81 replies to this topic

[Vigil]

So, are you claiming that independent Iraq is "worse" for its people?
And what is the price the average Iraqi has paid?

The better question to ask is if the United States could have avoided Iraq in the first place by implementing a more even handed foreign policy in that region. When France the most secular, liberal, and fair nation in the world labels American interests as "imperialistic" I think it is time Americans restructure their foreign policy and interests.

Just the fact that America is meddling in the affairs of Europe by continually backing Turkey’s European Union bid is a sign that it has a bias foreign policy.

[Vigil]

You need an urgen medical interference... And that's not my problem but yours.

Yeah, well I think you are a retard, but does that mean I need to remind you that "you need an urgen medical interference"? God, grow up, or else do not even comment on my opinions if you hold none.

If it indeed is my problem and I do need "urgen medical interference" then by all means let me "handle" my own problem insteed of acting like a "jackass" all the time.

Edited by Vigil, 21 July 2004 - 11:49 PM.

[Stormig]

Recommende reading for Stormig: http://www.amazon.co...=books&n=507846

Chomsky doesn't have morals?

[Stormig]

Yeah, well I think you are a retard, but does that mean I need to remind you that "you need an urgen medical interference"? God, grow up, or else do not even comment on my opinions if you hold none.

If it indeed is my problem and I do need "urgen medical interference" then by all means let me "handle" my own problem insteed of acting like a "jackass" all the time.

Doesn't it strike you "odd" how a handful of people (I will not claim this to be "the majority of the forum" although it very well may be) actively react negatively toward you? Ever wondered what or who it is that brings this out of this handful? I suppose they must all be retards like MJ. (What a laugh, calling MJ a retard. And what noble quest is it that keeps you going the way you are going here anyway?)

[gevo27]

If you want America to remain a "world dominator" vote Bush. However, if you want America to slowly integrate "world leadership" into its foreign policy I suggest you vote anything but Bush.

America is facing a fork in the road and this election will decide its foreign policy for the years to come. I mean just look how badly we have alienated the rest of the world. The only countries that support our decisions are the United Kingdom (England), Turkey, and Israel. The rest of the "western" world if not the rest of the world wants nothing to do with Americans and our imperialist actions and yes, they are imperialistic.

If you do not know what Imperialism is it can be defined as "the policy of seeking to extend the power, dominion, or territories of a nation", which is what the United States is currently doing.

In fact the only reason it crippled Iraq and Afghanistan was because it wants to penetrate Iran in the near future. Iran is ripe with resources and is the only nation in the world that does not consider the United States in its "best interest", which is why America, Israel, Turkey, and England fear its regional dominance in the near future.

Historically Iran has never tried to "Dominate" the world, but the same can not be said of Turkey, England, and the United States. I do not want mention Israel because Israel is not "technically" imposing it's will on the rest of the world, which can be attributed to the beautiful politics of Zionism.

The United States should watch the Actions of Turkey instead of Iran because Turkey historically has tried to "conquer" the "western" world more then once.

Iran having nukes is in no way a threat to "national security". NO country is stupid enough to use a Nuke as an actual weapon; rather, the threat of using the weapon if the nation is threatened would be the real motive behind having a nuke. Once Iran or countries like Iran have nukes they will not have to "bow down" to America and its cronies.

Let us just put this in the perspective of Iran or countries like Iran. Who is a regional threat to Iran? Well we can assume Russia, Israel, and Turkey are the main regional rivals. Do these rivals of Iran have or are speculated to have nuclear capabilities? Yes, Israel has for a long time been rumored to have at least 150 nukes, while there is no doubt Russia has nukes. Turkey, on the other hand, may have nukes and recently more and more evidence is suggesting that they do have nukes.

Iran knowing full well that all its regional rivals have nukes would obviously find it in its best interest to have nuclear capabilities it self. Now, how does this relate to "Americans", "Bush", and America's "foreign policy"? Well it relates to Americans because our tax dollars fund the military. In an age where there remains only one superpower, namely us, we would in no way need to spend eighty billion dollars developing our "war machine" if we will eventual sell it to developing nations.

Most of our outdated weaponry is sold to countries like Israel, which eventually find it's way into the hands of Azeri’s.

Now how this relate to "Bush"? Well it relates to "Bush" because it is partially due to his political party's stance on foreign issues that alienates the rest of the world towards America. If America does not get involved in regional conflicts and diplomatically solves them, instead of just creating puppet governments (Iraq, Vietnam, and what not), they would not spend so much on developing military weapons.

