1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Iraq - Democracy accepteble outcomes

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by vonork, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    So what if Iraq goes to the polls and after a totally correct election elects a non-US (& western world) friendly fundamentalist government, with all that it gives. That then kindly asks the US to leave, in 2-3 weeks. And under that time period all attacks on US troops stops - proving that there is no need for them to provide security. But of course if the US troops don't leave it would be considered by the new government as an act of war.

    Would it be accepted or would the ellection be riged if that outcome was projected?

    Or what would be accepted?
     
  2. Little Raven

    Little Raven On Walkabout

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    4,244
    Location:
    Cozy in an Eggshell
    We might as well discuss what would happen if a Martian contingent landed in Iraq and offered to take over security.

    No insult intended, vonork, but there is simply no way that Iraq is going to act as a unified nation anytime soon. It's cobbled together from three different peoples, all of whom hate each other. If we really do have fair elections, then the Shias will dominate; if that happens, the Sunnis and the Kurds will know trouble is coming. If the US leaves anytime within the next 3 years, minimum, Iraq will almost certainly dissolve into civil war. One side may win quickly, but war will almost inevitably result. Heck, civil war may break out even if we stay.

    Much like the old Yugaslavia, Iraq has only stayed together as a country because there has always been someone ruthless enough to project dominence over the entire area. Keeping it intact without that kind of presence is going to be very, very difficult.
     
  3. Speedo

    Speedo Esse Quam Videri

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,891
    Location:
    NC USA
    Aside from the fact that that is impossible....

    If they want to elect Mickey Mouse as their leader I could care less. Considering though that most of the people in Iraq who are "anti-US" are hiding out in holes in the desert, it's not likely that they'll get elected.
     
  4. Marla_Singer

    Marla_Singer United in diversity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,984
    Location:
    Paris, west side (92).
    The fundamentalists aren't pro-Saddam freaks. The fundamentalists are actually religious chias who are gaining more and more power each day.

    I don't understand well... do you think the two main parties of a democratic Iraq will be republicans and democrats ?? :eek:
     
  5. EzInKy

    EzInKy Excentric

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,887
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Their constitution will guarantee freedom of religion, and the US will guarantee their constitution.
     
  6. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    None take, I was mere going for discussion on what outcome of Iraq goverment "we" would accept. And cuz as you say the Shias dominate (around 60%) they would become the dominate "party" in an ellection - no wonder one of the more dominating shias mullas want ellections.

    But any ellected goverment might be more or less friendly of us... so would we eccept that. Or suport a Iraq army that would remove any ellected fundamental goverment? what would our possition be, and actions.
     
  7. Little Raven

    Little Raven On Walkabout

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    4,244
    Location:
    Cozy in an Eggshell
    Absolutely. Muqtada al-Sadr is real keen on elections and getting the US out ASAP. The Shias have been under the boot of the Sunnis for some time, and a lot of them feel it's their turn. Mind you, the Kurds have been virtually independant for the last 10 years, and I very much doubt they want to be under ANYONE.

    God only knows what we'll do or who we'll support. While our general goals for Iraq have been somewhat constant, our policy on how to get there seems to change by the week. Who we'll support probably depends most on what kind of mood Rumsfeld wakes up in on the day that someone decides to make a move.
     
  8. Bozo Erectus

    Bozo Erectus Master Baker

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    22,389
    If the goal is to keep Iraq together over the long haul, theyre going to need a substantial army. Especially a few years down the road when our current allies the Kurds, suddenly morph into terrorists when they begin fighting the government we imposed on the country. No matter WHAT happens, Iran will have alot of influence in the Shia south.
     
  9. SeleucusNicator

    SeleucusNicator Diadoch

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    6,822
    Location:
    America
    I would urge the United States to not accept such an outcome or, better yet, to avoid such an outcome to begin with. It would be highly counter-productive. We did not remove a US-hostile regime to allow another one in.
     
  10. bobgote

    bobgote Trousers

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    the US can't not accept the outcome. if an unfavourable result is forecast, they won't have elections, and simply transfer power to their governing council.
     
  11. Little Raven

    Little Raven On Walkabout

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    4,244
    Location:
    Cozy in an Eggshell
    Solves nothing, though we may well end up doing just that. The governing council is a stopgap measure. It is rightfully seen as a puppet to the US occupation force lacking long-term legitimacy, and everyone in Iraq knows it. If we rely on it for too long, everyone will rebel against it, each for their own reasons.
     
  12. bobgote

    bobgote Trousers

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    not if it's enforced, but then we're back where we were to start with.

    better (for the US) the council rules by force than they lose their toehold in the middle east. other situations can be favourable, but this is a fall-back position if those don't look like they'll work to the US's favour.
     
