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 fundamentalist (although certainly, there will be fundamentalist elements in the government).

]
] Freedom is not about Democracy. Freedom is about limits to the
] power of government. Democracy does not create those limits.

No, it does not create those limits; however, those limits are meaningless if people have no voice in the government. Ideally you reach a situation where both exist, but generally speaking, democratic institutions should come first.

Of course, I don't consider a state a democracy until there's been a peaceful exchange of power. A lot of states have a fair and balanced election, but not a second one.

] 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

It's not a democracy if the opposition is dead before they can take power, and it's fairly certain that this would be the result. Being able to vote for something does not, in and of itself, make a democracy.

] 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 green and libertarian candidates can run as major party candidates as well. Certainly Ron Paul is not considered by most to really believe in republican ideals, but he is under that party. I'll grant you that it's imperfect, but the candidates are not shut out totally.

On the presidential election cycle (where it's much worse than the congressional and senate races), some work needs to be done to allow open access, but I don't think it will increase the percentage of voters the libertarians or green party gets.

As much as I hate to say it, debate funding may be a good use for the people's money, under the condition that it ensures any candidate that wishes to participate can.

I know there are a lot of 'little-l' libertarians in both the republican and democratic parties, I suspect the same may be said of the green party.

]
] 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.

In a nation state where the most typical exchange of power is via coup, constitutional freedom makes little sense. They need to walk before they can run, and democratic institutions are the way to get there.

If you can't convince the people that government power should be limited, than the power will only be limited so long as it does not cause any inconveniences.

]
] 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.

Certainly they are not. Indeed, if you ignore the hype, what we really want is a strong pro-west dictatorship. One that opresses freedom effectively and will serve our will. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both meet our requirements quite well, as long as we can maintain their pro-west tendencies and don't support anti-west groups behind our backs.

Democracy makes good PR, and at some point it may indeed become more free, in terms of speech, women's rights, and religion. Until the people become acustomed to choosing leaders via ballot box rather than ammo box, little progress will be made.

]
] 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.

Bush does have the advantage that the longer he basically gets away with telling the lie, the less people will really care once (if?) he is truly exposed. Already, the public is largely apathetic about the situation in iraq.

RE: Leading Shiite Clerics Pushing Islamic Constitution in Iraq