DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ الديموقراطيه في العراق

[Safaa]

Good point Ala. However what I ment is the negative competion on resources.

 

In other places , such as Libanon or Bosnia, the real conflict was competion on resources, in Iraq the real conflict between factions is the fear from others .. Kurds fears return of facist Arab nationalism, Shia fear factionast dictatorship, Sunni Arab fear Shia majority democracy..

 

This would make the Iraqi confilict easier to solve by applying order and law, but the question of healing from fear is not . What Americans are doing in the last two years was to run Iraq into chiaotic personal liberty system where fears and unger toward others were outspoken to the upmost.. I found this as a best and fastest healing processes..

 

I might be over optimist here and giving Americans extra smartness credit but seems to me we need such harsh free dialoge between the factions inorder to spellout the disgust and fear

[Guest Ala]

Safaa.....dwelling on fear of Kurds of the return to

dictatorship, fear of Shia of dictatorship and fear of

Sunni of Shia dominance should be the talk of the past

and not the present political practices. We must start

speaking the language of competition and its protocols

and leave the bad experience behind. The language of

open competition is the antidote of the language of

fear. As for your referece to negative competition I

am afraid there isn't a thing called negative

competition. Competition is competition and negative

competition is simply not understanding the rules of a

competitive game.

 

I haven't heard any one (politicains in particular)

who spellt out openly what are those fears and

distrust? If we speak openly about such fear then fear

will vanish, but if we don't it will hamper any

progress. Our culture prohibites speaking of our

fears. Fear cannot be handled by hiding it, fear can

be handled by being open about it. Again I have no

idea why polticians cannot speak about this claimed

fear and distrust. I still believe that it is not

knowing how to compete in the political

arena....salam.....Ala

[Safaa]

"Again I have no

idea why polticians cannot speak about this claimed

fear and distrust. "

Ala,

 

Seems to me that you are really so distant from what is going on Iraq today! That is eactly all what politicians from all groups are doing today.. You need to be closer to accurately analyse and understand the current political process..

What are you asking for of spelling out is exactly what is happening every day in public and in free environment.. Pay a visit , don't affriad, it is your country..:-)

Any thing , not only competition has two phases, bad and good..What you are asking for need to have the background of trust and trust is not a slogan or dream , it is a hard work , the first one is to spell out your fears and that we are doing to day.

[Guest Ala]

In the last few days I was absorbed by watching

varieties of TV programs so I can have a deeper sense

of what is happening in Iraq. I have two accounts that

may direct our attention to the real thing. I must

admit that not having an Iraqi TV channel at home

helped a lot, since I see things on the spot and not

get used to it. Saad will disagree with this

 

The first one is Al Jaffari's talk to the National

Assembly. In his talk I sensed one side of his

committment to openness in all critiques, moving away

from Saddam's legacy of closed and rigid politics,

touching on some Iraqis anxieties and encouragement to

be open about our mistakes even if that may mean

enemies may use them. As for the other side of his

committment I need to know, like many others, how can

he and his government accomodate political thoughts

that may disagree or even clash with his own ideology.

For this only time will tell.

 

He showed good perception of Saddam's legacy of rotten

values. He said that even now we still have Saddam's

values embedded deeply in our thoughts and behaviour.

He tried to shift Iraqis thoughts and feelings and

that may mean new era for Iraqis to flourish. As for

his body language, it was quite sincere and it did

enthuse me.

 

He also identified that openness in critique is a

modern tool for better society and passive harmony is

simply an enemy of any progress. At some point he said

that critique can be convayed to himself, ministers,

managers and all responsible people, but what he fogot

or avoid or failed, that I don't known, to mention the

role of the media in critising the government and its

institutions. Media, though dangerous, is the most

powerful tool to make the required adjustments that

suit modern societies.

 

He also touched on an evident public anxiety of

ministers of a particular sect may try to employ their

own people to dominate or propagate ministerial

policies and isolate the rest.

 

His meeting with national assembly instigate some

optimism, but as a skeptic I still want to see

political parties wining or losing naturally depending

on what they offer or provide for the society.