We should not even have been in Iraq the first place due to the fact that we funded Iraq against Iran, when we could have taken Saddom out. Furthermore we could have ended Saddam's reign at the end of the first of gulf war. Instead we waited till we needed an escape goat due to this administrations stupidity to implement operation "Iraqi Freedom".
I find it highly strange that they exposed the actions of Saddom against the Kurds almost twenty years after the actual events. The only reason they promoted the media exposure on the Kurdish atrocities was due to the fact that they needed a moral justification to enter Iraq. If they indeed “care about the plights of the Kurds” why not create an independent Kurdish State? Well, partially because they do not “actually care” because it would go against the interests of Turkey, which regards the rise of a independent Kurdish state as a “threat to national security”.

Let us investigate the aftermath on the "War on Terror" with a series of questions.

Have we found Osama Bin Laden? No

Have we destroyed terror cells? No

Have we alienated ourselves even further and created more regional rivals? Yes

Have we created more tension? Yes

Will terrorist attacks increase? Yes

Was Saddom an imminent threat to America? No

Was Saddom an imminent threat to Israel? Yes

Was Saddom an imminent threat to Turkey? Yes

Could Saddom have the capabilities of launching a air strike and or sending cruise missiles across the Atlantic? No

Could Saddom have launched a air strike and or send cruise missiles over Tel Aviv and or Ankara? Yes

Could North Korea have capabilities of launching an air strike and or sending cruise missiles across the Pacific? Yes

Does North Korea have the man power to rival that of America? Yes

Does North Korea have geopolitical motives to go to war with America? Yes

How does North Korea have geopolitical motives to go to war with America? North Korea has a geopolitical motive due to the fact that its resources are taxed. Furthermore, America has pleaged military assistance to Japan and South Korea if indeed a attack by North Korea was launched.

Why is it then that we went into Iraq instead of North Korea when in fact North Korea is a greater threat? Well the answer to this is obvious but it involves three letters.

I just find the idea of Iran, North Korea, and Iraq being “Axis of Evil" ridiculous. First of all they can not be an axis because they do not share geopolitical interests. Second of all in no way are they working together to destroy "western" civilization". Lastly there just is no way the "Axis of Evil" has enough resources to launch an attack on America. The very fact that we are across the Pacific and Atlantic is a testament to the genius behind "Manifest Destiny".

However, can we consider America, Israel, and Turkey an "Axis of Evil"? Yes, we can due to the fact that they share geopolitical interests, are working together, and have the resources to meet their geopolitical agenda.

The very fabrication by this administration of the imminent threat the American public is in is ludicrous. In no way will Iran use Nukes towards Americans and the very notion that it will indeed use these weapons towards Americans is enough of reason to not vote for Bush.

You can not expect a country like Iran to not increase its dominance over the Persian Gulf when rival nations are. If America wants Iran to not fund a nuclear program then America would have to stop constructing nukes it self. How can you ask another to not build nukes when in fact you are sitting on two-thousand of them? You can not and to actually impose this on another nation by threatening it or labeling it as part of a fabricated "Axis of Evil" is just more evidence of America’s imperialistic actions on behalf of its cronies.

Instead I think the United States should focus on mending its foreign relations and to restructure its foreign policy in such way to not step on the toes of other nations. If it indeed wants to mend its relationship with Iran it has provide Iran with reasons that are mutual beneficial. Why would Iran not build nukes when in fact America supports its geopolitical rivals like Turkey and Israel? Obviously Iran also wants a mutual benefit that will ensure its own independence as much as it will ensure that of the United States. America should make sure it understands that no world power will remain "powerful" forever, eventually; they will lose their influence in global geopolitics, which is why America has to create a foreign policy that will not bite it in the "ass" in the near future when its influence diminishes.

I guarantee you that if Bush is reelected we can expect another "[insert nation here] freedom" in the next 4 years. It is because of this reasons that I regret voting for Bush and that I feel that it is very detrimental to not just Americans, but Armenians as well. If Iran's regional dominance diminishes then it is only logical that its rivals will increase, which means do not be surprised if Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel do not try and annex land from a weakened Iran. Just the fact that there are Azeri's in northern Iran makes this entire election a crucial decision for Armenians.

EDIT: GEOLOGICAL was suppose to be GEOPOLITICAL! Had to correct some mistakes, but in no way is this post "error proof".

