Acidus wrote:
] ] The clerics generally agree that the constitution must
] ] ensure that no laws passed by the state contradict a
] ] basic understanding of Shariah as laid out in the Koran.
] ] Women should not be treated as the equals of men in
] ] matters of marriage, divorce and family inheritance, they
] ] say. Nor should men be prevented from having multiple
] ] wives, they add.
] ]
] ] One tenet of Shariah mandates that in dividing family
] ] property, male children get twice as much as female
] ] children.
] ]
] ] "We don't want to see equality between men and women
] ] because according to Islamic law, men should have
] double
] ] of women," said Muhammad Kuraidy, a spokesman for
] ] Ayatollah Yacoubi. "This is written in the Koran and
] ] according to God."
]
] Ahh yes, Democracy, so long as it doesn't violate Islamic law.
] You think Bush's "mandate from the people" has caused some
] aggressive policy proposals? This 3 page NYTs article
] discusses what the leading (and very conservative) Shiite
] Ayatollahs plan to do with their "mandate," and it has very
] little to do with freedom or equality. It haseverything to do
] with as Islamic of a state is possible. Try this on for size:
]
] The leading Shiite clerics say they have no intention of
] taking executive office and following the Iranian model of
] wilayat al-faqih, or direct governance by religious scholars.
] But the clerics also say the Shiite politicians ultimately
] answer to them, and that the top religious leaders,
] collectively known as the marjaiya, will shape the
] constitution through the politicians.
]
] Dance my puppets Dance!

Oh wtf did anyone THINK was going to happen the way we set their govt up? ONe house? No checks and balances? Permission for all minorities to be completely run over.

That was not a real VOTE. That's not a democratic govt as we think of it. AND I've not seen this reported on FOX.

skullaria wrote:
] Oh wtf did anyone THINK was going to happen the way we set
] their govt up? ONe house? No checks and balances?
] Permission for all minorities to be completely run over.
]
] That was not a real VOTE. That's not a democratic govt as we
] think of it. AND I've not seen this reported on FOX.

My understanding is the election was simply to elect the body of people who would essentially formulate the constitution, which would define how the government was setup. The constitution may very well include checks and balances.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/opinion.asp?ArticleID=148407

I originally saw Karim Khutar Al Musawi interviewed on C-SPAN but the video link doesn't work, I checked.

"Don't be fooled by propagandists: This election process to create a transitional national assembly that will begin to build durable democratic institutions and draft an Iraqi constitution is for the benefit of all, not to favour one class or group over the others."

It's a transitory democratic government, nothing more.

adam wrote:
] Ahh yes, Democracy, so long as it doesn't violate Islamic law.
] You think Bush's "mandate from the people" has caused some
] aggressive policy proposals? This 3 page NYTs article
] discusses what the leading (and very conservative) Shiite
] Ayatollahs plan to do with their "mandate," and it has very
] little to do with freedom or equality. It haseverything to do
] with as Islamic of a state is possible.

I'm not sure we should project western ideals and morals upon other groups of people. It seems to me that little of this was a surprise; certainly there's never been any chance whatsoever of a real seperation between religion and the state a la the west. In the sense that the people as a whole are (indirectly) electing their leaders, it has everything to do with freedom. As for equality, I don't think it was ever about that.

The real question is: do we think a nation should have the right to elect a government which may have ideals in terms of equality (particularly gender equality) that are vastly different than ours? If the answer is no, then how can we truly say we believe in democracy?

] I'm not sure we should project western ideals and morals upon
] other groups of people.

I agree, and that is exactly my point. How was the war sold to the American people? Three parts really:

1- Dangerous madman who can launch WMDs in 45 minutes.
2- UN Violations
3- Lack of Women's rights, lack of democratic government, lack civil liberties and the what not.

The deafening silence left by the withdrawl of all WMD searchs pretty much kills issue one as reasonable. UN Violations are something we routinely overlook when it suits us, just as it served our interests to make such a stand over them on Iraq. All that was left was 3, and the news coming from Iraq recently seems to show those are fading quickly. How much the mullas can sway the government is unknown, but this is not going to be the Island of Democrasy that Bush rallied on.

Would some one please explain to me why we spent 1,417 American lives and $200+ billion to tranform a secular country with a contained dictator into a country that will most likely have constitution based on Islamic law?

bmitchell wrote:
] I'm not sure we should project western ideals and morals upon
] other groups of people. It seems to me that little of this was
] a surprise;

Certainly Bush blessed this outcome before the November election, but I don't think the American people are actually prepared for it despite the paper trail they have laid out.

] certainly there's never been any chance whatsoever
] of a real seperation between religion and the state a la the
] west.

I don't agree. Iraq was a secular state before we showed up.

] The real question is: do we think a nation should have the
] right to elect a government which may have ideals in terms of
] equality (particularly gender equality) that are vastly
] different than ours? If the answer is no, then how can we
] truly say we believe in democracy?

The answer is yes, otherwise we'd be invading South Korea, but we don't respect it, regardless of the cultural explanation that is raised for it. "My culture is different" is no excuse for crime.

Having said that, the matter of an islamist Iraq is far more complex then this. Its not just that women will be worse off then they were before we started, is that Iraq will pose a greater threat to the region then it did when we started. Maybe not now, but fundamentalist states are violent states. It is inevitable.

