Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bush: 'I Would Accept Islamic Iraq'

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"Bush: I would accept Islamic Iraq

Bush says he would grudgingly accept Islamic rule in Iraq

US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.

Mr Bush told the Associated Press in an interview that he would accept such a result if elections were open and fair.

"I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," he said during an interview given on Air Force One.

"If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose," he said. Free elections are expected in the country next January.

Speaking as he travelled between campaign stops, Mr Bush said the US would leave Iraq "once we've helped them to get on the path of stability and democracy".

He added: "It's very difficult for me to predict what forces will exist although I will tell you that Iraq's leadership has made it quite clear that they can manage their own affairs at the appropriate time."

Correspondents say Mr Bush's comments appear to clash with earlier remarks from his administration which rejected calls soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime for the creation of an Islamic state similar to that of its neighbour, Iran."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3755850.stm

I'm just speechless. This could turn out worse than leaving Saddam in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bush: I would accept Islamic Iraq

Bush says he would grudgingly accept Islamic rule in Iraq

US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.

Mr Bush told the Associated Press in an interview that he would accept such a result if elections were open and fair.

"I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," he said during an interview given on Air Force One.

(snip)

I'm just speechless. This could turn out worse than leaving Saddam in power.

When I heard this, I thought to myself that if Bush wants to lose my vote at the last minute, this is the way to do it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the idiots in the Johnson administration saying they wanted the Vietnamese to be able to have free and fair elections where they could even vote themselves into communism!!

I suspect, like other times when Bush speaks off the cuff, if this remark ever becomes a major liability (which I doubt because Kerry couldn't argue against it), but if it did, Bush would change his position. The idea that Bush is somehow not a "flip-flopper" when it comes to political decisions is just a political myth created by the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of the idiots in the Johnson administration saying they wanted the Vietnamese to be able to have free and fair elections where they could even vote themselves into communism!!

This is very reminiscent of that, but then again, this is the President of the United States not the idiots in his administration.

Does he not know the difference between the form of government that his country has or a theocracy?

Well, he is an Evangelical with a "Faith Based" government initiative. Perhaps he doesn't see a difference... :P

Just another reason why I'm voting for Kerry.

~Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another reason why I'm voting for Kerry.

But Bush at least previously said he would not accept an Islamic government, so maybe he will flip back. Kerry would almost certainly accept an Islamic government, so how would he be preferable? Even worse, if Kerry withdrew our troops, Iran could make Iraq a client state like Syria did with Lebanon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Bush says he would grudgingly accept Islamic rule in Iraq

US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.

...

I have a question, for information not provocation: Does this statement indicate any change in policy, that is, has not this been the administration's approach in Afghanistan as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very reminiscent of that, but then again, this is the President of the United States not the idiots in his administration. 

Does he not know the difference between the form of government that his country has or a theocracy?

Well, he is an Evangelical with a "Faith Based" government initiative.  Perhaps he doesn't see a difference... :)

Just another reason why I'm voting for Kerry.

~Michael

Of course he knows the difference, but he's been cowed by leftists and their cultural relativism tripe. He cannot say our culture or government is better than others that are "democraticly" elected. This quote is a sign of leftist influence on Bush, not really religious influence, because if he were being influenced by religion to that extent, it would be his religion not theirs that he wouldn't mind. An Islamic government would be a blight upon the planet to the super-Christian zealot, and ask some of them sometime (if you have the unfortunate experience of talking to one) and they'll tell you all Islamic governments should be nuked and then we should convert the people to Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to be controversial but I am trying to figure out why Objectivist tend to lean towards Bush. I myself am new to these philosophies and I've seen myself understanding Bush a bit more than I did before but his shear moronic, unintelligent approach in every situation just deters me completely. He can't speak properly and I flat out don't think that our president should have such an issue with speaking in public...he hails words like "duty" and "freedom" and evokes 9/11 for political gain, those are just a couple of things that I can point out, they may be superficial, but he never explains himself enough for me to look deeper, and thats another thing I don't trust.

This just adds to the list. The theocracy comment was just a quick joke, don't put too much weight on that comment. But I really question what this man knows when he makes contradictions like that. I don't care if him letting the left influence him, its still not right for our Commander in Cheif to make comments 'off the cuff' to that caliber. Dr. Peikoff was right about Bush and he re-affirmed much of my thought on him.

~Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't trying to be controversial but I am trying to figure out why Objectivist tend to lean towards Bush.  I myself am new to these philosophies and I've seen myself understanding Bush a bit more than I did before but his shear moronic, unintelligent approach in every situation just deters me completely.  He can't speak properly and I flat out don't think that our president should have such an issue with speaking in public...he hails words like "duty" and "freedom" and evokes 9/11 for political gain, those are just a couple of things that I can point out, they may be superficial, but he never explains himself enough for me to look deeper, and thats another thing I don't trust.

This just adds to the list.  The theocracy comment was just a quick joke, don't put too much weight on that comment.  But I really question what this man knows when he makes contradictions like that.  I don't care if him letting the left influence him, its still not right for our Commander in Cheif to make comments 'off the cuff' to that caliber.  Dr. Peikoff was right about Bush and he re-affirmed much of my thought on him.

~Michael

Obviously no one thinks it is right to make this kind of comment at any time, whether private, off the cuff, or in a policy speech. Bush says a lot of stupid things all the time, but so does his opponent, they are both the product of the corrupt and collectivist political context in which we live. If there were an Objectivist or Objectivist leaning candidate running we would all vote for him, but this is not the case.

As for speaking in public and a President's ability to do so, I don't put much if any stock in this "ability" at all. The important question is, "Is what people say correct and truthful?" not did they mangle a few words and thus invalidate their argument. George Washington wasn't a good public speaker at all, at least not in front of large crowds, while Hitler was a much more able orator. Does this mean that if the two men could somehow run against one another we should vote for Hitler or not vote for Washington because of the supposed intelligence of someone who speaks well in high pressure situations on TV or in front of large crowds?

Also, no politician explains themselves about anything at all, because either their ideas are just absurd and elaboration would make this more obvious, or they know that their public comments will only be shown in part on TV news and thus long and elaborate explanations of policies are almost a waste of time until they have an opportunity to make long speeches in prime time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Bush accepts an Islamic Iraq, then guess what... This is Vietnam all over again.

If you recall, during Vietnam, we were fighting for those people's right to elect communists! SO WHAT'S THE BLOODY POINT OF FIGHTING THEM TO BEGIN WITH, IF THE END RESULT IS THEM VOTING TO DO, WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED BY FORCE?

This is insane. The world is run by idiots.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, for information not provocation: Does this statement indicate any change in policy, that is, has not this been the administration's approach in Afghanistan as well?

According to the article it seems to be a policy change. Likely Bush's spokesman will issue a "clarification" going back to the original position. I'm not sure about Afghanistan.

By the way, why would your question be a provocation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be fair here: Kerry would not only accept an Islamic regime - he'd probably welcome the new Supreme Ayatollah to join his "coalition" ...just like W and Crown Prince Abdullah. We've already established that Bush is pathetic – the question is how he compares to the alternative.

Oh, and this is an example of Bush being deeply influenced by multiculturalism, despite his reputation as a Christian crusader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and this is an example of Bush being deeply influenced by multiculturalism, despite his reputation as a Christian crusader.

Actually, as one who was raised a Christian, multiculturalism is very much a part of Christian doctrine as it preaches the we should love and "forgive those who trespass against us."

So Bush's reputation as a "Christian Crusader" influences his multicultrualism.:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bush: I would accept Islamic Iraq

Bush says he would grudgingly accept Islamic rule in Iraq

US President George W Bush has said he would accept an Islamic government in Iraq as the result of free elections.

Mr Bush told the Associated Press in an interview that he would accept such a result if elections were open and fair.

"I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," he said during an interview given on Air Force One.

"If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose," he said. Free elections are expected in the country next January.

..........I'm just speechless. This could turn out worse than leaving Saddam in power.

Bush has already set a precedence for this by accepting Islamic Afghanistan.

The Bush administration has sacrificed thousands of young American lives for the sake of others. That's what makes them so dangerous to American interests.

That war, rather than being a war bent on the destruction of a real enemy, was bent on the liberation of the enemy's former servants, many of whom are still hostile to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

You should read the whole thing. It has many interesting provisions. For example, while Afghanistan is listed as an Islamic Republic, political parties based on religion are specifically prohibited. (Article 35) It will be interesting to see how it works out.

