Do you support the Iraqi government?

[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.

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.

Doesn't that disprove your claim that Saddams are unusual in the Middle East because there are so few secular regime? Most are like that, and none are like Saddam. And even if they did end up with another Saddam, if the Iraqis can't elect a government and leave religion out of it, I say screw them, they deserve it. Let's leave democracy to civilized people.

Besides my #1 concern is over the Iraqi Christian population. They were tolerated under Saddam, the new government probably won't. I care a hell of a lot more about 3% Christian population than I do about the other 97%. As a Libertarian, I thought you were really concerned about tyranny of majority type things, yet that could very well result in the persecution of the Iraqi Christians.

And for that matter, even if you eliminated all fraud, insurgents and election irregularities, Iraq would not be a democratic government. Because all the parties are based on sectarianism, not ideology, except the communists. How is it democratic if all Kurds vote for the Kurdish party and there's no reason to vote for anyone else, all Shiites vote for the Shiite party, etc.? It's not like a real democracy where if you don't like how the leftists/rightist government is running things, you can vote for the other party. But why would you vote for the Kurdish party if you're not a Kurd? Imagine if the US parties were actually a White Catholic party, White Protestant party, black party, Hispanic party, etc. That wouldn't be much of a democratic system, wouldn't it?

[John Dibble]

Doesn't that disprove your claim that Saddams are unusual in the Middle East because there are so few secular regime?

So? That's not really the point of the whole argument, now is it? You act as if installing a secular government would magically fix everything, and I assure you it would not. If it was a democracy the same people would be in charge that are now, so really you end up with little difference, and if it was a dictatorship you likely end up with either a civil war(likely resulting in a true theocracy) or the tyranny that accompanies most dictatorships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Glad to hear you support tyranny when it suits you. Of course, since it's tyranny tends to breed the kind of people you're against, maybe you might want to rethink your position. Had Iraq not been in the position it was under Saddam, maybe things would have been better off even by your standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Iraqi constitution, Chapter 2, Part One, Ariticle 14 states:

"Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status."

Provided they follow their constitution in this regard, your worries are unfounded. If they refuse to do so, then under a secular democracy the problem would still exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course I am, but I don't feel that the tyranny by a minority or a dictator is any better. How is Saddam killing off those who hold political beliefs that go against him any different than Muslims killing those who have contradictory religious beliefs? The answer is it isn't really different. Tyranny is tyranny either way. I don't find the Iraqi government ideal, and I'm willing to give it time to make a full judgement(things are still quite turbulent), but I find it better than the realistic alternatives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I count 12 different political parties in Iraq that hold seats in the National Assembly of Iraq. Many certainly are sectarian, but the way I look at things it seems that each sect has multiple choices as far as party goes. Further, I would expect each party to develop more unique ideologies as time goes and the sects hopefully stop mattering so much. Also, as far as I know there is nothing stopping individuals from starting new political parties based on ideology. Given that the people have the right to vote for any party they wish and may start new parties if they wish to do so, I don't see how this isn't democratic - rather, it's just you don't like the parties they've chosen.

[Cubby]

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

Got it.

So we've been at war for 3 years, 2 months and spent billions of dollars to stop a small number of Iraqi women from being raped? Wow its been so worth it.

I'm a liberal who supports military action, you should be glad since we're always accused of being anti-military. I believe if we take military action then it had better be for the right reasons.

By the way, Bush only added the phrase "rape rooms" into his speeches when he was really trying to sell the war, like when he gave that 48 hour notice to Saddam on March 17, 2003. It was a focus group shock word that they used to goad Americans into supporting the war.

[Jake]

Should we invade Iran because they're taking care of their gay problem?

[MODU]

While this isn't official (and shouldn't be taken as such until December 07 gets closer), the latest word from the PM of Iraq:

"Iraq sets timeline for security takeover"

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Wednesday that Iraqi forces are capable of taking control of security in all of     Iraq within 18 months, but still need more recruits, training and equipment.

(skipping...)

After meeting with Denmark's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, al-Maliki issued a statement saying: "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."

His brief statement praised Iraqi forces for their fight against insurgents, but said his military needs more manpower, training and equipment.

(Cont...)