 

The second observation was an interview with a

political figure who is responsible of the

distribution of petrol. He was asked about the

shortage of petrol and ways of dealing with it. He

said impressively that the petrol crisis can be

resolved by more supply to kill the black market (of

course there are other factors but I liked his initial

thought and here is my justification). Though this

(his solution) may seem a simplistic way (more supply

of petrol) of dealing with a huge crisis; he did not

suggest Saddamian ways of dealing with such problems.

He spoke the language of business, the language of

dealing of free market economy and not radicalised

solutions to impress and not to resolve the problem as

Saddam's political machinary used to do.

 

Though I said two observations a third one has just

cropped to my mind and that is: on a TV program I

watched three young ladies presenting a program some

with Islamic dress and others with modern dress. That

in itself may suggest some sense of tolerance among

themselves and the TV authorites...Good for Iraqis if

they maintain such spirit for the next 20 years....salam....Ala

[Guest moron99]

I must compliment the people who post ot these forums. The transformation is amazing. In just two short years you have developed a deeper understanding of government "for the people, by the people, of the people" than I would have thought possible. To have grown up under Saddam and then be able to learn such a fundamentally different way of looking at governance is a huge accomplishment. If the average Iraqi on the average street corner has the same discussions that you guys have then Iraq is going to be a great nation someday soon.

 

I think what Iraq needs is a politician who seeks to represent all Iraqis including sunni, shia, and kurd. At present they all seem more interested in representing their sects. To be honest - watching chalabi I sometimes wonder if that's what he is after (a place in history as Iraq's founding father). or - - he could just be greedy. I can't tell. He is a hard man to figure out.

[Guest Guest_safaa]

As for our experiences, I think that people inside Iraq are moving much much faster that our expectations.. We need to have a closer look to fully appriciat that. Yesterday in His speach to the assembly, Aljaafree started with a quranic phrase that ask allah to protect from the "Rajeem" Satan. Immediately a Yazeedi Kurd member jump to ask him to withdraw this as such phrase would hurt an important ethnic Iraqi group who believe in Satan!

 

I was amazed by the member point which I found constitutional , a prime minister should represent all Iraqis and need not to hurt the beliefs of any.. I was waiting the PM reply, I know what could be the answer if such comment was raised in any Arab or former Iraq governemnt.

 

I was amazed again by the PM reply. He said that this should not be considered against any group but related to how majority believe and we need to respect.. PM never jump or shoked , never went into pushing the member in the corner of being infidal!

[salim]

Today on Aliraqia, I watched a very interesting talk show.. An Iraqi woman activist, A communist assembly member and A shia scholar Shikh.. The talk was about the rights of women. The activist was going that Saddam "sechular" regim was accepting the Sedo rights for women excluding seven items , among which the right of Iraqi women to bring citizenship to their kids , she was accepting that on bases that Arabs belonging kids to their fathers name but she asked to reconsider rejection of some of those items by the new constitution.. When the Shikh started to talk , I thought he might defend some of the objections on bases of Islamic Sharia.. Not to my expectation , He went like this..

 

"First after reading throughly the Sedo list, he didn't find any of it's item in ojection with Islam. Then as far as citizenship, Most of Prophet mMohammed 's today sons "Alawees" are belonging to the Prophet through his only Duaghter, as he didn't have a son, so why we need to imply such discrimination?"

 

The activist was kind of not beliving herself, She asked " but we had been told that this is against Islam".. The Shikh with smile answered " It is all politics, nothing to do with islam"!!

[Safaa]

I am posting a thread that I went through lately, please read from bottom up

#####################################

Subject : RE: What mulsim women of Islamic socities doing wrong?

 

 

 

 

Ala,

 

Sedo is the International women right codes that most women activists are pushing to implement around the world. Unfortunately I don't know a web link to it..But I have a cousin who is very active in that area and she might be of help.

 

As for your points and concerns, I am fully agree with..However, the question in Iraq today is not if we can change islamic prospective s and views, which by the way are extremely different among different Sheikh and factions, but is about how to protect people from religious autocracies rolling over people rights.. Some of these rights are what you just listed.

 

I think this is strictly related to the issue of the relation between state and religion. I think we have two different extreme cases in our Muslims countries.. One is the took over of state on religion such as Saudi and other like systems. the other is the took over of religious authorities, such as Iranian Wealiat fagih and talaban.

 

Both of them, to my understanding isn't adequate to the new civilized ruling system. There should be a complete separation. And here is the problem in the Iraqi constitution. Today when some islamists , both Shia and Sunni, are pushing for some Islamic views imposing, is not to take over of state but is to protect religion from State.. However there are others who are going further into some took over the legislation process.

 

I might be considered as showing some sympathy with Shia tradisionists, but to my knowledge , these people are pushing for the separation than for the took over. This is part of their main believe that Islam is not a religion of state but is religion of people..This is a long subject but we need to pay this a special attention as the majority of iraqis are a traditionist Shia, with Systani today as one of the main scholar figures.. Here i am not saying Syatani has a different Islamic views than other when it comes to islamic crees but what i am saying is that to systani and other like scholars, people should decide on their rights not any one else , even the Imams.people should be free to choose.

 

That is why he insisted, from religious point of view, on elected representatives to write the constitution and that why he shy away from interfering to the writing process.

 

I know we all have a lot of suspicious feelings toward any thing religious, but I feel that the Iraqi experience is really unique and we should all give it a chance, let us wait and see what that constitution draft will look like and then and only then, we can jump with all of our concerns..

 

Please remember that according to the Iraqi interim law , people have to approve it, and any three provinces has the right to denounce, including the three most secular kurdish ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: RE: What mulsim women of Islamic socities doing wrong?

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:16:40 +0100 (BST)

 

 

 

Mudafar...I am glad that you come across such phenomenon. I think it is dangerous and has to be addressed.

 

Sorry Safaa....what is sedo international regulations? I would like to read about it.

 

The trouble with this Shaikh and many others' argument is that most of them always say that issues that touche on human liberties are in no contradiction with Islam. The question then is "what makes them keen on implementing Islamic legislation or stating that Islam as the main religion in the constitution?". Such attempt isn't about Islamic identity, it may be about having a more acceptable image of Islam.

 

This kind of talks could be a pre-planned attempt to normalise Islamic laws and make them seem in line with liberal democracy. I would like to ask this Shaikh what if a women fall in love with another person of different religion or an humanist person and they would like just to live a life without religion. Would she be considered "Murtada" and killed according to old Islamic laws or there is new version of Islamic law which allow them to live without her trying to convert her husband to Islam?.

 

To demonstrate more sincere account of what is Islam is all about, I think if well-known religious figures are sincere about how Islam is in no contradiction of liberal freedom of speech, human rights, freedom of leaving a particular religion....etc then they much issue fatwas or at least state that on their websites clearly. They should state human rights issues, freedom of religion issues, freedom of choice issues...etc and how Islam has not contradiction with them. It is not enough to say that Islam is no contradiction with above issues.

 

I once asked Al Sistani website of what he or they would say about the destruction of Christian properties (liquor shops, beauty saloons...etc) in Basra by fanatic Muslims. What I got is a flood of infected emails to punish me for raising such issue. Sorry I don't mean to offend Al Sistani I am pretty sure Sunni Imams would do the same. But to say that we are millions of miles from tolerance to modern liberal human rights.

 

The other question was why Christians and others must pay Jizya and Kharaj (which are extra taxes imposed on Christians and Jews living in Islamic state) though they are citizens of a particular country. It is inhumane to discriminate against citizens of different religions. By the way the origin of these taxes was: Christians and Jews must pay these extra taxes to stay alive (as justified by as Ahl Al Kitab) on the other hand others of other relgions must be either killed or opt to convert to Islam...The points I am making here are to just to knock Islam on the head but to say: unless there are explicit announciations of how Islam meets modern human rights issues from religious figure across the globe then people still look at the past history of Islam and find a lot inconsistencies with modern human rights ...salam...Ala

 

 

 

Ala,

 

Again as optimist, I need to bring somepoints

 

Let us not forgot that Iraqi women had achieved alot of their rights over the last fourty years.. The Alhwal Shakhsia of Qassim is of the most bright achievments in ME, also don't forget that though over the last foury years of Saddam rulling women had some chance of being equal to men, that is in their sufferings which made them as equal in right demanding as men.

