Mosque and Government and doesn't believe in an Islamic run state like Iran.

that report is wrong, nothing of that have been out of the sistanee office

The Brit propagandist doesn't give the Iraqis much credit—he doesn't give the U.S. much credit. No surprises here.

The important matter here isn't whether or not Iraq becomes an Islamic theocracy or whether or not Iraq aligns itself closer to Iran than the West, but whether the US would ever contemplate actually allowing this to happen.

The British refused Shiite rule 100 years ago and did all they could to rig the elections. One of the main reasons the US supported the Baathists and Hussein and the Sunnis was to stop the Shiite majority running Iraq. When the Shiites rose up in '91 we did nothing to stop Hussein's slaughter of the them (and of course 12 years later we then used that very same slaughter as justification for war and invasion of Iraq).

As with Dan Rather's false reporting of GW's ANG record, we now find another false report. I suspect there are many false reports from people who wish this to fail.

At this point it's irrelevant what the US wants we are not in charge of that country. Sure the US wouldn't want to see an Islamic theocracy but if the new government decided that's what they want, there isn't much we can do about it except hope that it doesn't turn into another Dictatorship starving their own people.

Look the Iraqi's are very smart, and I think the country is diverse enough to recognize what would happen with Islamic Rule and laws and I don't believe that they will let that happen.

From what I hear, 80% of Iraqis are greatfull to America and the UK. Like it or not.

We may not be the MOST powerful, look at China, Russia is up there and think about the combined nations of the EU. We still have to work with all the other nations. You see one why that we are powerful is by giving others the ability to make their own destiny.

Ron,
And then they bite the hand that feeds them.

could it be that the cost of hardware and the salaries of troops are different. How many airplanes do Russia and China have, how many troops does Russia and China have. Dollar amounts mean nothing.

We don't wanna get in a hand-to-hand combat situation with China. What do they outnumber us? 1,000 to 1? *gulp*...

When you have to police the planet, it takes a lot of hardware and people to run it.

I'll give you that the US outweighs in Technology. Armament however maybe a different story. Russia and China probably have more arms but are less accurate. And bot China and Russia probably have more troops.

I'll try to get some numbers.

Russia is a bit smaller than the US as far as troop strength goes. And there was no data as to how much Russia spends on the military. China has almost 3 times as many troops and spends more than the US per capita. (The dollar amount is less but it also cost less) As you see the % is of the GDP for the country.

30,600,088 Russia no data

208,143,352 China $60 billion 3.5-5.0%

73,597,731 US $370.7 billion 3.3%

I agree that US may not have as many active duty personnel as China or India, but the US still outweighs in armament, ammunition and hardware. Part of China's higher GDP spending on defense can be attributed to the higher number of personnel, and the fact that China is actively pursuing technology to upgrade it's machinery.

As it is, the absolute value of US spending on defense is still multiple times more than China. I am not saying that the US should not maintain it's edge in defense technology. I am saying that US does possess considerable advantage over the rest of the World, and such huge defense spending is the main reason.

Besides, it is highly unlikely that US will engage in hand-to-hand combat with major developing countries. Therefore, the number of armed troops is not as significant a criteria as it used to be.

M.

Aw come on, it's not the same.

NOT THE SAME?? if that's not taking over the world, what the heck is?

Yeah right, we have taken over so many countries. Which countries are now part of the US???? Last I checked, everywhere we have gone to war, the countries are back in the hands of the people of that country. So I hardly would say that we are taking over the world.

Policing isn't conquering. As part of the UN peace keeping force, we are obligated to help other countries. Since the League of Nations started, I know of no countries we have "taken over".

What countries are part of America? Puerto Rico? Yah, we conquered them years ago.

Yeah Puerto Rico and Guam during the Spanish American war in 1898. Anything since then?

Occupation and empire building are things of the past, since they are no longer feasible. America dominates the rest of the World with it's economic might. Anyone ever given a thought why most countries keep (and measure) their reserves in dollars?

M.

Ok I'll give you that, yes the American economy dominates most of the world. All other economies are valued against the dollar.

But that doesn't mean we are conquering the world. It just means we have a good economic system.

Nowhere in any UN or International Law does it give the US the rights to police the world. We do that for our own dominance whether politically or militarily.

Seeking to economically dominate is power just the same Ron. We pick and choose whom we want to “free” and whom we want to neglect. Unfortunately sometimes it comes at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants while their government leaders make out fatly in the deals made with us.

This is how we can romp through Iraq and ignore a Rwanda.

Should we (America) only allow others to tell us who to "free or neglect" as you say? This would be the Kerry option.

Maybe try minding more of our own business USA? However, I guess it's hard to pass up the opportunity to dominate world trade right? So let's just free all the people who can help us achieve it and al the other oppressed can go the hell right?

Yes I did see the movie adityamahesh. I had to go very much out of my way to even find it in a theater. It seems we are repeating the same mistake with Somalia.

I don't agree with the term Police the world and I don't feel that we are doing that. I mean it's not like we patrolling the cities and suburbs arresting bad guys. And for the most part that's what is meant by Police.

Yeah I know that's looking at it as too literal.

Ok so we have the UN who can't seem to keep peace anywhere without the US's help.

So what's the answer to the worlds problems? Do Nothing and let the rogue regimes flourish in hopes that they behave?

Who should intervene and when?

Ron, who gets to call a Regime "rogue" or not? See the problem is there's no consistency in our policies. We ignore one while engaging another depending on what is prudent to our interests.

Unfortunately this causes problems too, except to those who believe we’re just trying to free the world, which are usually those of us back at home here in the US.

There are times when intervention is needed both politically and militarily but not only as a convenience.

The UN is an institution suffering from major flaws. It needs to be thoroughly reformed.
But it is a tool and this tool is at the disposal of the nations of good will. Problem is that powerful countries are competing against one another to secure and further their interests - it is all in the human nature to behave like this but in the end we all have something to lose.
Cooperation make things work. You may be in disagreement with the arbiter but at least he is leading the way and should force everybody to abide by international rules.
Yes the US is needed to police lots of places. Fortunately, this mighty country is a democratic one and we are not under the thumb of China for example.
It all depends on you people not to let the democratical principles shaping this society being dismissed and manipulated.
Today the UN is the target of investigations. But what is hiding behind the smoke ? What are the stakes, the motivations in some benevolent circles in Washington ?