WOW.. u had a lot of time on your hands today eh??.. well i like your post, interesting and true for the most part as much as i have learned of the matter. but i have some questions yet.. i will ask as i finish readin your post.. i ran out of time right now

but good post.

[gevo27]

Doesn't it strike you "odd" how a handful of people (I will not claim this to be "the majority of the forum" although it very well may be) actively react negatively toward you? Ever wondered what or who it is that brings this out of this handful? I suppose they must all be retards like MJ. (What a laugh, calling MJ a retard. And what noble quest is it that keeps you going the way you are going here anyway?)

And wha makes you point this out in the middle of a discussion about Bush and his political insecurity as aclaimed.... ?????

[Stormig]

And wha makes you point this out in the middle of a discussion about Bush and his political insecurity as aclaimed.... ?????

Because I was dying to know that you, Gevo, do invigilate.

[Vigil]

Doesn't it strike you "odd" how a handful of people (I will not claim this to be "the majority of the forum" although it very well may be) actively react negatively toward you? 

No, it does not strike me as "odd", however, what does strike me as "odd" is the fact that I was not "attacking" or "disagreeing" with anyone in this topic or any other, but yet I am the one that is banned for editing my post? For someone who tries to be intelligent you resort to logical fallacies to prove you’re points. In fact what is you’re point? I fail to see the logic which is ,like I stated earlier, "I get ostracized for replying to another man's criticism"?

If you read my other posts in other threads you will notice that I indeed can admit when I am wrong, but the same, unfortunately, can not be said of you, MJ, or the rest of you’re cronies.

So, assuming then that you feel I am "wrong" does that mean you are for Bush? Yes, that does mean you are for Bush, which brings me to ask you why you favor Bush when in fact his actions will strengthen Armenia's geopolitical rivals?

Ever wondered what or who it is that brings this out of this handful?

No

I suppose they must all be retards like MJ. (What a laugh, calling MJ a retard. And what noble quest is it that keeps you going the way you are going here anyway?)

When did I say I was on a "noble quest"? I am hardly "noble" and far from an actually "quest". If you think by expressing and supporting my opinions is the equivalent of being on a "noble quest" then by you’re logic citizens of the "free world" are on a "noble quest" as well? So, by you’re logic, President Bush is on a "noble quest"? Yes, so, if indeed he is on a "noble quest" he should equally send military aid to Sudan, right? Right, but because he does not could we assume then that his motives are anything but "noble"? Yes, we can assume his motives are anything but "noble", so, by you’re own logic I am right, right? Right

MJ is only a retard because he mindlessly makes asinine comments that only "sabotages" and "derails" the thread. What I find funny is that the moderators banned me because I "sabotaged" and "derailed" the threads by editing my posts, which means then if their is no bias, MJ, you and your cronies would be banned, but due to your "socialite", "hippie", and ultimately "liberal" views you are ignored.

However, the same can not be said of someone of my "humble" intellect. I get my "ass" chewed by "socialites" like yourself, not because my logic is illogical, but rather, because what I have to say is not what you want to hear. I can come onto to this forums and "wave" the American flag in attempt to be "patriotic", but in no way does my "flag waving" make me "patriotic". Instead, what makes me an "American" is my actions and understanding that my "actions" ultimately benefit me, which is why it is important for me to enforce the ideals that have been the pillars of this nation, namely, democracy.

The decisions President Bush or any other president before him has made reflect upon the integrity of this country's citizens because of the fact that his decisions ultimilty benefit me as a American, which is why it is crucial that I, as a "American", make sure he does not implement a course of action that may hurt my image as a American abroad.

Because lets face it this debate is not about the "right" decisions, but rather the decisions that are more "ethical". Americans would moan and complain if the gas prices at thee pump were raised another two dollars, which is why in order for us to be "happy" and eventually be good "capitalist" we must feel secure. Security, thus, in sense comes from the assurance that our country is economically secure. This is why there just is no way to hide the actions by America under the banner of "democracy" because lets face it if tomorrow the prices at the pump were raised to five dollars a gallon everyone in America, including me, you, and the rest of “Amerika Hyes” would be ready to revolt.

So, the question, that needs to be asked, is if the actions by President Bush are ethnical.

Was it ethnical to sell arms to Iran before the Iranian Revolution and fund Iraq after the Iranian revolution?