Freedom is not about Democracy. Freedom is about limits to the power of government. Democracy does not create those limits. Democracies have been know to do terrible things. It could be argued that Iraq was always a democracy. In theory the people could vote against Saddam. It might be argued that Singapore is a Democracy. What is the difference in the U.S.? That we have two parties instead of one? Do we really have an "open" election HERE? Why weren't the Green and Libertarian parties welcome to participate in the presidential debates? What is the real difference between what we do and what they do?

The difference is limits, not voting. Limits are created constitutionally. Things like Freedom of Speech and of Religion. The fact that you really have the right to dissent, and not the power apparatus through which you do so. The later is meaningless without the former. A Religious State can have no constitutional limits, because to limit a religious state is to limit God. A Religious State can have no real right to dissent, as to dissent in a Religious State is to admire the devil.

So yes, I think, if you produce a fundamentalist state in Iraq the result you'll get will be worse then what you had when you started. We don't think fundamentalist "democracies" are the kind of freedom we're looking for.

Of course, freedom and democracy have one thing in common with WMD in that they have very little to do with our reason for invading Iraq. The real question is whether or not Bush can spin this one. I'll bet he figures he can. He went to war with a bullshit explanation, ended up having it thrown in his face, and still managed to get re-election by a population that eats his party's propaganda up like its the new religion. I'll bet he figures he can pull it off a second time, or he figures he'll be out of office before most people in the country figure out what Iraq has really become. I wouldn't bet against him. But 100 years from now people will be spitting his name.

Decius wrote:
] So yes, I think, if you produce a fundamentalist state in Iraq
] the result you'll get will be worse then what you had when you
] started. We don't think fundamentalist "democracies" are the
] kind of freedom we're looking for.

[ Hear hear. ]

] Of course, freedom and democracy have one thing in common with
] WMD in that they have very little to do with our reason for
] invading Iraq. The real question is whether or not Bush can
] spin this one. I'll bet he figures he can. He went to war with
] a bullshit explanation, ended up having it thrown in his face,
] and still managed to get re-election by a population that eats
] his party's propaganda up like its the new religion. I'll bet
] he figures he can pull it off a second time, or he figures
] he'll be out of office before most people in the country
] figure out what Iraq has really become. I wouldn't bet against
] him.

[ Me neither. If people haven't caught on by now, I don't see an epiphany forthcoming. ]

] But 100 years from now people will be spitting his name.

[ Well, more people maybe. A good portion of the entire rest of the world, not to mention a sizable percentage of this country, already do. -k]

Decius wrote:
] Certainly Bush blessed this outcome before the November
] election, but I don't think the American people are actually
] prepared for it despite the paper trail they have laid out.
]
] ] certainly there's never been any chance whatsoever
] ] of a real seperation between religion and the state a la the
]
] ] west.
]
] I don't agree. Iraq was a secular state before we showed up.

Yes, but Iraq was not a democracy before we showed up. Secular states in the middle east tend to be so out of fear of the power the mullahs hold, not for any interest in freedom and the ideal that church and state should be seperate, so government can't adversely influence state, and the reverse.

You can, of course, approach this the way turkey has, and subjegate the religion in favor of the state by having an organization of religious scholars who interpret the religion in state-approved ways, but freedom is impacted there as well. The other examples of secular states in the region are mostly secular to preserve power.

]
] ] The real question is: do we think a nation should have the
] ] right to elect a government which may have ideals in terms
] of
] ] equality (particularly gender equality) that are vastly
] ] different than ours? If the answer is no, then how can we
] ] truly say we believe in democracy?
]
] The answer is yes, otherwise we'd be invading South Korea, but
] we don't respect it, regardless of the cultural explanation
] that is raised for it. "My culture is different" is no excuse
] for crime.

Much like free speech, the west likes to talk about how they support democracy, but when push comes to shove, we really don't as a whole. While I don't think Iraq is likely to enact particularly anti-western positions (atleast, not while they need our protection) what would happen if they did? I suspect our citizens would be outraged at the way they decided to express their will.

]
] Having said that, the matter of an islamist Iraq is far more
] complex then this. Its not just that women will be worse off
] then they were before we started, is that Iraq will pose a
] greater threat to the region then it did when we started.
] Maybe not now, but fundamentalist states are violent states.
] It is inevitable.

Certainly not now, there are a lot of voices that have been elected in iraq. Some are moderate, some are not. Due to US input, women were guaranteed 25% of the seats. The primary role for these officials will be to form the constitution, so that is where we will see how iraq will look.

Without knowing how the constitution will look, you can't know what the threat level will be like. Non-secular does not necessarily mean fundamentalist either, there's a great degreee of range. I doubt a secular government will emerge, but I also doubt it will be particularly fundame... [ Read More (0.6k in body) ]

adam wrote:
] Ahh yes, Democracy, so long as it doesn't violate Islamic law.
] You think Bush's "mandate from the people" has caused some
] aggressive policy proposals? This 3 page NYTs article
] discusses what the leading (and very conservative) Shiite
] Ayatollahs plan to do with their "mandate," and it has very
] little to do with freedom or equality. It haseverything to do
] with as Islamic of a state is possible.

I'm not sure we should project western ideals and morals upon other groups of people. It seems to me that little of this was a surprise; certainly there's never been any chance whatsoever of a real seperation between religion and the state a la the west. In the sense that the people as a whole are (indirectly) electing their leaders, it has everything to do with freedom. As for equality, I don't think it was ever about that.

The real question is: do we think a nation should have the right to elect a government which may have ideals in terms of equality (particularly gender equality) that are vastly different than ours? If the answer is no, then how can we truly say we believe in democracy?