In any event, it is a vast improvement over the Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

You should read the whole thing.  It has many interesting provisions.  For example, while Afghanistan is listed as an Islamic Republic, political parties based on religion are specifically prohibited. (Article 35)  It will be interesting to see how it works out.

In any event, it is a vast improvement over the Taliban.

Imposing a monkey as dictator would be a huge improvement over the Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most important thing Objectivism teaches is the crucial importance of maintaining context when looking at the facts. When I read something like this, this is what I consider: What is Bush's context and what does he gain by making such a statement?

1. Just because we've given the Iraqis sovereignty doesn't mean that we've given up all leverage or power over events (or do you think that Pakistan is an "ally" because George is such a charming fellow?). You don't put a baby out in traffic just because he's learned to toddle along. By giving them sovereinty, he's given them a stake in their country's future. Allawi is a shrewd politician and a courageous man. He knows his people. Pay attention to what is happening over there (and I mean do more than read or watch the mainstream media, which is virtually worthless as a source of information on the war). Go beyond the range-of-the-moment happenings and today's casualty figures.

2. The interim government that the Bush administration set up is essentially secular. They are working hard to be inclusive because that is the only way to unite the patchwork of tribes, sects, and leftovers from Saddam's reign. For example, they held out the olive branch to al Sadr, not because they look forward to his sage political input, but because of the impression it would make on Sadr's followers. They knew that Sadr would not comply because they knew that he was making a power grab. It has worked, by the way. All that are left are the remnents. Most of Sadr's followers, (the people, not the malitia) became disenchanted when they became "collateral damage," to say nothing of the little trials he held, with the accompanying torture and slaughter. (As an aside: did you know that Sadr's minions were having to dope themselves up before going out to face the combined Iraqi/American forces? Brave little believers.)

3. He understands that no one can wipe out Islam in the Middle East (or elsewhere) so he doesn't make further enemies by trying to do so, and he gives those who are waiting wearily something positive to consider.

4. There is no distinction in Islam between Mosque and state; they were made one and the same at the beginning. He knows that there aren't even words in Arabic to denote concepts regarding freedom, individualism, etc. The change must necessarily be incremental. Christianity didn't break the bonds of the Catholic Church for over a thousand years. Then the Protestants took over where the Catholics lost power. It wasn't until the USofA was born, and then only because of Thomas Jefferson, that even the concept of a separation was instituted anywhere at anytime. Thus, experience tells us that we cannot expect Islam to change overnight. It goes against all of human history, and human nature.

5. Most importantly, Bush knows that Iraq will not become an Iran-like Islamic Republic for the simple reason that Iraq has two very divergent Islamic sects, neither of which would cede power one over the other.

So, I conclude that Bush is not speaking to us when he says he'd accept an Islamic Republic. He is speaking to the people in the region, who are very weary of American power -- as they ought to be. Past experience has taught them not to trust us. What is happening in this country tells them that they should not trust us even now. Bush is telling them that they have the power to institute their own government. That is what democracy is and that is what he is offering. Will it work? I don't know. But, I do know that man has reason and will use it given half a chance.

What makes anyone think that everyone over there is panting for the likes of Iran? Read the Iraqi blogs and you will see very diverse opinions given, everything from very pro-American to rabidly anti-American sentiments (you know, kind of like here). The Iraqis also know very well just what such a "republic" looks like. They've fought Iran more than once. They know that they would be exchanging one suffocating tyrany for another.

So, I think that Bush is gaming the politics of the situation, just like he ought to do in this situation, and I don't get exercised about such statements. I understand that I can only make assumptions about what is really going on behind the scenes and I wait and see how things actually play out. Everyone did a great deal of hand-wringing over Afghanistan, and things are going better than expected -- against all odds, and to the chagrin of of the world's press and the liberals.

Don't mistake the political game for policy. Bush is pushing democracy in the area. How is he to square that with those who might be listening if he says that he will not accept their vote?

None of the above means that I agree with the way the administration has handled everything. They were caught short when the military handed them a victory so rapid it amazed even the generals who planned the whole enterprise. They've made some serious mistakes, but such is war. I don't like it and it isn't what I would have hoped for, but I hope it works. I sure as hell won't behave in a way that undermines the monumental effort being made by our people and gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...