Was it ethnical to sell arms to Iran, while also selling arms to Iraq, to fund a war in Nicaragua?

Was it ethical to not react to the Kurdish gassing when they happened and not wait till Saddom threatens Kuwait's oil reserves?

Was it ethnical to win the Gulf War and not take Saddom out? Is it ethical to occupy, control, and ultimately exploit third world nations for our own security?

Is it ethnical to "bomb" and ultimately decimate another countries capital?

Is it ethnical to "bomb", "occupy", and then eventually use the resources of the country you "bombed" to rebuild it?

Is it ethical to monopolize on the construction contracts of a country that you "bombed"?

Is it ethical to capitalize upon the Kurdish massacres just so we have moral justification to enter Iraq?

Is it ethical to force the debt that Iraq owes other nations to be forgiven just so we can further capitalize upon Iraq's rich resources?

Well, obviously, the answer to these questions is "no", which is why we have to look at the Iraqi War in terms of the ethnics of the situation for the shear fact that we as citizens of the United States are benefiting by exploiting the resources of Iraq, which means that some of the blood that is shed on the battlefield partly is because of our wants as a consumer nation.

Americans do not "need" SUVs when they could get from point A to B just as well by driving hybrids, but it is because we "want" to a drive a SUV that ultimately forces us as a nation to make non-ethical decisions like the war against Iraq.

My entire argument, thus, is that if America wants to stop resorting to imperialism it must restructure its foreign policy in such a way in which it does not "sacrifice" its humanity for consumer needs. The litmus test is Iran, which is why it is important for America to open Iranian markets through diplomacy rather then imperialistic actions or else you may see another "[Insert Country Name Here] Freedom" in the near future.

Edited by Vigil, 22 July 2004 - 01:54 AM.

[Sip]

what does strike me as "odd" is the fact that I was not "attacking" or "disagreeing" with anyone in this topic or any other, but yet I am the one that is banned for editing my post?

Ok I was not going to get involved in putting the spilled ginni back in the bottle but this almost made me spill my ginni ...

Yes you were SUSPENDED for changing about 50 of your posts into "" after a lot of people spent a lot of time addressing them and trying to have a discussion ... but must we go back to this? What does that have anything to do with you not attacking anyone?


Now about your previous long post, the only part I have a comment on is North Korea ... so just because North Korea is a threat, does that make Iraq any less of a problem? I was not aware of North Korea failing to cooperate with UN inspectors over and over and over ... actually, as far as I understand, North Korea is quite vocal about having WMD and its intent on using them. So that makes it very different than Iraq who repeatedly failed to comply with UN resolutions and wishes, even after agreeing to do so (I'm talking over an entire decade).

[Stormig]

No, it does not strike me as "odd"

Kudos to you.

[Stormig]

Sip, I still fail to see the "problem" in Iraq - aside from it being a problem onto itself before the war and it being a problem to everyone nowadays thanks to the Amerikanskis and Britskis particularly. And speaking of U.N. resolutions, the U.S.'s key allies Israel and Turkey have disregarded about ALL (if not absolutely all) resolutions passed against them (and I would assume a number of decades in both cases). So in their case it wasn't about W(et)MD(reams)... So what?

[Armat]

So, are you claiming that independent Iraq is "worse" for its people?
And what is the price the average Iraqi has paid?

Iraq is still under occupation hence there is no independent Iraq to speak of.
About 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 civilians, were killed during the major combat phase of the Iraq war, according to a US research group. It said the estimates were based on US combat data, battlefield press reports, and Iraqi hospital surveys.
If the Iraqi war was about curtailing terrorism then it has succeeded creating an environment where terrorism has become a daily life occurs there. An average Iraqi does not have security, that even under the coalition forces and it probably would get worse after coalition forces leave. Total collapse of the Iraqi society is the price average Iraqis paid and there seem to be no light end of the tunnel.

Could you please show any substantive way why invasion of Iraq was good for US.

You have not answered my question.

Edited by Armat, 22 July 2004 - 06:03 AM.

[Boghos]

Chomsky doesn't have morals?

No, it is not that but simply that it is always useful to read the other side of the story.

[MJ]

I think you have to make your mind. In your prior post you made a rhetoric statement, “It is yet to be determined weather independent Iraq is better for its people as the new republican campaign tries to suggest.” Now you claim that Iraq is not independent. Either your statement was just a grammatical misconstruction or you were not sure what you were trying to say.