 

Adding to that what I call it , the secular mentality of Iraqi people when compared to other neighboring Arb Moslim countries.

 

Today when you see more women dress Hujab inside Iraq, they mainly do that for security reasons. Islamist thugs are following sofour women. I remeber a friend in Mosul told me that even Chrestians women are doing that..

 

Let us wait for the new constitution, I hope it grants more .. Let us wait and see before giving any judgment.. Last week I ran into some Aliraqia talk show, where a Shia prominent Najafee style Shiekh was asked about his opinion of accepting Sedo international regulations , that most Arab secular including Iran and Saddam "secular" former regime had reservations on some five main points, the Shiakh confidently replied that he read it and found no any contrzdiction with islam.. The woman activist who was attending got amazed. She even became anti feminist when they discussed some other more radicle issue that the Shiekh was accepting..

 

Safaa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject: RE: What mulsim women of Islamic socities doing wrong?

Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:15:00 -0700

 

 

 

Ala

 

You hit the nail on the head. I always wondered why Iraqi women with education are so conservative in thinking and now are so wrapped up in the so called Muslim style of clothing of 7ijab and baggy coats etc.

 

I doubt that we will see women who will carry the torch of women liberalism in Iraq very soon simply because of the closed society. Although I hope that what Safaa had indicated earlier that the Americans are encouraging dialogue and bringing up issues to the open is true, this will start a major movement. Women are already having rallies to push for their rights in the constitution that the Islamists are trying to write with the middle ages mentality.

 

mudhaffar

 

 

 

Subject: What mulsim women of Islamic socities doing wrong?

 

 

Since the start of the feminist movement during the sixties, women in the West has achieved a reasonably good deal of equal treatment in Western societies. Though I am with moderate feminist movement and not the radical ones I still believe that in middle eastern societies women must have a role to change societies to more open and more geared toward or focused on achieving individuals' potential.

 

It is a fact that Muslim societies don't cater for human rights in general and women's needs in particular to reach their full potential and participate in building more humane societies. It seems very difficult to get Muslim societies to give better roles for women, therefore Muslim women devised a wrong role to have more say in social development. Of course they couldn't implement feminist values in a rigid Muslim societies since they are forbidden by fatwas from male imams, thus women adopted a more radical Islamic role to assert themselves in male dominant societies. Of course by doing so women can even dominate men in these societies and men can't do much about it because men traditionally are the tool to implement backward Islamic values. In other words, women in Muslim societies have no choice but to devise a stupid way to get what they think they want.

 

This new trend in Muslim societies is quite dangerous and misleading since it gives women some power by being radical on Islamic values, but it takes away a lot of their liberties and positive contributions in societies. I have seen women speaking more radical Islamic language than men (as in wearing hijab, marriage, divorce, inheritance, choice of leaving Islam, marriage to Christians or others, how their children must be raised?....etc).

 

Also Muslim women are so desperate to wrongly reach their potential in such societies, they start manipulating their sons and daughters to become even more radical than their fathers to dominate the family arena in Islamic tradition. This is very dangerous and would lead to new breed of Muslims who speak the language of supporting women's role in societies for the wrong reasons.

 

I remember in Iran when the war, started by Saddam, most Iranian young men are sent to walk on mines were driven by the desire to please their monthers rather than their fathers....salam....Ala

[Guest Guest]

It is CEDAW not SEDO

 

Please have a look and thank you for sharing your debates

 

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/

[salim]

Iraq's Assembly Is Given Charter, Still Unfinished

By DEXTER FILKINS and JAMES GLANZ

Published: August 23, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Tuesday, Aug. 23 - Iraqi leaders submitted a draft constitution to the National Assembly just before their self-imposed midnight deadline on Monday, but disagreement with Sunni leaders and other, secular Iraqis left the document incomplete, with fundamental issues still in dispute.

In a legal sleight of hand, the Iraqis decided to give themselves three additional days to close the gaps, despite the requirement in the country's interim constitution that the document be completed by a deadline, which already had been extended a week. That left some Iraqis on the 275-member National Assembly wondering whether they were still in charge, and some Sunni leaders asserting that the delay was illegal.

 

Shiite and Kurdish leaders said they had come close to completing the constitution on Monday night, but had bogged down over a handful of issues they say can be resolved in the next few days. Most of the disputes pitted them against leaders of the embittered Sunni minority, who had been shut out of the negotiations for much of the past week.

 

But the Sunnis were not alone in their opposition; they were joined on some major issues by a group of secular Iraqis, led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister. Mr. Allawi's group is concerned about what its members describe as an Islamist-minded coalition of the majority Shiites that is pushing for a large autonomous region in the oil-rich south.

 

Indeed, some Iraqis said Monday that the leaders of the main Shiite coalition, called the United Iraqi Alliance, had intended to cut the Sunnis out of the process altogether, and give a completed constitution to the National Assembly over their objections. Mr. Allawi and some Kurdish leaders stepped in to block that move.

 

Whether to allow a large Shiite-dominated autonomous region in southern Iraq, which also contains the largest oil fields, is the principal unresolved issue. Sunni leaders and the secular Shiites say they are concerned that such a huge and powerful autonomous region could lead to the breakup of the country.

 

Minutes after the meeting adjourned, Mr. Allawi, a hulking figure, strode from the National Assembly chambers surrounded by a throng of bodyguards and aides. Asked whether he thought there would be a deal, he turned his head and shrugged.

 

"God willing, maybe," Mr. Allawi said, and then he turned down the marble staircase and headed out.

 

The unusual way in which the Iraqi leaders presented the constitution to the National Assembly - claiming they had met their deadline, but granting themselves another extension - injected a sense of disarray into the proceedings. Most members left the chambers without reviewing the document.

 

"I haven't seen it," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite leader, walking out.

 

The 72 hours the Iraqis gave themselves came in addition to the seven-day extension they voted for a week ago.

 

At the heart of the dispute was the decision to largely exclude the Sunni leaders from the talks on the constitution, after the failure to meet the first deadline last week. That meant that any agreements struck by the Shiite and Kurdish negotiators were not really complete.

 

When the Sunnis were finally brought into the negotiations on Monday afternoon, they promptly rejected several of the constitution's most fundamental provisions.

 

"There are about 20 issues in there that are unresolved," said Saleh Mutlak, one of the Sunni leaders.

 

Despite the confusion, some Iraqi leaders expressed confidence that they would be able to finish the constitution in the next three days. In addition to the unresolved questions on Shiite autonomy, they said the two main disputes were whether the constitution would contain language barring members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from working in the government and how the president and prime minister would be selected.

 

"The number of issues that we have agreed to in such a short space of time is remarkable," said Barham Salih, a Kurdish leader and minister for planning in the current government.

The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has a played a central role in helping the Iraqis reach a deal, told CNN afterward that the Iraqis had met "the legal requirement." He hinted at some frustration with the Sunnis, and said he suggested that he would be pressing them in the days ahead.

"If the Sunnis do not support he constitution, that would be very negative," Mr. Khalilzad said. "If one could get from the Sunnis who are participating in particular broad support, that would be extremely helpful."

 

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice congratulated Iraqi leaders for completing a draft constitution and for what she said was a statesmanlike decision to use the next three days to continue reaching out to build the broadest national consensus for it.

 

"Step by step, the Iraqi people are charting their own path toward a shared future of freedom," Ms. Rice said in a written statement. "The process by which Iraqis have reached this point is historic and in the best tradition of democracy."

 

The Sunni leaders emerged form the negotiations on Monday appearing angry and frustrated, making it clear that they disagreed on several fundamental issues. Some of them said they were would refuse even to take part in any more negotiations.

