Do you support the Iraqi government?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just wondering how many supposedly "anti-Islamist" Republicans here do.

I don't, and if I were President, I'd pull all troops out of Iraq and end all aid to the government unless it was replaced by a secular one. I would never under any circumstances whatsoever aid Islamists.

[John Dibble]

I refuse to answer on the grounds that you loaded the answers.

[MasterJedi]

I refuse to answer on the grounds that you loaded the answers.

^^^^^^

[Jake]

We've had this topic about once a month for the last year or so. We get it. You think the Iraqi government is comprised of Iran loving Islamists. Cool.

BTW, Yes (I support Islamists).

[MODU]

I refuse to answer on the grounds that you loaded the answers.

^^^^^^

But in the basic sense of your question, yes, I support the Iraqi government.  They've gone to great lengths to create a foundation where all three groups are represented.  Where they go from here will determine if all of their hard work was worth it.

[© tweed]

Not really, but they're preferable to Saddam Hussein.

[John Dibble]

I refuse to answer on the grounds that you loaded the answers.

^^^^^^

But in the basic sense of your question, yes, I support the Iraqi government.  They've gone to great lengths to create a foundation where all three groups are represented.  Where they go from here will determine if all of their hard work was worth it.

I would agree. Basically we have two options - allow a democracy with heavy Islamic influences that is bound to respect human rights by their constitution, or demand a secular one that would have one of two results. The first would be pretty much the same as the current situation given that the exact same people would be in charge(same voters after all). The second would be a civil war that would likely result in a true Islamist theocracy like Iran. BRTD's view ignores the reality of things - you can't force a secular government onto people who don't want it without trampling on their rights.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

An Islamist government is going to oppress the people who don't want it and trample on their rights, so there's a tyranny of the majority. If you can't have a secular democratic government, then you have to deal with a secular regime. When I say this people keep saying that's what Saddam's was like, but it doesn't have to be like Saddam, for example you can look at Egypt, which is hardly a democracy (they have elections which are slightly more fair than the jokes of elections that happened under Saddam were like, but they're also basically fixed so the ruling party is always going to have 80% of the seats and the opposition parties are just token and meaningless), but they haven't committed genocide against anyone or had any of the mass executions and torture you had under Saddam. Typically if you don't deal with religious whackjob groups like the Muslim Brotherhood there you're fine. I'd prefer a secular government such as this to some Muslim theocrats shoving their religion down my throat even through elections, Egyptian Christians are in a far better position than Iraqi ones.

[John Dibble]

Well, you can talk about what you'd like all you want, but it won't change the reality. You can either deal with an Iraqi government that has Islamic influence in it that is less than ideal, you can deal with a tryannical secular regime that stomps on the rights of the people even more than what you've got, or you can deal with a true theocracy resulting from a civil war that would be just as bad or worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Egypt is a far better place to live than Iraq.

[John Dibble]

So what? Does that change ANYTHING I said? No, it doesn't. You can't ignore the realities of the situation, tout some ideal, and then expect it to happen. Iraq has a government with Islamic influence in it - get over it, it could be much worse.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No it does prove my point, that the secular regime in Egypt is superior to the Islamic-influenced government in Iraq.

one question that needs to be asked is, why can't the Iraqis be as mature enough as the people in Western Christian countries that don't demand massive religious influence over their government?

[John Dibble]

No it does prove my point, that the secular regime in Egypt is superior to the Islamic-influenced government in Iraq.[/qoute]

Uhm, so? Just because you can find a secular regime or two superior to one Islam-influenced democracy does not logically imply that all secular regimes are superior to all Islam-influenced democracies. Remember, Saddam was a secular ruler and he killed many of his own people, keeping them in fear of him. Would you rather put him back in power? You have no gaurantee whatsoever that installing another secular regime wouldn't have worse results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the circumstances under which they were born, raised, and have lived under are DIFFERENT from the circumstances that Western Christian countries were born, raised, and have lived under. For example in Middle Eastern countries religion is a much larger part of people's lives than it is in Western countries. You can't just equate things as if everything is the same everywhere, because it isn't.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Saddam was the exception, not the rule. You'd have a tough time finding any secular leader in the Middle East as bad as him. Even the previous Iraqi regimes before him weren't that bad.

