Things are somewhat slow lately, so I figured a good poll and debate might liven things up a bit.

Why didn't I include a both or neither option? As to a both option, theocratic governments are not exactly the most free in the world, just ask the people of Afghanistan. So, take a stand. As to the neither option, I give the insurgents enough credit to believe that if America is driven off of Iraq, they probably have some plan in the grand scheme of things about what should happen with the country.

Both (and other). Even if we accept your limited conceptualisation of freedom, which I don't, there are different insurgents out with different motivations.

How can Iraq be truly free, if you imply that it cannot be free to have a theocratic government?
(Or in the current state - if by some miracle everything goes the way of the US - If Iraq is not free to have a government that is anti-US?)

1. To found a Sunni theocratic government.

2. To found a Shia theocratic government like Iran's.

3. To bring back Baath rule.

4. To mess with the US as much as possible for as long as they can.


I seriously doubt that there are any other reasons for any of the people who are fighting against the US led coalition and the new Iraqi government.

Free in a collectivist sense, or for its people (individually) to be free?

By definition, under a theocratic system, the people are not free. This applies everywhere, but especially in a country like Iraq that has several different religions and sects.

This post has been edited by Bar-Aram: Sep 23 2004, 12:07 PM

Most of the insurgents want to establish a theocratic rule, based on the rhetoric they spew.

Some of them really do want to establish a democratic government, and are misled into believing that the US has no intention of doing so.

What do you base this on, and what groups exactly are you thinking of here?

I've based it on an interview with a french reporter, where masked men with rifles lining the walls behind them warned the US that they would continue fighting them, and their "puppet iraqui government".

Course, it was kinda funny... about six or seven misled young arabs with guns thinking they can scare the last superpower.

How, exactly, does that imply that they want democracy?

They stated they wanted iraq to have a (paraphrase here) "government selected by iraquis, not americans"... not sure what they meant by selected, but given the context of the rest of their statement, I interpreted it that way.

That they were misled idiots.

1. Why did you not quote the part that was actually relevant to the discussion to begin with?

2. That doesn't necessarily mean that what they want is democracy. For example, they may well see Saddam's regime as one selected "by Iraqis, not Americans".

3. Don't you have anything better than that? There is a quote by Iranian puppet Muqtada al-Sadr even that would actually help your case here.

Nalvaros:


On the same level that I consider Germany today to be a free society even though it cannot have another Nazi government. It's a values assessment. Does the removal of Americans from Iraq by necessity make your average Iraqi free, or is an Iraqi oppressed by a theocratic government still oppressed even though it is at the hands of his fellow Iraqis? If one conceives that the insurgents have the motivation to make your typical Iraqi free of tyranny, and that American occupation is merely a form of tyranny, then obviously the answer is he fights for Iraqi freedom. If you conceive that the insurgents fight to place Iaq under the hands of a Taliban style regime, or an Iranian like state, then they seek not to liberate your typical Iraqi from tyranny, but merely to empower a differing slate of tyrants.

because I'm not really seriously arguing here, and I'm too lazy to search the big wide net for a tiny piece of argument. I know it could be interpreted that way. But I think differently than you, and interpreted it the way I did.

i sort of agree with gangari, i do think that a huge number of iraqis are probably 'misled idiots' as he nicely puts it. and i think that is probably due to the distrust that the Arab world in general feel towards the USA. and Iraq in particular considering the events of the first gulf war, when and i truely beleive this, the American gvt DID have the ability with the help of anti saddam Iraqis get rid of saddam then in the 90's but didnt. instead they allowed a huge number of iraqis in the south get killed who has decided to rise up because they were promised back up from the US which they never got. so whether iraqis want democracy or not, the majority probably dont beleive for one second that, that is the reason for the whole stupid war, or the intention of the USA. call it cynasim (spelt wrong :blink: ) but i really beleive that what is pulling Americans down right now is Iraqi distrust towards them.

To liberate Iraq from the (foreign) occupiers, which I guess you want to go under number 4?

No, that's my 1, 2 and 3. I, personally, wouldn't use the word "liberate" though.

Your 1, 2 & 3 are about establishing specific systems, I'm merely talking about fighting against something, not for something. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd find that attitude very common among the foot soldiers of many of the militias.

And I know you wouldn't use the word liberate, and neither would I, but we aren't Iraqi insurgents.

I defined them by what they would want instead should they succeed. That doesn't mean that I don't believe they use slogans about getting rid of the infidel foreigners either.

I don't believe that anyone that actually wants a democratic system (and understands what that word means) is fighting the Coalition or the new Iraqi government. I think a lot of people who don't want it are also not fighting because they'd rather see the process through peacefully and then get their way in the election.

In fact, there aren't that many Iraqis, in all, that are actually fighting, but that's a different issue.

Alot of them don't think about what they want afterwords, simply a foreign army free iraq.

And I do believe that there are many who do. Because as I said, they are misled.

If the main motivation is to get rid of "foreign invaders" only, and many of them want democracy and are "misled", then how do you explain the that fact only Sunnis (and mainly from the Baathist strongholds of Saddam's old stomping grounds), and a minority of Shia led by people with clear ties to Iran, are fighting?

Why don't the Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and the vast majority of the Shia (including the most influential of their clerics, al-Sistani) want to drive out the "foreign invaders"?

This post has been edited by Bar-Aram: Sep 24 2004, 10:46 AM

Because your premise is wrong. Kurds are fighting(mostly fighting other insurgents), as for assyrians and chaldeans, I don't hear much about them in the news anyway.

And I do hear about shia wanting to drive out the US. But they tend to be more moderate in their actions than shiite, in this particular scenario, and though they want the US to leave, they are willing to wait for them to leave peacefully.

None of those groups are fighting the US, and the Kurds (at least) are fighting with the US, not against. My premise is perfectly fine.




That paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Rephrase, and I'll reply to it.

Not much of a way I can hmm...

They DO want to drive the US out. They're just more willing to wait for the US to leave without using violence, compared to the groups fighting.

But who is it that tends to be more moderate than them?

Hm. didn't see the reply. I'm not in my right mind right now so... can you rephrase the question?

Which insurgents? There is several groups I can thnk off, all with different motives.

This phrase here:




You seem to be saying that the "shia" are more moderate than the "shiite". That makes no sense.

I was kinda tired at the time, I reversed the two. A simple freudian slip.

As said, I think a lot of people aren't fighting "For" anything, just "against" something... Of course, the ones who'll set the agenda if the insurgency succeeds are those who knew what they wanted.

It doesn't make sense either way.