Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (101414)	6/13/2003 10:24:03 AM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

I am, of course, always amused by righteous conservatives bleating about "ignoring" people. No big, I ignore plenty of people, I just don't feel the need to make grand public pronouncements about it. Not that I consider the grand public pronouncements insulting or anything. People prone to preaching about how nasty "personal" insults are (as opposed to idiotic broad slams against "liberals, which are another matter) would never do something like that. I don't think it's necessary to embrace every propaganda line coming out of W's administration to avoid "hating America" either, but I realize others differ on that viewpoint also. The "Hashemite Restoration" line is amusing too, it's fairly typical of the "logic" of the PNAC people that Iraqis would allegedly welcome the "restoration" of some ancient dynasty that, in modern Iraqi history, served mainly as a British figurehead for all of 30-40 years. Then there's the moderate contradiction with the other sometimes popular line that the Iraqi "Arab Minds" are all actually secularists in hiding, just waiting to embrace liberal democracy. It's a little less amusing when you tie it in with what seems to be its real origin as an adjunct to the "Jordan is the Palestinian State" line, where the honorable King Hussein's son is supposed to move over to Iraq to make way for all the Palestinians the Israelis are going to transfer out of the West Bank. Overall, I'm sure it'd all work out real good, at least as well as Rummy's original "stuff happens" plan for postwar Iraq.

To: michael97123 who wrote (101414)	6/13/2003 1:12:24 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Don't think so: Constitutional monarchy made some sense given the particulars in iraq. mike Monarchies rely on their existence by having legitimacy and they usually get that in two ways: By being around a long time (Spain, England, Thailand), or By being invited by the country to come and fulfill a constitutional function, In both cases people have a basic idea that monarchies are OK. Neither case holds in Iraq. Previously, the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was imposed for a short time by outside powers and did not rule successfully. There is no resevoir of good will in Iraq towards the Hashemites. King Hussein's brother says he woulld help the Iraqis if they asked him for help but it's pretty clear he doesn't want to be "volunteered" by parties not representative of the greater part of the Iraqi people. Also, the Iraqis have put up with 30 years of a ruler and I doubt very much the Kurds and Shiites and probably most Sunnis want to see another one soon. The present US administrator is there on borrowed time - his legitimacy is based on the the acceptance of US power, goodwill from the removal of Hussein, the basic idea he has good intentions, and his temporary-ness. A new Iraqi government must be achieved the hard way through outrageous amounts of argument and negotiation. This would be the case even if a new constitution were written by the US. There's an awful lot to thrash out.

To: michael97123 who wrote (101414)	6/13/2003 4:02:42 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Constitutional monarchy made some sense given the particulars in iraq. mike And there seems to be a sense of "nostalgia" for the Hashemite regime amongst some Iraqis. But it will obviously face opposition from rival groups seeking to assert their own dominance in the country. Many people fail to realize that Iraq didn't exist before 1917 (the fall of the Ottoman empire). The Hashemites were the first, and only, monarchy they know of. And I believe that many Iraqis sense there needs to be a "strong-man" form of rule in their country, but they also want room for popular expression of public will. A constitutional monarchy would fit the bill.. After all, the UK is a constitutional monarchy and they are pretty free. Hawk