As you can read in the article, it has been revealed that the US plans to leave the Sunni government in place, rather than trying to form a democratic government. Remember that the vast majority of the Iraqi population is made up of the oppressed Shia Muslims and Kurds, who attempted to revolt after the gulf war, but were unable to do so without American support. Of course, the US is not really to blame in that case since Bush I had to promise not to go to Baghdad in order to get Arab support.
Anyway, the point is that a democatic government is not in the US plans. Makes sense, anyway, considering the tremendous amount of work and years it would take to completely reorganize the Iraqi social and political structure.
It's just interesting considering how many people on Apple Insider have used the idea of liberation and democratization as a supporting motive for war.
I don't support war because it will bring democracy to Iraq, I support war because Iraq needs to be freed from Saddam Hussein's regime.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But if they are leaving the majority of those officials in place, the regime isn't really changing that much. Sunnis and Kurds will still be oppressed, and a system that oppresses the majority of its citizens is basically what's in place now.
This is still based on a second-hand report, compared to the official who spoke to Congress and explicitly said that a transition to Democracy was the goal for Iraq.
No, BR, second-hand speculation is fact. It's already happened. The war is over and this has already happened. It's fact now.
Hell, Blair has said that it's a topic the U.N. needs to deal with. But forget that, too, this second-hand report from somewhere within a bureaucratic office is fact. In stone, baby.
Comments
As you can read in the article, it has been revealed that the US plans to leave the Sunni government in place, rather than trying to form a democratic government. Remember that the vast majority of the Iraqi population is made up of the oppressed Shia Muslims and Kurds, who attempted to revolt after the gulf war, but were unable to do so without American support. Of course, the US is not really to blame in that case since Bush I had to promise not to go to Baghdad in order to get Arab support.
Anyway, the point is that a democatic government is not in the US plans. Makes sense, anyway, considering the tremendous amount of work and years it would take to completely reorganize the Iraqi social and political structure.
It's just interesting considering how many people on Apple Insider have used the idea of liberation and democratization as a supporting motive for war.
Well, there is something keeping it from getting done, their apathy.
I don't support war because it will bring democracy to Iraq, I support war because Iraq needs to be freed from Saddam Hussein's regime.
It's a tough one, but I don't see why this is all up to the U.S. necessarily.
<strong>
I don't support war because it will bring democracy to Iraq, I support war because Iraq needs to be freed from Saddam Hussein's regime.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But if they are leaving the majority of those officials in place, the regime isn't really changing that much. Sunnis and Kurds will still be oppressed, and a system that oppresses the majority of its citizens is basically what's in place now.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Hell, Blair has said that it's a topic the U.N. needs to deal with. But forget that, too, this second-hand report from somewhere within a bureaucratic office is fact. In stone, baby.
[ 02-18-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>