Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The party of the Shiits has got the major part of the votes. It's the party of the Mullahs and Ayatollahs.

So democracy is in good hands in Iraq now. Hence 5 years the women will be stoned for adultery and hands amputated from thieves. That's called "sharia" (gods law) and also valid in Iran and Somalia, another good frieds of the U.S.

It's going EXACTLY the way Middle East specialits predicted before the war. Oh my...

That's a gross oversimplification.

All of the reports suggest that the Shiites won the majority but not enough to go it alone. They'll have to reach out to the Kurds and Sunnis and compromise.

However...

Let's not get ahead of ourselves and become complacent.

All of this about God's law...

Again, the reports all suggest that although the Shiites would like to create a theocracy, they didn't win enough of a majority to be able to do that w/o upsetting the Kurds and Sunnis who have the ability to vote things down.

I for one am hoping that we end up with a secular system that is based more on pragmatic thought and sharing of ideas than the authoritarian theocracies that are all too common in the region...

Almost 50 per cent in the first elections was far more than I have expected. It's clearly the way to a theocracy like it is in Iran.

Very interesting is the godawful result for the U.S. friendly party. If the people in Iraq would appreciate the U.S. intervention they would have voted for this party and not for the Mullahs.

The Mullahs will take over at the latest after the next elections except the region where the Kurds are living.

The Sunnis said they would reject the election for a very long time. Many were expected a greater majority for the Shiia, but the Kurds came together toward the end and formed one big party.

It's also very important to remember that the Iraqi Shiia and Iranian Shiia are two, very different groups, and, in fact, they hate eachother.

In the Middle East people are more connected with their ancestors and their land than we are (we of European background). Look at their names, for example. It's common to be called Father of So-and-so, or Son of So-and-so. Or So-and-so of such-and-such.

And clearly there's a serious rift between Iraqi and Iranian ideologies that goes way way back.

You are right, the Shiits in Iran and Iraq are different and don't like each other (to put it mildly). Nevertheless the Shiits in Iraq want to have a theocracy and if they succeed (I am convinced they will) it would not be very different to the conditions in Iran.

The Kurds want to have their own state. De facto they already have it. The area where the Kurds are living is the only stable one in Iraq and in many things they govern themselves in the meantime. In my opinion this will lead to a separation in the long run. The Kurds will have their own country and Iraq will become a theocracy ruled with severity like the Taliban used to handle things in Afghanistan.

Maybe I wasn't being precise enough. The Kurds and Sunnis won a big enough percentage of the vote to secure their ability to Veto the proposed constitution. Thus, the Shia's hand is forced. They have to compromise with the Kurds and Sunnis, many of whom have publicly announced that they want a secular form of government. Even some Shia have publicly announced they want a secular government.

I don't know enough to say for sure which way its going to go, but I know all of the evidence that's out there now points to the contrary of what you're saying. You have to look just a little bit below the surface, that's all.

I see zero evidence that anyone in Iraq has the slightest idea of what it takes to make a democracy work, or any willingness to do it. To make a democracy work you have to set aside your religious preferences and your tribal loyalties and form a pluralistic society where diversity is tolerated and even valued.

There is no indication that anyone over there understands this, or has any intention of doing any such thing. If the Kurds and Sunnis want a secular government it's only because they know that if there's a theocratic government it will be a Shi'ite one. Most Shi'ites are not particularly interested in a secular government, which is why they voted the way the Grand Ayatollah told them to.

Suggested reading/viewing: Foreign Affairs Journal, the Journal of Current History, CSPAN, the New York Times (taken with a grain of salt), and anything that makes an effort to be objective. This means you're going to have to stop watching prime time television news and activist radio. With that said...

Anyone here who has read my previous posts knows that I've been highly critical of the Bush Administrations and especially their foreign relations policies. Iraq, to this point, has been a glaring series of failures. However, this roll of the dice -- the election -- seems to have produced a pretty ideal situation.

The Shiite leadership in Iraq has no choice but to reach out to the Kurdish and Sunni leadership. The Kurds and Sunnis will veto anything that they don't agree with.

At the same time, the vast majority of Iraqis, above all else, want the violence to stop. And people are receptive to leaders.

As an aside, there's an interesting book called the Psychology of Terror which presents the results of a study that show how people cling to leadership when they're reminded of the possibility of terror.

Anyway, I'm rambling now...

What I'm saying is although the Iraq situation sucks, I think there's a decent possibility that 10 years from now they might have a fairly stable democratic government.

...
-----
The #1 Boa constrictor site in the world wide web

there is exactly one reason there is no evidence the country is in the hands of radicals: the presence of a large number of U.S. troops.

Once we are gone, the election and the constitution don't necessarily mean one damned thing. You're seriously deluded if you think that the Shi'ites aren't going to extract revenge for all those years of repression by the Sunnis under Saddam, and you're even more deluded if you think the Shi'ites are going to accept rule by the Sunnis without a fight (which of course is already occuring).

These people will revert to their usual form, which is extremism and intolerance.

You're failing to make a critical distinction between the leaders and the people. The people are being killed by the radicals, and want peace. All of the polls illustrate this.

In terms of "extracting revenge", a good thing to come of this election is that the power has been taken out of the hands of the Baathists and been placed in the hands of the mainstream Shia. Most foreign policy experts agree that the elected Shia parties are more interested in holding on to power than inflicting punishment on the Sunni people. The way to hold onto power is to meet halfway the demands of the elected Kurdish and Sunni parties, and lead moderately.

You might find it interesting to know that you're the first person on the forum to react so ungraciously to my poking and prodding. You really ought to lighten up. This is, after all, the "Open Discussion Forum".

... you are thinking like that what you are: A member of an advanced western nation.

These people don't think the way we do. I will open a new thread about a very interesting story I saw on German TV yesterday. It's a telling illustration as to the way these people think.