Because the circumstances under which they were born, raised, and have lived under are DIFFERENT from the circumstances that Western Christian countries were born, raised, and have lived under. For example in Middle Eastern countries religion is a much larger part of people's lives than it is in Western countries. You can't just equate things as if everything is the same everywhere, because it isn't.

Yeah well that was changed in Turkey. It ought to in Iraq as well.

[John Dibble]

Saddam was the exception, not the rule. You'd have a tough time finding any secular leader in the Middle East as bad as him. Even the previous Iraqi regimes before him weren't that bad.

That's because there aren't that many secular regimes in the Middle East to begin with. The problem is you are making conclusions without actually analyzing the situation in Iraq - all you seem to care about is whether the government has religion in it or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah well that was changed in Turkey. It ought to in Iraq as well.
[/quote]

Change takes time - Turkey didn't change overnight you know. You can say 'ought' all you like, but it 'ought' doesn't end up doing anything, now does it?

[opebo]

Saddam was obviously preferrable.

[David S]

I support Americans and in this case I would support them by bringing them home. Yeah its too bad we destroyed their country, but the best way to get it fixed is for us to leave and let the Iraqis fix their own country.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Saddam was the exception, not the rule. You'd have a tough time finding any secular leader in the Middle East as bad as him. Even the previous Iraqi regimes before him weren't that bad.

That's because there aren't that many secular regimes in the Middle East to begin with. The problem is you are making conclusions without actually analyzing the situation in Iraq - all you seem to care about is whether the government has religion in it or not.

False. All of the governments are secular except Iran, Saudi Arabia and now Iraq.

[John Dibble]

Saddam was the exception, not the rule. You'd have a tough time finding any secular leader in the Middle East as bad as him. Even the previous Iraqi regimes before him weren't that bad.

That's because there aren't that many secular regimes in the Middle East to begin with. The problem is you are making conclusions without actually analyzing the situation in Iraq - all you seem to care about is whether the government has religion in it or not.

False. All of the governments are secular except Iran, Saudi Arabia and now Iraq.

Whatever, doesn't prove at all that installing a secular government will solve Iraq's problems - as I said, the exact same people would be in charge, so very little would come of it because it would be secular in name only. In fact it could create more if the people were unwilling to accept it, started a civil war, and you end up with a true theocracy. If you installed a dictator, well, you risk ending up with another Saddam, which regardless of what opebo thinks is not a good thing.

[minionofmidas]

Saddam was the exception, not the rule. You'd have a tough time finding any secular leader in the Middle East as bad as him. Even the previous Iraqi regimes before him weren't that bad.

That's because there aren't that many secular regimes in the Middle East to begin with. The problem is you are making conclusions without actually analyzing the situation in Iraq - all you seem to care about is whether the government has religion in it or not.

False. All of the governments are secular except Iran, Saudi Arabia and now Iraq.

Depends how you define "secular".

[Bono]

Why would I support them?
They never did me any good.

[Cubby]

No I don't support them. I don't give a damn about that waste of a country. I stopped caring in April 2003. Its sad that it took most Americans so long to come to this conclusion.

Now Iran, thats a whole nother ball game.

[Jake]

I'm interested. What do you see as the differences between Iraq in early March 2003 and Iran currently?

[Cubby]

This:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would support military action against Iran, they can't be allowed to do this. I'll never forget that incident. Of course, all Muslims probably wanted that to happen, but a secular regime wouldn't have allowed it.

[ATFFL]

So the execution of homosexuals is a casus belli but the systematic rape of women is not?

Got it.