  13. Little Raven

    Little Raven On Walkabout

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    4,244
    Location:
    Cozy in an Eggshell
    Sure, it's a fallback position, but not a very good one. The only one who is going to enforce the Council's decisions is us. And that's very, very expensive to do. Right now we have a president that doesn't mind spending like a drunken sailor, but that isn't going to last. Soon we'll have to make some hard choices about where we put our money, and Americans will get tired of paying for an occupation REAL quick. We can't afford to stick around in Iraq, enforcing the decisions of a puppet council. We need a government that can take over and police the area for itself. In order to do that without constant proping up from us, it has to have legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis.
     
  14. bobgote

    bobgote Trousers

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    I agree.
    The transition of power to the council will also involve the establishment of a security force. I don't think the Americans will get sick of the occupation cost-wise so much if they get their troops back.
     
  15. MrPresident

    MrPresident Anglo-Saxon Liberal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,511
    Location:
    The Prosperous Part of the EU
    1. American and coalition troops can not leave in 2-3 weeks. Simply impossible.

    2. Attacks on American troops will not stop.

    3. Any new government would not throw out the American military for the simple reason they do not have the capable. There is no Iraqi army at the moment.

    4. There is no reason to throw out the Americans as they guarantee Iraqi security against themselves and more importantly against their enemies (*cough* Iran) in the region.

    5. How could a "totally correct" election result be rigged. Either the election is fair and result stands or the election is rigged and the result is invalidate. If America seriously considered the possibilty of an extremely anti-American government being democratically elected within Iraq they would not hold elections and rightly so.

    6. Any election riggering would be practically impossible considering the media presence in Iraq at the moment, particularly media not exactly favourable to the United States.

    7. Any elected Iraqi government would not immediately take over power from America. It would be a step-by-step process with the military being handed over last.

    8. I am sure the United States has already agreed a treaty with the Iraqis regarding any future military presence in the country. So such action would be illegal.

    9. Any religious fundamental goverrnment elected risks civil war by its mere existence. If it declared war against the United States then such a war would surely become a reality.

    10. This situation is so improbable as to not warrant any discussion, at least at the present time.
     
  16. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    Now that would not be so democratic if the Iraqi population want that government.

    Now would not that only end in replacing one oppressing regime with another one.

    Well, when then? An early election will prob get the shias to dominate and the kurds have lives in basic self-rule since the Gulf War and they prob not going to accept that unless they get a lot of self-rule. Considering that the plan is to be to hold some sort of election or creation of government this summer the possibility for a not to western friendly government is not so far away.
     
  17. MrPresident

    MrPresident Anglo-Saxon Liberal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,511
    Location:
    The Prosperous Part of the EU
    It would not be democratic but it would be right. I don't want to sound patronising but let's be realistic, Iraqis don't know how the function within a democracy. They don't have the same tradition as is seen in western liberal democracies. This is not only limited to voting in extremists but is also seen in widespread corruption and the other facets of poor goverance. A parallel can be drawn with Weimar Germany. So I believe America and Britain should "supervise" a democratic Iraq to ensure its long-term survival. Obviously there is the problem of when such supervision should be stopped but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
    That may be but precisely when is this anti-American government going to declare war on America? Surely they would have to have some sort of military capable of defending Iraq before they took such action. So, how quickly will they obtain such a military?
     
  18. EzInKy

    EzInKy Excentric

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,887
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Right. They have to get used to the idea that democracy is not just majority rule, but also guarantees the rights and freedoms of minorities.
     
  19. Yago

    Yago came undone

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    781
    Location:
    Under the melting permafrost.
    Well, the coalition forces (i.e. Americans and British) will have to do anything to make alliances with the different groups (I do not mean the 3 ethnicities), i.e. make deals do get good relations with the Iraqis. A majority of the Iraqi people somehow not happy with the coalition-forces would mean a nightmare for them they could not afford in anyway. Therefore I see a complicated give me this, I'll give you that construct of goverment in the end and no elections with not pre-picked candidates.

    And there goes self-determination down the drain. It's good as soon we say it's good. If it's not good, it's not democracy. If it's not democracy, it's not acceptable and we're not done.

    This whole thing will take a lot of time. A lot of time.
     
  20. bobgote

    bobgote Trousers

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    4,786
    Location:
    Melbourne, VIC
    we're talking about what would be acceptable to the US here, and Mr.Pres is absolutely right. if there is a chance the US wouldn't win a vote, they would (rightly, and sensibly) not go down that path. It would be stupid.

    perhaps (but it's OUR regime), but for any government to rule, they will need a security force. simple as that.
     

Share This Page