h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"the iraqui peoplehave made it pretty evidebt that their preferred form of gov't would be a theocracy run by mullahs similar to iran..but the u,s. has steadfastly rejected this and insist on tmposing an unwanted form of gov't on them...not the first time they have installed an unwanted regime doubt it wtll be the last"

The Iraqi people have made pretty evident no such thing and I'd like to see any evidence that they have. There is a vein of Islamic extremism in Iraq, but it is based largely in the south-east. They represent a minority, a vocal and violent one yes, but a minority none the less. Besides, Iraqis are human beings, why on earth do you presume they "want" a "theocracy"? They want to be lorded over by religious extremists about as much as you do. Why do you, and so many other people (initially only Rightwing, but sadly including an increasing number of Leftwingers) insist on patronising them and treating them (and arabs in general) as a bunch of deeply religious, ultra-conservative, unsophisticated simpletons who are too stupid and tribal to understand the concept of one man one vote? Stop treating these people as a stick to beat Bush with, crazyhorse, and start treating them with an ounce of respect.

And how on earth do you "impose" a form of government where the whole point is about letting people choose their own leaders and respect the rights of everyone in the country rather than a minority? Saddam was the one who "imposed", that's what dictatorship is all about and until I see evidence that the Americans intend to abandon their plans for an elected government for Iraq then I can't really see your point.

Before this one gets out of control...

crazyhorse: "the iraqui peoplehave made it pretty evidebt that their preferred form of gov't would be a theocracy run by mullahs similar to iran." - Please provide evidence to support this position.

Zagreb: "Stop treating these people as a stick to beat Bush with, crazyhorse, and start treating them with an ounce of respect." - This sort of thing is common to Ask H2G2, and the sort of thing we're trying to avoid here... as is the emotional language of the rest of the post. Let's try to keep the atmosphere of mutual respect here. We're talking about the US and a potential Iraqi government... not about Zagreb and crazyhorse.

You speak with heartfelt conviction Zagreb and I have no doubt of the validity of your arguments. I sincerely hope the refugees in the west can help. Am I right in thinking that many of them were already or have since become members of the educated classes?

I'll second that mugwump

Okay, Okay, I apologise. Personal attacks are not what this forum is about.

"You speak with heartfelt conviction Zagreb and I have no doubt of the validity of your arguments. I sincerely hope the refugees in the west can help. Am I right in thinking that many of them were already or have since become members of the educated classes?"

I have no idea what "class" they represent. Certainly in Iraq most of the well-off were Sunni muslims and Ba'athist party members (there was one area that BBC news (I think) reported as having a much higher standard of living than the rest of Iraq because it was Saddam's heartland). I would imagine that many, if not most of the people who fled Iraq had some sort of economic means (leaving Iraq was not just a question of driving to the border) and members of Saddam's own family were amongst those who fled. In short, as far as I can tell, they could be anyone. The Iraqis who have been most vocal in exile are likely to be from the "educated" classes, though.

I owe Iraq a debt. Five Iraqi doctors rebuilt my right lower leg.
They are fabulous at their job and the Chief Surgeon was a great man.
I liked him tremendously.
Thank You All Iraqi Medics

<...treating them (and arabs in general) as a bunch of deeply religious, ultra-conservative, unsophisticated simpletons who are too stupid and tribal to understand the concept of one man one vote?>

Your point is well-taken. I'm sure there are some who have held and displayed this attitude.

But there is also the possibility that Iraqis might be treated as members of a long-lived and sophisticated culture who consider one-man-one-vote to be a daft way to chose a government. And one reason for treating them in this way might be that it's true. I don't know. What I do know is that what *I* think is the only right, proper and desirable way of doing things might not seem so to someone else.

If I had my wise head on I might want to *offer* democracy to the Iraqis, for their consideration....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"I owe Iraq a debt. Five Iraqi doctors rebuilt my right lower leg."

I think what had always angered me the most during the 1990s (and I'm sorry I'm often emotive, but I'll try and explain myself here) is that George Bush Sr and the UN had sentenced an entire nation to having to live under a dictator when the uprising (which Bush betrayed) had made clear they wanted him no more than the West did. The Iraqis, in my opinion, are not and never have been "tribal" or "extremist". The Baghdad blogger, from what I've read of his stuff, reinforced this "just the same as us, really" angle. I got really, really sick of seeing BBC reports from Iraq showing us hospitals of dying children "the real victims of the sanctions" and then having to hear how Saddam was buying himself a new palace. The man was a fascist rat and for years I wanted someone, anyone, to do what President Bush failed to do. Finish what the uprising started in 1991 and take him and his damned Ba'athist Party out of power and give the Iraqis their country back.

So when Bush's son decided he was going to do it frankly I couldn't give a toss about what they wanted with the oil or international law. All I was ever concerned about was what was had been happening to a country of 20 million people for more than ten years with what amounted to international approval.

This isn't "having a go" at anyone, just trying to explain why I hold the position I do and maybe let some people understand why I take this stuff a bit seriously. Maybe too seriously sometimes.

Zag

"But there is also the possibility that Iraqis might be treated as members of a long-lived and sophisticated culture who consider one-man- one-vote to be a daft way to chose a government. And one reason for treating them in this way might be that it's true."

I think from what we've seen of the Iraqis recently, they are very keen to have their voices heard as regards the future of their country and this, if nothing else, proves they are ready for some form of democracy.