There is no question in my mind that the current Iraq is already far better off. If we were to talk about the 13,000 Iraqis killed, so that to make an honest argument, we have to start from reminding one that prior to the war, about 10,000 Iraqi civilians, of which almost 6,000 children used to die on a monthly basis due to malnutrition and diseases – and that for 10 years in a raw. Somehow, I don’t remember you giving speeches then from this “high pedestal of morality and righteousness” before the war.

Undoubtedly wars are ugly. There is always high cost associated with them. (Even the winners of the war pay high cost – look at Armenia for example.) Therefore, when such decisions are made, they are supposedly made on the basis of comparing this cost with the cost of not fighting such wars or the lack of other choices.

Indeed the Iraqi daily life is threatened by a number of small terrorist cells. The reality is that the daily terror conducted by the Iraqi government for decades has been transformed into this kind of terrorism – those who do not take a posture as the ideologists of current day terrorists desire are threatened. In the old days, those who would not obey the old regime were executed by the regime or put in dungeons. Other than the disorganized character of the new threat, nothing has changed in the Iraqi society from this perspective. It is being fought against and it will take time. It has been only a year since the occupation. Enormous progress along the lines of building infrastructure and creating jobs has been made. And that is the reason terror has intensified – if the progress was not apparent and its dynamics was not astounding, there would have been no reason for terror and for killing the civilian Iraqis so that to sabotage the progress. In general, I believe that terrorists, as a rule, are not some idiots but very rational people – at least at their higher levels.

If you were trying to say that the coalition forces should not leave, I would be in absolute agreement with you. If it were my decision, I would’ve kept them for about 10 more years.

You claim that the Iraqi society has collapsed due to the war. This means that you either know nothing about the Iraqi society or you don’t feel any responsibility for the statements you would make – perhaps with the purpose of fulfilling some internal mission.

The Iraqi society has not collapsed. What has collapsed (not without an external interference) is one of the most brutal and criminal regimes in history, which was well on its way of collapse before the war. The very fact that its army refused to fight and disappeared was an evidence of the state of the affairs of that failed state, which was in a worse situation than the Soviet Union before its collapse. This fact alone was enough reason to occupy that country before its gradual collapse could lead to global cataclysms. And I don’t mean to claim that there were no other compelling reasons.

My bottom line is that we are dealing with issues and problems of enormous complexity and magnitude. The solution of such problems requires vision, patience, systematic and sustained effort, and so on. There are several good examples of what may come out of this. Perhaps the most adequate one may be South Korea.

Now, not to make this response too lengthy, as a last paragraph, let me address your grievance about not answering your question. I had noticed your question. I did not answer it by my own choice and I will reserve the right of not answering your questions or answering them selectively from this point on as well, especially when they are presented as questions but in reality are statements.

P.S. I tis possible that I have an extra 0 in the statistics on the pre-war civilian deaths. Don't remember precisely.

Edited by MJ, 22 July 2004 - 07:21 AM.

[Stormig]

No, it is not that but simply that it is always useful to read the other side of the story.

Which other side of the story? And why Chomsky? Why not Moore? They have their biases. Moore yakks about Blair all the way only because he doesn't know Howard would have led the U.S. by the hand, not vice versa. So Chomsky had to grow up when he was in his 20's-30's and self-refine to be of readable grade. And he had to rush off and seek "solidarity" with a buncha arsewipes who wanted to be sworn into the Eskimo parliament in Welsh. So what. Or is it the Holocaust revisionism that is most perturbing? Honestly, I haven't noted incoherence, verbal abuse, what have you, in his most recent works that I've read. Neither Moore nor Chomsky says anything we actually don't know of.

[Boghos]

Which other side of the story? And why Chomsky? Why not Moore? They have their biases. Moore yakks about Blair all the way only because he doesn't know Howard would have led the U.S. by the hand, not vice versa. So Chomsky had to grow up when he was in his 20's-30's and self-refine to be of readable grade. And he had to rush off and seek "solidarity" with a buncha arsewipes who wanted to be sworn into the Eskimo parliament in Welsh. So what. Or is it the Holocaust revisionism that is most perturbing? Honestly, I haven't noted incoherence, verbal abuse, what have you, in his most recent works that I've read. Neither Moore nor Chomsky says anything we actually don't know of.

I think you are absolutely right, Moore is a just a populist, left leaning populist. There is nothing new in Chomsky either, the pseudo-intellectual so-called liberal lay man´s view of the world .

