Al-SadrFollow

It looks like he's giving up, the americans are using the iraqi president to negotiate, and technically the iraqi prime minister is not an invading force.

Bush liberates iraq, Al-Sadr wants a theocracy, but bush has decided that iraq should be a democracy, and is prepared to kill anyone who opposes him. Bush saves them from a despot, and deems them unworthy to decide the means of their own government (not that it is a democracy yet, there have been no civilian votes and the prime minister has been chosen entirely by americans.

Al-Sadr stood up and fought for what is right, and in the eyes of the world he's a bad guy because bush says he is, thats not democracy, you shouldn't have to lay down your life defending mosques and killing marines to have your say in the running of your own country.

2 words: Self Determination.

I'm not arguing for a theocracy, i'm arguing for a state in which the people decide the government, and if the people want a theocracy, give them a theocracy, don't liberate them and then dictate the plans for the new "free" country.

Just poking fun at you Drac, i dig the fact that people should be able to choose. However having an Islamic led government in Iraq would not be a good thing. Im all for peoples freedom to choice of government but the US would just be facking up if they let Iraq become a islamic theocracy in the vein of Iran.
Of course Saddams secular, somewhat socialist dictatorship was a very bad thing.

Plus it should be no suprise that the US is going out of its way to make sure a friendly/co-operative government will be put in place. Just look at US policy from the 1950's to the 1980's in central and south america.

The most obvious example is US support of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile to oust the democratically elected President Salvador Allende a marxist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A716591

By allowing elections to be held atleast once, we are ensuring just that-Iraqis can choose. There isn't anything preventing Al-Sadr or Al-Sistani from being elected. But this way we can ensure that it is the will of all Iraqis (or atleast the majority of them) instead of just the will of the loudest Iraqis with the most guns.

when are these elections going to be held?



what if iraqs choice is to not have election (which cleary is the case as Al-Sadr has proved), then they are not chosing, the americans are chosing what they deem to be a fair way of seeing that iraqis have a choice, my point is that it should not be up to america.

I dig what you're saying Drac. What I am saying is that right or wrong it is not in the United States best interests for a Islamic theocracy to become the government of Iraq.

Do you think the United States is gonna be "okay well if you really want them". Not Likely. The US is gonna fight tooth and nail to make sure that it doesnt happen because it would be bad for United States interests in the country.

I also clearly showed that the United States has a clear history of not giving a fack about what the people of other countries want. They do what benefits the US. Suprise, suprise.

Is it fair? No, but not many things in this world are.

Also Al-Sadr was allowed to join the political process in fact back in April he was welcomed to participate in the elections if he would disband his al-Mehdi militia and work peacefully.

He is the son of a famous Shia cleric who was executed by Saddam. Al-Sadr has no formal religious training and pretty much takes all his claims and power from being the son of a famous cleric. He is also rumoured to be involved in assassinations of rival clerics. Especially al-Khoei who would not give him the keys to the Imam Ali Mosque that al-Sadr currently fights to keep. Turns out the mosque has the body of the Son-in-law of Mohammed and turns out quite a profit from visiting muslims.

He has tried multiple times to over throw the provisional government and never mustered enough support from the people. Basically reading up on him from several sources he seems like a sh'it disturber grasping for power. The main reason he does not appear to want to participate in the political process and the 2005 election is because the majority of "the people" dont want him.

Thats not even getting into the fact that he is backed up by the Iranian government who are a bunch of evil ****'s.

I understand why they're doing it, I was not questioning their motives, i'm sayiong they're bastards for doing it.



this is exactly the kind of ****** complacent attitude that is ridding the world of true communist states, "there are rich people who don't have to work while i work my *** off all my life, but what are ya gonna do about it? lifes tough, i might as well just get on with my job and let hte bourgoisie **** me up the *** because its too much hassle to do anything about it"

do you know how the iraqi prime minister got into power? do you know who voted for him? maybe dictatorship is the wrong word, but its certainly not a democracy.

Last I heard, early next year.



How can anyone decide what the Iraqis choice is unless you hold an election? Its clearly the case, simply because a couple thousand follow Al-Sadr, that all Iraqis want a theocracy? Are you seriously argueing that?

So whats your idea? Simply stand back and watch as the coutry decends into civil war as leaders struggle for power and simply allow whoever has the most money/guns to impose their will on everyone else in the country?

Also as i pointed out al-Sadr is free to participate in the 2005 elections and all up coming conferences and such of the CPA. So what are you b'itching about? He has been free since april. Despite armed resistance to the CPA, despite killing Iraqi police and american soldiers, despite likely assassinating rival clerics. They gave him get out of jail free card no strings attached and invited him to participate at all levels of government.

As for complacency, meh? Im a realist. I see the game and how its played, i think its retarded to expect a government to be some altruistic moral paragon. The United States is trying to set the game up so its friendly in its favor, its not the end of the world.

When Canada did not join the "Coalition of the Willing" the United States tried to strong arm us by putting/extending Tariffs on softwood lumber, over reacting to one case of BSE, and a number of other economic maneuvers. They tried to twist game to their liking. I spoke out on it, was not happy with it, and i continue to work against it but im not morally outraged or suprised by the US trying to have things work out in there favor.

You're not serious, are you? If Al-Sadr was to win an election on the "Turn Iraq into an anti-American theocracy" platform, you really think Bush would say "Ok, the Iraqi people have spoken"?

You're not serious, are you? If Al-Sadr was to win an election on the "Turn Iraq into an anti-American theocracy" platform, you really think Bush would say "Ok, the Iraqi people have spoken"?

Wouldn't matter what Bush wanted. The people of the US are so upset with the war at this point that yes, if he won a popular election without overtly deceptive means, I think the American people would accept that.