 

"I don't trust the Shiites anymore," said Mr. Mutlak, the Sunni leader. "Frankly, I don't trust the Americans."

 

Shortly after he said that, Mr. Mutlak turned and bumped into Humam Hamoudi, a Shiite cleric and the chairman of the constitutional drafting committee.

 

"Congratulations," Mr. Hamoudi said to Mr. Mutlak.

 

"No, no," said Mr. Mutlak, unsmiling. "Congratulations to you."

 

"No," Mr. Hamoudi said. "You."

 

The Sunni leaders said they favored giving the negotiations more time, perhaps several weeks, or, failing that, a dissolution of the government and fresh elections.

 

Such a prospect seemed unlikely, if only because the Sunnis, who largely boycotted the January elections, hold virtually no seats in the Assembly. For that reason, they cannot legally block the passage of the constitution.

 

Politically, though, their agreement is considered crucial by many Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration, since it is the Sunni population that forms the backbone of the guerrilla insurgency.

 

Mr. Mutlak and other Sunnis seemed to be trying to leverage that desire as well as they could. Asked what would happen if the constitution were approved without their support, Mr. Mutlak hinted darkly at the future.

 

"If this constitution passes, the streets will rise up," he said.

 

The Sunnis and other Iraqis, including the secular bloc led by Mr. Allawi, are concerned that setting up an autonomous region could be a prelude to establishing a separate state, one that would have most of Iraq's population and most of its oil. According to some negotiators, the secular Shiite leaders had favored withholding the incomplete constitution from the Assembly and opting for a longer delay.

[salim]

left some Iraqis on the 275-member National Assembly wondering whether they were still in charge, and some Sunni leaders asserting that the delay was illegal.

 

According to the intrum law , the draft should be drafted by the dead end time. there is no cluase of assembly voting on it as the final say will be by people on oct 15th with any three stets "including the three majority Sunni" of vetoing it. The draft was submitted in time and discussing and accepting it by assembly can be done later according to the assebly law last month.

Approving by non ellected representative is not a necessary , but leaders wanted to give them more time to think and consult more . Keeping things hanging in the hand of some non ellected representative is avery dangrous thing to do.

Submission don't mean that it is ready to be distributed and discussed , that why some members never recieved it on spot.They will get the final fine tuned draft by tomorrow

 

Most of the disputes pitted them against leaders of the embittered Sunni minority, who had been shut out of the negotiations for much of the past week.

 

That was not true as Alyaour and Alhasani were part of that hard negotiation.. Excluding some radical Sunni Arab who had possible strong ties with Saddamists might explainable.

[Guest Guest]

Have a look to this rubish!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4177266.stm

 

under Saddam, a government official needed to memorise ten long Suras of Quran before get into position. It is an insult to suclerism calling Saddam regim as Secular. The writer might not knew that Saddam constitution had much more strong refrences to Islamic codes that the current draft.!

I also failed to underztand the relation of fair distribution of wealth among Iraqis with religous rise in power. So it is better to have all wealth in the hands of the central Sunni Arab govermemnt with so strong sympathy to Qaeda?

[American Joe]

Have a look to this rubish!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4177266.stm

 

under Saddam, a government official needed to memorise ten long Suras of Quran before get into position. It is an insult to suclerism  calling  Saddam regim as Secular. The writer might not knew that Saddam constitution had much more strong refrences to Islamic codes that the current draft.!

I also failed to underztand the relation of fair distribution of wealth among Iraqis with religous rise in power. So it is better to have all wealth in the hands of the central Sunni Arab govermemnt with so strong sympathy to Qaeda?

Dear "Guest" and others...

Yes, this is a fear from many American perspectives.