[Armat]

MJ
As it stands US and the coalition forces can not allow if ever Iraq to be completely democratic country since it is well established fact that 70% population are shite Muslims who are very keen to transform the country into Islamic state. Here lies the paradox. Free them from a dictator only to see it transform into another anti west chanting mullah entity. With this perspective the only thing US would do and does! Is limited sovernty and freedom and that is precisely an opposite of “free independent country”
I also reserve not indulge in debate on every point you make or fail to make.

[Stormig]

the pseudo-intellectual so-called liberal lay man´s view of the world .

Nnnnnnnnnnn-not really pseudo-whatever. I'm not demeaning either, and I definitely think Chomsky does well. Thing with Chomsky and Moore (and I entirely picked Moore randomly), I think, is that they can make people put their feet on the ground somewhat. They don't fabricate. They just state, synthesise, interpret. Nothing wrong with that as long as you keep that in mind. Moore does pontificate somewhat. I just am not convinced that doing well and being biased are mutually exclusive. It can't always be helped. In cases where it can be yet isn't, then that's when you have to be worried rather than at what some people run their mouths with. It just so happens that, from my personal experience, it is easier for your humble Stormy to debunk a "righty" than a "lefty" such as Chomsky (and I've tried the latter where it has touched a nerve)... Either one is weak and dishonest or the other is good at dressing himself up. Anyway, I wouldn't lose sleep over either and I, like a number of people, get my informing done through a number of sources (OK, maybe they're mostly "lefty," I have no idea how me, myself, and I got there), but they're definitely more than what Fox News can offer me.

[MJ]

MJ
As it stands US and the coalition forces can not allow if ever Iraq to be completely democratic country since it is well established fact that 70% population are shite Muslims who are very keen to transform the country into Islamic state. Here lies the paradox. Free them from a dictator only to see it transform into another anti west chanting mullah entity. With this perspective the only thing US would do and does! Is limited sovernty and freedom and that is precisely an opposite of “free independent country”
I also reserve not indulge in debate on every point you make or fail to make.

Your penetrating and illustrious perspective has put things to rest. With both of us being inclined to respond each other randomly or selectively, we can revisit the issue on such basis.

[Armat]

Not to disappoint you it was not my opinion only but rather also political experts.

Shiite clerics challenge U.S. goal in Iraq
A democratic election could bring to power a fundamentalist regime, experts warn
Washington --
President Bush promised a democracy in Iraq, but if elections are held, they might deliver instead a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy at odds with nearly every strategic aim of the U.S.-led invasion.
The large -- and often vocally anti-American -- Shiite pilgrimage and demonstrations in southern Iraq over the past week, and the violent power struggles among competing Shiite clergy, have troubled administration officials.
It is no small irony that some clerics, now freed by the U.S. military to speak, are advocating a theocracy modeled on neighboring Iran, which Bush included as a member of the "axis of evil" with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Indeed, U.S. fears of Iran were so great during the 1980s that the Reagan administration supported Hussein as a counterweight.
Experts from across the political spectrum criticize the administration for being unprepared, despite many warnings, to fill the vacuum left in the wake of Hussein's fall.
"It's incredibly frustrating to watch," said Rachel Bronson, director of Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "It's very dispiriting, because what we're seeing now just suggests a lack of planning -- which is inexcusable."
To be sure, many Iraqi Shiites -- Arabs, rather than Persians and Azeris like the Iranians -- oppose establishment of Iranian-style theocracy and disagree with the idea that mullahs should shoulder secular duties. But many Iraqis, both Shiite and Sunni, share strong antipathy to American intervention in their society.
With Shiites making up an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's population, experts warn of the potential for a fundamentalist, anti-American regime. If democratic elections are held, as the administration hopes, they could produce an undemocratic theocracy.
"You either give people freedom or impose your views on them," said Abbas Kadhim, a native of the Iraqi Shiite holy city of Najaf, and a lecturer on Islamic studies at UC Berkeley. "If we are going to liberate them, what kind of liberty is it if you remove a regime and install what you like, not what they want? If we are to give them completely free choice, which I hope, they will select a regime, and we have to live with it."
Another possibility, experts note, is a civil war pitting majority Shiites against the 40 percent non-Shiite portion of the population, including Iraq's large minorities of Kurds and Sunni Muslims.
"We're really risking, if we continue down this unilateral road, a political catastrophe at some point," said Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University