cleric to be the leader of Iraq?
Would the US try to dispose of this democratically elected new leader & risk starting a war with not just insurgents but the entire population of Iraq?
2006-12-03 13:36:18 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I believe there are 3 or 4 major fundemenatalist Iraqi Shiite clerics (remember the Ayatollah from Iran in the 70s he was a Shiite Cleric too). Iraqi Shiites control the Iraqi Govt. right now & have the majority population in Iraq so they pretty much control the Iraqi Govt. So unless the US military stays in Iraq forever & controls every election the probability of a radical anti-US cleric becoming the leader of Iraq is very high. How happy do you think the 35 million Iraqis would be if the US stays in Iraq forever & controls every "democratic" election?
2006-12-04 13:27:12 · update #1
Then we will know for sure the desire of the so called 'peaceful' muslim majority. The point of the war is to bring our enemies into the open.
2006-12-03 13:39:06 · answer #1 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would like to think that this would not be possible. Surely, we could end up with a radical cleric in charge - and I think we raise the chance of that possibility considerably if we pull out too soon - but to assume that the Iraqis would vote such a person in, in a FAIR election. Nope. There would have to be an unfair election - because it is natural for people to want things like education and free speech and rights for all. Under a cleric they know they won't have that.
Would the U.S. try to dispose of this leader? I think that would depend upon how big a threat the new government was to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore to world stability, and our safety. If our government determined that it must dispose of this leader to protect world stability, would I support it? You bet.
Mac
ASKEW
http://askew.blogharbor.com
2006-12-03 14:04:42 · answer #2 · answered by Mac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq already voted. But if in the next election they elect a Radical US hating Leader, we will stop helping them of course. At the moment the Government the people voted for, wants us to continue helping.
2006-12-03 13:40:57 · answer #3 · answered by dakota29575 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You haven't been keeping informed have you? They already voted and al-Miliki is the Prime Minister. Currently, there are dozens of militias and gangs fighting in Iraq. The major combatants are: Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Badr Brigade, Mahdi Army, Mujahedin Shura Council, and Peshmerga. This is why many are saying there is a civil war in Iraq, but Bush will not admit it. Our troops are stuck in the middle - Catch 22. Now we have to wait to see what, if anything, we can do. Bush is still the "decider" and will be for another two years.
2006-12-03 13:46:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Democracy means that there is freedom. Thus, the Iraqis have the right to vote whom they want even if the candidate is anti-American. The Americans should respect the democratic process.
2006-12-03 13:42:28 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'm specific it impacts them merely as undesirable because it does our troops. I definitely have a family member who's a courtroom clerk for a decide and she or he has seen a lot of our veterans in the courtroom on rates of enjoyed ones battery, divorce and financial ruin. this is unhappy that those adult adult males served their u . s . a . and their u . s . a . shall we them down whilst they get homestead. Many veterans from Vietnam and the 1st Gulf conflict are nonetheless in scientific shelter PTSD to handle the atrocities they observed in conflict. we now have extra veterans coming homestead wanting scientific care however the Va's psychological well-being community can not cope with the further sufferers because of cuts of their budgets and staffing. If this have been introduced to Bush's interest I specific he could say this is the states fault for no longer budgeting their monies wisely. How lots of that funds that could desire to have went to classes like those went to fund the conflict inflicting the subject or to fund the tax decrease that helped the wealthiest one million%?
2016-12-29 20:49:25 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the us won't allow this to happen , when they tried to enforce democracy in egypt and palestine , the result was that the mulsim brotherhood took 88 seats in the parlimant in egypt and was going to take alot more than that (almost triple) if the US didn't stop supporting the democratic process and so the egyptian government did what they did to make the brotherhood fail to get any more votes in the second round ..
2006-12-03 13:47:14 · answer #7 · answered by m_elnakib 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democracy means the right for a people to choose radical Islamists as their leaders. If that happened in Iraq, it would be the ultimate irony, and the ultimate hypocrisy for a US President to say that is unacceptable.
2006-12-03 14:07:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think the US would escape and leave the Iraqis to themselves.
2006-12-03 13:39:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
To be honest, I don't think we should even be in the middle east. Let us dill and refine our own oil and let them kill each other to their hearts content.
2006-12-03 16:39:03 · answer #10 · answered by Ethan M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