I think Islamic democracy will be different from Christian democracy, but the fundaments remain the same. We also have to ask, if we are so keen on human rights in the West (and correctly so) if we are willing to throw them to the wind in the Middle East because someone has determined that it's "traditional" over there.

Incidentally, I don't think the "classical" Islamic form of government has existed in the Middle East for over one hundred years.

<...this, if nothing else, proves they are ready for some form of democracy.>

Still at it, Zagreb? You think the ignorant savages might just be "ready" for *your* preferred political system? Yes, I know I'm being sarcastic, and a little discourteous, but I think you should really think hard about what the Iraqis have done to deserve *your* solution to *their* problems.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The point I was trying to make earlier is that the Iraqis want some sort of stability in their lives just so that they can survive. At the moment a number of them feel that Saddam Hussain provided this though certainly not in the most benevolent manner. And going from one extreme to another is going to cause problems.

Is Afganistan a functioning democracy?

Was the President of Iran fairly elected?

How many democracies are truly fair? The last US election showed the people didn't get the president they wanted. Why should Iraq get the president it wants? Isn't it more likely that the next President of Iraq will be the one the US and UK want? After all look wanted happened last time...

Yeah Zagreb I am an emotional guy and I understand your what's igniting your afterburners brother.

That is not a throw away remark. It is the only way I can hide my shame about the human condition. War, death, greed, love, hate.
All this in the sacred Cradle of Civilisation. I cry with you.

Well errr... as I understand it the President of Iran was fairly elected on a reform platform. However he is being blocked in his attempts to reform by the clergy.

The EU was (pre September 11th) attempting to empower the President (something like Mohammad Khatami) being constructive engagement with Iran (a policy that was having some sucess) before Mr Bush jumped in with his Axis of Evil speech and ruined all that.

I rather feel that a softly softly approach with Iran has to be taken (it was of course the imposition of western values in society and a pro western imposed leader which caused the Islamic Revolution after all).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/special/islam/3112846.stm

It's interesting to note that most of the 'Iranians are evil' comments in that article are from people in the US.

There are plenty of evil people all over the world. There will be evil people who correspond with this site. But tell me what do the "not evil" people do when they witness an evil act.
What do you do people?
Who do you tell?
Or are the people who you should tell evil too?

I don't like that "evil" word I find it essentialy useless as it describes whatever the user defines it to. No group discussion I have been involved in has ever been able to define evil to the satisfaction of all members of the group.
So before I try and answer what the "not evil" people do, who are the evil people, how are you defining evil ? What acts do you consider evil that we are to consider ?


Math

"Well errr... as I understand it the President of Iran was fairly elected on a reform platform. However he is being blocked in his attempts to reform by the clergy."

True. And what does this tell us? That Iranians are moving away from the Mullahs and Fundamentalism. The fundys only became popular because they represented a "bullwark" against Western dominance of their nation (represented by the dictator The Shah). Since that dominance has gone, the Iranian people are starting to see the Fundys for what they are - Ultra-Conservative Ultra Right-Wing anti-progressives whose power is not a bullwark against Western Power but against Iranian development.

"The EU was (pre September 11th) attempting to empower the President (something like Mohammad Khatami) being constructive engagement with Iran (a policy that was having some sucess) before Mr Bush jumped in with his Axis of Evil speech and ruined all that."

The EU were dead right in supporting Iranian moderates. It proved that we respected the Iranian people and their desire to move away from extremism without sabre-rattling.

"I rather feel that a softly softly approach with Iran has to be taken (it was of course the imposition of western values in society and a pro western imposed leader which caused the Islamic Revolution after all)."

The Shah was the real reason for the anti-western feeling, not Western "values" (which were almost non-existant, the country was under the thumb of a tyrant, not a liberal democracy, the Western values that upset the Iranians were the Shah's indulgence in Western luxuries whilst his people lived in much more miserable conditions). As for a "softly softly" approach, I sort-of agree. I think dialogue is more than possible with Iran, and I think sabre-rattling is counter-productive and will cause a conservative-backlash against the current President (who, it would be claimed, had toadied to Iran's enemies who were now showing their true colours). However, there are still issues with Iran, not least it's continuing support of some terrorist factions and it's continued persecution of religious minorities. What needs to be done is to welcome Iranian reformation whilst making it clear that support for terrorism cannot be tolerated by Europe or the United States and that, if this is dropped, Iran will be treated with the utmost respect and trade will be opened up (and once Iran benefits from Western trade and the standard of living increases, the Mullahs will be even further marginalised as mad old men who want to threaten a supply of wealth to Iranians).

"Still at it, Zagreb? You think the ignorant savages might just be "ready" for *your* preferred political system? Yes, I know I'm being sarcastic, and a little discourteous, but I think you should really think hard about what the Iraqis have done to deserve *your* solution to *their* problems."

The whole point of letting them choose their own leadership is that *they* decide the path their nation takes rather than some dictator. How can you "impose" people's own choice on them?

Well you can't, of course.



That's if *they* think that *they* should choose their leader, though, isn't it? And if *they* think that their leader ought to be nominated by their religious elders...? I'm not saying they do - I don't have a clue as to their preferences - I'm just saying that our system of democracy might not seem such an obvious choice to someone with significantly different cultural values.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"