English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-12 08:43:20 · 4 answers · asked by Karina O 1 in Politics & Government Military

4 answers

If I am not mistaken, Rumsfeld went before the Senate Intelligence Committee in fall of 2004 and tried to convince everyone that the upcoming January '05 Iraqi elections would be fine, even though 20% of Iraqis wouldn't be able to vote.

Let's look at that math - 80% of the population was able to vote. Imagine what would happen if 10 of our 50 states weren't able to vote? Generals and other critics warned Rummy that to rush democracy would be disatrous and counter-productive. They were especially worried about the neglected Sunni Provinces like Ramadi and Falluja. They stressed that a suppression of this vote could lead to civil war.

Fast forward - 2006.

Rummy didn't heed the warning of Generals or the Senate Intelligence Committee. He thought 4/5ths vote was better than nothing. Well... look what's been happening on the streets of Iraq. But at least they regulalry poll the Iraqi people.

Here's a recent one - 61% of Iraqis support the insurgency against the US. That's a disturbing mandate.

I am really worried that democracy may not be possible in Iraq. You have Sunnis and Shiites going head to head at our expense. These people don't want bipartisanship. They want absolute control, even if it means killing innocent civilians to get there.

It took us over 125 years in America to grant equal voting rights to all. I believe Iraq will need quite a bit of time as well to start to look anything like a democracy.

2006-11-12 08:58:33 · answer #1 · answered by Rob in NY 2 · 0 1

Sort of, but for some reason they need the approval of the Bush administration in order to operate:

As Iraq moves into a post-Saddam Hussein era, a wide range of religious, ethnic and nationalist groups are making claims to national and local political power. The US presidential envoy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, has appointed an Iraqi Governing Council intended to reflect the country's diverse groups.

and

Handover to Iraqi Army 'set for the end of next year'
By Ned Parker, Michael Evans and Richard Beeston -- as Bush prepares retreat, Blair must now lead US in Iraq (Times--of London)

2006-11-12 17:03:32 · answer #2 · answered by Yenelli 2 · 0 1

It does since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Before then they lived under an Arab Socialist totalitarian dictatorship by Saddam Hussein.

2006-11-12 16:49:48 · answer #3 · answered by billy d 5 · 2 0

yes they do. but they aren't strong enough to keep it for the time being. that's why we are still over there. so that Iraqi's can enjoy the same freedoms that you and i enjoy in America. if we left Iraq would eventually fall back into some form of religious dictatorship.

2006-11-12 16:58:08 · answer #4 · answered by Jared C 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers