Well, I just think that its a no win situation, and that history has shown that exclusion of a group like that only makes them stronger.
Nonsense. Jews, Gnostics, Pagans all come to mind....
Communism and Fundamentalism for the past 50 years is the perfect case.
Communism never got big in the US. Only under special circumstance. Fundamentalist has hardly been "excluded".
For the most part, Communism is also dying, save in China where it was established. But even in China it is becoming more moderate.
Look at Vietnam. We tried installing TWO puppet rulers through "democratic" elections. BOTH FAILED. 80% of the people wanted Ho Chi Minh, and by not granting them what they wanted all they did was become more militant.
They were backed by established communist regimes. Also the US never fully committed to Vietnam.
If a majority really wants an Islamic government, which I don't believe they do in the first place, but if they do, then if they don't get it they will just become militant and press for it.
You have no evidence for this save a few questionable examples. The communist success in Vietnam can be due to a number of things, not merely exclusion.
If they DO get it then we can just keep close tabs on the country and make it clear that no human rights violations will be allowed,
In a Muslim theocracy?
and let the people figure out for themselves that Fundamentalism is bad and then they can bring about change on their own.
Or maybe they'll find a scapegoat? make up irrational reasons?
Not like the religious never do that.....
And after how long....decades of suffering when we just could have prevented it?
I'm saying let it the failure be on their own shoulders not ours.
Not entirely, because
we allowed it when we could have stopped it.
I don't get your logic, basically you are saying if a group of people has the power and rescources to very much help another group, at little cost, they shouldn't help? That not helping because a "majority" disagrees is immoral/wrong?
I guess then that since most Japanese during world war two wanted the US to leave Japan fascist....we should have done it.
To me that is condemning a people to years of stangation and opression, to a reign of fanaticism and delusion. And I think allowing that to happen, allowing whatever "minority" to live under such conditions and allowing such a country to grow just to make problems for the rest of the world and the future is something more to blame someone for then trying to help and failing at it.
If we don't grant the people what they want, any failure will be on our shoulders. If they are not ruled in a way that they want failure is emminant because they will not cooperate.
So you are more concerned about "blame" then possible consequences of such a theocracy being established?
Before this war even started a wrote a "piece" on it that stated that the conclusion of the military campaign would represent the stage of the installment of Bao Dai in Vietnam. We are now at the per-Vietnam War phase of this operation.
Totally different enviroment. Vietnam as you know had support from China and the North. Iraq has no strong support and we are not as unpopular a force. Ho Chi Minh was a popular leader, Saddam Hussein was not. We are viewed by many Iraqis as saviors, not opressors.
What happens now will determine is a real Vietnam is produced out of the situation. The Vietnam War was a result of the people's rejection of "American" (puppet Diem) rule in the country.
Couldn't be communist propoganda, lack of american conviction, proximity to powerhouses like China, the fact that North Vietnam had a standing army, that the military was largely untrained draftees could it?
Also I imagine, and perhaps this is wild speculation, that the US army is far more efficient then it was in Vietnam. I also imagine guerilla campaigns are harder to pull off in a desert then in a jungle, I also imagine other enviromental differences are relevant as well.
The real war is yet to come in the whole affair. It can be avoided, by giving the people of Iraq what they want, whatever it is that they want.
The "real war"? Pure conjecture. Kind of like how many radicals promised intense door to door fighting, huge american causalties....another Vietnam.
Now we get more promises of another Vietnam....in the future. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
Like I said, I don't think that the majority of people in Iraq want a Theocracy. They never have for 100 years.
You know this how?
If they do, then let them have it, its their own issue to deal with and they will have only themselves to blame if they don't like it.
So you are actually advocating theocracy....in order to avoid supposed "blame" and the much anticipated second Vietnam.
If they hold real free elections and they choose an Islamic Fundamentalist as ruler, then what can we do? Obviuosly the question is to hold real free election or teh fake electiosn like have been done everywhere for the past 50 years with CIA oversights that always result in failure.
Or we can make them draft a constitution, which includes separation of powers and church state separation like we did Japan. They can hold elections within a constitution.
Anyway, I think its a no win situation. The only positive outcome is if the people of Iraq don't want theocracy, and if that is the case then it's all fine in that regard.
So you are basically saying that theocracy is wrong here but right there?
I guess then that if the majority here want theocracy....we should just give it to them?
That is what the Founding Fathers did afterall.