Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

If the United States doesn't like the results of the Iraqi Election. What will we do?


@SkinsGoldPants

Recommended Posts

We'll do what we do in any country when someone gets elected that the US doesn't like. We'll work behind the scenes, politically, to try to boost an American friendly opposition party that will hopefully get elected at the next go round.

Do you think this is a bad strategy?

Also, can you just link us the forum where you find these Anti-American think piece threads so we don't have to go through the effort of responding to each one?

Edit- I apologize Bufford. I got you mixed up with Burgold. I don't know your views and will not label you as anything until I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more then what every analysist and person who studied the history in the middle east could tell you, a democracy in Iraq won't work because people think of themselves as their religious sect, not Iraqis. In a perverted way, the only reason they are not fighting each other right now is because they are to busy fighting us. Once we leave, civil war is not only possible, but probable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more then what every analysist and person who studied the history in the middle east could tell you, a democracy in Iraq won't work because people think of themselves as their religious sect, not Iraqis. In a perverted way, the only reason they are not fighting each other right now is because they are to busy fighting us. Once we leave, civil war is not only possible, but probable.

You are right. Our only hope is that we can provide Iraq with some sort of identity so a form of nationalism will take over and quell the civil uprisings which will inevitably occur. Iraq is not the only country with such diverse religious groups in different sectors.

Chom, don't be fooled. They are fighting each other. What makes the news is them fighting us but there are about 10 different revolutions going on right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my point was....... if a Religious Gov't is elected by a majority. Do we just void the results and tell them to vote again?

No way. Not a chance. The backlash from the rest of the world would be horrible and impossible to take. I'm an administration backer, for the most part, and I would be furious if that happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll do what we do in any country when someone gets elected that the US doesn't like. We'll work behind the scenes, politically, to try to boost an American friendly opposition party that will hopefully get elected at the next go round.

Do you think this is a bad strategy?

Also, can you just link us the forum where you find these Anti-American think piece threads so we don't have to go through the effort of responding to each one?

Edit- I apologize Bufford. I got you mixed up with Burgold. I don't know your views and will not label you as anything until I do.

1. We will do that, but it is futile at this point, Chalabi got less than 1% of the vote and won't even keep HIS OWN seat. Alawi did not fare any better. There WILL be a theocracy in Iraq, and it will be closely allied to Iran.

2. Burgold isn't anti-american

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a civil war will occur. I'll give you the example of well, Pakistan, where there are many different ethnicities in the nation, that for the most part live seperate. Occasionaly in Karachi this is is sectarian violence, and the Civil War of 1972 was a result of half the country being 3,000 miles away and Indian intrusion

As far as a religious ruling party in Iraq, it is a big uh oh, but I gotta agree with Westbrook (jeez thats gotta be a first) that you will see a lot of behind the scenes work done by both the State Department and CIA in creating an American friendly party to be a counterbalance there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Democracy then.

However, I wouldn't compare Iraq to Pakistan. We've got groups in Iraq who have never really worked together. They were all under the thumb of a Dictatorship. Who's to say they want to be together?

They don't, but they do

1 The shiites want ALL of Iraq to stay whole, because they will control the country politically and they will have more power controlling a whole Iraq than a divided one.

2. The Kurds would be independant in a second if they could, but neither the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis, or Turkey, or Iran want to see that happen, so it won't without a civil war.

3. The Sunnis if they had any oil they would want to seperate, but Sunni controlled areas do not have the vast amount of oil that the Shiite and Kurdish controlled zones do.

Ultimately I think Iraq will stay together with an autonomous Kurdish zone and a bunch of angry sunnis that can't do much about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for Democracy then.

However, I wouldn't compare Iraq to Pakistan. We've got groups in Iraq who have never really worked together. They were all under the thumb of a Dictatorship. Who's to say they want to be together?

If you look at the history of Pakistan and India before 1947 it was the same case

And a lot of that bad blood STILL exists today.

You don't have just Sunni Muslims there, you have Sindis, Punjabis, Baluchi's, and those wierdos in the NWFP (also known as Pushtans), and when Bangledesh was "East Pakistan" you had Bengalis. Oh yeah, you also have the brightest people, known as Mahajars, who lived in India before moving to Pakistan, as basically an outside group

Even though 90 percent of Pakistan is still sunni, you have tribal violence. Punjabi's vs Sindi's, everyone vs Mahajars

But, besides 1971, the place has managed to stay together and has never erupted into civil war, even though for the most part Punjabis have ran the place

Its all confusing, I know, but I am just trying to show a similar situation

I guess the only counter argument would be that democracy has still struggled to take a foothold in Pakistan, even after 55 years of existence

Does this mean Iraq will not erupt into civil war? I don't know, but as Liberty just pointed out, it probably won't and Sunnis will just have to deal with it

Those Sunnis, if they are that pissed off, could just move to any other Arab nation dominated by Sunnis, and let the Shiites hang out and do whatever silly stuff they want to do in Iran and Iraq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if some of the "experts" on international relations and the Middle East posting this thread even realize that the UIA has BEEN THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE LAST 13 MONTHS?!

I love now how they are the "religious fanatics and anti-Americans" suddenly. Yet they and the Kurds have worked with us since last January's elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, we've sent the very best Democrat vote riggers we have left over from the 2000 election. Iraq has a little over 26 million people, and at the end of the day there'll be 30 million votes for the sunnis
Nothing makes me laugh like a right winger accusing the democrats of having rigged the 2000 election. It's like Bill Clinton passing judgement on Chris Cooley.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would make him a pessimist, not anti-american. People shouldn't throw that label around like it doesn't mean much, it does and it is terribly insulting.

I just reread the whole thread and must have missed where I called him anti-american. Shoot, could someone provide an example in any thread in the history of this forum where I have specifically labled someone as "anti-american".

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry, we've sent the very best Democrat vote riggers we have left over from the 2000 election. Iraq has a little over 26 million people, and at the end of the day there'll be 30 million votes for the sunnis

The Democrats lost the 2000 election, if they were rigging votes they weren't very good at it. If we wanted to rig the Iraqi election why would we send people who would screw it up? Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more then what every analysist and person who studied the history in the middle east could tell you, a democracy in Iraq won't work because people think of themselves as their religious sect, not Iraqis. In a perverted way, the only reason they are not fighting each other right now is because they are to busy fighting us. Once we leave, civil war is not only possible, but probable.

And another these people are not worthy of being people people statement from chomerics.. They are 800 years behind regular people blah blah blah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...