• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War in Iraq is unconstitutional and unjust

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
stsburns said:
I think I might have the information your looking for? :comp:

religious_map416_1.gif


There are no precise figures, but the mainly-Arab Shias are thought to form a 60% majority and expect to dominate political life after the January election. Under Saddam Hussein, Sunni Arabs (about 20% of the population) dominated political and economic life. The Kurds, who are also Sunnis and represent about 17% of the population, mainly live in the north where they have enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy since 1991.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2005/01/iraq_religous_a_1.html

Thanks, It is comforting to know the Shias are the majority. I was not sure. With our help I bet the Sunnis can be overcome.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alphieb said:
Thanks, It is comforting to know the Shias are the majority. I was not sure. With our help I bet the Sunnis can be overcome.

We invaded Iraq to topple Hussein because he represented and urgent threat with his WMDs.

Now we are there to help one group in a country "overcome" another. That is the definition of civil war.

What in the hell are we doing engaged in a civil war against one group of muslems by another?

We are taking sides with the Shias against the Sunnis. Are the Shias a better group to be supporting? Is there version of Islam less radical than the sunnis? Will overcoming (ie killing enough of them) the Sunnis help us in the war on terror? What will be the ramification of overcoming the Sunnis in other parts of the M.E.? Do you think anyone in our Government even thinks about these things? Or is the main goal here to prevent this from looking like a mistake by the Amdinistration?
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
With our help I bet the Sunnis can be overcome.

Our efforts are not directed at "overcoming" the Sunnis in a military sense (except as noted below). Our efforts are directed are persuading them to become a part of the political process, to help design and then accept a constitution and a subsequent govt structure that protects the rights of minoritys, including Sunnis.

The exception: to the extent that Sunnis have joined forces with the extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq, then they are targets.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
Our efforts are not directed at "overcoming" the Sunnis in a military sense (except as noted below). Our efforts are directed are persuading them to become a part of the political process, to help design and then accept a constitution and a subsequent govt structure that protects the rights of minoritys, including Sunnis.

The exception: to the extent that Sunnis have joined forces with the extremists and al Qaeda in Iraq, then they are targets.

That exception sounds like saying: If you oppose the US occupation, we will (try to) overcome you. Since it is the Sunnis whom we have dispossed from power, and it is the Sunnis who will suffer most when control of the oil rich areas are given to the Kurds and Shias, and since it is the Sunnis who are most like to be the subject of revenge by the Shias and Kurds whom we are training and army, my guess it is mostly the Sunnis who are most strongly resisting the US occupation, and must be "overcome."
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
That exception sounds like saying: If you oppose the US occupation, we will (try to) overcome you. Since it is the Sunnis whom we have dispossed from power, and it is the Sunnis who will suffer most when control of the oil rich areas are given to the Kurds and Shias, and since it is the Sunnis who are most like to be the subject of revenge by the Shias and Kurds whom we are training and army, my guess it is mostly the Sunnis who are most strongly resisting the US occupation, and must be "overcome."

All that is true. The Sunnis certainly have the most to lose. Even though they were in the minority, they were the economically and socially privileged. And that is exactly why obtaining their participation in democratic reforms is so crucial. One, they have to be included so that they feel they have a stake in the outcome. Two, they have to be included so that they feel the new govt provides them protections from revenge. Certainly, it isn't easy going from a position of power and privilege to one of minority. It is a key task. But remember, the ME culture has always preferred to assimilate enemies rather than kill them, if possible.
 

Iriemon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
oldreliable67 said:
All that is true. The Sunnis certainly have the most to lose. Even though they were in the minority, they were the economically and socially privileged. And that is exactly why obtaining their participation in democratic reforms is so crucial. One, they have to be included so that they feel they have a stake in the outcome. Two, they have to be included so that they feel the new govt provides them protections from revenge. Certainly, it isn't easy going from a position of power and privilege to one of minority. It is a key task. But remember, the ME culture has always preferred to assimilate enemies rather than kill them, if possible.

From my limited understanding, the Iraqis as a culture have been more tolerant of diversity than other ME nations, notwithstanding Hussein's brutal means of maintaining control. So hopefully I'm wrong about the revenge part.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
hopefully I'm wrong about the revenge part

Agreed. Despite the popular perception of "three Iraqs", it is my understanding that Iraqis have always been quite nationalistic. Hopefully, this will work to everyone's advantage as we go forward.

More specifically, Iraq has always possessed a well-educated population (by most western and certainly by ME standards) and a strong entreprenurial culture. Just a few years ago, Iraq was a kleptocracy where the ruling elites prospered while food shortages, crushing debt, unemployment and hyperinflation plaqued the mass of people. Today, Iraq's economy is moving in the right direction. (For a commentary on the progress of the Iraqi economy, go here.) It is important that all Iraqis have an increasing stake in the success of their democracy.

If the Sunnis and indeed, all the various factions, become convinced that the rising economic tide will indeed lift all the boats and that the constitution as implemented by a representative govt protects the rights of all, then there is a good chance of success for all.

Granted, its a big 'if', but its the right thing to do.

Just my opinion - YMMV.
 

Donkey1499

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
3,945
Reaction score
56
Location
Under The Northern Star, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iriemon said:
We invaded Iraq to topple Hussein because he represented and urgent threat with his WMDs.

Now we are there to help one group in a country "overcome" another. That is the definition of civil war.

What in the hell are we doing engaged in a civil war against one group of muslems by another?

We are taking sides with the Shias against the Sunnis. Are the Shias a better group to be supporting? Is there version of Islam less radical than the sunnis? Will overcoming (ie killing enough of them) the Sunnis help us in the war on terror? What will be the ramification of overcoming the Sunnis in other parts of the M.E.? Do you think anyone in our Government even thinks about these things? Or is the main goal here to prevent this from looking like a mistake by the Amdinistration?

The Shia and Sunni thing is happening here. Except there won't be a civil war here cuz the libbies are too skerred to pick up and fight for their radical ideas. And I don't mean fighting by changing laws from the [judges] bench. I mean pick up a blade or a gun and duke it out. Then the winner (me) can rule the US with an iron fist. lol
 
Top Bottom