i don't know much..

[Lil' Timmy]

but this just doesn't sound like a good idea..
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.baathist/index.html

i'm probably wrong though

 

[blahblahblah]

I don't have any problem with that. One bad egg should not make the whole bunch bad. Plus, many of those Baath leaders understand the politics of Iraq better than other people can.

 

[Dedalus]

well...the article does state that there were a few innocents among the baathists. i guess there will probably be some sort of screening process to filter out anyone who might be a dangerous individual. it also might be a sort of 'pay off' to those causing all the trouble in around the country. i dunno, need to read more on this i guess.

but sounds like a reasonable idea given the situation, as long as it's controlled properly.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

well, if i'm to believe the propaganda comming out before and during the war, basically the entire baath party was composed of murderous monsters. but regardless of that, how are the shiites likely to react to baathists in their gov? i don't know how they'll react. like i said, maybe i'm wrong, but this seems to have all the fixin's for a shiite cleric to use as reasons to 1) hate the americans even more 2) kill all the sunnis.

 

[Sprafa]

Baath party wasn't bad.

Saddam was it's leader, that turned the bad. But I guess they'll get the more "moderate" members.

 

[Maxi]

It's a pretty good idea, but someone should "moderate" the iraqi goverment for awhile after it's been officially created, to avoid new dictatorship.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

well, if i'm to believe the propaganda comming out before and during the war, basically the entire baath party was composed of murderous monsters. QUOTE]

Timmy, it's the administration moving to tear down this policy in order to make the elections more fare. If Bush was wanting to maintain an Anti-Baathist feeling, he could easily leave the policy in place.

As for innocent people being Baathists...hmmm.
That's like someone who chooses a tyrant's side in order to be safe, he's not helping those in need. I don't know whether to leave th policy in place or not.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Timmy, it's the administration moving to tear down this policy in order to make the elections more fare. If Bush was wanting to maintain an Anti-Baathist feeling, he could easily leave the policy in place.

As for innocent people being Baathists...hmmm.
That's like someone who chooses a tyrant's side in order to be safe, he's not helping those in need. I don't know whether to leave th policy in place or not.

are you telling me that the propaganda may not have been entirely true?!?

someone hold me ;(

edit: i really need to stop using the "eek" emoticon so much..

 

[Maxi]

In my oppinion they should take away the policy and see what happends. I doubt it that many extremists would wan't to do anything public like that when there are over 100k american soldiers in the country.

 

[blahblahblah]

To be honest, I don't think Iraq should be a democracy. Iraq has never had a democracy and the collective culture in the Middle East generally supports a monarchist form of government.

Plus, what will happen if the people of Iraq decide that their "elected" leader sucks? I don't think they will wait for another election. I can easily see Iraq turning in to some sort of Haiti or African country. Thats why I think the U.S. should stop trying with a democracy and instead support a monarchy that is styled like the country of Qatar (which is a monarchy and has popular support).

[Edit]: I forgot how I linked this to one of the previous posts in this thread. ;(

 

[Maxi]

Also I don't get what the US has to do with other countries goverments, sure getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but unless they keep their forces in Iraq a new dictator will rise after him.

 

[blahblahblah]

Also I don't get what the US has to do with other countries goverments, sure getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but unless they keep their forces in Iraq a new dictator will rise after him.

Historical precendence says otherwise.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Historical precendence says otherwise.

really? could you provide some more info on the precedence plz?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

extremeists of any kind scare me...

 

[blahblahblah]

Germany: Hilter was succeeded by Konrad Adenauer

France: More times than I care to remember or look up.

England: Some people consider Oliver Cromwell an dictator, was succeeded by Charles II

Prussia (not Russia): Frederick II was succeeded by Federick William III.

 

[Maxi]

I was mainly thinking about places like africa and south america.

 

[not28]

Yeah, let's sit around and hope a 'moderate' leader comes into play!
Hooray!

Thoreau was right... government is a cancer.