Article

2004-01-24 Iraq

Chalabi Backs Popular Call for Elections

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2004-01-24 00:04|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 chalabi's a shite--nuf said

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2004-1-24 12:06:39 AM|| 2004-1-24 12:06:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 60 percent of the Iraqis are Shiites, so calling Chalabi one doesn't mean much, other than the fact that you are biased, Tolui.

Insist on separation of church and state, disallow clerics running for office -- and then let the direct elections take place.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-24 9:14:55 AM|| 2004-1-24 9:14:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Psst, Aris: "separation of church and state" doesn't mean not allowing clerics to run for office. I'd say it comes close to meaning the opposite: not caring at all who runs for office.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-24 10:13:14 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-24 10:13:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Call me defeatest, but I don't see any way that we can establish democracy and prevent the 60% Shiite population from imposing their stubborn will. An intact Iraq is a tinderbox for civil war and a divided Iraq is a large gift to Iran. The best we can do is to stall until there is regime change in Iran. A democratic Iran and a divided Iraq seem to be the only acceptable stable solution.

Posted by Tom 2004-1-24 1:35:20 PM|| 2004-1-24 1:35:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I think Bush is playing a game here. Encouraging the UN to participate and involve itself in Iraq makes it appear he is being multilateral, not a bad thing in an election year. At the same time, he offers to Sistani the opportunity to deal with the same UN bastards that supported Saddam and allowed his death squads and oil-for-palaces corruption to proceed without end. Sistani and Co. are going to have to make a quick decision, an I'll bet GW already knows what it will be.

Posted by john 2004-1-24 4:26:24 PM|| 2004-1-24 4:26:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 "Psst, Aris: "separation of church and state" doesn't mean not allowing clerics to run for office"

I know. That's why I said that you should do *both* of these, not just one or the other. The second is mainly to ensure that the former doesn't end up violated in practice.

"I'd say it comes close to meaning the opposite: not caring at all who runs for office."

Not so. It means that state shouldn't care who runs for church positions, and church shouldn't interfere in who runs for state positions, but it doesn't mean that additional means shouldn't be taken in order to separate the two institutions.

You can disallow people that hold a certain profession from running for office, as they long as they keep on practicing that profession -- e.g. in Greece MPs aren't allowed to be at the same time a number of other profession which are considered to be potentially conflicting, if they have not resigned prior to the elections. This (again in Greece) includes civil servants, people serving in the armed forces, chairmen of corporations and I think a number of other people.

If clerics want to run for office, then they should first resign from being clerics.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-1-24 4:28:37 PM|| 2004-1-24 4:28:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sounds good Aris except an Imman would be an Imman for all o that.

Posted by Shipman 2004-1-24 4:57:38 PM|| 2004-1-24 4:57:38 PM|| Front Page Top

00:35 Silly Old Buffer
00:08 Mike Sylwester
23:10 Russell
23:07 Garrison
23:03 ed
22:55 whitecollar redneck
22:49 Gasse Katze
22:47 Gasse Katze
22:40 ed
22:35 Gasse Katze
22:15 mojo
22:09 mojo
22:01 phil_b
21:56 wuzzalib
21:43 mhw
21:15 phil_b
20:56 Cheddarhead
20:52 Cheddarhead
20:40 Stephen
20:25 Quana
20:20 gawdamman
20:19 gawdamman
20:03 Steve White
19:58 bartelson