Donald knows best ... Rumsfeld: Iraq Should Not Be Theocracy Apr 22, 7:52 AM (ET) By MATT KELLEY WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States expects an eventual government of Iraq to be a democracy where the rights of minorities are guaranteed, not a theocracy run by clerics such as in neighboring Iran, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says. "There should be a country that is organized and arranged in a way that the various ethnic groups and religious groups are able to have a voice in their government in some form," Rumsfeld said Monday at a Pentagon news conference. "And we hope (for) a system that will be democratic and have free speech and free press and freedom of religion." Some demonstrators in Iraq, particularly from the Shiite Muslim majority, have called recently for an Islamic republic similar to Iran, where top Shiite clerics known as ayatollahs have the final say. Rumsfeld said such a government would not be truly democratic. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld said the United States will not keep its military forces in Iraq longer than necessary to stabilize the country. He denied a news report that the United States was planning a long-term military relationship with Iraq that would grant American access to air bases in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country. "It's flat false," Rumsfeld said, adding that the subject had not even been raised with him. "The likelihood of it seems to me to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence, to my knowledge," he said. "Why do I say it's low? Well, we've got all kinds of options and opportunities in that part of the world to locate forces. It's not like we need a new place. We have plenty of friends" in that area. Rumsfeld was responding to questions about remarks in Sunday's New York Times attributed to unidentified senior Bush administration officials. U.S. forces control numerous airports and military bases in Iraq, including the international airport on the outskirts of Baghdad, the Rasheed air base in southeastern Baghdad, H-1 airfield in western Iraq, Tallil air base in southern Iraq and Bashur airfield in the north. The presence of U.S. forces in Arab states is a highly sensitive topic, especially in Saudi Arabia, which permitted American commanders to run the air portion of the Iraq war from a command post at Prince Sultan air base but did not allow U.S. aircraft to launch offensive strikes from Saudi soil. The United States has kept ground and air forces in Kuwait since the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and it also has a military presence in Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which is home to the Navy's 5th Fleet. Rumsfeld said he could not speculate about a future U.S. military relationship with Iraq because there is no Iraqi government to discuss it with. He did say, however, the future U.S. military presence in the Gulf region will be considered once the Iraq war is over and the issue will be discussed with leaders of the countries involved. Although no decisions have been made, Rumsfeld said it was possible over the long term that the United States would withdraw some forces from the Gulf region. "I would personally say that a friendly Iraq that is not led by a Saddam Hussein would be a reason we could have fewer forces in the region, rather than more. I mean, just logically," he said. He asserted that because there is sporadic, small-scale fighting still going on in some parts of Iraq, the war is not over and it's too soon to know when it will be safe for U.S. troops to leave. Appearing with Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Marines came under fire at the Mosul airfield in northern Iraq on Monday and returned the fire. One Marine was wounded, he said. "The attackers escaped and we have no idea who they were," he said.
That is a bunch bull **** if you ask me. If the majority wants us out. We should leave. If the majority wants Theocracy. Then they are allowed to have it. IF we wanted Iraq to be secular, we should have just kept Saddam in power.
I thought one of the aims of the war was to install a democracy in Iraq. If the democracy brings about an elected Islamic government, which then becomes a theocracy, so be it. Would it or would it not be better than Saddam?
If an Islamic-based candidate wins an election and installs an Islamic-based government, so be it. If this Islamic-based government goes on to cancel elections and rule in a totalitarian manner, that is a whole other subject.
I have come up with a brilliant plan...It would save countless lives, and smooth out the whole world peace thing. The United States should set up a 1-800 number ( at taxpayers expnese, admitedly, but wait, you'll see, it saves $$ in the end) where all the other countries in the world can call up, and get our...advice...on how to formulate their own governments. We will tell them what is do-able ( capitalistic democracy based on our own) and what isn't ( everything else )...and they have, say, 100 days to make the call, and set up the 'right' way of doing things. Otherwise, well...let's not go down that road just yet. See the advantages? We would give every other nation in the world the fair and open opportunity to choose "Freedom" on their own...then, if they don't choose "Freedom", why, who could blame us for invading, liberating them, and at the same time protecting ourselves from ther anti-freedom ways. The world should be a safe place, right? And if that takes invading every country we disagree with, well, at least we'll be saving lives.... We could get guys like Mr. C to man the lines...He seems to have a firm graps on what other nations should and should not be allowed to do in their own countries, based on what we think over here....er...period. So what if they prefer other ways...so what if they have different priorities...so what if they feel that we are telling them what to do...At least we aren't doing it as violently as Saddam Hussein did, and that's the point....right? It doesn't matter whether they really are free, or really have any choice...so long as we aren't as bad as Hussein was, we can do what we want to them and call it liberation... Right?
1. They need a constitution first. Will there be separation of church and state? 2. You wouldn't tolerate this in America. Why are you so glibly giving it to the Iraquis? Isn't it a recipe for disaster? You would blow your guts over an American Christian theocracy...
Maybe he doesn't live in Iraq and furthermore no one over here wants a theocracy, that's the point, if that is what the people want, that's what they should have.
1) What if they don't want/believe is separation of church and state? You do realize that there is more than one ( US) way of doing things, right? 2) We would have to 'tolerate' whatever the majority of our people wanted, if we are indeed democratic. And it is not for us to 'give' them anything, unless we drop the pretense of being liberators, and admit to being conquerors. Of course, if we do, there goes our justification for the war...but with the leeway many are giving the administration re: this war, what would that really do?
They are entitled to vote however they wish, are they not? Since our Constitution seperates church and state, I doubt it would happen here. If it did, I would probably move out of the country...TO FRANCE!
The people of this country wanted the war in Iraq, but that doesn't change your opinion on that matter, does it?
Maybe the Iraqi people should pull a page outta Syria's book and propose that the entire Middle East be declared a theocracy-free zone
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China. I swear, I think some of you guys just want to keep pointing out who was anti war. You're talking apples and oranges. You're right, most people wanted war, we went to war. And your point is????
My point was that you feel in this case that if the majority want a theocracy, then the minority should go along with the decision, which is analogous to the populous supporting the war. I apologize for wording my response in the manner I did. It was honestly not an attempt to inflame, just a simple comparison.
Well, our way is the best way! There is a continuum between being purely Liberators (taking the first flight home) and being Conquerers (staying forever). If we took the political risk and spent the lives and money to rid Iraq of Saddam, I do expect us to have a say in setting up a form of government that is workable, democratic and (drumroll) friendly to the US. I don't consider that a conquest. Evidently you do?
Why do you doubt that it would happen in Iraq. Are the Muslim sects cozy, cozy? What about the estimated 1 Million Christians in Iraq?
I would be interested to know how many people want what. I do agree with one thing, they really don't know how good our system is, and it would take a while for them to see the benifits. We have to remember how much they incorporate their religion into their laws. Even if the political system isn't a theocracy, I don't think there is anyway they can ever separate religion from law.
