Iraq moving rapidly to radical Islam law?

This is from the "Informed Comment" by Juan Cole. I find it amazing that nobody seems to care that instead of spreading alleged democracy in the Middle East, the US occupation results in the direct opposite, i.e. installation of hard-core Shiite regime after all. What point in going after Iran if Iraq is becoming Ayatollah-land? Anyway, here's what Juan had to say:

The Republican Party spin machine was bouncing around the airwaves like an overloaded washing machine on Sunday attempting to obscure from the American public that they had by their actions managed to install a Shiite religious ruling class in Iraq. The New York Times even lead with a headline, "U.S. Officials Say a Theocratic Iraq Is Unlikely." This headline is probably wrong, but in any case it begs the question of what a "theocracy" is.

If it means a clerically-ruled state, then I agree with Vice President Dick Cheney that a) you have to look at what Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wants, and b) that Sistani does not want clerics to rule the country as in Iran. But the main goal of political Islam in the past few decades hasn't been clerical rule. It has been the replacement of civil law with shariah or Islamic canon law. This was done by the non-clerical government of Sudan, e.g. And that is where Iraq is headed. The only question is how wideranging the substitution will be. Will it just be personal status law (marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony, etc.), or will it be in commercial law and other spheres of society?

Even as Cheney was pooh-poohing the notion of Iraqi theocracy, Sistani's close colleague Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Ishaq al-Fayyad said, "We warn officials against a separation of the state and religion." Then Sistani's spokesman came out and said that the Grand Ayatollah Sistani "wants the source of legislation to be Islam."

A lot of Americans believe whatever Cheney says, though I cannot for the life of me understand why, since he lies to them relentlessly. He is the one who tried to link Saddam and al-Qaeda operationally. He even once said he knew exactly where Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were. Most people will only remember that Cheney said there wouldn't be an Iraqi theocracy, but won't bother to actually read the newspapers on Monday to see the news I'm reporting below.

Although George Orwell/ Eric Blair wrote 1984 as an anarcho-syndicalist socialist critique of Stalinism, it is becoming increasingly clear that it was also prophetic about the direction of Late Capitalist societies characterized by corporate media consolidation. In such a society, Cheney can substitute himself for Sistani and speak for Sistani, erasing the real Sistani just as the Republican pundits have erased the real Iraq. "Ignorance is strength."

Occurs Aelita, Sadam did not supported theocracy in his country under his “sadistic rule” as we know, but US has given the Iraqis Shiite majority the gift of bringing their Islamic rule back in power.

Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani followers and the ones that got the majority of votes in Iraq are the the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution of Iraq (SCIRI) headed by Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, and the Al-Da’awa Party, headed by Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, the Vice President of Iraq.

Now the nicest news about them is that Ayatollah Ali-Sistani is the leader and an Iranian and what he say it goes.

Iraq will become and Islamic state.

Way to go Bush and his democracy.

Does it matter? This is what Iraqis want.

Ok, on one hand they did not want Saddam. Why? He was a godless secularist. So we remove him. Who do the Iraqi people choose? A religous nut.

Proof in point, that the middle east is not ready nor willing for western democratic govornment. Given the choice, they voted in an oppresive theocrat. But it was THEIR choice.

So, now that thats settled, can we leave, knowing now that providing democracy to immature societies who still cling desperately to dark ages religous belief simply does not work?

But Skadi, what we are going to do with the poor women if Iraq?

Remember they have to submit to their husbands under Islamic rule.

Well it does not matter that under "evil Saddam rule" women had liberties and were part of the work force.

Oh well they will have to go back to hide under the veils and just stay home and let their husband do the work.

Originally posted by marg6043
But Skadi, what we are going to do with the poor women if Iraq?

Remember they have to submit to their husbands under Islamic rule.

Well it does not matter that under "evil Saddam rule" women had liberties and were part of the work force.

Oh well they will have to go back to hide under the veils and just stay home and let their husband do the work.

Well marg........thats exactly what they voted for, so maybe the women like it that way, who is to say?

But you are right, Saddam was very progressive, the most progressive leader in the middle east, so anyone who thinks we removed a religous tyrant is an ignorant twat in need of education.

I simply do not care about human rights abuses in countries that do not embrace them. Id only support liberation of a country that was traditionaly democratic and was forced into tyranny. Iraq has never been a democracy, they dont want it, they voted against it, and now we need to respect that descision, go home, and worry about the tyranny here, since thats a bigger threat to me than anything the middle east can throw at us.

Yep, if they choose the chains of religious servitude, I'm not going to say they can't wear em. What is important is that they were given the choice. It is also important that they continue to be given the choice periodically in the future. If their choice was the right one to begin with, it should be no trouble to re-affirm it, and if it wasn't the right choice, they have a chance to fix it.

That is the thing about freedom. You are also free not to choose it.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Yep, if they choose the chains of religious servitude, I'm not going to say they can't wear em.
That is the thing about freedom. You are also free not to choose it.

I wish that was true but under islamic rule is not freedom and it will not be democracy either.

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Yep, if they choose the chains of religious servitude, I'm not going to say they can't wear em. What is important is that they were given the choice. It is also important that they continue to be given the choice periodically in the future. If their choice was the right one to begin with, it should be no trouble to re-affirm it, and if it wasn't the right choice, they have a chance to fix it.

That is the thing about freedom. You are also free not to choose it.

Well yeah, the point is that that choice is not in the interest of teh United States in the long run, and that nobody will take responsibility for that turn of events.

Also, keep in mind that the choice was biased at best -- the secular Baath movement destroyed, and the Shiite movement actively suuported from abroad (Iran). I just feel the US is worse off with this in the first place.

Theres nothing strange about this. It was the inevitable outcome of a democratic election in a country in which the majority of the populace wishes to have a theocratic governing body. The only thing that is up in the air is whether or not the Shiites will continue to put up with the U.S. occupation now that they have taken over the country. Which was what has been the subject of contention since the occupation began.

can't blame them at all when the US's example of a free and democratic country is one that routinely iinprisons and tortures people based on the colour of their skin, removes the democratic rights of its own citizens in the name of national security and its 'democratically elected' presdient has embarked on the greatest war against brown people the world has ever seen!

They also consider the modern day banking system to be an abomination, that one shouldn't lend money for profit (interest). Wonder what our future budget projections would look like without the expected profit from our generousity?

But, well, what did you expect, Bush is also busy in this country trying to embed a sense of divine rule based on God's law. Read through the logic that has been said on just this board, and well, when they decide that women shouldn't be working outside of the home, and work to cut out her opportunities, well, we'll probably hear the same. They will throw their idea of mandates into our face and tell us that this is what we wanted, a nice little society consisting of biblical families maintaining biblical family values, where the man works, the women stays home, she obeys his instructions, since she is forced to rely on his kindness for her bread and water.
The women in Iraq didn't vote to lose her inalienable rights to a bunch of power hungry theocrats.....she voted for the perspective candidate that she thought would be the most likely to restore order and peace and normal lifestyle for her and her family...and, well, to end the occupation. And, even then, she really had no idea who she was voting for, just a bunch of groups, of which, she was told beforehand, by her tribal elders whom she should vote for. True democracy is long way off, and, if given half a chance they might find their way to it, but before it can happen, the shiite and sunni will have to see the other as an Iraqi before they see the shiite or sunni. This was a problem also in Yugoslavia, and agian, a tryrant was needed for the various factions to fear for them to be able to live peacably with each other. When that tyrant.....Russia, left, all heck broke out. I think it was easier in america, since we were visitors from many different countries to begin with, very much desiring to leave the tribal rivalries behind.

It will take time for them to change, the doors are open for change but they need to want it. Religion has always been a very powerful force in society and it can both be a force for good and well as a force for evil. Islam does not equal Taliban type laws, only fundimentalist islamics believe in such things.

It can go two ways:

- the sji'ite government respects the kurds and the sunnites, assyrians and turkmenes and this might lead to a emancipation of whole middle-east politics

- they will try to merge with Iran and work on some Persian empire, this will not be appreciated by the outside world

Frankly I don't know wich way the sji'ites want to take, for the short term they seem like the logical choice for their power of numbers allow to bring some form of stabillity in iraq , so that the american government pull out of of this immensly costly operation. Question is, can Washington keep dealing with this sji'ite government to have their usa interest secured???

Bush has indicated he want to cut 10 percent from the deficit, so its likely he wants to put a halt to starting another expensive full scale war.


A good sign in the whole matter is that sharon and abbas seem to try working to peace as well

A bad sign is the irans nuclear program and the problems that america might have with this.

The usa government seems in a catch-22 situation, attacking iran would probably bring a sji'ite uprise in iraq at a most inconvenient time, while not attackiong them potentially allows them to have teheran expands its influence, Gimme back Saddam!


[edit on 8-2-2005 by Countermeasures]

Well marg........thats exactly what they voted for, so maybe the women like it that way, who is to say?

As odd as it may sound to us, Skadi is absolutely right. This is what they know. This is what they've known for thousands of years...and this is why they CHOSE this. This is what they WANT. I've been telling you for over a year now, that democracy in Iraq will simply allow them to vote in a Theocracy. Trust me, I've lived in the Middle East, I've seen it. The average Joe doesn't WANT a say in politics. They very much like not having to worry about it, and being told what to do. This is how things have been for thousands of years, and you aren't going to change this overnight....

The good news, is that if the Theocracy is fairly US-friendly (which it will have to be to effect a significant withdrawal of forces), then the goal has still been accomplished. The real goal all along was to have a US-friendly locale from which to carry out the WOT. Qatar simply isn't big enough, or positioned well enough to effect this, and the Saudis were no longer playing ball.