On the one hand, it would be better for Iraqis if things were not so rushed, in order that the 3 "publicly identified" interest groups, Suni, Shia, and Kurdish, could hammer away at a constitution that ensured a future free of tolitarian forces taking over. On the other hand, Pres. Bush is under imense pressure.....from most of the world {who are even to this day AGAINST U.S. involvement whatsoever} and a growing number of Americans to "make this happen imediately". Another huge factor is the killings inflicted on Iraqi citizens, Iraqi security forces, Iraqi governmental officials....and YES, American Soldiers. The general hope here, which is adding to the overall presure to "settle this thing now" , is that the quicker Iraqis have their Constitution in place, followed by more voting, followed by the ongoing political process of establishing Iraqi self-governance, the sooner Iraqis will step up to the plate in stopping the violence. These killers have diiferent aims, from instituting an iron-fisted Islamic State to reinserting Baathism to simply defeating U.S. intentions, but they ALL share the goal of destroying Iraq's hope for Democracy.

 

I admit it's easy for Americans to sit back, in the luxury of relative security, and say "Iraqis need to do more to help themselves". Iraqis, many of whom have never known anything else other than Saddam's terror and total control, have a very difficult task in front of them. Simply taking part in the political process is dangerous. When America declared her independence from England, at least the conflict was largely confined to military forces, clashing with each other. In the case of Iraq, every single Iraqi is a potential target, as is their family members.

 

All being human, mistakes have been made. There are certainly things which could have and should have been done differently, by American administrators, which might have brought us closer to a more ideal situation in Iraq.

 

But, as things are now...

America needs to fulfill its commitment to Iraq,

Iraqis need to move forward now with the process,

And America needs to accept whatever IRAQIS come up with, staying only as long as desired BY Iraqis.

[American Joe]

I must compliment the people who post ot these forums. The transformation is amazing. In just two short years you have developed a deeper understanding of government "for the people, by the people, of the people" than I would have thought possible. To have grown up under Saddam and then be able to learn such a fundamentally different way of looking at governance is a huge accomplishment. If the average Iraqi on the average street corner has the same discussions that you guys have then Iraq is going to be a great nation someday soon.

 

I think what Iraq needs is a politician who seeks to represent all Iraqis including sunni, shia, and kurd. At present they all seem more interested in representing their sects. To be honest - watching chalabi I sometimes wonder if that's what he is after (a place in history as Iraq's founding father). or - - he could just be greedy. I can't tell. He is a hard man to figure out.

 

 

By the way.....I write as an American....non-Muslim, non Arab...certainly ignorant in Iraqi politics as our media does not report on the nitty gritty of what Iraqis are doing themselves...how Iraqis are working, and sacrificing to make things work in their country for their country and families. The little that's actually filtered down to us here inspires much admiration for those in Iraq seeking to make a better society.

To:moron99

 

Responding to your comment on Chalabi.....I think he's motivated by BOTH. As his family was previously entrenched in Iraq, with major political AND financial influence there, prior to Saddam's reign, I think he could have both good and bad motivations.

 

Obviously, I don't know the guy's heart, and all I believe I know of his mind is what little I've read on him.

But.....

It's important to remember he's a convicted crook. Although he's stated that Jordon was simply going after him at Saddam's request, there are numerous articles, by unbiased sources, relating the true facts of his and his family's looting of the Bank he started.

 

Other articles read point out his constant maneuvering to recieve "gravy trains" associated, from everything from American financial support to his current obtaining and steering of oil contracts to close family and chosen friends.

 

On the other hand, he's long been an outspoken critic of Saddam, at no small risk to himself no doubt. Whether this was a principled stand, a calculated investment of risk for potential future financial gain, a reaction derived from his family being ousted from power and prestige in Iraq....or maybe a combination of all these.....who knows?

 

One thing is certain, he's a shadowy person who should be watched closely, and caution should be taken by ANYONE dealing with, or relying on him for anything.

 

In my opinion, the main thing to keep in mind is that Chalabi is first and foremost out for Chalabi. I say this based on, again, what I read on hm....but also because he reminds me of many of my own politicians here is the U.S.

 

But, as with anyone and everything in Iraq these days, I'm sure CAUTION is important.

[Guest Mustefser]

http://www.elaph.com/ElaphWeb/ElaphWriter/2005/8/86058.htm

Intersting article by an Arab nationlist scholar reaching people whith good analogy why American intentions should be with Iraq unity..