PDA

View Full Version : Looks Like Iranian-Style Theocracy for Iraq. Go Figure



Booger
February 4th, 2005, 09:22 AM
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi election officials released a new, partial tally of votes Friday from the weekend's landmark elections, showing candidates backed by Shiite Muslim clerics continuing to roll up a strong lead over other tickets, including one headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

The United Iraqi Alliance, which has the endorsement of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics, including the widely revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won more two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far, the election commission said. Allawi’s ticket was running second, with more than 579,700 votes."

Assuming the votes hold, do we have any choice but to not accept the results? If not, what have we created in Iraq? Is a government dominated by Shiite Muslim clerics what YOU had in mind when we invaded Iraq?

Apokalupsis
February 4th, 2005, 09:27 AM
You ASSUME that will be the end result of Shiite's becoming the popular vote. I heard on the news yesterday, an interview with an English speaking government official, that Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and more groups, were attempting to make it a point to allow for a democracy that recognizes all groups AND minorities.

FruitandNut
February 4th, 2005, 09:31 AM
Apok, let us hope that your optimism prevails. If not, do we have Apok now or later?

Zhavric
February 4th, 2005, 09:40 AM
*ponders long and ponders hard regarding disagreeing with Booger*

*eventually decides*

*half-heartedly points towards Malaysia which is an Islamic government that isn't hell-bent against America*

I think the folks in Iraq have had their share of Iranian style theocracy and I have a lot of confidence in the CIA that any group in power is going to be a puppet of the American government anyway.

The real question is will there be civil war.

Booger
February 4th, 2005, 02:11 PM
*half-heartedly points towards Malaysia which is an Islamic government that isn't hell-bent against America*

Fair enough, but I think if you ask the average American whether getting rid of Saddam so that a government dominated by Shiite Muslim clerics could take his place was worth the cost and American lives, you would get a resounding 'NO'. I have no polls to back that up; just intuition.

Apokalupsis
February 4th, 2005, 02:19 PM
I would agree with you there Boog. But I would ALSO agree, that if the PEOPLE decide by vote, and the vote is not fraudulent, that Americans SHOULD accept it.

I am in favor of giving people the opportunity to experience and live in freedom. But if through that freedom, they WANT a lifestyle that is to them, "free" (but not to us), it should be given to them regardless of OUR view of what is better.

I think also however, that IF this happens, that it may be argued that the entire campaign could be seen as a failure. Simply replacing 1 bad regime w/ another, is not success. Regardless, if it does happen, America SHOULD pull out, wipe our hands clean (once their government is in play and functioning), and move on. We can only lead a horse to water...

FruitandNut
February 4th, 2005, 02:59 PM
I agree with Apok., people should be given choice. If they choose against democracy as we know it, well that is their choice. So long as they do not grossly violate their minorities or threaten their neighbours or the wider world, so be it.

Booger
February 4th, 2005, 04:02 PM
Regardless, if it does happen, America SHOULD pull out, wipe our hands clean (once ther government is in play and functioning), and move on. We can only lead a horse to water...

/\ I can't wait until we're out of there...

mog
February 4th, 2005, 05:11 PM
As long as the Shiite clerics do not become a body above parliament that has executive powers like the Council of Guardians, Iraq will be a fair way off an Iran style theocracy. I don't think the fact that cleric endorsed Shiite candidates will probably form a majority indicates that that is their intention.

KevinBrowning
February 4th, 2005, 05:12 PM
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi election officials released a new, partial tally of votes Friday from the weekend's landmark elections, showing candidates backed by Shiite Muslim clerics continuing to roll up a strong lead over other tickets, including one headed by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.

The United Iraqi Alliance, which has the endorsement of Iraq’s top Shiite clerics, including the widely revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won more two-thirds of the 3.3 million votes counted so far, the election commission said. Allawi’s ticket was running second, with more than 579,700 votes."

Assuming the votes hold, do we have any choice but to not accept the results? If not, what have we created in Iraq? Is a government dominated by Shiite Muslim clerics what YOU had in mind when we invaded Iraq?

"Which has the endorsement of." This is not the same as the new officials actually being the top Shia imams. What Westerners don't understand, is that there is no concept of "separation of church and state" in Arab culture. Islam is seen as not just a religion, but a way of life, in all aspects of life.

Chances are many top government officials in the new Iraqi power structure will be men of religious influence. That is how their society functions at a basic level, and democracy will not change that. What it will change is that the people will decide who shall rule, imams or not. Saddam did not have the mandate of the people. He was a secular dictator, when the Iraqis clearly want someone more sympathetic to the concerns and ways of Islam than the secularist Saddam.

Iraq will remain an Islamic state. What must be strived for is a system wherein its Christians and other minorities may live in peace, without persecution. The most important issue is relations between the Sunnis and Shias.

The Western mind cannot comprehend the big deal over prophetic lineage, but the truth is it has become much more than that. It is a cultural, tribal and historical issue, not a religious one. A rough parallel would be the animosity between Yankees and Southerners, but on a much more intense scale of dislike and distrust. Same country, same people, but different histories and traditions, and most importantly, grudges.

The Islamic world consists mostly of Sunnis. In Iraq, however, the majority of the citizens are Shias. Despite this, the Baath Party hierarchy was Sunni, and the group remains influential and desiring of keeping their power.

My point here, is that it's likely that the Arab world will always remain somewhat of a theocracy in Western eyes. What is important, is ensuring that the safety and liberty of the religious and ethnic minorites are provided for under the new democracy, while not trying to undermine the broad religious norms of the society as a whole under Westernist modernization and secularism.